May 30, 2009

** Muslim Mindset: by Sam Ser

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1213794275742&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Muslim Mindset: ‘The hatred is in Muhammad himself’

By Sam Ser

To Westerners and moderate Muslims shocked by the radical form of Islam now topping nightly newscasts, the efforts of liberal-minded Muslims like Tawfik Hamid, Italian Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi and a handful of others may seem like the perfect solution. Not so for Ali Sina, who has a different suggestion: destroy Islam.

Sina, who runs Faith Freedom International – an Internet forum dedicated to debunking Islam – calls himself “probably the biggest anti-Islam person alive.” The publication of his latest book, Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet, will likely cement that position. In it, Sina suggests that Islam’s central figure suffered from a series of mental disorders, including narcissistic personality disorder, temporal lobe epilepsy and obsessive compulsive disorder.

“These disorders,” he says via telephone, “can explain the phenomenon known as Islam… which is nothing but one man’s insanity.”

Sina grew up a non-practicing Muslim. Raised in Iran, educated in Pakistan and Italy and now living in Canada, he began jousting with believers in the 1990s. What bothered him, he tells The Jerusalem Post, was not the penchant for jihad and intolerance that certain fanatical Muslims displayed, but the foundation for such ills in the Koran and core Islamic texts.

(Through the Faith Freedom Web site, Sina lists canonical references to Muhammad’s actions and offers $50,000 to anyone who can disprove Sina’s charge that Islam’s prophet was “a narcissist, a misogynist, a rapist, a pedophile, a lecher, a torturer, a mass murderer, a cult leader, an assassin, a terrorist, a mad man and a looter.” Respondents relentlessly attack Sina’s motives, but none has won the prize.)

With violent conquest and contempt for non-believers central to the tenets of the faith, Sina argues, attempts to forge a moderate form of Islam are doomed.

“The idea that Islam can be reformed is a fallacy,” he scoffs. “It’s like saying we can reform Nazism and it will be a wonderful party.”

No, says Sina, “The only way to reform Islam is to throw away the Koran; 90 percent of it should be thrown away. You also have to throw away the history of Islam, and you have to completely disregard the Sira” – the Arabic term used for the various traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad, from which most historical information about his life and the early period of Islam is derived.

For this reason, Sina says, Western suggestions that extremism in Islam can be eradicated if certain imams are quieted, or if Muslims are encouraged to embrace the universalist elements of their faith – but without addressing the extremism inherent in the religion’s texts – are based on a mistaken comparison of Islam to Christianity.

“In the West, people ask whether Islam can undergo a reformation like the one that Christianity underwent. That’s a poor parallel,” he says. “In Christianity, it wasn’t the religion that needed to be reformed, but the church; what Jesus preached was good.”

On the other hand, Sina continues, “In Islam, it’s not the community that is bad, but the religion. Islam has nothing like ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ Islam is full of hatred, and the hatred is in Muhammad himself. I argue in my book that Muhammad was insane – and that Muslims, by emulating him and by emulating his ways, his insanity is bequeathed to them.”

BY NOW, CRITICS of Islam are fairly common in the West. And there are more than a few former Muslims who have rejected Islam in favor of Christianity, citing the difference between their former religion’s overwhelming focus on hatred and their newfound faith’s central teaching of love and forgiveness. But, like Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the handful of other apostate Muslims demanding that Muslims reject the negative aspects of their religion, Sina’s critiques are especially problematic.

“People have to dismiss me some way, they have to put me down in one way or another. I’m a Jew, I’m a Christian, I’m a Hindu. I’m whatever people want to say in order to discredit me,” says Sina, who closely guards his true identity because of the death threats he receives. “But they can’t ignore my questions.”

Sina has little patience for those who believe they can temper Islam with reason and mutual respect, or for those who remain cowed by the masses of Muslim devotees around the world.

“Islam is the biggest hoax, the biggest lie,” he says. “Yes, a billion people believe it. But truth is truth. People will eventually see it. Believe me, there is no other answer. We will pay a great price until we realize that this is the solution – to undermine Islam itself, to show Muslims that this religion is not from God, that Muhammad was a charlatan and a liar.”

Sina knows that his blunt, outspoken approach can be “problematic.” But he is confident nonetheless that the force of his arguments will ultimately prevail.

“I am sure that, with time, I will convince millions and millions of Muslims, and the foundations of Islam will collapse,” he says.

Already, he continues, Faith Freedom has attracted an impressive amount of attention.

“In Iran, my site is banned. In many parts of Pakistan, it is banned. The list goes on,” he says. “Despite this, I have over 10 million readers in just over two and a half years. And I have received letters from Muslims from all over the world. Muslims everywhere are paying attention. I believe that Muslims everywhere are realizing that something is amiss.

“If I didn’t have so much success in convincing people, then I would not be so confident. But I see that truth works. So many people who are now writing for me and putting things up on Youtube; seven or eight years ago, we were having fierce debates. Now, they are my greatest allies. There are many people who have seen the light after reading FFI and many of them are now working on my side, trying to help others to see the truth.

“This is the way to fight evil. I do not want to kill the enemy. I want to win them as friends and allies. That is the real victory. In this way, we win because we eliminate our enemy, and our enemy wins by eliminating his ignorance and hate. That is why I believe in my cause. That is why I think I am an instrument of peace.”

May 25, 2009

** Stop bullying India

Stop bullying India, Mr Obama

M.V. Kamath, Organiser

May 31 Weekly

India was not responsible for starting the war in Vietnam. The US dropped more bombs on that small poverty-ridden state than were dropped by all the nations involved in the Second World war on each other—and no questions were ever raised.

 Even on the Iraq issue, it was the US which first supported Saddam Hussain to fight Iran. For the rise of Saddam Hussain it is only the US that is responsible.

If Mr Robert Blackwill, former US Ambassador to India (2000-2003) is to be believed, India may encounter eventual US pressure on Kashmir issue because of Barack Obama’s focus on Pakistan.

Furthermore, according to him “there are preliminary indications that the Obama administration has a different policy orientation towards India, especially vis-à-vis China.

It is time Obama is told that India has had enough of bullying by the US and if he wants to make it hard for India, he is free to do so. India has survived bullying by John Foster Dulles and his gang and it can stand bullying by Obama. But first he must be told of India’s stand in as clear words as possible.

India has been more sinned against than sinning. India did not take Jammu & Kashmir by force. The state became part of India legally, strictly according to prevailing rules of the right of the Maharaja to accede to India.

And this further had the support of the people, then led by Sheikh Abdullah. It was Pakistan that attacked Jammu & Kashmir and not India.

It is true that India foolishly, it now turns out, took the Kashmir issue to the Security Council for justice. But from that day onwards, the US has proved to be unfriendly towards Delhi.

Apart from the legality of the issue, India as a secular state had every right to assert itself following Kashmir’s accession. India has never believed in the two-nation theory and it never will. That the two-nation theory was bogus to begin with has subsequently proved to be correct when the Bangladeshis separated themselves from Pakistan to form their own state.

For the rampant communalism and propagation of Pakistani hatred towards India, it is the US which is squarely responsible. Barack Obama has better understand that. The US for its own Cold War purposes recklessly armed Pakistan which, in turn used those arms against India in three wars all of which it lost. India did not start the wars.

It was Pakistan, with discreet US help, which did. When President Eisenhower said that arms supplied to Pakistan will not be used against India, it was to provoke V K Krishna Menon, then leader of the Indian delegation to the United Nations to reply that the world had yet to manufacture guns that could shoot in only one direction.

When India was forced by sheer necessity to help the Bengali rebels in 1962, it was US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who sought to persuade China to attack India, India has not forgotten that.

Who is presently pushing jehadis into Jammu & Kashmir? It is Pakistan and the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) which for years has been patronised by the US that never took the trouble to stop its sinister activities. And who are the jehadis, the Taliban and the al-Qaedists? They are the very ones who were recklessly financed and trained at US cost by the Pakistan Army.

India has every reason to be angry and frustrated with the US. It has suffered enough at the hands of Washington and if it wants to continue this exercise, so be it.

President Obama can’t be any worse than President Ronald Reagan who treated India like a beggar nation and humiliated it by agreeing to provide food aid on a ship-to-mouth basis. And certainly he can’t be worse than Richard Nixon who abused Indira Gandhi.

India does not want to be hyphenated with Pakistan, a terrorist country that has constantly sought with US patronage to knife India in the back.

 India has withstood it for sixty years and can withstand it for another sixty, presuming that Pakistan will survive till then, which is doubtful.

India has no reason to be apologetic. It has consistently refused to play second fiddle to US interests and it will continue to do so. But now we have Rose Gottemoeller, US Assistant Secretary of State who has been quoted as saying that India must sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. India has never been guilty of proliferation as Pakistan has been and which has gone unpunished.

India does not consider itself to be in any way inferior to Britain and France and wants to be treated on an equal basis. India has not used any nuclear weapons against any nation, as the US has.

India should demand equality with the Big Five. Since when has Barack Obama become racist? India cannot suffer being treated as a second class nation.

The US is now looking up to China because it has become indebted to it. China had made good use of duty free supply of cheap goods to the US to earn its trillions.

No wonder Obama now wants to change his approach towards China. It is bad politics, but that has been the feature of US foreign policy for years, which has brought it to its present stage of desperation.

India was not responsible for starting the war in Vietnam. The US dropped more bombs on that small poverty-ridden state than were dropped by all the nations involved in the Second World War on each other—and no questions were ever raised.

Even on the Iraq issue, it was the US which first supported Saddam Hussain to fight Iran. For the rise of Saddam Hussain it is only the US that is responsible. For the rise of terrorism in Pakistan it is again, only the US which is responsible.

For Pakistan to say that it can’t shift its troops from the Indian border, out of fear of an Indian attack is nonsense. It has been Pakistan and the US supported jehadis who have provoked India.

India has no intention to wage a war against Pakistan. It has better things to do. And who is responsible for Pakistan’s accumulation of nuclear weapons? Is it India?

For years, the US turned a blind eye while A Q Khan merrily went about building the nuclear infrastructure for all to see. Washington refused to see it since it didn’t serve US interests to do so.

Mr Obama should be warned, to keep his hands off India whether on the Jammu & Kashmir or NPT issue. It was the US which helped build up al Qaeda and the Taliban. It was the US which deserted Afghanistan after the Russians quit the scene.

It was the US which has been responsible for creating, training and financing terrorism. India was never involved in all these sinister activities. Pakistan was and so remains to this day.

If Pakistan claims that its tension is due to Kashmir, it is time the US told its chamcha that its claims are untenable and are best forgotten.

The days of Eisenhower-Dulles, Nixon-Kissinger are over. If we now have to face another anti-India Obama-Clinton duo, India can face it.

But let Obama remember that India is not a nation to be trifled with. Involved is India’s self-respect –a point that the Blackwills and the Gottemoellers will do well to remember. Signing the NPT would be tantamount to India giving up its nuclear weapons. India’s hands are clean and they will remain clean. And under no circumstances should it be bracketed with Pakistan and Israel.

Related Stories:

1) India & Obama     2) Nurturing Terror with $ 

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=293&page=11

February 26, 2009

** Left’s Romance…

United in Hate: Left’s Romance with Tyranny/Terror

Ben R. Furman – FrontPageMag

Feb. 26, 2009

United In Hate — The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror   is a book that examines the seamy underbelly of the radical Left which considers Western society and its values an anathema. Dr. Jamie Glazov, the Editor of FrontPage Magazine, methodically details the causational factors that have lead modern Leftists to adhere to the death and destruction mantra of tyrannical Islamic Jihadists.

The Twin Towers are destroyed, 2973 people die in the attack and the radical Left cheers; the war in Iraq is won and the Left expels a disgusted sigh; totalitarian thugs kill innocent millions that the Left justifies as a “cleansing” required to forge a utopian society; suicidal Jihadists shred shoppers in malls with nail bombs and are excused by the Left as door-matted victims striking back at their oppressors; women are vilified, stoned, mutilated and killed by radical Muslims as Leftist feminists remain silent, save here in America where they rail mightily against a country club that’s denied membership to a female executive.

What draws Leftists moth-like toward the annihilating fires of unbridled totalitarianism, or drives them to slavishly worship at the feet of dictators that kick them to the curb when they are considered no longer useful?

Why does the Left cleave to a radical Islamic terrorism that vows to destroy all non-believers, including them?

Dr. Glazov answers these and other “head scratching” questions in a court-ready presentation of the Left’s mindset that will make forensic psychologists proud.

The Left’s hatred and rejection of Western civilization, its freedoms and values, begins with an acute sense of alienation from it, and unable to “fit in” the Left believes radical societal change, regardless of the consequences, is necessary.

After all it’s the West’s fault that the Left has no sense of purpose or direction. Although the Left vehemently argues against this premise, its words and actions prove Dr. Glazov’s case.

The ideological descendents of the communist/progressive Left that spent its capital hoping the West would lose the Cold War to the Soviet Union are today’s leftist core.

Based on their hatred for the United States, the Left has forged a symbiotic relationship with radical Islam, whose hatred for America equals theirs. Both make it clear that they consider Western civilization evil and unworthy of preservation. Violent revolution is the Left’s path to change; the Jihadists’ follow the path of war and annilation.

Some might think Dr. Glazov has taken a wrong turn in his analysis of the radical Left’s agenda and beliefs. If so, they should read the scurrilous quotes of Michael Moore extolling the virtues of the “Iraqi freedom fighters,” or Ward Churchill’s and Jeremiah Wright’s crowing after 9/11 that “America’s chickens have come home to roost.” Or, they should examine the genuflexing before the world’s tyrants by the likes of Jimmy Carter, Sean Penn and Tom Hayden. Dr. Glazov’s take on the radical Left is correct and as sharp as a tightly focused laser.

Should the book cause even one radical Leftist to re-examine his or her contorted beliefs and return from the “dark side,” Dr. Glazov’s efforts will be a resounding success. A great thought provoking read!

UN-holy Alliance @ http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=048EF314-DF17-4258-B702-325FEF8CBB3B

Nexus of ISMs @ http://www.sookta-sumana.com/thenexusof.htm

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=90C2C354-2149-4D79-9AC0-E803D0006934

January 18, 2009

** Friendliest Countries

World’s Friendliest Countries
David Sutton
Forbes.com
 
The country that once welcomed the tired, poor, huddled masses is now asking for a little reciprocation. And Canada,Germany and Australia are heeding the call.
 
They top a list of the countries most welcoming to expats. There, relocators have a relatively easy time befriending locals, joining a local community group and learning the local language.

 

 
Canada is the most welcoming; almost 95% of respondents to HSBC Bank International’s Expat Exploreer Survey, released today, said they have made friends with locals. In Germany, 92% were so lucky and in Australia 91% befriended those living there.
 
The United Arab Emirates was found to be the most difficult for expats; only 54% of those surveyed said they’d made friends with locals.
 
 
Country: 1. Canada
 
 
Country: 2. Germany
 
 
Country: 3, Australia
 
 
Country: 4. U.K.
 
 
Country: 5. India
 
 
Country: 6. U.S.
 
 
Country: 7. Hong Kong (Tied with Spain)
 
 
Country: 7. Spain( Tied with Hong Kong)
 
 
Country: 9. France
 
 
Country: 10. Netherlands 
 
Complete  story at:
   

November 23, 2008

** China Stealing U.S. Data

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2008/db20081121_440892.htm

China Stealing U.S. Computer Data, Says Commission

By Keith Epstein , Business Week

The top 10 U.S. defense contractors are said to be victims of cyber-espionage through Chinese “penetration of their unclassified networks”

A congressionally created commission has warned that China is stealing vast amounts of sensitive information from government and corporate computer networks in the U.S., including those of the nation’s top defense contractors. This theft is part of China’s preparation to outmaneuver the U.S. electronically in any future conflict, according to the bipartisan U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission.

The panel, established eight years ago, said in its annual report, released on Nov. 20: “China is targeting U.S. government and commercial computers for espionage.”

The 10 most prominent U.S. defense contractors are believed to have been “victims of cyber-espionage through penetrations of their unclassified networks,” the report said. Among them: Raytheon (RTN), Lockheed Martin (LMT), Boeing (BA), and Northrop Grumman (NOC).

The commission used its own analysts and investigators to compile information on data theft, based on input from defense, military, and intelligence agencies and specialists. Its findings echo the themes of several recent articles in BusinessWeek, which over the past 11 months has published a series on high-tech security threats to U.S. weapons systems and government and defense industry computer networks. The three main installments in the BusinessWeek series were based on previously undisclosed documents and interviews with more than 100 current and former government employees, defense industry executives, and people with ties to U.S. military, space, and intelligence agencies. They are: E-spionage (BusinessWeek, 4/10/08), () Dangerous Fakes (BusinessWeek, 10/2/08), and The Taking of NASA’s Secrets (BusinessWeek, 11/20/08).

Spying on NASA

In its report, the China security commission examined the implications of China’s pursuit of dominance in cyberspace and outer space. The panel asserted that the Chinese have sought both military secrets from U.S. government networks and lucrative proprietary information from American corporations. The advantage that China has gained from this espionage could reduce current U.S. conventional military dominance in any future conflict, the commission said.

An example of Chinese espionage cited in the report involves an incident in 2005 in which Chinese cyber-burglars downloaded files about the propulsion system, fuel tanks, and solar panels of NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, an incident with details similar to those described in the BusinessWeek story on secrets stolen from NASA.

The report accused China of “rationalizing” its behavior while “devising unique interpretations” of treaties. That development by China, the report said, “coupled with its military modernization, its development of impressive but disturbing capabilities for military use of space and cyber warfare, and its demonstrated employment of those capabilities, suggest China is intent on expanding its sphere of control even at the expense of its Asian neighbors and the United States.”

China, meanwhile, steadfastly denies engaging in any cyber-espionage or attempting to use cyberspace for military advantage. China’s Xinhua News Agency quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang on Nov. 21 as calling the commission’s report “unworthy of rebuttal.” Qin said the commission “always sees China through distorted color spectacles, and intentionally creates obstacles for China-U.S. cooperation” by “smearing China deliberately and misleading the general public.”

China Needs Natural Resources, Too

While the Chinese government had no immediate response to a BusinessWeek request for comment, Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, had earlier said about the magazine’s stories: “China will never do anything to harm the sovereignty or security of other countries. The Chinese government has never employed, nor will it employ, so-called civilian hackers in collecting information or intelligence of other countries.”

The U.S. commission predicted that China’s cyber-activities “quite possibly will be exacerbated by China’s growing need for natural resources to support its population and economy that it cannot obtain domestically. The United States should watch these trends closely and act to protect its interests.”

Specifically, the commission urged Congress to spend more money to protect the nation’s critical computer systems, and to monitor intrusions from abroad. It also recommends that Congress “assess the security and integrity of the supply chain for computer equipment” used in government and contractor networks, and spend more to buy “from trustworthy sources.”

Another worry: the global supply chain for telecommunications items and electronic components manufactured in China. “At least in theory, this equipment is vulnerable to tampering by Chinese security services, such as implanting malicious code that could be remotely activated on command and place U.S. systems or the data they contain at risk of destruction or manipulation,” the report said. It cited the Oct. 13 Dangerous Fakes BusinessWeek cover story that described how hazardous counterfeits are ending up in U.S. military planes and other weapon systems. The commission pointed to a recent incident in which hundreds of counterfeit routers made in China were discovered in active use throughout the Defense Dept.

Epstein is a correspondent in BusinessWeek’s Washington bureau.

October 16, 2008

** Secret about Kashmir

The Little Secret about Kashmir
 
There is a little-known secret of South Asia. You ought to know this one if you want to understand the escalating religious conflict in Kashmir, pitting two new nuclear-armed nations – secular India and Islamic Pakistan – against each other.
 
This is the secret: from every newly-formed Muslim majority area of South Asia – without exception – including Pakistan, Bangladesh and in India’s own Kashmir, non-Muslims have been massively cleansed and driven to Hindu-majority India.
 
It is for the above reason that Pakistan is at least 97% Muslim and India is at least 15% Muslim.
 
Besides implying the inability to co-exist, it may be reasonable to interpret these data as a form of conquest in the name of Islam.
 
The scary part is that the religion-based passion for conquest never stops!
Muslim-concentrated areas in nearby non-Muslim lands are singled out for further conquest. We now have documented evidence that a long-term and systematic funding process was put in place to indoctrinate the Muslim majority in Indian Kashmir to develop hatred toward their Indian nation, to identify with pan-Islamic aspirations, and to sponsor armed insurgencies.
 
While Pakistan and just about all Muslim nations support “self-determination” of Muslims in Indian Kashmir, they are deafeningly silent in acknowledging that the portion of Kashmir Pakistan holds is almost devoid of non-Muslims.
 
Also conveniently unspoken is the complicity of the Kashmiri Muslims in driving out over 300,000 non-Muslim Kashmiris to the rest of India and the religious apartheid practices of the ruling Muslim Kashmiris over the non-Muslim subjects within the state.
 
Seen in the appropriate context, the claims of “self-determination” of Muslim majority Kashmir from India is an all too clever prescription for conquering more land at the expense of non-Muslims, by attaching the land of Kashmir to Islamic Pakistan.
 
Is it not ironic that Pakistan would want more land from India when it owes India significant portion of its real estate as a compensation for having driven out its non-Muslim population to India?
 
India has had to absorb the non-Muslims driven away from Pakistan’s Kashmir without a murmur or two.
 
Disgruntled Indian Kashmiri Muslims who want to live in an Islamic state have a land next-door; it is called Pakistan.
 
The beleaguered secular Indian state which gave even more rights and generous subsidies to Muslim-majority Kashmir has been successfully portrayed as an “occupier” of Muslim lands and an “oppressor” of Muslims.
 
The die has been cast.
 
Indoctrination and recruitment of Muslims for terror has now extended into the Indian heartland with devastating consequences. At this rate, capital flight is inevitable and so is the systematic destruction of the Indian economy.
 
A slower version of the Darfur-like situation is indeed developing in India.
Thanks to subsidies and the high cost of fighting terror, Indian Kashmiri Muslim children do not die of malnutrition. But children in the rest of India do – about 6,000 of them every day! Even sub-Saharan African states are no worse than India when it comes to malnourishment of their children.
 
The excitement of a resurgent India is fast getting replaced with a nation that is undeservedly on its way to becoming a graveyard of tens of millions malnourished children and their parents forever trapped in grinding poverty.
 
These little Indians deserve to live – and that alone is a moral high ground India can rely on to resolutely fight back without ceding any more land to the agents of conquest.
 
Moorthy Muthuswamy is author of the forthcoming book: “Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War.”

August 13, 2008

** Brahminism & Semitism

The Parallel between anti-Brahminism and anti-Semitism

Jacob De Roover

Social science debate in India has been hijacked by the struggle between secularism and Hindutva for decades now. Usually the Sangh Parivar is blamed for this turn of events.

However, it could well be argued that the Hindutva ideologues simply adopted the stance of the secularists. Perhaps the best illustration is the case of anti-Brahminism.

To be against “Brahminism” is part and parcel of the political correctness of progressive scholars in twenty-first-century India, much like being against Muslims is part of the message of their Hindutva colleagues.

This indicates that something is very wrong with the Indian academic debate. Promotion of animosity towards a religious tradition or its followers is not acceptable today, but it becomes truly perverse when the intelligentsia endorses it.

In Europe, it took horrendous events to put an end to the propaganda of anti-Semitism, which had penetrated the media and intelligentsia.

It required decades of incessant campaigning before anti-Semitism was relegated to the realm of intellectual and political bankruptcy.

In India, anti-Brahminism is still the proud slogan of many political parties and the credential of the radical intellectual.

Some may find this parallel between anti-Brahminism and anti-Semitism ill-advised. Nevertheless, it has strong grounds.

First, there are striking similarities between the stereotypes about Brahmins in India and those about Jews in the West. Jews have been described as devious connivers, who would do anything for personal gain. They were said to be secretive and untrustworthy, manipulating politics and the economy. In India, Brahmins are all too often characterised in the same way.

Second, the stereotypes about the Jews were part of a larger story about a historical conspiracy in which they had supposedly exploited European societies. To this day, the stories about a Jewish conspiracy against humanity prevail. The anti-Brahminical stories sound much the same, but have the Brahmins plotting against the oppressed classes in Indian society.

In both cases, historians have claimed to produce “evidence” that cannot be considered so by any standard. Typical of the ideologues of anti-Brahminism is the addition of ad hoc ploys whenever their stories are challenged by facts. When it is pointed out that the Brahmins have not been all that powerful in most parts of the country, or that they were poor in many regions, one reverts to the image of the Brahmin manipulating kings and politicians behind the scene. We cannot find empirical evidence, it is said, because of the secretive way in which Brahminism works.

Third, both in anti-Semitic Europe and anti-Brahminical India, this goes together with the interpretation of contemporary events in terms of these stories. One does not really analyse social tragedies and injustices, but approaches them as confirmations of the ideological stories. All that goes wrong in society is blamed on the minority in question. Violence against Muslims? It must be the “Brahmins” of the Sangh Parivar. Opposition against Christian missionaries and the approval of anti-conversion laws? “Ah, the Brahmins fear that Christianity will empower the lower castes.” Members of a scheduled caste are killed? “The Brahmin wants to show the Dalit his true place in the caste hierarchy.” An OBC member loses his job; a lower caste girl is raped? “The upper castes must be behind it.” So the story goes.

This leads to a fourth parallel: in both cases, resentment against the minority in question is systematically created and reinforced among the majority.

The Jews were accused of sucking all riches out of European societies. In the decades before the second World War, more and more people began to believe that it was time “to take back what was rightfully theirs.” In India also, movements have come into being that want to set right “the historical injustices of Brahminical oppression.” Some have even begun to call upon their followers to “exterminate the Brahmins.”

In Europe, state policies were implemented that expressed the discrimination against Jews. For a very long time, they could not hold certain jobs and participate in many social and economic activities. In India, one seems to be going this way with policies that claim to correct “the historical exploitation by the upper castes.” It is becoming increasingly difficult for Brahmins to get access to certain jobs. In both cases, these policies have been justified in terms of a flawed ideological story that passes for social science.

The fifth parallel is that both anti-Semitism and anti-Brahminism have deep roots in Christian theology. In the case of Judaism, its continuing vitality as a tradition was a threat to Christianity’s claim to be the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies about the Messiah. The refusal of Jews to join the religion of Christ (the true Messiah, according to Christians) was seen as an unacceptable denial of the truth of Christianity. Saint Augustine even wrote that the Jews had to continue to exist, but only to show that Christians had not fabricated the prophesies about Christ and to confirm that some would not follow Christ and be damned for it.

The contemporary stereotypes about Brahmins and the story about Brahminism also originate in Christian theology. They reproduce Protestant images of the priests of false religion.

When European missionaries and merchants began to travel to India in great numbers, they held two certainties that came from Christian theology: false religion would exist in India; and false religion revolved around evil priests who had fabricated all kinds of laws, doctrines and rites in order to bully the innocent believers into submission. In this way, the priests of the devil abused religion for worldly goals.

The European story about Brahminism and the caste system simply reproduced this Protestant image of false religion. The colonials identified the Brahmins as the priests and Brahminism as the foundation of false religion in India. This is how the dominant image of “the Hindu religion” came into being.

The sixth parallel lies in the fact that Christian theology penetrated and shaped the “secular” discourse about Judaism and Brahminism. The theological criticism became part of common sense and was reproduced as scientific truth. In India, this continues unto this day. Social scientists still talk about “Brahminism” as the worst thing that ever happened to humanity.

Perhaps the most tragic similarity is that some members of the minority community have internalized these stories about themselves. Some Jews began to believe that they were to blame for what happened during the Holocaust; many educated Brahmins now feel that they are guilty of historical atrocities against other groups.

In some cases, this has led to a kind of identity crisis in which they vilify “Brahminism” in English-language academic debate, but continue their traditions. In other cases, the desire to “defend” these same traditions has inspired Brahmins to aggressively support Hindutva.

In twentieth-century Europe, we have seen how dangerous anti-Semitism was and what consequences it could have in society. Tragically, unimaginable suffering was needed before it was relegated to the realm of unacceptable positions.

In India, anti-Brahminism was adopted from Protestant missionaries by colonial scholars who then passed it on to the secularists and Dalit intellectuals.

The question that India has to raise in the twenty-first century is this: Do we need bloodshed, before we will realize that the reproduction of anti-Brahminism is as harmful as anti-Muslim propaganda? What is needed to realize that the Hindutva movement has simply taken its cue from the secularists? Do we need a new victory of fascism, before we will admit that pernicious ideologies should not be sold as social science?

http://pseudosecularism.blogspot.com/2008/07/parallel-between-anti-brahminism-and.html

July 19, 2008

** Italians and the Gypsies

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/world-focus-italians-and-the-gypsies-ndash-an-old-prejudice-revived-870863.html

Italians and the Gypsies – an old prejudice revived 

By Peter Popham-18 July 2008

The decision by Silvio Berlusconi’s government that all Italian citizens should now be fingerprinted, and that from 2010, all national identity and residence cards will carry fingerprints seems bizarre. There is no urgent reason for such an elaborate programme and fingerprints are out of date as an identification method.

 The real reason for the decision, which received initial assent from a parliamentary committee on Wednesday, is to enable the government to continue taking the fingerprints of Roma or Gypsies who live in camps, both legal and informal, on the outskirts of many Italian cities, a policy which bears comparison with the worst days of Benito Mussolini.

A month ago the Interior Minister, Roberto Maroni, a member of the anti-immigrant Northern League, announced that all residents of such camps, including children, would be fingerprinted – a decision that prompted outrage inside Italy and beyond. Unicef, the Council of Europe, the Catholic Church, and Amnesty International have condemned the initiative, one that, despite being a clear violation of EU law, is already under way in the Naples area. This week’s decision, which still has to be signed off by parliament, means that under cover of a national programme, the fingerprinting of the residents of the so called “nomad” camps can continue without interruption.

But why fingerprint the Gypsies? The most significant issue in the general election campaign this spring was what was called the “security emergency”: the perception by Italians that violent crime was rapidly on the increase, and that it was the fault of foreigners.

In fact crimes of violence are not soaring, but there has been a large rise in legal and illegal immigration in recent years. As in other parts of Europe this has been accompanied by a strong anti-immigrant groundswell which finds focus whenever a foreigner is accused of some heinous crime. Gypsies are not proportionately more to blame for these crimes than other groups.

But an ancient prejudice against Gypsies (who have lived in Italy since the 14th century) has been fuelled by paranoia about security in general, and a common confusion between rom (Roma) and rumeni (Romanians) who as EU citizens, have moved into Italy in large numbers since Romania’s accession to the union in 2007.

Mr Berlusconi’s government seems determined to exploit and amplify the hysteria. There is little to suggest that the government will desist from seeking to gratify its political constituency with further measures of this kind.

Europe’s Civilising Mission @ http://www.neurope.eu/articles/87642.php

British Caste-System @ http://worldmonitor.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/militants-set-france-ablaze/

Targets of racial violence @ http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=245&page=41

June 27, 2008

** BBC’s Propaganda?

BBC Reporter: Genuine Eyewitness or Palestinian Propagandist?

HonestReporting.com

Whose version of events does a BBC journalist stand by?

The BBC’s “From Our Own Correspondent” program broadcast on Radio 4 and published on BBC Online allows BBC journalists the opportunity to report their personal reflections from a particular event or location. Sometimes this removes the charade of objectivity that the BBC claims to uphold, most famously in the case of Barbara Plett’s tears for Arafat.

Now, the BBC’s Aleem Maqbool reports from Ramallah, where he includes this dramatic story:

One weekday last year, at about three in the afternoon, Israeli armoured jeeps moved into the centre of Ramallah, pulling up outside the most popular hummus cafe.

In full view of passers-by, including children on their way back from school, the troops dragged a man in his early 20s out of the cafe. He was a wanted militant. They shot him – first in the legs, then stomach, then his head.

Within minutes, the “Palestinian reflex” had kicked in. Schoolboys piled into the area to throw stones at the soldiers until they left. As we arrived, the troops fired back with live bullets, injuring four people, before the jeeps sped out of the city.

In the next paragraph Maqbool implies that he was an eyewitness to this incident, which is portrayed as an IDF “execution”:

Once the army had gone, I have to say, I was a little surprised to see grown Palestinian men standing by the side of the road, weeping and hugging, and teenagers who’d been throwing stones, breaking down.

Maqbool appears to be describing the death of Palestinian terrorist Omar Abdel-Halim. CAMERA, however, investigated media coverage of this incident and discovered countless contradictions between the accounts of so-called Palestinian “eyewitnesses”, Palestinian NGOs and media outlets, which could not even agree on the correct name of the terrorist.

While Maqbool claims that the man was dragged out of a cafe, Ha’aretz, The New York Times and AFP all reported that a firefight had broken out between Israeli forces and Palestinian gunmen. The Financial Times, meanwhile, reported that “witnesses said Halim was in civilian clothes, wore a holstered service weapon and was carrying an AK-47 as he left the Nazareth restaurant” in Ramallah. Was Halim “dragged” out of the restaurant as Maqbool claims?

Maqbool claims that “Israeli armoured jeeps” were present. The FT report, however, refers to “a white van bearing Palestinian number plates” from which Israeli troops exited.

According to the IDF:

The force identified Abed Al-Halim aiming his AK-47 assault rifle at them and opened fire at him. Abed Al-Halim attempted to flee the scene. Forces fired at him once more and identified hitting him. The soldiers ceased fire at the moment Abed Al-Halim no longer posed a threat to him. …

During the operation, shots were fired and stones were hurled at the Border Police force, which responded with warning shots and specific fire at an identified source of fire. The IDF has received no information regarding civilian injuries and no such claims were registered with the DCO.

Perhaps it is not clear exactly what occurred during this incident. What is clear from CAMERA’s investigation, however, is the patent unreliability of Palestinian eyewitnesses and sources along with the media’s apparent willingness to report conjecture as fact.

So, is the BBC’s Aleem Maqbool a genuine eyewitness to these events in Ramallah a year ago? And if so, which version of this contradictory story is he prepared to stick by? Or is he simply regurgitating the Palestinian version designed to cause maximum damage to Israel’s image in a minimum number of sentences?

Typical of the BBC’s reporting is the failure to provide adequate context to its stories or to verify unreliable sources. If the BBC is prepared to make such a serious allegation of an IDF “execution”, then the least its reporter can provide is hard facts and background material, which was severely lacking in this particular story.

Please write to BBC Complaints – http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints - and ask if Aleem Maqbool can clarify his version of events that day in Ramallah. (Please remember to include the program “From Our Own Correspondent”, the story hyperlink and the appropriate date, 3 June 2008.)

(With thanks to CAMERA for its original investigation and assistance.)

BBC’S CHRONOLOGICAL INVERSION

Amnon Rosenberg, 51, was killed on 5 June, the third fatality from Palestinian mortar fire from Gaza in a month, as terrorists hit Kibbutz Nir Oz in the western Negev. In response, the Israeli Airforce targeted Palestinian terrorists in Gaza, which tragically claimed the life of a 4 year old Palestinian girl as an airstrike missed its target.

However, in a clear case of chronological inversion, the BBC’s report “Two dead in Gaza-Israel attacks” only mentions as far down as the fourth paragraph that “The attack, which also injured two women, came after Palestinian militants shelled an Israeli kibbutz, killing a civilian and wounding four others.”

Why does the BBC fail to make clear the chronological order of events? Thus, the BBC fails to differentiate between terrorists who initiated the attack with intent to kill civilians and those who responded in self-defense, seeking to protect their civilians.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/
BBC_Reporter_Genuine_Eyewitness_or_Palestinian_Propagandist.asp

June 25, 2008

** Making of an Unbeliever

http://islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/AK_apostacy.htm

On the Making of an Unbeliever

Abul Kasem 

QUITE OFTEN I RECEIVE E-MAILS asking me why I have so much dislike for religion in general and Islam, my religion at birth, in particular. This question is not easy to answer. A person’s religion is the most sacred, and to some, the most valuable asset one may claim to possess. Wars are waged, genocide perpetrated, friendships broken, love turned into hatred, peace into turmoil, harmony into discord, enlightenment into darkness just because of religious difference. Nothing is more sensitive and dangerous than fomenting the religious feeling of people.  

As demonstrated by many suicide bombers, many believers consider their faith more precious than their own lives. Under such scenarios, it is not so simple for any one to look at his religion of birth critically. Many years, possibly decades of observations, experience, study and contemplation are required to examine one’s so-called religion of birth. 

Below, I have listed a few issues that may make an ardent believer to question his/her ‘religion of birth’, and may eventually turn him into an unbeliever. These listed concerns are not comprehensive. As the current events unfold, there will be many new aspects that may be more critical than what I have mentioned.  

Please spend a little time and ponder on what might turn a believer into an unbeliever. 

Four million diehard devotees (the Biswa Ijtema in Bangladesh) from many Islamic Paradises beseech Allah in three languages (Bengali, Urdu and Arabic) for His blessings. Yet Allah keeps these countries the most corrupt, the least developed, the most crime-infested, utterly terrorised and amongst the poorest in the world. You start doubting if Allah ever understood any of those languages of prayer, especially His own language, that is, Arabic. This epidemic of prayer has been going on for decades, but Allah remains adamant. To the total chagrin of the true believers, Allah continues to bestow prosperity to the infidels. You question the fairness of Allah. 

When the Mullahs are in power in one of the Islamic Paradises (e.g., Bangladesh) a great deluge of flood creates havoc there. The Mullahs term this devastating natural calamity as a test of Iman (faith) from Allah-just like Nuh’s flood. Curiously, when a secular government is elected to power, the same Mullahs call the raging flood a punishment from Allah for the electorate for choosing a secular government. You marvel at the capricious mind of Allah. 

When a 14-year-old boy is mercilessly flogged to death (in Iran) in the month of Ramadan for not fasting strictly to the stringent specifications of the religion you question the very authenticity of Allah’s Scripture on which this punishment is meted out. 

A 16-year-old girl (in Iran) is raped by gangsters but she cannot prove her innocence for lack of resources to hire a competent lawyer. The Mullahs swiftly hang her in public without giving her a right to appeal. Her rapists go scot-free. You tremble in fear as you have a few teen-age daughters. You are frightened to death thinking what might happen to your young daughters if they become victims of similar rape. 

Allah decides to send His soldiers to kindergarten schools to slaughter infidels’ infants (Beslan in Russia). This action of Allah shakes the very foundation of your belief. You assume the savage perpetrators of this infanticide were not true believers. When you consult the Hadis you are profoundly shocked to learn that wanton killing of infidels’ children is religiously sanctioned. You become fearful about the safety of your own child when he/she is enrolled in a childcare/pre-school/kindergarten.  

You remember your past secret love life and suddenly learn from newspaper reports that a hapless widow in an Islamic Paradise is to be stoned to death for merely becoming pregnant and giving birth out of wed-lock to an innocent daughter. You thank yourself that none of those women with whom you had illicit sex became pregnant. You wonder what would have happened if you were caught.  

You sincerely fall in love with an infidel woman but you cannot marry her unless she embraces the ‘religion of tolerance’. You and your lover decide to flee the Islamic Paradise and immigrate to an infidel land just to exercise your fundamental human right.  

You and your wife for 12-years go on a holiday trip to a scenic beach resort (e.g., the state of Trengganu in Malaysia). You lodge in the luxurious beach hotel Club Med. Out of blue; at the dead of night, the religious police heckle you demanding to witness your marriage certificate. Unable to produce the matrimony document, you and your wife have no choice but to be hand-cuffed and immediately whisked by the ‘guardians of Allah’ to be locked up in dingy cells. You and your distraught wife are separated and threatened with lashing until you can prove your Islamic marriage. You desperately fax to your relative to send you the original marriage certificate. Until that arrives you and your dear wife spend a few weeks in tenterhook.  

While all the infidel guests at the resort sleep in peace you suffer this despicable indignation because you have an Islamic (read Arabic) name. After you return to your home of infidels you promise not to set foot in an Islamic Paradise, ever. 

You visit Thailand, the land of smiles. Out of curiosity you visit a massage parlour or a Turkish bath. Inside the dimly-lit premise you spot your bearded but impeccably western-dressed Tabligi friends who were once your university mates. Astounded, you ask them what Tabligi work they are doing in such a sex joint. To your utter surprise your Tabligi friends tell you that Thai massage girls/prostitutes are halal for them. They claim that while they may have wives and children at Dar-ul-Islam (home country of Islam) but since they are in a Dar-ul-Harb (the land of warfare) or the land of infidels, it is alright for them to have sex with Thai women as these sex-kittens are like captives to the Muslims.  

You return home and check the Sharia book (Islamic Law) for their outrageous claim. To your complete disbelief you find that the Sharia fully supports your Tabligi friends’ claims. 

You attend the party of an infidel colleague and drink only orange juice because all other foods ostensibly look haram. But you have no courage to ask your host. When the host enquires if anything is wrong with you, you tell a lie that you have stomach problem, or that you are not hungry. You become ashamed that you have to tell lies because of your faith. 

When you tell your best friend that you like western life-style and enjoy its freedom he cuts you off from the list of his guest. He stops phoning you, and when you enquire about his well-being he says he is busy and has very little time. Religion has now stood between you and your best friend. 

Your infidel neighbour invites you to his Christmas gala party but you pretend to be sick because you know alcoholic drinks will be served. You note that despite being teetotaller throughout their lives most Muslims have very poor health and quite short life-span. You genuinely question why you could not drink a sip or two of haram drink while the infidels can easily indulge in such absolute haram practice, yet they enjoy far superior health than the Muslims. You wonder why the infidels can enjoy wine, beer, whisky, port, Martini, Campari, Cinzano, Remy Martin, VSOP brandy, champagne, shandy but you have to be contented only with Mecca Cola or orange juice! 

Your father threatens to kick you out of his house because you went out dating with boys/girls of the infidels. You wonder why you cannot have an easy mixing with opposite sex. Crossed, you decide to get even with your parents at an appropriate time. 

When your child visits his infidel friend’s house you give your child the strict order not to eat or drink any foodstuff as you suspect that they may not be halal. Your child is simply agitated, sad, confused when he observes that while he has to go hungry, all other children can happily eat the delicious food served. He does not understand why he has to practice such dim-witted food habits.  

When you plan to visit another city/town you desperately seek halal restaurants even though they serve smelly, stale food in very unhygienic premises. You refuse to eat nutritious food served in a superbly hygienic, delightfully pleasant and plush comfortable environment simply because these food outlets are patronised by the haram-eating infidels. You simply cannot find any logic behind this bizarre practice. Nevertheless, you go ahead with the herd of believers as you do not want to lose your standing in the community (Ummah).  Deep inside, you question your faith but are afraid to become an outcast. 

When the Allah’s soldiers (in Iraq) behead the dedicated aid workers, ordinary poor labourers, engineers, doctors and make snuff videos for the Ummah to watch the mercy of ‘religion of compassion’ you have great difficulty explaining this ‘religion of compassion’ to your colleagues. You even try to hide your face when the neighbours learn that you belong to the ‘religion of compassion.’ 

When you are in an infidel land you try to conceal your ‘religion of forgiveness’ by faking an infidel name to a stranger. You try to hide the passport issued by an Islamic Paradise. You show it only to the immigration officials. You wonder why you have to play such a hide-and-seek game. 

Your family hates you for becoming friendly with the infidels. You become very sad, but later, you find out that they are simply following the commands of all Powerful Allah. Consulting the Holy Scripture, you find out that a Muslim son must disown his own parents and vice versa if they or you do not convert to Islam.  

You go to a religious school and find that girls, as little as 6 or 7-years-old are forced to wear ugly Hijab. When the confused innocent little girls ask for the reason of wearing such tormenting apparel, you hear the ‘Hujur’ (religious teacher) says Allah loves those girls who ‘cover’ themselves. He also says that the infidel girls (those who do not wear Hijab) are prostitutes, harlots and characterless. You wonder how come Allah did not cover these little Muslimahs during their birth-why Allah let them be born naked! 

Your child goes to a Madrassah (a theological seminary) to memorise the Holy Scripture. When he returns home he/she complains about the beating he/she received at the hands of the ‘Hujur’. When you confront the ‘Hujur’ for child-abuse he shows you the irrefutable proof that beating a child is allowed as per Hadis. You simply shake your head in disbelief, but the ‘Hujur’ shows you the clear proof from the Holy Scriptures. You truly become dumb-founded. 

As a migrant you sincerely believe that the best way to be the integral part of a society is to mix with the local mainstream people, become friendly with them and learn some of their traditions and customs. When you visit a mosque you hear the Imam warns the congregation not to be friendly with the local infidels. He even exhorts that as a believer you must endeavour to convert the local infidels to adopt your culture and religion. Doubting Imam’s preaching, you check the Holy Scriptures. You are utterly shocked that the Imam is absolutely correct. 

You live in an Islamic Paradise which preaches ‘religious tolerance’, ‘peace’, ‘democracy’, ‘freedom of thought’—When you visit the religious congregation of the infidels to learn about their religion you are arrested, fined or imprisoned (e.g., in .Malaysia) for patronising the enemies of the ‘religion of tolerance’. You question the very Holy words ‘No compulsion in religion.’ 

In an Islamic Paradise you go out dating an infidel girl. While both of you are seated on a wooden bench in the local park, the ‘moral guardians’ of Allah (religious police), checks your I.D., arrests you, fines you and jails you. Your infidel girl-friend goes scot-free. You question how could there be two sets of laws in one country? You decide that this is nothing but religious apartheid.  

In a moderate Muslim Paradise (e.g., Malaysia) you visit a pub or a disco to have a good time with your infidel friends. There, you notice the religious police checking the I.D. of each patron. Wondering how come the ‘religion of tolerance’ would not allow you such a simple pleasure, you sneak out of the haram premise. Meanwhile, your infidel friends had a ‘good time’ in the pub, while you returned home and asked Allah’s forgiveness. 

Your religious-scholar friend tells you that Allah’s ‘only’ religion has lots of goodies for women. When you open the newspaper (in Pakistan) you read, ‘Let these women be warned,’ said a mullah to the dissenting women of Rawalpindi. ‘We will tear them to pieces. We will give them such terrible punishments that no one in future will dare to raise a voice against Islam.’ In desperation you consult the Holy Scriptures and find that the Mullahs are completely correct. You start doubting your friend’s scholarship on the good stuff for women in the ‘religion for women’. 

Even though you are not ethnically an Arab, you must keep an Arabic name, follow Arabic culture; adopt their food, clothing, hygiene and toilet habits; memorise their Holy Scriptures without comprehending a single word of it and prostrate endlessly to their Allah.  

When you go on pilgrimage or when they hire you as slaves to work for them they ridicule you as a ‘miskin’ (indigent). But they treat the white infidel workers with respect and offer them higher pay and more fringe benefits than the black and brown immigrant workers (like you) .Though you are better qualified than many of them (white infidels) your Arab brothers discriminate you against the white infidel workers. As a general rule, you are paid half compared to a white unbeliever.  

Yet, you consider the Arabs superior to you and you imitate their dress and Bedouin habits. Some Islamic Paradises (like Pakistan) even broadcast news in Arabic when not even 0.1% of their population understand the Arabic language. You wonder why a desperately poor country should spend money to Arabise its population?  

When you question your religion you fear for your life. When you make a movie that criticises the religion of ‘peace’ you are beheaded a la Islamic style.  

Those are some of the issues all believers should ponder upon. Thanks to the advent of Internet; it is now possible to publicise those pertinent points. We must welcome well-designed, easily navigable websites that highlight the concerns mentioned above and shake the minds of the believers, compelling them to re-think what they always thought to be the eternal truth. Abul Kasem writes from Sydney. His e-mail address is abul88@hotmail.com

RELATED STORIES:

Obsessionhttp://www.obsessionthemovie.com/trailer-12min.php

Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Islam @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6Wrhivp7eQ&mode=related&search=

ISLAM on Minorities @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jYUL7eBdHg&feature=related