Thoughts of a nationalist Indian

"Allah": Mohammed's Ventriloquist Dummy

2010-11-23T07:50:00.000+05:30

When I began studying Islam about 10 years ago, I did so with the honest intent of finding something spiritual there. As a devout Hindu, I believe that no one path can lay exclusive claim to the truth, and that the search for truth is ever ongoing. In that spirit, I wished to read about other religions as well.

What I found was that Islam is not exactly a religion in the way we understand it. It is a political system that was invented by one man - Mohammed. Why did he claim it was a religion (and all that baloney about being in touch with "Allah")? Upon a careful reading of the Kuran and Hadith, it becomes clear that Mohammed was like any other charlatan claiming an exclusive relationship with God. He was neither the first charlatan to claim this, nor the last. In the past few decades itself, we saw many "mini-Mohammeds". There was this guy called David Koresh in Texas (USA) who made similar claims. He too was having sexual relationships with many women, including several very young women. The only difference between him and Mohammed is that he (David Koresh) lived in an age where he could not get away with it. The FBI attacked his compound where he was practising Mohammed-like things, and he was killed. In Mohammed's time, a few desperadoes could impose this new "religion" called Islam upon many unsuspecting arabs, at the threat of death. That is the ONLY difference between these two charlatans.

Anyway, when you view this video, keep in mind one thing. Would God - who has the entire universe to worry about - be bothered to send verse after verse covering for Mohammed's sexual misdeeds? Would God send verses allowing Mohammed to bed any "believing woman who offers herself", and at the same time threaten Mohammed's wives with dire consequences if they indulged in adultery? What kind of "God" is this Allah, anyway? The answer is - Allah is not God. Allah is just the ventriloquist dummy of a charlatan named Mohammed. You see, this charlatan never had any spiritual experiences. He made up this whole act. It is absolutely clear that this is the case when you read the Kuran and Hadith.

The happy ending for Mohammed was that he had a LOT of sex (66 women in total, not bad for a bedouin camel hearder), and a LOT of power. His henchmen murdered men and women who so much as uttered any doubt about Mohammed's "prophethood."

Anyway, enjoy the video.

Mohammed's Obsession with Farting

2010-11-22T10:20:00.001+05:30

In another post, we have seen how the "prophet" Mohammed was obsessed with the most trite of things. He liked to give lessons on how to urinate (sitting or standing), for example. This should not surprise anyone. Islam is a total mind control cult, and such cults always try to control every little detail of a person's life, thereby turning the person into an automaton who will do whatever the cult leader (Mohammed) wants without questioning.

Anyway, let us observe this phenomenon again. In this case, Mohammed spends Hadith after Hadith on the profound issue of farting. I kid you not. I will reproduce the Hadith, from no less a Hadith collection than Sahih Bukhari - the most reliable Hadith collection.

Let us start.

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The prayer of a person who does ,Hadath (passes, urine, stool or wind) is not accepted till he performs (repeats) the ablution." A person from Hadaramout asked Abu Huraira, "What is 'Hadath'?" Abu Huraira replied, " 'Hadath' means the passing of wind from the anus."

So it seems that farting renders a muslim's prayer null and void. Let us continue.

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 139:
Narrated 'Abbas bin Tamim:
My uncle asked Allah's Apostle about a person who imagined to have passed wind during the prayer. Allah' Apostle replied: "He should not leave his prayers unless he hears sound or smells something."

So one should constantly apply the smell test during prayer to ensure that other muslims are not farting!

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 436:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The angels keep on asking Allah's forgiveness for anyone of you, as long as he is at his Mu,salla (praying place) and he does not pass wind (Hadath). They say, 'O Allah! Forgive him, O Allah! be Merciful to him."

Allah forgives you only if you don't fart! Otherwise boy, are you in some trouble with Allah :-)

Volume 9, Book 86, Number 86:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Allah does not accept prayer of anyone of you if he does Hadath (passes wind) till he performs the ablution (anew)."

Allah seems to care more about whether you farted or not during prayer than anything more substantial (for example, whether your mind was truly pure or not during prayer).

Reading the Hadith convinced me of one thing - Islam is simply not a religion. It has no spiritual core. It is just the nonsensical, hateful, and sexist ramblings of a semi-illiterate 7th century bedouin who used the oldest trick in the book to get the power and women that he would never have had otherwise.

Are muslims "Indians first" or "muslims first"?

2010-11-18T09:20:00.000+05:30

Those who have no understanding of Islam keep asserting that muslims and Hindus both can and should be Indians first. Indeed, most Hindus would not disagree with being Indians first. But what about muslims? Islam does not permit allegiance to any state besides an Islamic state. Indeed, it makes it the duty of all muslims to try and convert their existing state into an Islamic state, by means of war or any other means at their disposal. Islam permits allegiance only to the muslim "ummah", nothing else.

I found a very clear statement to this effect in the readers comments section of the following news:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Khamenei-urges-Muslims-to-help-Kashmir/articleshow/6935375.cms

I reproduce below the muslim reader's comment.

Londoner (London)
5 hrs ago (03:44 AM)
I see many posts asking Muslims whether they are Indians/nationalist first or Muslims. Let me clarify this for everyones sake. Muslims are Muslims first. No matter in which part of world they are putting up. "There is no concept of nationalism in Islam" period. Islam does not believe in dividing people in the name of natons, colors, sects etc. Everyone deserves equal treatment. Black can stand shoulder to shoulder with white to offer prayers in same Masjid. Can eat together on same dasterkhwaan(dining mat). No one is superior/inferior. Thats is the reason why there used to be 1 Khalifa for all 47 Islamic countries prior to WWII. To breakdown the overall strength and unity of Muslims, imperialists/zionists launched nationalism propaganda as a result of which last Khalifa empire - Ottoman emipre came to an end. But inshallah the time will come soon when we have one nation one Khalifa.

I ask my Hindu readers to stop their idiotic insistence that Islam behave in a "secular manner." India's secularism is a sham upon Hindus only. It is a one way street, with Hindus asked to completely deracinate themselves, deny their Hinduness, while the other side is not only encouraged to assert their Islamic identity, but even pampered when they do so. Wasn't it our Prime Minister who recently said that "Muslims have the first right to India's resources." Can you imagine what a furore it would cause if an Indian PM had said "Hindus have the first right to India's resources." And can you even imagine a muslim PM in a muslim country saying about any minority group that it had the first rights to that country's resources? Hindus are living in fool's paradise. Muslims (as a community) are living by their Kuran. Sure, there are exceptions, but as a community we should not expect them to suddenly forsake the primary diktats of their religion and say "muslim-kafir bhai bhai."

Mohammed: The Debauched "Prophet"

2010-11-10T09:26:00.008+05:30

(Description of Mohammed's libido in Hadith Sahih Bukhari. Image courtesy sheikyermami.com)

The licentious and depraved sexual behaviour of the "prophet of Islam" is a matter that shames many muslims (those that are aware of it - many are not). This blog post is about a courageous publisher who was killed for the "blasphemous act" of simply reproducing Hadith that describe this shocking sexual depravity by the "prophet" of Islam.

In 1927, a Hindu (Arya Samaji) publisher named Raj Pal published a book titled "Rangeela Rasul" (the debauched prophet) in the Punjab province of the then undivided India. The book contained material from the Hadith, Sira, Tabari etc. (all Islamic sources) that showed just what kind of sexual licentiousness Islam's founder indulged in.

At that time, Punjab had a muslim majority population, and Raj Pal's act was indeed a very courageous and daring one. As per all schools of Islam, the punishment for a person who insults the Prophet Mohammed is death. Accordingly, many attempts were made on his life by practicing muslims, and after many such failed attempts, he was murdered by a practicing muslim named Ilm Din in 1929. Ilm Din, through this act of murder in accordance with Islamic tradition, became a hero to fellow muslims, and a "ghazi" (a killer of Kafirs).

(This preceded the similar murder of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands by several decades.)

Many instances of Mohammed's debauched behaviour are described in the book.
In another post, we have already discussed the "prophet" Mohammed's proclivity to kill men and rape their wives (sometimes on that very day). There is much more evidence in the Hadith and Sira that Mohammed was quite a sex maniac. Not only did he go on a marrying spree after this wealthy and influential first wife Khadija died, he acquired many sexual slaves (concubines) through the numerous Jihads on the hapless polytheists and jews of arabia.

What did he do with his "stable" of wives and concubines? The Hadith record his sexual acts with quite some pride. I reproduce some of the relevant Hadith below. All are from Hadith Sahih Bukhari - considered the most authentic and reliable Hadith collection. They describe what we could refer to as Mohammed's "sexual olympics".

Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268:
Narrated Qatada:

Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa'id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).

Note the pride with which the early muslims viewed their "prophet's" sexual prowess. It also speaks volumes about the kind of people who had gathered around Mohammed. Most decent people would view this kind of behavior (not to mention the very fact of having so many wives) with some disgust. But not the early muslims. Why? Reading the Hadith and Sira, it becomes quite clear that the people who had gathered around Mohammed were largely the scoundrels of arab society. Many had been drawn by the lure of war booty and sexual slaves that Mohammed would pass them after his raids on polytheists and jews. Just like criminals often rave about how bloodthirsty their godfather is, the early muslims raved about their "prophet's" sexual prowess. Read on.

Volume 1, Book 5, Number 270:
Narrated Muhammad bin Al-Muntathir:

on the authority of his father that he had asked 'Aisha about the saying of Ibn 'Umar(i.e. he did not like to be a Muhrim while the smell of scent was still coming from his body). 'Aisha said, "I scented Allah's Apostle and he went round (had sexual intercourse with) all his wives, and in the morning he was Muhrim (after taking a bath)."

Volume 1, Book 5, Number 282:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet used to visit all his wives in one night and he had nine wives at that time.

It seems Mohammed and Aisha were quite the steamy couple. Try hard as she might, she could not get his semen off his clothes. Read on.

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:
Narrated 'Aisha:

I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:
Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:

I asked 'Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. "

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 232:
Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:

I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that 'Aisha had said, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them.

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 233:
Narrated 'Aisha:

I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

Once again, I ask readers to verify every single Hadith for themselves. I have taken all I am not making up a single word in any of the above.

Next we come to the "prophet's" behaviour towards his stable of women when they were having their menstrual period. I reproduce the relevant Hadith, again only from Sahih Bukhari.

Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298:
Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).

Volume 1, Book 6, Number 299:
Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Aswad:
(on the authority of his father) 'Aisha said: "Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her." 'Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could."

Volume 1, Book 6, Number 300:
Narrated Maimuna:
When ever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle any of his wives during the periods (menses), he used to ask her to wear an Izar.

When reading these Hadith, I remind the reader that Mohammed was at least 54 years old at the time he performed these sexual acts. Remember, he was 54 at the time of his marriage to the 6 year old Aisha. What a disgusting old bedouin.

If one looks at the sum total of all original Islamic literature, one finds an astounding 66 women who had sexual encounters with this "prophet" of debauchery. It is no wonder that Islamic clerics try so hard to hide the truth about Mohammed behind a well constructed barricade of lies and deception. However, one only has to read the Hadith and Sira for themselves in order to see the truth about this man - without doubt the greatest charlatan the world has ever seen. And one heck of a hyper-sexual bedouin.

Dedication: I dedicate this blog post to the courageous Shri Raj Pal, and the author of the book Shri Chamupati. You can download the book Rangeela Rasul in Hindi here.

Islam's "perfect man" Mohammed: A torturer and a rapist

2010-11-02T10:20:00.007+05:30

(An Islamic slave market in the time of Mohammed, where women were traded like animals, usually after being raped by the muslim soldiers who had "captured" them.)

Islam is the religion of Mohammed. According to Islam, Mohammed is the "perfect man" (Insaan-e-Kaamil) and the "perfect example for all mankind for all time." His behaviour is the ideal behaviour, and most of Islamic law (shari'a) is based on his recorded acts and words in the Hadith and Sira (his biography).

So what kind of a man was this "perfect man?" To answer this question, we must read the Hadith and the Sira, which record even trite details of his life in quite some detail. I started this process about 10 years back. I must confess that I was not at all prepared for what I read. Page after page of the Hadith and Sira show Mohammed to be the following:

1. A rapist

2. An extremely cruel man, capable of hideous punishments

3. A mass murderer

4. A liar

5. An adulterer

6. A child abuser

I will reproduce passages from the Sira and the Hadith to prove charges 1 and 2. The following are descriptions of Mohammed's raid on the Jewish fortress of Khaybar, in 628AD. This was one of the 27 military expeditions (Raziyas) that Mohammed himself led. The story of each one is roughly as follows: a group of "unbelievers" is attacked, without any reason, the men are killed, women and children are "distributed" among the muslim soldiers, with Mohammed keeping the best for himself. Let us see this pattern in the Khaybar raid.

Mohammed had hoped to obtain much wealth by killing the jews of Khaybar and looting their wealth. After Khaybar had fallen, he first orders the treasurer of the tribe to be tortured so that he may reveal where the tribe's treasure is hidden. This is page 515 of the Sira.

"Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came, to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes". The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has." So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud."

So as you can see, Islam's "perfect man" was a torturer and a robber. A man who attacked tribes to loot their wealth. But wait, there is a happy ending here. You see, Kinana had a very beautiful wife named Safiya, who was 17 years old. We know that Mohammed liked them young. So you can guess what happens next. It is recorded both in the Hadith (which I reproduce below) and the Sira (which follows). First the Hadith, from Sahih Bukhari.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 143

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

The Prophet said to Abu Talha, "Choose one of your boy servants to serve me in my expedition to Khaibar." So, Abu Talha took me letting me ride behind him while I was a boy nearing the age of puberty. I used to serve Allah's Apostle when he stopped to rest. I heard him saying repeatedly, "O Allah! I seek refuge with You from distress and sorrow, from helplessness and laziness, from miserliness and cowardice, from being heavily in debt and from being overcome by men." Then we reached Khaibar; and when Allah enabled him to conquer the Fort (of Khaibar), the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was described to him. Her husband had been killed while she was a bride. So Allah's Apostle selected her for himself and took her along with him.

The Sira also records this. Let us read it next. This is on p. 516. Remember that Mohammed has just tortured this girl's husband to death. Now let us see what he does with her.

When the apostle married Safiya in Khaybar or on the way, she having been beautified and combed, and got in a fit state for the apostle by Umm Sulaym d. Milhan mother of Anas b. Malik, the apostle passed the night with her in a tent of his.

Just imagine this - a poor 17 year old girl's husband has just been tortured to death for treasure by this bandit Mohammed. In the battle earlier in the day, the girl's father, brother, and tribesman have been killed. And now she is being "beautified" for his carnal pleasure. If a person has any decency within him, he would want to cry at this. But remember, this was the norm for women whose menfolk fell to Islam's sword. They were "beautified" and raped. Throughout the muslim conquest of India, this pattern is repeated and described in much detail. I will post some of those historical records in other posts. Let us return to Safiya. We are now on p. 517 of the Sira.

Abu Ayyub, Khalid b. Zayd brother of B. al-Najjar passed the night girt with his sword, guarding the apostle and going round the tent until in the morning the apostle saw him and asked him what he meant by his action. He replied, ‘I was afraid for you with this woman for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people, and till recently she was in unbelief, so I was afraid for you on her account.’ They allege that the apostle said ‘O God, preserve Abu Ayyub as he spent the night preserving me.’

So Mohammed rapes Safiya the same night he has murdered her husband, father, brothers, while his henchman guards the tent. This is Islam's "perfect man."

I end with one question to my readers: what kind of ideology (please, let us not call it a religion) can a man of this demonic nature invent?

The answer is "Islam."

Status of Hindus under Islamic rule

2010-10-29T09:21:00.001+05:30

Ala-ud-din Khilji can justly be called the first muslim ruler of a large part of India. Till his reign, Islamic rule only extended in a corridor starting from Delhi, and entering today's UP and parts of Bihar. Of course, Islamic rulers continually attacked and ravaged lands outside this region as well, but were not able to establish any sort of consistent rule there. Hindu counter-offensives would often sieze back land lost to Islam within months, if not weeks. This see-saw was witnessed in large parts of north-central India. Anyway, back to Ala-ud-din. His history is recorded in some detail by Ziaundin Barani's Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi. I reproduce the piece of the history that deals with Ala-ud-din's treatment of Hindus who had fallen into his subjecthood.

'Aláu-d dín was a king who had no acquaintance with learning, and never associated with the learned. When he became king, he came to the conclusion that polity and government are one thing, and the rules and decrees of law are another. Royal commands belong to the king, legal decrees rest upon the judgment of kázís and muftís.

Notice that as a "good muslim ruler", he consults the kazis and muftis (Islamic holy men) for guidance on what the Kuran and Hadith command a muslim ruler to do as regards his kafir subjects.

Kází Mughísu-d dín, of Bayánah, used to go to court and sit down in private audience with the amírs. One day, when the efforts were being made for the increase of the tribute and of the fines and imposts, the Sultán told the Kází that he had several questions to ask him, and desired him to speak the plain truth. The Kází then promised to answer in accordance with what he had read in books.

The learned kazi assures Ala-ud-din that he will instruct him as per Islamic law (namely, the Kuran, Hadith, and Sira). Now let us see what these say about how Hindus are to be treated.

The Sultán then asked, “How are Hindus designated in the law, as payers of tribute (kharáj-guzár) or givers of tribute (kharáj-dih)?” The Kází replied, “They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it. By doing so they show their respect for the officer. The due subordination of the zimmí (tribute-payer) is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islám is a duty, and contempt of the Religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, ‘Keep them under in subjection.’ To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ‘Convert them to Islám or kill them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property.’ No doctor but the great doctor (Hanífa), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ‘Death or Islám.’”

As I have stated in this blog repeatedly, of the 4 schools of Islamic law, only one (Hanafi) even allows Hindus the right to live. The 3 others simply say that Hindus must be killed if they refuse to convert. That is what this Kazi is telling Ala-ud-din. Note also that he says that Hindus are the worst in the eyes of Allah. This is because in the Kuran, the mushriqs (idolators) are considered the worst of the worst, fit to be killed immediately. Kuran 9:5 is very explicit about this "slay the idolators where ever ye find them..." We Hindus must never forget this - that our fate as per orthodox Islam is beheading.

Now you tell me that it is all in accordance with law that the Hindus should be reduced to the most abject obedience.” Then the Sul-tán said, “Oh, doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast had no experience; I am an unlettered man, but I have seen a great deal; be assured then that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have, therefore, given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year, of corn, milk, and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards and property.”

So Ala-ud-din says that he has put into place measures (heavy taxation etc.) in order to reduce Hindus to abject poverty and keep them in a state of permanent debasement.

This was the status of Hindus under Islamic rule. Of course, our school textbooks, written by Marxist liars, will portray this period as a "great flowering of a syncretic culture." I leave it to the reader to judge for themselves what kind of "syncretic culture" our textbooks are talking about.

The Hindu temples that were destroyed

2010-10-28T08:32:00.001+05:30

Robert Spencer - author of several books on Islam - calls it like it is. Go to 11:26 of this video where he talks about the thousands of Hindu temples destroyed by Islam, and replaced by mosques. The two books by Sri Sita Ram Goel that he refers to in his lecture are "Hindu temples - What happened to them?", parts I and II. They can be read online here:

http://www.voi.org/books/htemples1/
http://www.voi.org/books/htemples2/

Just the "cut and paste"s of the various muslim historians boasting about so-and-so Hindu temple has been destroyed, and converted into a mosque runs into 170 pages!

The point of this post is this: An honest intellectual (Robert Spencer), speaking in the United States of America, thousands of miles away, says it like it is. But our own Marxist "historians" spend their entire lives fabricating fairy tales about a "golden period of Islamic India", deliberately suppressing the page after page of Islamic evidence of their deeds aimed at the total destruction of Hindu civilization. Just how criminal is that?

No mosque at ground zero

2010-10-28T08:00:00.002+05:30

This blog expresses its opposition to the construction of a mosque (or "Islamic center", or whatever else they wish to call it) at ground zero. For the following simple reason. The 3000+ Americans who were murdered by the hijackers of the planes that flew into the world trade center were murdered IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. The hijackers were devout muslims, acting in the name of Islam. I believe they even yelled "Allah-o-akbar" as the planes flew into the WTC.

Whatever be the other debates around the topic, there can be no doubt about this fact: the murderers claimed to be doing their evil deeds in the name of Islam.

This should be reason enough to not even consider building any Islamic building there. Doing so would be the greatest insult to those innocent Americans who died there.
We support America in its struggle against Jihad. In return, we ask America to support us in our 1400 year old struggle against the SAME Jihad. Jihad is Jihad - it is the doctrine Mohammed invented in order to subjugate "infidels" and loot their property and rape their women. It is as simple as that. Any attempts to obfuscate this plain fact (by calling it "inner struggle" or whatever else) is simply an insult to our intelligence. There are entire chapters in the Hadith asking muslims to get on their horses with their swords and kill infidels in the name of Jihad.

Building an Islamic center at ground zero is part of that Jihad. This blog calls it for what it is and opposes it.
To our American friends - we are in a war together. The sooner we realize this, the better for both of us.

Why this blog?

2010-02-08T11:40:00.006+05:30

(A picture of Angkor Wat - the great Hindu temple complex in Cambodia. There were many such great temple complexes in North India - all were destroyed by Islam, and this fact gleefully recorded by Islamic historians. Hindu temples have been a target for Islam since 712AD, and continue to be so with Jihadi attacks on temple complexes such as Akshardham in 2005. The first destructions of temples by Islam began with Muhammad when he destroyed the idols of over 300 Meccan deities in the Kaaba, and claimed the site for Islam alone. Around the same time, he "revealed" Sura 9:5 of the Kuran:
"slay the idolators where ever ye find them..")

We live in troubled times. Globally, a violent ideology of Jihad, firmly rooted in the central tenets of Islamic theology, and carried out throughout Islam's history, is inflicting violence upon non-muslims. Whether such attacks happen in New York, Beslan, London, Mumbai or elsewhere, the underlying ideology is the same. It is called "Jihad fi sabilallah" - Total War on infidels, in the name of Allah.

Some nations have recognized where this ideology comes from, and they call a spade a spade. Other countries, such as India, refuse to recognize this threat, mostly for reasons of political gains by certain political parties. They deliberately obfuscate the plain facts by making ridiculous statements like "terrorists have no religion" etc. Unfortunately, they do. That religion is Islam, and in particular a radical, orthodox version of it.

There are truly decent and peace loving muslims, many of whom I am privileged to know. This blog has nothing but love and sympathy for them. But orthodox Islam as an ideology is not peace loving and does not permit peaceful co-existence with other religions. Orthodox Islam seeks to extinguish all other religious beliefs and replace them with Islam. And as long as even a small minority of muslims take their religion's core ideology seriously, there will be jihad upon non-muslims, because Jihad upon non-muslims is a pillar of Islam, and what allowed Islam to spread so rapidly in the first place. This is a problem not only for non-muslims, but also for muslims who are continually ashamed by the violent actions of their co-religionists.

The purpose of this blog is to do some straight talking. The people who attack us have been taught to hate us for no reason other than that we are Hindus. In their thinking, based upon the Kuran and Hadith, Hindus are the worst type of unbelievers (infidels), offenders against Allah, whom Allah himself hates so much that he will use them as fuel for the fires of Hell. These Hindus are hated idolators and polytheists about whom the Kuran and Hadith are very clear: their men must be murdered, their women and children enslaved, and their temples destroyed.

This is not just my opinion, but that of all the 4 schools of sunni Islam - the Shafi, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Maliki. 3 of these 4 schools say that the choice to be put before Hindus is simply "convert to Islam or die." Only one - Hanafi - allows Hindus the right to live, but as third class citizens. I say "third class" with good reason - the second class citizens would be the 2 "people of the book" - Christians and Jews. But at least we would be allowed to live, for the time being. The idea is to make life so difficult that with time no hindu would chose to remain Hindu, and all would convert. And this is the most liberal of the 4 schools of sunni Islam! Let me repeat that the other 3 schools emphatically state that Hindus have no right to live.

These are plain facts. Obfuscating them, or wishing them away, won't solve the problem. We Hindus must be aware of these facts. Truth must always be told, not hidden.

We stress that we have nothing against muslims. We only wish to understand the current Jihad upon Hindus in particular, and all non-muslims in general, in light of (a) the theology of Islam and (b) the history of Islam in the Indian subcontinent, which closely follows the theology of Islam. Through the centuries of Islamic rule, millions of Hindus were murdered, millions of Hindu women were enslaved, and all this is in accordance with the Kuran and Hadith. Once again, this is not my opinion, but that of all 4 schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Even today, Pakistan's Islamic party - the Jamaat-i-Islami says that if India is conquered, all Hindus will be enslaved, and all Pakistanis will get Hindu slaves. This same party provided the religious justification of the genocide of 2 million Hindus in the 1971 war of Bangladeshi liberation based on orthodox Islamic teachings. It is the largest Islamist party of the subcontinent, and when it holds views that justify large scale genocide and enslavement of Hindus, and are fully rooted in Islamic theology, then we Hindus have reason to be very worried.

The other reason that I decided to write this blog is that even 1300 years after the first encounter of Hindus with Jihad, and losing 50-80 million Hindus to this murderous ideology, by and large Hindus have not equated the actions of Islam with Islamic ideology. Instead, we still "examine the effects" rather than the causes. Hindus still wonder why muslims in large groups tend to be so intolerant, violent, and predatory towards other faiths. Well, my dear Hindus, it is because those are the central teachings of Islam! As per Islam, Jihad is "Fard Kifayya", which means a communal obligation. Every society of muslims is obliged to wage continuous war (Jihad) upon its neighbouring Kafir lands in order to "subdue them" and bring them under the fold of Islam. When viewed this way, Pakistan's obsessive hatred and violence upon India is not unnatural, it is purely religious.

So then what is the way out? Firstly, Hindus must be at least somewhat aware of what Islamic scriptures say about them and other Kafirs. Let us begin there. Let us understand Islamist ideology, especially when they themselves tell us in no uncertain terms why they hate us. Let us not be fooled into thinking this is about Kashmir or about anything other than our Hindu Dharma. As long as we are Hindus, Islam will wage Jihad upon us using every means at its disposal. Kashmir is the current excuse. Tomorrow, it will be Junagad and Hyderabad (the Islamists have already told us this). The day after, all of Bharat. Islamist violence upon Hindus and India will not cease till we have all been converted to Islam. That's just what is written in the Kuran and Hadith - I didn't make that up. Read these documents.

Here is a very sad fact - Islam does not accord Hindus and Hindu Dharma the right to exist. Please read that again - Islam does not give us the right to live as Hindus. The next time you speak to a "moderate muslim", ask him this question - "Does your religion allow me - an idol worshipping Hindu - the right to live?" If he says "Yes", point out to him that 3 of the 4 schools of Sunni Islam disagree. They say categorically that Hindus must be put to death if they refuse to convert to Islam since Allah wants to extinguish all idol worship from this earth, and muslims have the express orders from him to carry out this death sentence.

This ideology of extermination of idolators and their religions is at the very core of Islam. Islam defines itself in these terms. We Hindus ignore this at our own peril. The purpose of this blog is simply to educate Hindus about the plain facts, not to create hatred.

I end with the words of Alain Danielou, from his Histoire de la Inde :

"From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoilations, destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilisations, wiped out entire races."

I will update blog by end of March

2009-03-20T09:04:00.002+05:30

Dear Readers,

I will be away from writing for a few days (not sure how long, but surely no later than till March end).

Our blog (yes, it is OUR blog, not mine. Readers own a blog) has been doing quite well. We average about 400 hits a day now.

I expect to write a few decent pieces upon my return.

Stay well.

Yes, Islam IS different!

2009-03-17T11:09:00.003+05:30

I am tired of people who know nothing about any religion state, almost as a self-evident axiom, that "All religions are the same." No they're not!

Islam is VERY different from Hindu Dharma. Let's talk statistics for a while, shall we? Can you guys guess what percentage of the verses in the Kuran speak of Kafirs? 63%! In other words, more than half the Kuran is simply hate speech about Kafirs. More than half! There is not one good thing Muhammad had to say about Kafirs. The Sira (his biography and collection of quotes and anecdotes) is more than 85% about his battles with Kafirs.

Islam IS about Kafirs. Get that right - Islam as a religion is about one topic alone - Kafirs. And we are all Kafirs. Yes, that's right. We are what Islam is about. The only problem is that Islam does not say "Love these guys." It says "hate them, kill them, behead them, humiliate them, "subdue" them, make them pay taxes, convert them..." Islam is all about "them" - the "them" being us Kafirs.

Islam is not a religion that focuses on itself and its people. It focuses on Kafirs. Isn't that strange - that a religion should focus not on itself but on those who are not in it? Islam is all about "the evil others - the Kafirs." The Kafirs who allowed Muhammad to do his thing when they could have killed him. But they showed great tolerance and let him mock and abuse them. But when he became powerful, he simply killed them or forcibly converted them to Islam.

Read the Upanishads (which form the spiritual core of Hindu Dharma). They don't even talk about "us" or "them." They simply discuss how the Atman (roughly translated to 'soul') is related to the unity underlying all creation (called the 'brahman'). There is absolutely no sectarian language there. No wonder Hindus, to this day, are unable to fully fathom this hateful ideology called Islam.

The Kuran is a manual of hatred and violence which seeks to divide humanity into "muslims" and "kafirs" and recommends permanent warfare between them. No wonder muslims are unable to live peacefully with any other community, anywhere. Because their religion only speaks of cultivating hatred towards others.

The world must no longer keep silent about this ideology. We must call it for what it is. Enough of the political correctness. Enough of the deafening silence. Islam declared war on us 1400 years ago. It is time we at least asked "Why?" Why are you killing us? What have we done? Just because an arab man 1400 years ago said you must kill us? Is that reason enough to abandon all humanity, all rationality?

Boys also victims of acid attacks in Islam

2009-03-17T10:19:00.005+05:30

It seems it is not only women who are victims of acid attacks in Islam. Boys who refuse the sexual advances of Islamic clerics in mosques may also be attacked similarly. I came across this story from 2004, in the UK Telegraph.

Headline: Acid attack on boy who 'refused sex with Muslim cleric'

Mosques are the delivery points of hatred in Islam. The Friday weekly dose of hatred for Kafirs comes from mosques. Hindus living near mosques in India will testify that they cower in fear when the crowd comes out of the mosque after receiving their Friday hate sermon.

Please google "undercover mosque" for a video of what is taught in the largest mosque in the UK (and elsewhere). I also have a post on that program.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder why the heck are we all so silent about Islam? Why aren't more people speaking up? I want all my readers to think about this. What is the right thing to do today? To keep silent about all this? About the Taliban and Saudi Arabia? About Pakistan's terror factories and acid attacks? About Somalia's Shabab terrorists? About Sudan's Islamic militias and their mass rapes?

Or to speak up? PLEASE SPEAK UP!

Islamic turbulence hits Britain

2009-03-16T06:47:00.005+05:30

This post is aimed mostly at my Indian readers who may not be aware of the latest goings on in Britain where the increasingly aggressive Islamist community is acting with scant regard for the sentiments of the local populace. This community is almost entirely comprised of Pakistani Muslims. As per orthodox Islamic teachings, these people have no sense of love or belonging towards the land which nurtured them, and instead hate Britain as a "dar-ul-Harb" (land of war, which must be conquered for Islam by Jihad). I ask my readers to click on all the hyperlinks, since they will cover a fair bit of reporting on this growing menace.

A couple of days ago, a returning regiment of British troops from Iraq was greeted with abuse at their homecoming parade. The person leading this abuse was Pakistani cleric Anjem Chaudhury, who, after having bedded innumerable British lasses, is now a full fledged Islamic fundamentalist who wants to put his former sexual conquests under Burkhas (I guess he has had his full). This happens to all Pakistani playboys - they suddenly become all holy once they have had enough "uncovered meat" as Islamic clerics describe western women. Another notable Islamic hypocrite was Imran Khan, who, after having lived the life of a playboy in the West for years, suddenly started talking of how the Islamic way of life was superior to the "decadent West."

Anyway, Anjem "Andy" Chaudhary says (entirely in accordance with Islam again), that killing Kafirs, even civilians, is Halal (Islamic). He says, again in accordance with the Kuran and Hadith, that there is no such thing as an "innocent Kafir" because all Kafirs have committed the gravest sin by rejecting Islam, and are therefore anything but innocent. The only innocent people are Muslims. Here is an interview:

There are a few British blogs dedicated to the resistance to the increasing Islamic aggression in Britain. I quote from one of them:

I have lived in and around Luton my whole life so know exactly how bad the situation is on the ground with the Muslim community. The majority of the Muslims in Luton are second and third generation British born Pakistani's, exactly the same as three of the 7/7 suicidal maniacs. The Pakistani Muslims control the supply of hard drugs - heroin & crack cocaine. This is a highly lucrative business for them and also fits Al Qaeda's agenda of destroying Britain. Al Qaeda have outlined for the Muslims in Britain to use street drugs against us under the title 'chemical warfare'.

In Luton the Pakistani Muslims are working to Al Qaeda's strategy and it is destroying lives, destroying the community and making them vast amounts of money in the process. They have controlled the supply of Heroin for many years and in the process have created an army of Pakistani Muslim youths connected to the trade who are highly organised, heavily armed and extremely wealthy. The non-Muslim community lives with the knowledge of this army of Muslim criminal/terrorists surrounding them and leaves them living under their dominance through fear and intimidation. The non-Muslim community can say nothing and do nothing against the Pakistani Muslim community because of fear of the consequences. If you have trouble with one, then you potentially have trouble with a very large number. The different age groups are built up into different gangs who are all connected and who control the drugs trade, along with all other associated high profit crime, like prostitution and fraud. The criminal element of the Pakistani Muslim community conduct themselves as a paramilitary organisation which leaves the rest of the community having to live as 'Dhimmis' through fear.

I think any Hindu living in an area where Islam is in a majority or significant minority will echo similar sentiments. I lived in one such locality for years. Every time India lost to Pakistan in a cricket game, I would hear crackers and cheering. Go to old Delhi and verify this for yourself. Or go to the old city of Hyderabad. See for yourself. Again, this is exactly as per Islamic teachings - Islam clearly says that a brother who may not be a Muslim is your enemy, but every Muslim is your brother. Islam respects no bond other than that of the Muslim Ummah. When a Hindu points this out, he is quickly branded "communal", but this is actually taught in the curriculum at Dar-ul-Uloom at Deoband. No one dares question this sedition. Incidentally, the Taliban follow Deobandi Islam.

Back to the situation in Britain. For years, the Hindu community there has felt insecure due to the aggression of muslims. Read this article for a report on some earlier tensions. Read this article for aggressive conversions forced upon Hindu and Sikh girls in Britain.

Look, let me be very clear. Islam's core teachings simply do NOT allow its orthodox adherents to live peacefully with Kafirs. Hatred for Kafirs, and planned violence against them is core to Islam, and the life and teachings of Muhammad. It is Muhammad's core message. So I am never surprised when these events start unfolding whenever Islam reaches a certain critical mass. It has done that in England. The Tube attacks on 7/7 were just the beginning - and I am not saying this, all the Islamists of Britain are. Don't believe me, but do believe them.

To my British readers - we Hindus face the same problems. Let us join hands, let us build bridges, let us fight this menace together. When the Jihadis attacked Mumbai, they killed many Indians, but also wanted British and American hostages. And they wanted Israelis dead. We are in this war together - we didn't chose to be, Islam chose it for us. Because we are fellow Kafirs whom Islam has slated for extermination.

Islam in action - Acid attacks on women

2009-03-16T06:27:00.004+05:30

We hear this often - acid attacks on women in Islamic societies. It happens in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir, Sudan etc. - the only thing common to these places is they are Islamic societies in the grip of fundamentalist Islamists (i.e., practising Muslims). The problem is this - Islam simply does not regard women are fully human. They are property, and a man can do anything to property. This is reflected by the terrible state of women throughout Islam. I have always stated clearly that women are the primary reason why it is unethical to keep quiet about Islam. Islam dehumanizes women. And the world keeps silent. I won't.

If you want to see what pure unadulterated Islam does to women, look at the Taliban. That is pure Islam. 7th century Islam, the way Muhammad intended it to be. Look at the bastion of pure Islam - Saudi Arabia. There, a woman may not leave her home alone, may not drive, may not be in the company of a man who is not her "possessor" (i.e., father, brother, or husband). This should not surprise you, because after all, as per Islam, woman is property, with little to no independence and rights.

While the Islamic apologists say that the condition of women in pre-Islamic arabia (before Muhammad) was bad, there seems to be no historical evidence to support this. All traces of pre-Islamic arab culture was destroyed by Islam, so how do we know? Had Islam destroyed Hindu civilization as they had intended, do you think they would not say similar things about Hindus? Of course they would. The dead have no way to state their defence, and pre-Islamic arab culture is totally dead, with nary a trace left.

So let us look at what little evidence we do have of the position of women. The biggest piece of evidence is that Muhammad's first wife - Khadijah - was a wealthy businessWOMAN, and ran her own trading business. Muhammad was her employee for a few years, before SHE PROPOSED TO HIM. She was also much older. Now these 3 (businesswoman, herself proposed to a man, man was younger) suggest that women were perhaps pretty respected in pre-Islamic society. Another piece of evidence is that one of the poets Muhammad ordered assassinated - Asma - was a woman. She was writing poetry critical of Muhammad, and he had her killed. Again a woman in an influential position that is rare in Islamic societies.

I for one do not believe the Islamic position that pre-Islamic women were in a bad way and Muhammad "reformed" arabia. All the evidence in the Hadith is that Muhammad's band of warriors only destroyed the "Dharma" (way of life) of the arabs. Remember the Hadith where muslim soldiers are reluctant to rape captured Kafir arab women in the presence of their husbands? That shows at least some morality. And what did Muhammad do? He immediately "revealed" a verse from Allah saying it was OK to rape these women! Is this the work of a reformer, or a person who destroys morality and culture? You be the judge.

Don't associate terror with Islam - Voice of America

2009-03-15T20:52:00.007+05:30

I read the Daily Pioneer when I want the
nationalist perspective on things. It is the only English language newspaper in India of high integrity which has not sold out to anti-national vested interests. Today, Editor Chandan Mitra had an article on the Voice of America curbing its press freedoms.

Excerpts:

Here is a memo sent out to staffers by Jennifer Janin, the head of Voice of America’s Urdu service, informing them that the “editors & I have come up with the following guidelines on usage of words & phrases related to terrorism & violence”:

“Islamic terrorists: DO NOT USE. Instead use simply: terrorist... Sometimes even the names of the accused themselves point to the identity, and there is no need to specify.”

So, VOA will not, for instance, mention the name of Ajmal Ameer Kasab while reporting on the Mumbai terror attack.

“Terrorism/ terrorist: AVOID OVERUSE. Listeners get tired... Militant, militancy, violent etc can be used descriptively as appropriate.”

In conformity with this guideline, a VOA report would say, ‘Violence in Mumbai on November 26, 2008, left 173 people dead and 308 wounded.’

“Islamic Fundamentalism/ Muslim Fundamentalists: AVOID... The use of such expressions, more exclusively in case of Muslims, adds to existing misgivings in the Islamic world of an anti-Muslim sentiment ... better to use ‘conservative’... ”. VOA report from Swat: ‘Conservative’ Muslims have decreed that girls can’t attend school and victims of rape will be stoned to death.

“Islamist: NOT NECESSARY... Muslims perceive that it has been ‘intentionally’ rhymed with ‘Fascist’, ‘Communist’ or ‘Anarchist’... We just don’t need this short cut in our reporting.”

Now tell me - isn't the job of the press actually TO uncover such causes of various global events? Or is it to hide them? Isn't the press obliged to the public to tell them things as they are? Or is it to deliberately keep the public in the dark?

These terrorists ARE muslims. They ARE motivated by Islam's ideology of Jihad - they say so themselves! It is the job of the press to tell us everything it knows about terror and its ideological roots, especially when the terrorists are telling us loud and clear "We are waging JIHAD on you kafirs."

This is like the Indian government's infamous circular asking the national textbooks board (NCERT) not to mention anything about atrocities on Hindus during the period of Islamic rule. Not to mention that thousands of Hindu temples were demolished and replaced by mosques. Not to mention any of the massacres. That is as ridiculous as asking the state of Israel to never tell young Jews that the holocaust happened. It is only in India that we do this negation of Hindu suffering. No one else, had they suffered like we did, would have kept so silent. Are we created by God merely to be butchered by these Islamic Jihadis? If not, then let us stop behaving like we are.

I will reproduce the Indian government memo to the textbooks board on this blog soon.

Islam's creed - "Convert or die!"

2009-03-14T08:39:00.009+05:30

(Islam's blood soaked history. Picture courtesy Aryamehr.)
One of the canons of Islam is the first collection of quotes and anecdotes of Muhammad - the Sira - written by Ibn Ishaq and edited by Ibn Hisham, both pious Muslims. Along with the Hadith, it forms the source of much of what we know about Muhammad. Here is the first incident of forcible conversion to Islam that I have seen recorded in Islamic history. It happens immediately before Muhammad conquered Mecca. Muhammad's adherents arrest Abu Sufyan, one of Mecca's inhabitants who had rejected Muhammad's claims of being a Prophet. They bring him to Muhammad. Ibn Hisham tells us what happens next, in "The Biography of Muhammad"(Part 4, Page 11)

Muhammad told him: "Woe to you, O Abu Sufyan. Is it not time for you to realize that there is no God but the only God?" Abu Sufyan answered: "I do believe that." Muhammad then said to him: "Woe to you, O Abu Sufyan. Is it not time for you to know that I am the apostle of God?" Abu Sufyan answered: "By God, O Muhammad, of this there is doubt in my soul." The 'Abbas who was present with Muhammad told Abu Sufyan: "Woe to you! Accept Islam and testify that Muhammad is the apostle of God before your neck is cut off by the sword." Thus he professed the faith of Islam and became a Muslim."

Notice that Abu Sufyan - a man who had known Muhammad for years in Mecca - did not believe that Muhammad was a prophet. He thought, like most Meccans, that Muhammad was a deluded person, or a charlatan. I would like readers to note two important points:

1. Because Islam treats Muhammad as the "perfect man" and makes it normative for every muslim to emulate and copy Muhammad in every regard, this means that now forcible conversion by placing a sword at the neck becomes part of Islamic law! This is now cast in stone, and becomes an act of great piety for every muslim, because he is, after all, following his beloved Prophet!

2. Muhammad - a man whom every Meccan knew since childhood, in 10 years of preaching in Mecca, could get only about 100 followers. After 10 years of trying and failing to convince people of his claims to Prophethood, he left for Medina, and returned later to Mecca with the sword in hand. Once he offered the "convert or die" choice to the pagans of Mecca, his ranks quickly swelled to almost 35,000 followers by the time he died a few years later. This is the way Islam spread. Not by peace, but ENTIRELY by the sword. The numbers tell the whole story. His first 10 years of peaceful preaching got Muhammad 100 followers. His last 2 years of using the sword brought him 35,000. Islam had discovered the magic formula for fast expansion - put the sword on the neck and say "Convert or die!"

Anyway, let us continue reading the biography of Muhammad. I now quote from Part 4, Page 134:

Muhammad sent Khalid Ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him: "Call them to accept Islam before you fight with them. If they respond, accept that from them, but if they refuse, fight them." Khalid told them: "Accept Islam and spare your life." They entered Islam by force. He brought them to Muhammad. Muhammad said to them: "Had you not accepted Islam I would have cast your heads under your feet"

Another instance of forcing Islam at the pain of death. What kind of religion is this? And men such as Khalid bin Walid are heroes of Islam!

Let us continue reading the biography of Muhammad. Here is an incident from page 113, depicting Ali, the son-in-law of Muhammad:

Ali Ibn Abi Talib encountered a man called 'Umru and told him, "I indeed invite you to Islam." 'Umru said, "I do not need that (Islam)." Ali said, "Then I call you to fight." 'Umru answered him, "What for my nephew? By God, I do not like to kill you." Ali said, "But, by God, I love to kill you"'

I find the above a very telling incident. It shows just how naive to Muhammad's new way of thinking the pagan Arabs of that time were. Umru is still treating Ali with love, addressing him as "my nephew", and stating that he would not like to fight Ali. But Ali's reply is very Islamic - "By Allah, I would love to kill you." Ali's thinking is now simply this - those who don't convert to Islam must be killed. That has been the pattern repeated throughout history.

Finally, I come to one of the greatest Islamic scholars and Imams of them all - Isma'il Ibn Kathir, whose tafsir (commentary) on the Kuran is one of the most famous and frequently used. Ibn Kathir narrates this incident from the traditions of Muhammad in his book, Bidaayah wan Nihaayah, in the section on "The Prophetic Biography" (part 3, p. 596).

Muhammad's followers met a man and asked him to become a Muslim. The man asked them, "What is Islam?" to which Muhammad's followers explained Islam to him. He then asked, "What if I refuse to convert to Islam? What would you do to me?" They answered, "We would kill you." Despite that, he refused to become a Muslim and they killed the poor man after he went and bade his wife farewell. She continued to weep over his corpse for days until she died of grief over her slain beloved who was killed for no reason other than that he refused to accept Islam.

Now, all of the above happened at the time of Muhammad, and mostly in his presence. Let us take a look at how Islamic armies treated others when they conquered all of arabia and spread outward. Here is the first account of the Islamic invasion of India in 712AD, written by the first muslim governor of Sindh, soon after the invasion. Note the similarity. Those that don't convert are killed.

"Mohd bin Qasim first attacked Debal. It was garrisoned by 4000 hindu kshatriyas
and supported by 3000 brahmans. All males of ages 17 and upwards were put to the
sword (killed) and their women and children enslaved. 700 beautiful females who
were seeking protection in the budh (probably meaning buddhist temple) were
captured with valuable ornaments. Mohd dispatched 1/5th of these to Hajjaj,
governor of Damascus as per Islamic law. This included 75 damsels. Other 4/5ths
were distributed among soldiers.

Thereafter whichever places were attacked like Rawar, Sehwan, Dhalila, Multan, etc. hindu soldiers and men were slain, the common people fled or had to accept Islam. Some died with their religion (ie refused to convert). Many women of the higher class immolated themselves (Jauhar) and most others became the prize of the conquerors. These women and children were enslaved and converted. Batches of them were sent to the Caliph in regular installments. After Rawar was taken, Qasim halted there for 3 days during which he killed 6000 men. Their followers and women were taken captive. Later when the slaves were counted, there were 60,000. Of these, 30 young ladies were of royal blood. Qasim sent them all to the Hajjaj, who forwaded them to Walid the Khalifa. A considerable number of hindus were enslaved and deported to Iraq. The entire garrison of Multan was put to sword, and families of the chiefs numbering 6000 were enslaved.

In Sindh, females captured after every campaign were converted and married to arab
soldiers. The instructions given by Hajjaj to Mohd Bin Qasim were "give no
quarter to the infidels, but to cut their throats, and take the women and
children as slaves."

So now I ask all of my readers - how did Islam spread so quickly, especially in the centuries right after Muhammad's death? By simply following Muhammad's example of placing the sword at the neck, and offering the choice Islam has always offered - "Convert, or die!."

I wish to end by appealing to Muslim readers - please read all the accounts of Muhammad's life for yourself. Don't believe me. Read and judge for yourself. Your own humanity will tell you that this man was a cruel, manipulative charlatan. Most Muslims have been forced into Islam at some point in their family history. Please reject this religion that has been forced upon you. In Kashmir - the Hindus were forced into Islam by the cruel despot Sikandar Butshikan. If you read of how he imposed Islam by the sword, it will make your humanity cry. If you are Kashmiri, how can you stay in that religion that was forced upon your ancestors. If you are a muslim in Sindh, maybe one of the men murdered by Mohammad Bin Qasim was your forefather. If you are an Arab muslim, maybe the men murdered by Muhammad were your direct ancestors. Please leave this religion that has spread through violence, lies, and hatred. This is a sincere appeal to all Muslim readers.

US privately backs "Shari'a law for peace" deal with Taliban

2009-03-13T21:14:00.005+05:30

I thought this merited a separate post. I normally assume that people are up to date with the papers, but this news was not carried widely enough, and so am carrying a news article from the Telegraph (UK).

US privately backs Pakistan's 'Sharia law for peace' deal with Taliban

Excerpt:

On Tuesday night however, US officials in Islamabad privately backed the deal as an attempt to drive a wedge between Swat's Taliban, which is focused on its demand for Sharia law, and the al-Qaeda-linked Taliban led by Baitullah Mehsud, the notorious commander who controls much of North and South Waziristan and other tribal areas along the Afghan border.

While they expressed fears that the deal might yet be sabotaged by some Swat Taliban militants who support al-Qaeda, they said that if successful, the deal would break up the alliance between the two groups, which has caused alarm throughout Pakistan and in Washington.

This is idiocy. Does the US really think it can play such games in this region? Remember what happened the last time the US tried to do such things in Afghanistan by aiding Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (on Pak's advise)?

To all my Western readers: These things simply don't work. You have to be principled in how you deal with these groups, and treat them based on what they believe in. For one, both the groups you are trying to drive a wedge between treat women like animals. Secondly, do you really think that the Taliban (or any of its factions) will forget their hatred of the Kuffar and the American Satan and not see through this? You can bet your last dollar that once their position in Malakand has been consolidated, they will close ranks in order to complete the march to Islamabad. Not only that, the day will come when this will be touted as yet another example of America's intrigue in the region, and another reason to hate them.

Islamabad is what, 150Kms away now?

Darkness falls on Swat

2009-03-13T09:30:00.004+05:30

(The Taliban, representing an evil, primitive ideology that was shocking even in the 7th century.)

Today, hidden away amidst all the headlines on things which this blog considers far less important, was a news item:

"Islamic courts begin functioning today in Swat."

ISLAMABAD: Islamic courts today started functioning in Pakistan's insurgency-hit Swat valley under an agreement signed last month by religious
hardliners and provincial authorities, a senior official said.

Qazis or judges started presiding over the Shariah courts at four places in Swat valley to pacify armed Taliban fighters, who waged a violent campaign and battled security forces over the past 18 months to press for the enforcement of Islamic laws in the region.

"We have revived the Islamic courts and Qazis (judges) today," Commissioner Syed Muhammad Javed said.

Javed and Sufi Muhammad, whose Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariah Muhammadi group signed an agreement with the North West Frontier Province government to enforce Islamic laws, led a large procession to the four places and appointed the Qazis in the presence of hundreds of people.

The areas where the Qazis have started functioning, Matta, Khwazakhela, Kabal and Barikot, are considered strongholds of the Taliban.

Sufi struck the deal with the government last month. Under the agreement, the NWFP government agreed to scrap all "un-Islamic" laws.

From today, as per the agreement between the Taliban and the Pakistani government, with the approval of the Obama adminstration, Islamic courts will officially impose Shari'a law in Swat and the NWFP. As part of the agreement, the NWFP will scrap all "un-Islamic" laws and adhere to pure Islam. The Taliban's 18 month campaign to bring Islamic law to Swat and neighboring areas in Malakand has succeeded. Islam is now the law of that land.

What does this mean?

For starters, it means that women are now not fully human. They have almost no rights, no freedoms, and are to behave entirely like the property of men. They may not leave home without male companion (just like in Saudi Arabia - that other bastion of pure Islam). They must remain covered in a shuttle-cock burkha (one where even the eyes are covered with a screen) at all times. They are not allowed to seek employment (which won't be much of a problem since even basic education is being denied to them) or even treatment for diseases. Here is the catch-22: Women are not allowed to be treated by male doctors, and women are not allowed to get an education, which means there are no women doctors.

Now this kind of darkess, this kind of pure evil, has happened with the sanction of two governments - Pakistan's, and America's. Pakistan is, all said and done, an Islamic nation. This IS their "civilization." And the Taliban will remain Pakistan's most influential "invention." An invention that was intended to subjugate Afghanistan, and fuel the Jihad against India in Kashmir. So when the Pakistanis sign such treaties, it is only to be expected. But what can one say about the US government which (as per media reports) acquiesced in this treaty. This treaty with pure evil. What excuse does the US have? True, the Taliban is also an American step-child that came out of the US support for Jihadis during the Russian presence in Afghanistan, and the civil war soon after. But on 9/11, the US ought to have learned its lesson. The Taliban hosted the Al-Qaeda, and the two jointly attacked the US. And yet today, the US is a tacit third party in treaties being signed to appease the Taliban.

And what excuse does our government have for keeping silent on all this. Shari'a law is now a mere 5 hours away from our borders. Does this not concern anyone? Will the Taliban remain happy with just Swat? Not a chance. Swat is just another milestone. They want Islamabad, and they want its army and its nukes. They say so themselves, and they tell us they have planned this for years. Yet we refuse to listen.

And when will the world stop the Taliban? After they have the Pakistani nukes, and have used a few on India, killing the dirty kafir Hindus?

Sri Sri speaks to the SIMI

2009-03-13T09:02:00.005+05:30

I saw a report on a dialogue between Sri Sri Ravishankar (a Hindu spiritual guru) and 4 members of the Students Islamic Movement of India (a hardline Islamic group that wants to bring Shari'a law to India). SIMI had recently put posters in Muslim quarters of various Indian cities saying "No to democracy, No to secularism, Yes to Shari'a" and "Waiting for the next Ghazni to invade India" etc.

Here are some of the issues they discussed:

SIMI: We thought that holding an Anandotsavam (celebration) on December 6th was a deliberate move to insult our religious sentiments. Do you know about our religion?. Do you believe in the Koran at all?

SRI SRI: Yes of course.

SIMI: (Not expecting this answer, pointing to the Koran, they shot the next question) We believe that Koran is the only knowledge. What about you?

SRI SRI: This is one amongst the various knowledge revealed to man from time to time.

SIMI: But God has said this is the only knowledge. The way of the Koran is the only way. There is no other way.

SRI SRI: This message can be found in scriptures of all religions. In the Vedas it is said “Naanyah Panthaah Ayanaaya Vidyate” meaning “There is no other way but the way of Truth!” The same is said in the Bible, Jesus says, “To go to my father, you have to go through me. I am the only way”.

SIMI: But our scripture says worshipping any form or idol is evil, it is blasphemy.

SRI SRI: What is Good and Evil after all? It is relative. Relative existence is not the complete picture For example: Milk is good, but too much milk can kill you. Poison is harmful, but a drop of poison can save your life. Most lifesaving medicines have poison written on them! These are neither absolutely good nor bad they are just there. Truth transcends duality, and God is the Absolute and only Truth. So, where is the place for evil?

SIMI: Yet you Hindus worship many Gods, whereas our ideal is there is only one God and His message is what is required to go to heaven.

SRI SRI: There is only one god in many forms…

SIMI: (Restless and unwilling to listen to any explanation, they interrupted Sri Sri.) But the Koran says you should only worship Allah who is formless whereas the Hindus worship idols which are only stones.

SRI SRI: At this, Sri Sri suddenly asked them: Do you honour the Koran?

SIMI: (They seemed a little taken aback at this question from Sri Sri and with a righteous air answered). Yes, it is God’s word!

SRI SRI: Do you honor the Mecca?

SIMI: Yes, of course! That is our sacred place.

SRI SRI: So also, Hindu’s honour God’s creation as God. Just like sound (Koran), the crescent moon, Kaaba and the month of Ramadan are sacred for you, Hindus consider the River Ganges, the Himalayas, Saints as sacred. See, a picture of your daughter is not your daughter, but you still adore the daughter’s picture. When you see the picture aren’t you reminded of your daughter?

(They nodded a yes)

SRI SRI: So also, a symbol is not God but is honoured as God. This sense of honouring and sacredness makes you awake and alive. That is why the ancient Rishis said to feel the entire creation and your whole life as sacred. They considered God as omnipresent, as inseparable from His creation; like the dance and the dancer.

Sri Sri elaborated further – Spirit loves diversity. Is there only one type of vegetable or fruit? God created many type of fruits and vegetables. There is not just one type of tree, not just one type of snake, cloud, mosquito….Even you change your dress for different occasions. So how could this consciousness that manifested this whole creation be monotonous? There is only one God in many forms. Only one God is advocated. When you accept the variety of Divinity, you cease to be a fanatic and fundamentalist. A pregnant silence filled the room as they looked at each other expecting the other to speak. Then as a face saving measure, the SIMI leader replied, “I will need to go and consult my higher scholars.” With a compassionate expression on His face, Sri Sri said: Never mind, (with a wave of His hand) forget about religion. We are all human beings. Let us have a peaceful society. Let us focus on development.

For the rest of the conversation, please visit Dinesh Bawa's blog here.

I have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. On the one hand, it does serve to demonstrate how open minded Hindu Dharma is, and how closed Islam is. But we know that already. Does Sri Sri expect that the SIMI is going to change its views because of this conversation? Not very likely. In a previous such meeting, between Sri Sri and Zakir Naik, the latter simply abused Sri Sri's respect for his faith, and asked him to convert to Islam! Surely not the kind of mutual respect that can build bridges between faiths.

In any case, Islam as an ideology is so intolerant that these events almost seem to obfuscate the big picture, which is that Islam by its very definition cannot co-exist with others. Islam asserts that it is the ONLY way, and the religion that Allah has sent to replace all other religions, by force of Jihad. When an ideology has such a self-definition, is there any point talking to its fundamentalist practitioners?

Also do we want to humanize people like the SIMI who place bombs in Indian cities and exult at killing Hindu kafirs? Why not just call them the evil that they are and be prepared to fight this evil. This is the reason I don't want the US talking to the Taliban (oops, I meant "moderate Taliban", as if there is such a thing). At some point, you have to call something what it is - pure evil - and just say "We won't stand for this. We won't allow you people to treat women like animals. We won't allow you to treat religious minorities as cannon fodder. We won't just watch while you blow up the Bamiyan Buddhas. We won't just watch while you burn down all girls' schools and force women to stay at home. We simply won't." What are our values here? When we "negotiate" with such people - people who want to take the world into the 7th century arabian desert - what are we saying about our own values? Is this Hindu Dharma? A Hindu law book dating from the early 1st Millenium AD, and it said "a man who hits his wife, though she may be of a hundred faults, even with a blossom, has fallen outside the pale of Dharma and must be shunned". Another verse said that "a woman's body is sacred. It must never be hit under any circumstances, even with a flower." The Manu Smriti (original) says that "where women are worshipped, the Gods are happy. Where women are disrespected, no religious rites bring any reward." (please refer to the excellent website Hindu Wisdom for information on the position of women in orthodox Hindu Dharma, not that which is practiced in India today as a result of 1000 years of the presence of Islam)

Is this issue not important to us? Are we OK with the Taliban dragging women into football stadia and shooting them? Are we OK with pictures like this one:

I know where I stand. I am NOT OK with any of the things the Taliban does, especially to women. What they do to women makes my blood boil, and it should make your's boil too. It is against all tenets of our civilization (and also Western civilization). I think it is clear what Dharma is in this situation. It is to join hands with Western civilization and destroy the monster named the Taliban and all its Deobandi siblings such as the SIMI.

Why is Islam so cruel and barbaric?

2009-03-10T05:59:00.007+05:30

(A man about to be beheaded publicly in Saudi Arabia, in perfect accordance with Islamic law as recorded in the Hadith. Picture courtesy Amnesty. )

The Kuran is full of hatred towards unbelievers. The Hadith is even worse. It goes into the gory details of the kinds of "punishments" Muhammed meted out to people for even petty offenses. Judge for yourself. I will reproduce some of the Hadith where Muhammad shows his kindness. All of them are from Sunan Abu-Dawud (the Hadith that provides most of the Shari'a law on various punishments).

In this Hadith, Muhammad shows once again just how much he hates polytheists. It is Hadith such as this one that directly caused many Hindus to be tortured to death in the most cruel manner imaginable during the dark centuries of Islamic rule. Note that for polytheists, repenting does not save them from such a harsh fate.

Book 38, Number 4359:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The verse "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite side or exile from the land...most merciful" was revealed about polytheists. If any of them repents before they are arrested, it does not prevent from inflicting on him the prescribed punishment which he deserves.

Now Muhammad orders an adulterer to be stoned to death (there are many Hadith on stoning to death).

Book 38, Number 4364:

Narrated Nu'aym:

Ma'iz came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and admitted (having committed adultery) four times in his presence so he ordered him to be stoned to death, but said to Huzzal: If you had covered him with your garment, it would have been better for you.

This time, Muhammad orders the hand of a petty thief chopped off.

Book 38, Number 4367:

Narrated AbuUmayyah al-Makhzumi:

A thief who had accepted (having committed theft) was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him), but no good were found with him. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), said to him: I do not think you have stolen. He said: Yes, I have. He repeated it twice or thrice. So he gave orders. His hand was cut off and he was then brought to him. He said: Ask Allah's pardon and turn to Him in repentance. He said: I ask Allah's pardon and turn to Him in repentance. He (the Prophet) then said: O Allah, accept his repentance.

Once again, a man who stole a shield worth just three dirhams has his hands cut off on Muhammad's orders.

Book 38, Number 4373:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) had a man's hand cut off who had stolen from the place reserved for women a shield whose price was three dirhams.

A woman has her hand chopped off for selling jewellery that she had borrowed.

Book 38, Number 4382:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

A woman borrowed jewellery through some known persons and she herself was unknown. She then sold them. She was seized and brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He gave orders that her hand should be cut off. It is this woman about whom Usamah interceded and of her the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said whatever he said.

In this Hadith, Muhammad seems very eager to kill a thief, but when the people remind him that he is only a thief, Muhammad "relents" and orders his hand chopped off. The next time, he has his foot chopped off. This saga continues, with his other hand and foot being chopped off, before he is finally stoned to death.

Book 38, Number 4396:

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:

A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off. He was brought a second time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his foot.

So his (left) foot was cut off.

He was brought a third time and he said: Kill him.

The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!

So he said: Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.)

He was brought a fourth time and he said: Kill him.

The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!

So he said: Cut off his foot. So his (right) foot was cut off.

He was brought a fifth time and he said: Kill him.

So we took him away and killed him. We then dragged him and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.

In this Hadith, Muhammad orders a man's hand to be chopped off and hung around his neck.

Book 38, Number 4397:

Narrated Fadalah ibn Ubayd:

A thief was brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and his hand was cut off. Thereafter he commanded for it, and it was hung on his neck.

I ask my readers to bear in mind that Islam IS the example of Muhammad. The above instances are not mere history, but the normative code of conduct for Muslim societies for all time to come. Islam is unique in that it makes one man's conduct the basis for its law (Shari'a). All of the above examples are now cast in stone, and form the basis for Shari'a law for all time.

I have a few questions to ask of my readers after they have read the Hadith above:

1. Was Muhammad a kind and compassionate man, as claimed by Islamic apologists?

2. Could a man who displayed the kind of cruelty described in the Hadith above be called a Saint, let alone "the last Prophet of God"?

3. When one sees the kind of cruelty that routinely comes out of Islamic societies, is it against Islam, or directly in accordance with it?

4. Is anything the Taliban do against Islam? Indeed, Muhammad's punishments seem far more brutal than what the Taliban dish out.

5. Is there ANY place for such a barbaric cult in civilized society?

Notice that in none of the Hadith does Muhammad show an iota of compassion to those whose hands and feet he orders chopped off. Not once does he even ask "Did you fall on bad times? Why did you do what you did?" In Muhammad's time, if a man stole a loaf of bread to feed his hungry family, guess what? Too bad, his hands would be chopped off. There was no compassion in this man. When 1.2 billion people think this is the behaviour of the "perfect man", that is when we see all the barbarity that Islam displays daily. Beheadings, stoning, brutal intolerance and so on. It all comes from one man and his religion.

A time to fight

2009-03-09T07:08:00.004+05:30

In the Mahabharata, the Kauravas use treachery to cheat the Pandavas of their rightful inheritance, and send them away to the forest for many years. Upon their return, the Pandavas ask for their kingdom, and the Kauravas refuse. Then Lord Krishna himself carries a reduced demand to the Kauravas - that instead of the entire kingdom which should go to the Pandavas, they give only 5 villages so the Pandavas can raise their families there. Only 5 villages in lieu of an entire kingdom. But the Kauravas refuse even this, saying that "we won't even give you the land required to place a single needle."

It is only then that Lord Krishna says "every attempt at appeasement has failed. Now we have no option but to go to war." Thus starts the 18 day war called the Mahabharata.

There is a lesson for us here. Hindus have appeased Pakistan for decades now. But Pakistan has only become more aggressive. It is a nation united only by hatred for Hindus. A recent survey of their school textbooks said that children are asked to nurture a hatred for Hindus, and a love for Jihad. Every serviceman in Pakistan, as part of his oath, says that he will work towards breaking up India. The ISI-Army complex in Pakistan, which runs the country, is wedded to our destruction. Pakistani sponsored terrorism, which is nothing less than their way of waging war upon us, has claimed 65,000 Indian lives in the past 30 years.

And yet we are in some kind of delusion about the possibility of peaceful co-existence with Pakistan. You cannot dream peace with people who are taking oaths to kill you and break up your country.

There is a time for peace. We all crave peace. Lord Krishna also craved peace. That is why he reduced the just demands of the Pandavas to a mere 5 villages. But when even that was rejected, he said that we must now be prepared to fight for what is right.

The time has come to now fight Pakistan. Not conventionally, but rather using the same techniques they have used against us for the past 35 years. If they can openly say that they wish to "bleed India with a thousand cuts", then we, with a far larger economy, can surely cause 10,000 cuts. And so let us do it. Not because we want to, but because nothing else will stop this country which is hell bent upon our destruction.

Now Manmohan Singh is far too weak to do this. The first thing we need is to elect a government that is capable of stating things as they are. We keep saying, year after year, explosion after explosion, death after Indian death, that "there is Dawood and ISI hand in this." So cut those hands off! Everyone knows where Dawood lives. Would the Mossad have let this murderer live? You can bet your last Rupee that a cleverly placed bomb would have ripped him apart by now - long before he could kill hundreds of Indians.

Let us act with conviction. It is not us who are sending terrorists into Pakistan. It is not us who are causing almost weekly explosions in Pakistan. It is not us who are trying to "Hinduize" Pakistan (we don't even have such a word, thankfully). But for how long can we be victims?

And to the Western powers who are trying to appease the Taliban and have pacts with them, I say that the Taliban is such pure evil that you can never have peace with them. These are people who want to turn the earth into a medieval hell, where women will be no more than animals, and all freedoms will cease to exist. When something is so evil, you don't appease it. You don't sign treaties and pacts with it. Remember, for a few years, many tried to appease the Nazi demon too, till they realized just how evil that ideology was. Then they closed ranks, and destroyed it.

That is what needs to be done to this Islamic monster. Every day that we wait, this threat grows. It comes closer to our (India's) borders. Today the Taliban and its barbaric Islam is a mere 5 hours drive from India. How much longer are we going to "wait and watch." And if India is engulfed in this storm, how much longer before it reaches other shores?

Maps given to the Pakistan Army

2009-03-09T05:20:00.003+05:30

Here are some maps given to the Pakistani army to (a) set their goals and (b) raise their morale. Such maps were confiscated from two captured Jihadis in Jammu (for more details, read this report).

The big picture is this - let us be very very clear about one thing. Islam's agenda, ever since Muhammad promised paradise to the first Jihadis who conquer Al-Hind (India), from Mohammaed Bin Qasim's invasion in 712AD, through Muhammad Ghazni's raids in 1000AD, through Muhammad Ghori's invasion in 1192AD, through the period of Islamic expansion, and right through the Kargil war of 1999, has remained unchanged. This agenda is stated by them repeatedly, but we refuse to hear. It is simple - destroy Hindu Dharma, and convert Al-Hind (the landmass where Hindu Dharma thrives) to Dar-ul-Islam (land of Islam).

But we Hindus refuse to understand this. Pakistan is merely the manifestation of this Jihadi front today. It is a continuation of a 1300 year old Jihad launched upon us by Islam. And we must fight it as such.

In particular, this is NOT about Kashmir or any such temporary issue. If we gave away Kashmir, the next "milestone" in the Islamization of Hind would be Junagadh and Hyderabad. The Lashkar-e-Toiba pamphlet "Why we are waging Jihad" tell us this clearly. They tell us that this is not about Kashmir, but about all of India. All of India is land that they want to make into Dar-ul-Islam. Hindu Dharma must simply be exterminated. I am not saying this - they are. And they have said this from the time of Muhammad to Hafiz Saeed (head of Lashkar). Their story has not changed. It is we who are foolish to ignore their repeated statements of purpose.

How do we counter this 1300 year old Jihad? By being clear about what it is. It is not a temporary conflict, and it is not about Kashmir. This is a Jihad that seeks to end Hindu Dharma. This is existential. And it is serious. Kashmir has been cleansed. Assam and Bengal are going that way rapidly. The Islamic pincer is moving at a steady pace. There is an ISI plan called "Mughalstan" which seeks to create an Islamic corridor from Bengal to Kashmir through muslim majority areas in UP. Once again, they have told us this themselves.

So let us first see the situation for what it is. Next, let us realize that Pakistan will not allow us to live peacefully. Any kind of pacifist appeasement of it (such as Mr. I. K. Gujral did) will only make them stronger. We must take the fight to Pakistan.

That's it. How we do that is a military/intelligence issue, and I am not qualified to comment upon it. But seeing the problem for what it is - as a 1300 year old civilizational attack on Hindu Dharma, rather than a "Kashmir issue" - is what we need to do.

We also need to bring nationalist parties to power at the center and in the states. Not the traitorous communists, not the congress which is always in bed with traitors and has been hijacked by the leftists, but parties which love our country. Parties who would not compromise our nation's security and integrity. Parties to whom the soil of mother India is sacred, not to be bartered away for political gains.

Why Hindu Dharma is worth preserving

2009-03-08T10:47:00.006+05:30

(Thanks to the excellent blog "Monologues of a Nomad" for this picture.)

A picture of Hindu girls in Delhi after girls yet again outscored boys in the CBSE examinations (the umpteenth time in a row that they have done so). Way to go Hindu girls - keep doing us proud! For your sake, we must resolve to fight Islamic ideology that seeks to reduce you to the status of domesticated animals.

A picture you won't see coming from the Islamic world. Remember, the first thing the Taliban did when they took over Swat was burn down all the girls schools.

The case for a massive US invasion of the Pak-Afghan border

2009-03-08T08:46:00.008+05:30

I think it is time the US and Nato launched a massive invasion of the Pakistan-Afghan border areas. I will try to make the case for such a military action below:

1. The Taliban-Al Qaeda combination attacked the US on its own soil on September 11, 2001. That itself would seem adequate for the US to go after the Taliban and not rest till this menace has been totally eliminated. When Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, the US (a) identified the enemy and (b) went after it ruthlessly, not hesitating to even use nuclear weapons to force a full and unconditional surrender, followed by a total dismantling of the ideology of Japanese imperialism. Why is it hesitating now? September 11 took more US lives than Pearl Harbor. So why the US ambivalence?

2. The Taliban represents the greatest danger to the ideal of women's rights in the world today. Under the Taliban, women were reduced to nothing more than domesticated animals. Again, this reason by itself would suffice for a serious military strike. The world cannot watch indifferently when women are degraded this way, and humanity is mocked.

3. The Taliban is gaining strength (their own words - see the video above), and preparing essentially for a total takeover of Pakistan. They have already brought significant parts of Pakistan under their control. Pakistan is a nuclear power. The Taliban having nuclear capability does not seem far fetched anymore. Another 10 years? And then what are we going to do? The time to act is NOW.

4. Once the Taliban has nuclear capability, such a capability will essentially be purchasable with the same ease that a fake Ak-47 is in Taliban held territory. We could enter an era of rogue nuclear powers that even include non-state players.

5. The US invaded Iraq - a country that had really nothing to do with 9/11 and had been essentially emasculated long before the US invasion. If the US can do that, why can it not invade the area which houses the real perpetrators of 9/11, instead of watching them thrive?

6. One of the claims of the Obama Presidential campaign was that it would get tough with Pakistan. But since Obama entered the White House, the US policy on Pakistan has become softer, if anything. The US condoned the Pakistan-Taliban pact allowing the latter to operate freely in Swat and impose Shari'a law there. Was Obama sincere when he said what he did or was it just something to cover up the accusations that he had hidden sympathies for the Islamic world. Last week, Obama said that he would try to reach out to "moderate factions in the Taliban." That is like saying "moderate Nazis." There is no such thing. The Taliban follows an ideology that is anything but moderate. The only way to face such an ideology is to call it for what it is - pure medieval evil - and deal it a death blow. That is how the world dealt with the Nazis, and this is no different. We must not be ambivalent in the face of this scourge.

7. If one deciphers the current US policy towards containing the Taliban, one quickly uncovers a frightening (and at the same time, somewhat amusing) conclusion - that the US is relying on the Pakistani Army to contain the Taliban for them! Yes, you read that right - the US thinks that the Pakistani Army, which actually gave birth to the Taliban and nurtured it into the demon that it is, will contain the Taliban. The Pakistani army has been thoroughly Islamized since the time of General Zia-ul-Haq, and all senior positions in both the Army and the ISI are filled with Islamists. Does the US really think these Islamists will fight the Taliban for them? No, they will merely play a double game - pretend to the US that they are fighting the Taliban in order to get US aid, and then use this very aid to help the Taliban.

The world must not wait on this threat any longer, nor must it be bluffed by any Pakistani double-game in this matter. Remove Pakistan from the picture, and go after the Taliban. Every day that we wait, this threat grows, and increases its power to douse civilization. A forward policy is needed - one where we (a) call this threat the pure evil that it is (b) declare total war upon it and (c) chase it from all its hideouts, including Swat, Waziristan, and all the rest. It can be done. The myth of these primitive tribesmen being able to face up to the US war machine is just that - a media myth. Remember that the Taliban was routed in 2002 when the US only gave some support to the Northern Alliance. The Taliban's epitaph should have been written back then. It is because the US looked the other way when the Taliban was on its knees that they were able to regroup. 2002 showed that the Taliban are weak, and can be destroyed, but it will take sharp focus to finish the job.

The time to finish the job has come.

PS: Baron, at Gates of Vienna, has asked on his blog whether the Indian armed forces will join this noble effort. I feel we should. India will soon be fighting the Taliban, who are merely 5 hours away from our borders, anyway. Indeed, every single day our security forces fight Jihadis in various parts of the country who come from the same manufacturing plant that produces the Taliban. Better fight them on the Pak-Afghan border than on Indian soil. If the US were to take up the matter of destroying the Taliban with the seriousness that it deserves, then it is India's duty (I feel) to fight this war side by side with them.

Fighting Jihad - Indian style

2009-03-08T07:30:00.000+05:30

Thanks to Nomad for the link to this video.

(To my Western readers - this video clip in Hindi discusses the Congress government's plan to provide pensions to families of Jihadi terrorists the Indian army kills, often at great loss to lives of its own personnel.)

You guys won't believe this. I learned in my economics class that when you want to encourage something, you subsidize it or reward it monetarily. The Indian government is actually rewarding Jihad in Kashmir by giving pensions to slain Jihadi terrorists! Yes, you read that right - if a Jihadi terrorist is killed by Indian security forces in Kashmir, his family gets a pension. The logic? These people are "our own people, who have been misguided, and to treat people with humanity and compassion is the Indian way."

OK, let's just understand what is being said here. If you are a Jihadi in Kashmir, you pick up a gun, kill a few Hindus, help cleanse the valley of all Hindus, kill a few security forces, and are then gunned down in a battle, your family is well taken care of. Not by Jihadis, but by the Indian government, because after all, you were only "misguided"! A dove who temporarily lost his senses. Not a soldier in the most hateful and intolerant ideology in the world today (Jihad), but a "misguided youth".

For those who are still in disbelief, let me explain why we Indians act this way. There are two reasons - one ideological, the other political.

First, the ideological reason. We Hindus have never fully understood a simple fact - the Islam wants to eradicate us. Period. It wants us all dead (as Hindus, or converted to Islam). This is not my opinion, but the stated goal of all schools of Islamic jurisprudence. This has led to what I call the "Prithviraj syndrome" among Hindus. Recall that Prithviraj Chauhan was the last Hindu ruler to sit on the throne of Delhi before the Marathas entered Delhi in 1737AD. Prithviraj Chauhan lost his Hindu kingdom to Muhammad Ghori in 1192AD, after his defeat at the second battle of Tarain. In the first battle of Tarain, in 1191AD, Prithviraj had defeated and captured Ghori. But instead of putting him away for good, he is said to have nursed his wounds himself, given him one of his finest horses, hugged him, and given him a warm farewell, saying "You came as my enemy, but I send you off as a brother." What fine chivalry! At the cost of the nation! This Islamic "brother" returned the next year, defeated Prithviraj, put him in a cage like an animal, took him to Ghazni, humiliated him, blinded him, and killed him. To this day, Afghans dishonor the grave of Prithviraj in Ghazni.

This is what brotherhood with Islam leads to.

How hard is it for us to understand that you cannot be brothers with someone whose goal is to kill you? Islam's scriptures have, as their highest goal, the eradication of other religions, with Hindu Dharma perhaps top of the list because it is an "idolatrous" religion. That is why Islam's reaction to Hindu Dharma was by far the most brutal and barbaric among its all its reactions to different faiths. Islam has some minor temporary tolerance for "the people of the book" (the Christians and the Jews), but every single school and scholar of Islam says that idolators must be killed. Islam will never give us an inch when it is in power. Look at the Hindus of Bangladesh. Almost 2 million were butchered in 1971. When will we learn that this ideology is not satiated by our appeasement. It only gets more aggressive, more brutal, and more barbaric the more we show our kindness.

Let me give you an example of the kind of people we are dealing with. When Kashmiri Jihadis killed 23 Hindus at the Wandhama massacre, they came in dressed as security men. The Hindu women made tea for them and offered them snacks, showing traditional hospitality to guests, because we have been taught that "Atithi devo bhavah" (Treat a Guest in your house as you would treat God). These Hindus did not know what brutality lay in store for them, simply because they were Hindus, and therefore targetted for extermination by Islam. The Jihadi fiends enjoyed the hospitality, then proceeded to kill the entire family, including a 1 year old baby. This is Islam for you. Islam does not recognize us as human beings even. We are like cockroaches - fit only for extermination. Please understand this before it is too late. It is already too late in large parts of what was once a glorious civilization. Our Western and Eastern parts have been eaten up by Islam. Kashmir's valley is gone and the eradication of Hindu Dharma from it is complete. The temples the fleeing Hindus left behind have all been destroyed. Assam is next. Its districts that border Bangladesh have seen such a large influx of illegal Bangladeshi Muslims that Hindus have had to leave these districts. In our lifetimes, we saw Kashmir go away, and we will almost certainly see Assam go too. Another lost station for Hindu Dharma. Lost because we, after 1300 years of contact with Islam, still do not see Islam for what it is - a murderous ideology that will not stop before it has destroyed our civilization, a task it began in earnest in 712AD when Muhammed Bin Qasim invaded Sindh.

The second reason is political. If indeed all the government wants to show is "traditional Indian humane-ness" then why does it not show it to the 400,000 Kashmiri Hindus who were evicted from Kashmir by the Jihadis? Why only to Muslims? Because of vote bank politics. You see, Hindus do not vote as one bloc. The Congress, like foreign rulers before it, have always tried to divide Hindus and appeal to each segment separately. The division is done usually along caste lines. But Muslims are not that way - they vote en bloc, and directly affect the results of many constituencies. When the Congress does something as anti-national as giving pensions to families of terrorist Jihadis, it is appealing to that vote bank. And what does that say about this vote bank? Is India dear to them? Or are terrorist Jihadis in Kashmir who kill Hindus dearer? By doing this, the Congress is tacitly admitting that Muslims in India do NOT vote along nationalist lines. I know many nationalist muslims, but they are in a minority. The majority votes along the lines sanctioned by the Ulema (Islamic clerics) of various schools. These schools openly preach sedition, and we simply turn the other way. Does the average Hindu know what the Deoband School teaches? It openly preaches that Muslims are NOT to show loyalty to India, but only to the Muslim Ummah (Global Muslim Nation). This is going on under our very noses, but the "secular" media never focuses on this sedition. I hope to have an article on the curriculum taught at Deoband very soon.

The elections are almost here. I urge all Indian readers of this blog to see the urgency of the situation and do what they can to remove the Congress from power. The Congress is doing today what Jaichand did in 1192AD - siding with those who wish to destroy our civilization. Its pathetic attempts at appeasing its vote bank, under the garb of "Indian humanity" is not fooling anyone. In the battle against Islam, we must first defeat two forces within India - the Congress and the Left - both of which are in bed with the enemy. It is these internal enemies that make us vulnerable. Remember, Prithviraj did not lose to Ghori. In reality, he lost to the enemy within - to Jaichand. If we weed out the Jaichands who are eating up our country like termites, then we can face any external aggression.

The "Love Jihad" in Kerala

2009-03-07T12:30:00.005+05:30

A few days back, this blog carried a post on "Jihadi Romeos" in Kerala. I have been following the situation in Kerala, which is quite grim. Make no mistake - Hindu Dharma in Kerala is under assault from its two biggest enemies - Islam and the Left. Kerala is a communist state, with a 25% Islamic population (a majority in the northern districts of the state).

There is news coming in from a secular daily called Kerala Kaumudi. An organization, training muslim youth in the "art" of trapping Hindu girls in love traps with an aim towards conversion, is being reported. Another blogger - Nomad - carries a good report on this. Here are some excerpts:

“Love Jihad” which aims to convert by marriage in kerala

Organisation named as “love Jihad” with objective to trap girls in the web of love in order to marry in kerala also. Its learned that this organisation has converted hundreds of girls thru this modus operandi.

...

This organisation is using a group of young boys from a certain religion. They are instructed to lure girls of a certain religion. As per the instructions to recruits of this organisation, they have to love a girl of "certain religion" within the time frame of 2 weeks and brainwash them to get converted and marry within 6 months. ... If the target won’t get trapped within first 2 weeks, they are instructed to leave them and move on to another girl.

The money required for this coming from foreign organisations. This organisation has started working in kerala for last 1 year. Modern gadgets like Free Mobile Phone, Bikes and Fashionable dresses are given to the recruits as tools for the mission.

Please visit Nomad to read further.

For other news about Hindu Dharma in Kerala, including a report on the Love Jihad, one can visit Haindava Keralam. My general observation about HK is that while the language is not as good as it could be (after all English is not the mother tongue of most of the contributors), the content tends to have many reports that are hard to find in "secular" media.

Here is an article in the Daily Mail (a newspaper in the UK) about aggressive conversions, often accompanied by beatings, by muslims in the UK.

The world must stop Pakistan - Sri Lankan cricketers attacked by gunmen in Lahore

2009-03-03T10:19:00.002+05:30

A few days back, this blog had said that the world must stop Pakistan before it is too late. It may already be too late. Pakistan has been sliding into the depths of Islamic darkness for decades now. Today, the Sri Lankan cricket team was attacked by gunmen firing shots and lobbing grenades, as the team prepared to play the second test in Lahore, injuring 8 cricketers. This is breaking news, just coming in. I have to step out of my office for some time, but will try to update the blog as more news comes in.

Update:

None of the reports of this event have included the two terms that are most relevant and explanatory - Islam and Terror. As usual, we are led to believe that these are just random gunmen. It is deliberately hidden from us that they are Jihadis, carrying out a well developed and practiced ideology of Jihad that is central to Islam, and has always been central to Islam. A great part of Jihad is the creation of terror. Jihad and terror are intertwined. Muhammad himself said that his was the first prophethood that had been made "victorious by terror" and Islamists have always taken that to mean that terror is a crucial tool in the repertoire of Jihad.

The other issue that I would like to draw attention to is the policy of appeasement. Some things are so evil that one cannot but destroy or be destroyed. One cannot make a pact with evil. The Pakistan government recently made a pact with the Taliban allowing the latter to impose Shari'a law in Swat. Just a week later, this has happened. Because Radical Islam does not want peace. It wants world domination. They have told us this in no uncertain terms. Sufi Muhammad - the Taliban leader in Swat - said that he wanted to impose Shari'a on the world, starting with the Indian subcontinent.

We must take these forces of darkness head on, without any ambivalence. These forces are truly evil. Just look at what they did to girl's schools in Swat - they burnt them down. In their barbaric primitive ideology, the place of a woman is only at home, as a slave of men. These people will turn back the clock on 1400 years of civilization.

We must stop the Taliban, and eventually we must stop Islam.

"...Except those captives whom your right hand possesses"

2009-03-02T02:49:00.002+05:30

Kuran Sura 4, Ayat 24 says:

And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess...

Now this means that a Muslim is allowed to have sex with his female slaves. That is well known and understood. But it is not widely known under what circumstances this verse was "revealed" by Muhammad. To understand this, one has to read the Hadith. The Hadith often contain the exact historical event that prompted the "revelation" of a Kuranic verse. Let us look into the Hadith to see why this verse was needed.

I produce below the relevant Hadith.

Abu Dawud vol.2 no.2150 p.577

Abu Sai’d al-Khudri said : The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you except those captives whom your right hands possess." That is to say, captive women are lawful for them when they complete their menstrual period.(1479)"

Hadith Jami At-Tirmidhi 3016

Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri said: “On the Day of Awtas, we captured some women who had husbands among the idolaters. So some of the men disliked that, so Allah, Most High, revealed: ‘And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . . [4:24]’”

Now take a look at these Hadith. It is clear what is happening. The muslims have captured some idolators - both men and women. Some of the captured women are married to men who are also among those captured. As was the custom during Muhammad's campaigns, all captured women became the sexual property of his soldiers. However, some soldiers were reluctant to rape the captured women in front of their husbands. That is when Muhammad produced Kuran 4:24 assuring them that it was permissible to rape these captured women even in front of their husbands.

Now tell me - what kind of person was Muhammad? What kind of a person asks his soldiers to let go of any conscience and just enjoy captured idolatrous women in front of their husbands?

When one reads the Muslim accounts of how the defeated royal Hindu families were treated, it is exactly as per these Hadith. Every single evil that Islam committed in India is directly from the Kuran and Hadith.

United States of Islam

2009-03-01T21:05:00.002+05:30

(Thanks to savecivilization for the map.)

This map is published by the World Islamic Mission. A few observations:

1. If you look at the map closely, you will see what the WIM considers the "United States of Islam" as it stands today. This area is enclosed by the black line. It includes India - a country that is 82% Hindu. This is not surprising since Islam view's its conquests as permanent. Since Islam did rule most of India at one time, hence India becomes a land conquered for Islam for all time. This is also reflected in the speeches of Islamists like Hafiz Saeed (leader of the Lashkar-e-Toiba).

2. On the bottom left of the map, there is a map of the United States of Islam that the World Islamic Mission would like to create a 100 years from now. It shows the entire world under Islamic rule.

Now this should be nothing surprising to the readers of this blog. If this blog has one major point to convey, it is would be that nothing that practicing Muslims (sometimes known as Islamists or fundamentalist Muslims) say or do is surprising, because it tends to be a watered down version of what is in the Kuran and Hadith because these are the canons of Islam, and Islamists generally do not deviate from them.

If you look at the map closely, it also says that the Kuran and the Hadith (also spellt Hadees) shall form the basis of the law in this global Islamic state.
So what does the Kuran say about the Islamic state? Every single scholar and school of Islam is in agreement on this - that muslims are to cease Jihadi expansion of the muslim state only when Islam is the only religion in existence. This is repeated in various ways in various places in the Kuran and Hadith, but the best known of these injunctions is Kuran 8:39, which says, and I quote Shakir's canonical translation:

And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

We should not be surprised to see such maps showing the entire world as part of a global Caliphate. That is Islam's stated mission - to impose Islam upon the world. How? By means of a uniquely Islamic doctrine, whose name should be known to everyone by now: Jihad fi sabilallah (Jihad in the name of Allah).

Amar Singh and Hira Lal

2009-02-28T21:32:00.004+05:30

I just laughed so loudly my stomach aches.

Watched a video of a "respectable" Pakistani TV "analysis" program where Pakistan's leading "defense analyst" said that Amir Ajmal Qasab (the lone terrorist captured in Mumbai, the terrorist to the left in the picture) is a Sikh called Amar Singh who is a well known "BJP terrorist", and his accomplice (the one on the right) who died is named Hira Lal. Apparently, this was conveyed to the Pakistani analyst from his "inside sources" in Indian intelligence.

This sort of absolute absurdity is coming from the top echelons of Pakistani society. This is seriously wierd (and sometimes seriously funny - depends on what type of mood one is in). Perhaps even funnier than the comments was the way the host of the show was looking at the analyst as if he were staring at the face of Albert Einstein.

The other possibility that comes to mind is that some of our own guys are sending this idiot email with such information, and getting a perverse kick out of him believing it.

The last time I was tickled so well was when some one suggested that Al Gore was the mastermind behind 9/11. Motive? He wanted to get even with Bush, of course.

In honour of 12 Nepalese Hindu brothers

2009-02-28T11:52:00.006+05:30

This post is in honour of the 12 Nepalese of Hindu Dharma who were beheaded by Islamic fiends in Iraq in September 2004. They had gone to Iraq with dreams of earning some money so that they could then return to Nepal and have a better life. The same as Kim Sun - the Korean translator who was beheaded despite his aged parents begging his abductors to release their son. He had gone there to earn some money as an Arabic translator, in order to pay for his post-graduate education. I remember I cried when I heard that he had been beheaded. I cried for his parents. Parents don't have any religion - all parents love the same. To make a parent cry in their old age is to make humanity cry.

We must never forget that this is the fate Islam has in mind for all those who refuse to enter its pale. In Islam, the only guarantee to life is if you submit to Islam. Remember Kuran 8:39 - "fight them till all resistance has ended, and religion if for Allah alone."

I had thought about linking the video of the beheading to this post because I want people to know just what kind of ideology we are up against. We are not fighting a civilized foe. We are fighting a foe who revels in their brutality, who profanes every single thing civilization is about, and who is absolutely fanatically wedded to our destruction. Of course, Hindus have known this since 712AD, but somehow we still tend to need reminding from time to time.

In the end, I decided against linking to the video because I think it is more important that we remain true to Hindu Dharma. We cannot drop to the level of these barbarians. We must fight them, but in a manner that is consistent with our Dharma.

Here is what the group that beheaded our Hindu brothers said:

“We have carried out the sentence of God against 12 Nepalese who came from their country to fight the Muslims and to serve the Jews and the Christians … believing in Buddha as their God”

This is entirely in accordance with Islamic teachings. In particular, Kuran 9:5 orders Muslims to "slay idolators where ever ye find them.." and to "smite their necks." This is what was done to our Nepalese brothers.

Though I did not link to the video, you can find it on the internet by googling "Nepalese beheading video." Before you do so, please be warned that the video is extremely disturbing.

But so is Islam.

Is this Islamic spirituality? - part II

2009-02-28T08:51:00.007+05:30

This is the second post in the series questioning the spiritual value of Islam's canons - the Kuran and the Hadith. The first post in this series can be read here.

There are six canonical Hadith in Sunni Islam, known as the Sihah Sittha ("the correct six"). The two "strongest" Hadith collections are the Sahih Bukhari, and the Sahih Muslim. "Strength" here refers to the authenticity in terms of number of independent witnesses and chains of narration (known as Isnad). The other four Hadith collections are ranked in various orders by different schools and scholars.

One of these four is the Jami At-Tirmidhi (also known as Sunan Al-Tirmidhi), compiled by Imam Al-Tirmidhi (also spelled Al-Tirmezi). Some Islamic scholars such as Al-Athir even rated this Hadith the best among all six Hadith, because

"(It) is the best of books, having the most benefit, the best organization, with the least repetition. It contain what others to not contain; like mention of the different Madhahib (views) and angles of argument."

Now, what exactly is contained in the Jami At-Tirmidhi? What profound spiritual sciences does it deal with? Let us take a look at this amazing Hadith collection. It's longest section, and generally regarded as its most significant, is the first section called "Taharah" (purification)." This section has almost 100 chapters. Let us peek into the content of these chapters.

The chapters begin with "What must be said when entering the toilet" and "What must be said when exiting the toilet." In case the reader is curious, this chapter provides the verses one has to speak while entering the toilet, in order to ask for protection from evil Jinns and devils (Shaytaans) who inhabit toilets. It is only when one says the prescribed verses that, magically, a shield manifests between one's private parts and the Jinns (who presumably are hiding in the toilets to ogle at the private parts of the defecators). Now in case the reader is wondering whether any Muslim today takes such things seriously, they are urged to go to this Sunni website on Islamic toilet etiquette. The reader can also google "Islamic toilet" and go to various websites which deal with such issues of great importance to the Ummah (global Muslim community). Here

Chapter 8 deals with the thorny issue of standing while urinating (apparently Muhammad did not like that). Chapters 11 through 15 deal with using stones and water to clean oneself after defecation. Four chapters devoted to this subject, no less. Then you have chapters
16 and 17 which return to the discussion of urination - the first of the two talks about Muhammad's preferences during urination, while the second asks Muslims not to urinate in the washing area. There is an entire chapter (23) on how to go through one's beard while the next one deals with how to wipe the head (one must start from the front, and go to the rear; not the other way round). Chapters 25 through 27 continue with discussion on this profoundly spiritual issue of how to wipe one's head.

In the next few chapters, there are instructions on "going through the ears", "going through the fingers", "saving the heels from the fires of hell" and so on. Soon after, the Hadith revisits the never-ending topic of urination. Chapters 51 talk about not urinating into stagnant water, while 53 and 54 talk about shielding oneself from urine. There is even a chapter on how to greet someone while urinating.

Chapter 56 talks about breaking wind (aka farting). Please tell me - why is a religion even concerned with details such as this. And in case the reader is wondering, the topic of passing wind is covered in other Hadith as well.

Most of the rest of the Hadith deals with similarly spiritual issues. There are chapters on whether one should take a siesta on Friday, apply perfume on Friday, and so on. There are chapters on how Muhammad took one route to the mosque and returned by the other (I suppose there is some deep hidden spiritual message here, but I am yet to understand it).

All I can say is that upon reading the Jami At Tirmidhi - one of the canons of Islam - one is left with a decidedly unspiritual set of rules for doing the most trite and mundane of things (such as urination and defecation). I fail to understand what is the purpose of such books in a religious canon. Why does Islam spend so much time on regulating such aspects of life? And why would "the last Prophet" waste so much of his time talking about such things?

Now call me old fashioned, but I always thought spirituality was a philosophical quest. It attempted to answer philosophical and metaphysical questions centered around the greater purpose of man's life, and his relationship with the divine. Is "How to urinate?" a philosophically profound question? I would just say "Get it over with any which way you like man, and move on."

The Hadith are records of Muhammad's activities, his words and so on. But what is the purpose of telling Muslims how Muhammad moved his fingers through his beard, and asking them to move their's the same way? Or telling them of Muhammad's preferences while urinating, and asking them to copy it. Islam's concern is not the spiritual upliftment of Muslims, for which it has precious little to offer, but ensuring that Muslims are carbon copies of an Arab man who lived 1400 years ago. In their limited view of things, they consider that act of copying this one man, a spiritual act. Is it any wonder that Islam seems to be caught in a time-zone all its own, which resembles 7th century Arabia? Now that would not be so bad if the culture of 7th century Arabia was very evolved, and if people in the harsh desert of Arabia in the 7th century were contemplating the most profound spiritual questions. But they was not - theirs was a primitive culture in one of the cultural backwaters of the world. Islam codified that primitive culture in the form of a religion, and is imposing it upon 1.2 billion people in the 21st century. That is a serious travesty.

Hate the sin: An appeal to readers of this blog

2009-02-28T05:28:00.011+05:30

(Rakhi, adopted by a Muslim father 18 years ago, and married to a Hindu man.)

I have stated in this blog that we must be principled in our approach to the problem of Islam. Our issue is with Islam as an ideology. Not with people who belong to the Muslim faith, and especially not those Muslims who may nominally be Muslims, but do not follow Islam's ideology. In short, just because a person says "I am a Muslim" does not mean that she/he follows Islam, and we should not make any judgement about such a person based on what we know about Islam.

I was thinking about doing a post on this issue, because I think it is very important. It is my observation that a vast majority of Muslims in India are simply Hindus who have outwardly adopted Muslim social customs. They are mostly unaware of the true ideology of Islam, because this ideology is written in the Kuran and the Hadith, both of which are most available and read in the Arabic language. Indian muslims generally do not know the gory details of what is written there. So the average Indian muslim still retains the Hindu world view of his forefathers, but has adopted Islam superficially.

Islamization of non-arabs is always a two step process:
1. First, people are made to give up their original faith, and outwardly adopt the Muslim social code. Superficial things like "pray at a mosque, not temple" and so on.
2. Then, over centuries, movements such as the Tablighi-Jamaat work on these converts and make them "true muslims". A large part of the Tablighi-Jamaat's activity consists of identifying "Hindu influences" in Indian Muslims and asking them to shed these and move towards true Islam. The motto of the Tablighi-Jamaat tells the entire story - it is "Aye musalmaanon, musalmaan bano" (Oh Muslims, be [true] Muslims).

Now the Tablighi-Jamaat is very active in India, but it still has not touched many Muslims, who continue to be essentially muslims in name only, but with Hindu world views. Note that this may even be true of outwardly "devout" Indian Muslims. There are many stories of Indian Hafizes (in Islam, a Hafiz is one who can recite the Kuran from memory - he is called a Hafiz because in a sense he is "safeguarding" the Kuran from being corrupted by memorizing it) who could recite the Kuran but did not know the meaning of even one line! Remember that in Islamic tradition, the Kuran is supposed to be recited in Arabic alone, and translations are frowned upon. So many Indian Muslims have heard Kuranic verses all their lives, but do not know what they mean!

In Indonesia, they actually have a name for Muslims who retain their Hindu-Buddhist religious identities alongside their Islamic ones - they are known as Abangan. Abangan recognize their Hindu heritage, are proud of it, and have combined it with their Islamic present. The result is a society that tends to stay away from the problematic components of Islam. Indian Muslims, for the most, are similar.

A beautiful example of such Indian "Abangan muslims" is Shabbir Khan, who adopted a Hindu girl 18 years ago, raised her Hindu, and married her last week to a Hindu man. Here is the story.

Now Shabbir Khan, the father of Rakhi, obviously is not following Islam. Islam treats Hindus as "kufr". For a true muslim to have Hindu idols at home, and raise his daughter Hindu would be great Kufr, punishable by eternal hellfire. Obviously Shabbir Khan is not following Islam. But he would claim he is a Muslim. Hence my point - not all nominal Muslims follow Islam. And even if they did, we should not hate them, because they are human beings too, and also because hatred is not a good thing, period. Our fight is with the ideology of Islam. Islam as an ideology is what I have serious objections to.

There is still another viewpoint that argues for not harbouring any ill-will towards Indian muslims, and this is often found in literature written by the more principled factions of the Hindu movement. It is this: India's muslims are our very own brothers and sisters. They have been converted to Islam by the sword, but that does not make them any less our own. If our brother were to temporarily desert his home, would he not still remain our brother? In this viewpoint, Indian Muslims are just Hindus in exile. We have not lost our love and brotherhood for them. Most Indian Muslims are somewhere between Hindu Dharma and pure Islam. We should not make the mistake of thinking "a muslim is a muslim - be he from Saudi Arabia or India." Most Saudi Muslims are (a) aware of true Islam and (b) follow it to some extent. Many Indian Muslims are simply unaware of true Islam.

I can honestly say that I do not harbour any ill-will towards India's Muslims. My problem is with the ideology of Islam, and those that follow it. Such people may be called Islamists, practising Muslims, or whatever. I am always cognizant that a majority of India's Muslims do not follow Islam. I have nothing but love and sympathy for them. They are our own people, forced out of Hindu Dharma by the sword.

Van Gogh, Taslima, and Wilders - Why Islam reacts the way it does

2009-02-25T03:00:00.017+05:30

(This article is in honour of Taslima Nasreen - a fearless warrior for freedom. Taslima currently lives in hiding, in an undisclosed location in Europe, for daring to speak out about the plight of women in Islam, and the genocide of Hindus in Bangladesh. I salute you, Madam. )

Taslima Nasreen had, for years, been calling attention to Islam's treatment of women and Hindus in her native Bangladesh. Fear for her safety from Bangladeshi Islamists had forced her to move to India. The following sequence of events unfolded in India over the past two years, as Indian Islamists tried to throttle her intrepid voice calling for greater introspection in Islam:

In March 2007, the "All India Ittehad Millat Council" of Bareilly U.P. offered 500,000 rupees for her beheading. The group's president, Tauqir Raza Khan, said the only way the bounty would be lifted was if Nasreen "apologises, burns her books and leaves."

On August 9, 2007, Taslima was attacked at the Hyderabad Press Club in the state of Andhra Pradesh. Three elected members of the state legistlative assembly (MLAs) of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) party were among the 100 male protesters who physically attacked her for her "criticism of Islam." Akbaruddin Owaisi, also an MLA and MIM floor leader in the state assembly, justified the attacks by saying, "We are Muslims first. And it's our responsibility to test those who have said anything against Islam in whichever way possible." Ahmad Pasha Quadri, one of the lawmakers, said: "Our protest is against Taslima Nasreen because of her writings ridiculing Islam."

Following this attack, Taslima was put under house arrest in West Bengal, from where she left for Delhi were the government kept her in safe custody in an undisclosed location. Following further protest, she was finally expelled from India on 15 October 2008. India, a country that is 82% Hindu, spinelessly buckled to Islamic pressure and expelled a fearless crusader for (non-existent) women's rights in Islam.

(Theo Van Gogh - murdered for criticizing Islam. He said to his Islamist murderer "You don't have to do this...We can talk ...")

Half a world away, in the Netherlands, Mohammed Bouyeri - a practising muslim - followed his religion's diktats and murdered Theo Van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam on 2nd October 2004. Van Gogh's crime? He dared to criticize Islam's treatment of women in a 10 minute movie called Submission.

Once again in the Netherlands, showing spineless dhimmitude and bowing to the threats of Islam, the dutch government is threatening to put Geert Wilders in jail for his movie called Fitna, which examines the relationship between terror and verses in the Kuran which clearly exhort Muslims to commit acts of violence upon Kafirs.

Three fearless intellectuals. Two spineless Governments. One religion - Islam.

In this post, I will show that Islam's stipulated punishment for criticizing Muhammad is death. I will inspect Islamic canon on punishments, and produce the relevant Hadith. The purpose of this post is to show readers that Theo Van Gogh's murderer was acting entirely in accordance with Islamic law when he stabbed Van Gogh. The repeated threats by Islamists to kill Taslima and Wilders is entirely in accordance with Islamic law on this issue. So let us examine Islamic law as it pertains to those who dare to speak out against Muhammad or his creed - Islam.

The Islamic canon on punishments is partly revealed in one of the 4 canonical Hadith (traditions of Muhammed) called Sunan Abu-Dawud. The Sunan Abu-Dawud has an entire chapter called "Punishments" which deals with this subject. Here are the two ahadith that are relevant to the case of some one criticizing Muhammad. In both cases, women are murdered for the mere act of abusing Muhammad.

Hadith Sunan Abu-Dawud. Punishments 4348

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

Let ue understand the Hadith above. A man had a slave-mother (a slave who performs the role of a nanny). This lady disparaged Muhammad inspite of being warned not to by her Muslim owner. She was also pregnant. That did not stop the Muslim from stabbing her in her stomach, even as her baby came out from between her legs (presumably the baby died too). The next day Muhammad heard of this, and declared that the murder was alright - there would be no punishment for it.

The interpretation of this Hadith is straightforward, and consequently all schools of Islam agree that this means that people who disparage Muhammad deserve to be killed.

Here is the very next Hadith which reinforces this. Another woman is murdered for abusing Muhammad.

Hadith Sunan Abu-Dawud. Punishments 4349

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.

Once again, Muhammad declares that there will be no punishment for this murder.

There are other Hadith where Muhammad explicitly orders his followers to murder women who have been abusing him (and nothing more - their fault is only that they do not take his claims to being a Prophet seriously, and disparage him). In the Sira (the biography of Muhammad), there is a scene where a Meccan who had expressed doubts about Muhammad's claims to Prophethood is brought in front of him. A sword is put to his neck, and Muhammad asks him "Do you still doubt that I am the apostle of Allah?" The Meccan, sensing that his head is about to be chopped off, emphatically says "No, I do not"! This is how Islam spread.

Now, all of this is obviously very disturbing. How can a man who behaves this way, especially towards women, be considered a Prophet by 1.2 billion people. One reason is that a vast majority of these 1.2 billion have never read the Hadith. Till relatively late, translations of the Hadith were inaccessible to most muslims. Non-arab muslims, even devout ones who had memorized the Kuran, often did not know its meaning. Thus they lived in a world of delusion - one where their Prophet was a very "kind man" who "loved even those who abused him." But the Hadith mention no such thing. They portray a man who was extremely intolerant and violent towards anyone who so much as doubted his claims to prophethood.

These ahadith form the basis of Islamic laws such as the Tauheen-e-Rasool ("Insulting the Prophet") law of Pakistan which gives the death penalty to anyone who is found disparaging Muhammad. It is a convenient law - if you want the property, or wish to get even with one of the minority Hindus or Christians, simply say "He was insulting the Prophet." Then it is the muslim's word against the Hindu or Christian's. But here is the clincher - Islam gives only half the weight to the testimony of a Hindu or Christian as it does to that of a muslim. Muslim wins, Hindu or Christian hangs (or more likely, is lynched by an angry muslim mob just returning from a hateful sermon at the Friday prayers). End of Story. Islam wins, as always, through violence.

It is up to the free world to stand up to Islam's bullying. We have had enough. I repeat, we have had enough. We reject the double standards Islam imposes on us. The world demands that Islam be subjected to the same scrutiny that all other ideologies before it have. It can no longer escape this scrutiny by brandishing its blood soaked sword.

I end by expressing my support for a man who needs, and deserves, our support. On behalf of the Hindus of India,

(Banner courtesy Gates of Vienna).

Why Islam can never accept Democracy and Secularism

2009-02-24T09:43:00.007+05:30

It is an easy observation to make that muslim societies tend to reject both democracy and secularism. Out of 55 muslim nations, only two - Turkey and Indonesia - are democracies, and both are very fragile as far as democracies go. And both are democracies in spite of Islam, for very different reasons. In both cases, a powerful anti-Islamic influence is at play that prevents their slide into Islamic theocracy. Turkey was modernized by the anti-Islamic Kemal Ataturk, and Indonesian muslms still retain their pre-Islamic Hindu-Buddhist beliefs in a hybrid belief system called Abangan. As orthodox Islam grows in Indonesia, so do the calls for an Islamic theocracy grow ever louder.

Most of the above is known. What prompted me to write this article is that it is relatively rare for people to know the reason WHY Islam does not co-exist well with democracy. The reason is actually very simple and more people should be made aware of it.

The reason is simple - there is no democracy or secularism in the Kuran or the Sunnah (traditions of Muhammad as recorded in the Hadith)! Islam is based on the non-negotiable premise that the Kuran and the Sunnah will form the basis of Islamic life for all times to come. So anything that is not in the Kuran and Hadith can never be countenanced by Islam unless it is something that is relatively insignificant and not inimical to any normative principles of Islam. And the form of government, and tolerance towards other religions are not insignificant ideas, and they are directly at odds with all the normative principles of government as stated and practised by Muhammad. The Kuran and Sunnah of Muhammad are clear about the form of government that Allah demands - a theocratic state where people don't have rights - they only have the obligation to follow Allah's law (aka Shari'a). The Kuran and Sunnah set in stone, once and for all, the kind of government that shall rule Islamic societies. It is to be an Emirate, under a single ruler who is also the religious head of state, imposes Shari'a law, is not elected, and appoints his successor.

It is that simple. The Kuran and Hadith don't mention democracy or secularism. Muhammad was not an elected leader of muslims, nor were his successors. Muhammad appointed his successor. Since anything that Muhammad does becomes normative for muslims, it follows that in a muslim state, succession is not by elections, but by being chosen as the successor by the previous leader. Similarly, Muhammad did not run a secular state. He personally murdered the Arab Pagans, entire tribes of Jews, and stated that he wanted to cleanse the arabian peninsula of all Jews and Christians. Again, that is normative for all muslims, for all times to come. This explains why muslims constantly demand an Islamic state which they refuse to share with the hated Kuffar.

I hope that readers, after reading this post, will realize that Islam can NEVER accept Democracy and Secularism. This is not a temporary phenomenon, or a purely statistical observation. It is firmly rooted in Islam's theology. Anything not in the Kuran and Sunnah is, by definition, "un-Islamic." Democracy and Secularism are, therefore, un-Islamic.

I end with a quote from Sufi Muhammad - the leader of the Pakistani Taliban that has recently imposed Shari'a law in Pakistan's Swat province:

Lahore: After inking a deal with the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) government for implementation of Islamic law in the Swat Valley, the Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat Muhammadi (TNSM) chief Sufi Muhammad, has expressed his desire of implementation of a similar law over the whole world.

Expressing his hatred for people’s rule, Muhammad said Islam does not have any mention of democracy or elections.

“From the very beginning, I have viewed democracy as a system imposed on us by the infidels. Islam does not allow democracy or elections,” ‘The Daily Times’ quoted Muhammad, as saying.

The Mumbai attackers were doing their religious duty

2009-02-22T10:17:00.005+05:30

(A Mumbai policeman treats a young victim of Jihad. You may have to reload the page for the image.)

To understand Islamists, who are basically practising muslims who take what is written in the Kuran and Hadith seriously, we must understand the world through their eyes. Why do they want to kill us? Well, quite simply, because that is what Islam instructs them to do.

In Islam, there are two types of obligations:
1. Fard Kiffaya, meaning communal obligation. This is an obligation that a community of muslims, as a whole, must fulfill, otherwise it displeases Allah. In particular, a muslim state (such as Pakistan, in this case), would be obliged to perform its Fard Kiffaya.

2. Fard Ayn, meaning individual obligation. This is an obligation that each muslim must fulfill, where ever he lives.

Now, as per Islam, Jihad to terrorise Kafirs who are not bothering you in any way, is Fard Kiffaya. While Jihad against Kafirs who have invaded muslim lands is Fard Ayn. I am quoting from a very influential Islamist writing - Defence of muslim lands, by Abdullah Azzam - one of the most famous of Mujahideen in Afghanistan:

Jihad Against the Kuffar is of two Types:

Offensive Jihad (where the enemy is attacked in his own territory).

Where the Kuffar are not gathering to fight the Muslims. The fighting becomes Fard Kifaya with the minimum requirement of appointing believers to guard borders, and the sending of an army at least once a year to terrorise the enemies of Allah. It is a duty of the Imam to assemble and send out an army unit into the land of war once or twice every year. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the Muslim population to assist him, and if he does not send an army he is in sin.- And the Ulama have mentioned that this type of jihad is for maintaining the payment of Jizya. The scholars of the principles of religion have also said: " Jihad is Daw'ah with a force, and is obligatory to perform with all available capabilities, until there remains only Muslims or people who submit to Islam."

Defensive Jihad

This is expelling the Kuffar from our land, and it is Fard Ayn, a compulsory duty upon all. It is the most important of all the compulsory duties and arises in the following conditions:

1) If the Kuffar enter a land of the Muslims.

2) If the rows meet in battle and they begin to approach each other.

3) If the Imam calls a person or a people to march forward then they must march.

4) If the Kuffar capture and imprison a group of Muslims.

Now, the Jihad that is relevant to the Mumbai Attacks is the offensive Jihad - the Fard Kiffaya. Note that it is a religious obligation upon a muslim state to "send out armies once or twice a year to terrorize the kuffar (infidels)." That is exactly what Pakistan does - we Hindus are hit at least twice a year with a big terror attack, and almost every month with a significant terror attack. This is exactly how Islam says neighboring Kafirs must be treated, even if they do not bother you in any way. This of course follows the example of Muhammad, who himself led about 80 raids on Meccan caravans after he had moved to Medina and the Meccans had nothing more to do with him, and simply wanted to continue their trade as they had done for centuries.

So how effective has this constant harassment of Hindus, in accordance with Islamic teachings, been?
I quote the Times of India on how much India has been bled over these past years:

In fact, India has since 2004 lost more lives to terrorist incidents than all of North America, South America, Central America, Europe and Eurasia put together. All of these vast swathes of the globe lost a total of 3,280 lives in terrorist incidents between January 2004 and March this year. India alone lost 3,674 lives over the same period of three years and three months.

Remember that the Pakistani army and ISI are both headed by Islamists since the time of General Zia-ul-Haq. Hamid Gul, the former head of the ISI, says quite emphatically

"I am an Islamist. Islam is the final destiny of mankind... Islam is everything that man needs."

Islamists take their Fard Kiffaya very seriously. They are only following their religion. It is absolutely stupid of us to expect that any sort of treaty will change things. Solve Kashmir, but the Fard Kiffaya to terrorize Kafirs at least twice a year still remains. This is how the masterminds of Jihad think.

The footsoldiers of Islam - the actual terrorists who carry out these attacks devised by the masterminds - are total believers in this doctrine. As Amir Qasab - the lone terrorist captured by Mumbai police - said, he had been told that the faces of Jihadis glow after their death as Allah is extremely pleased with them. It is only when he was shown the faces of his dead comrades (not glowing, of course), he realized that this is not the bargain he had sought.

Let us understand how these people think. Then we are in a better position to deal with the threat. Here is what I would like readers to understand - these people will continue to try to kill us for no reason other than that we are Kafir Hindus, because that is their religious obligation.

The absurdity of Pakistan, and why it is not amusing

2009-02-21T22:50:00.008+05:30

Here is an interview with the former ISI chief Hamid Gul, given to Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, where he says that 9/11 was an "inside job", and America essentially staged an event in order to get a pretext to gain control over the muslim world.

Now, why is this significant? Why can't we simply dismiss this sort of thing as the rantings of a deluded person? Why should we care when Pakistanis say things like this, which they do all the time? Why should be be bothered when their leading "defence analyst" (Zaid Hamid) says the day after the Mumbai attacks that "India tried to pull off a 9/11 like event, for the same reasons that America staged 9/11, but being very stupid they could not stage it as well as the Americans."

A couple of reasons. First of all, Hamid Gul (or Zaid Hamid) is not just any Pakistani. Gul was, at some point, one of the most powerful and important men in Pakistan, and continues to be very influential. When a man in his position makes such ridiculous statements, it really points to something very deeply flawed in a country. Responsible (or even sane) people do not make such statements. When a man who had the entire apparatus of the ISI under his control harbors such thoughts, it is very dangerous for everyone. What were his orders to the ISI during the time he was in charge? He is a self-confessed Islamist. He feels Islam should be the basis of the world order:

"I am an Islamist. Islam is the final destiny of mankind. Islam is moderate, Islam is progressive. Islam is everything that man needs. It is not necessary to become a Muslim but it is necessary to adopt the principles of Islam."
- Hamid Gul, in an interview to Rediff

Now what does Islam say about Kafir neighbors like Hindus in India? It says "attack them ceaselessly, kill them." What does the ISI do on a daily basis? It obeys Kuranic orders to the word in this regard.

Gul also employs classical Islamic deception (Taquiya) by saying that Islam is "moderate and progressive". Does he really believe this? Of course not; after all, Gul was almost always the Pakistani government's man at the jirgas (meetings) of the Taliban. So he knows that Islam is anything but moderate and progressive. Such deception is a central part of the Islamic doctrine of Jihad. The Kafirs must never be able to fully understand the Islamic mind, until it is too late and the Islamic sword is right at their neck (just where the Islamists want it).

Let's talk about 9/11. It is known that a majority of the Islamic world believes that 9/11 was some kind of inside job, or done by the Jews, or some such. The rest feel that the perpetrators were heroes. When a civilization of 1.2 billion thinks this way, it is a serious threat to the rest of mankind. Pakistan is one extreme manifestation of this threat. It is almost certainly the greatest source of terror and instability in the world today. It seems to be a country that has slid en masse into a kind of thinking that would be very amusing had it not been so very dangerous. Pakistan is not a toothless entity. It is a nuclear power with a powerful military. Leaders in such states should exhibit a great deal more intelligence, wisdom, and restraint than we associate with Pakistani leaders.

Pakistan's national intelligence seems to be seriously underdeveloped. Pakistan has adopted the highly convenient Islamic "Us Muslims versus all the Kafirs" thinking at its highest echelons, and that is seriously disturbing. How much longer before such Islamist thinking results in a nuclear bomb going off in some Kafir territory? After all, as per Islam, the lands of the Kafirs are called "Dar-ul-Harb" (land of war), meaning that Islam makes it an obligation upon muslims to continually wage war upon Kafirs with every means at their disposal. How long before some Islamist general takes the "every means at their disposal" clause in the Kuran to include Nuclear weapons? Hamid Gul certainly does. In another video that I will post soon, he threatens to blow up Bangalore - India's silicon valley - into a nuclear cloud. This is the kind of thinking at the very top of the Pakistani establishment.

The world must stop Pakistan before it is too late.

Something wicked this way comes...

2009-02-21T10:33:00.015+05:30

In 1000AD, a storm was brewing at the Western gates of Hindu civilization. This storm, in the form of Mahmud of Ghazni, hit India with such gale force that to this day this civilization has not entirely recovered from it. For instance, when one traces the roots of Swat's descent into Shari'a today, we have to go back to this invasion by Mahmud. Till Mahmud came, Swat was a cradle of Hindu-Buddhist high culture. Today, it is a place where women are treated like animals and Islam has taken over.

Today, a lot of land and time has been lost to Islam. What were once the glorious civilizations of Gandhara and Uddiyana, are today both under Taliban rule. The gates of our civilization have been moved further east. Islam has taken over all our Western provinces. The beautiful art and sculpture of Gandhara and Uddiyana - these are lost even to the memory of the Hindu civilization and only those that spend their evenings in libraries know of that tragic tale.

So what is the storm brewing at our gates today? My own belief is that it is the Pakistani Taliban. Today, the Pakistani Taliban have taken over Swat. This is significant because for the first time the Taliban control lands to the east of the tribal provinces where they have always had free reign. They are moving closer to our border (and closer to Pakistan's capital). And anyone who thinks Swat is anything but one more milestone in the roadmap to Islamize the subcontinent really needs to see a psychiatrist. The Pakistani Taliban have been good enough to tell us this themselves:

Lahore: After inking a deal with the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) government for implementation of Islamic law in the Swat Valley, the Tehreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat Muhammadi (TNSM) chief Sufi Muhammad, has expressed his desire of implementation of a similar law over the whole world.

Expressing his hatred for people’s rule, Muhammad said Islam does not have any mention of democracy or elections.

“From the very beginning, I have viewed democracy as a system imposed on us by the infidels. Islam does not allow democracy or elections,” ‘The Daily Times’ quoted Muhammad, as saying.

As the BJP spokesman observed yesterday, the Taliban are a mere 5 hours drive from Delhi. This is serious. And yet there has been very little analysis in the mainstream Indian media discussing this serious threat. Instead, our attention is deliberately focussed on non-issues like a few people pushing people around outside pubs in Bangalore. Contrast this to US mainstream media - all the major networks seem to have carried news items underscoring the threat posed by the Pakistani capitulation to the Taliban in Swat:

(Video from CNN about Shari'a law in Swat. Courtesy IndianMediaZoom, who has many other great videos uploaded).

This post is about two articles (the only two, to my knowledge as of this posting) that have appeared in the past two days. Both written by true nationalists.

(Retd) Col. Anil Athale, always someone who writes on real issues, has this article on the threat of the Pakistani Taliban on rediff. Here is a slightly shortened version:

Barbarians at the gate, are we ready?
rediff | February 19, 2009 | Colonel Anil Athale (retd)

The recent surrender by the Pakistani State to the Taliban [Images] in the Swat valley may well turn out to be a watershed in the history of the Indian subcontinent. In terms of long-term impact, this may even overshadow the recent Mumbai [Images] massacres. All signs point to the 'Talibanisation' of Pakistan. Here are several pointers:

...

* We have the example of Iran -- on February 11, 1979, when the mass upsurge to impose 'Islamic rule' reached its zenith, the Iranian army declared its 'neutrality' in the ongoing conflict. This sealed the fate of the Shah of Iran. A similar happening in Pakistan is very likely.

* Slumdog Jihadis: The Dawn on December 18, 2008, quoted the Pakistan Planning Commission's Deputy Chairman Sardar Asef Ahmad Ali that poverty had skyrocketed to above 40 per cent in the country, leaving millions helpless. It is these poor/unemployed/uneducated people that are cannon fodder for the jihadis. The interrogation of the lone surviving Mumbai terrorist Ajmal Kasab's [Images] story fits the bill. There are such 48 million Ajmals waiting in Pakistan to be primed against India.

As a student of military history, I found it extraordinary that Indians were always blissfully unaware of developments in their neighbourhood. No ruler of Delhi [Images] ever woke up when the enemy crossed the Khyber Pass. The first stirrings of action were usually when the enemy was at the gates, at Panipat, just a day's march from Delhi.

Indians have been made to totally forget the holocaust that they faced in past; the name Hindukush itself means 'Hindu killer', a reminder of the days when thousands of Indians died on the mountain slopes while being taken to Central Asia as slaves.(the Encyclopaedia Britannica quoting a 12th century traveller Ibn Batua).

Nearer our times, the 1981 UN declaration of Universal Human Rights writes; 'Among the genocides of human history, the highest number of people killed in the small span of time is in Bangladesh in 1971. An average of 6,000 to 12 000 people were killed every single day. This is the highest daily average in history.' The lower estimate shows that 15 lakh were killed, a majority of them Hindus. A commission of inquiry appointed by the Pakistan government, the Hamidoor Rehman Commission, has recorded testimonies of Pakistani army officers who have quoted General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi asking the question 'How many Hindus have you killed today?' as a matter of routine. We have forgotten this recent episode as well.

Demography is destiny

Pakistan has a very high rate of population growth...

The other article appears in The Daily Pioneer, India's only nationalist English language daily, and the only one I trust anymore with serious analysis. It boasts a star cast of nationalist writers,
including names such as Kanchan Gupta, Chandan Mitra, Sandhya Jain, KPS Gill, MJ Akbar, etc. Here is an article written by Senior Editor Udayan Namboodiri that appears today. I have only reproduced the first and last paragraphs.

Five hours’ drive to doom

Udayan Namboodiri
Daily Pioneer
Taliban country is not just a politico-geographic space, but an organism moving fast to overwhelm India with terror, infiltration and economic ruin

....

The problem with the Congress party's foreign affairs think tankers –– who, given the present political outlook seem certain to dominate for at least five more years –– is that too often day-dreamers take the upper hand. The crisis that afflicts Pakistan today should not be seen as just an internal affair of Pakistan. India must recognise that the Talibanisation of Pakistan is already happening and once Islamabad itself is headed by a mullah, the very existence of India will be threatened.

New York's Shari'a appetizer

2009-02-21T08:57:00.005+05:30

(Aassiya Hassan - beheaded by her husband for seeking a divorce. Picture courtesy TROP)
Last week, two incidents that happened in New York had a common theme - Islamic Shari'a law. Shari'a is the law of Islam, based on the Kuran and the Hadith. Here are the two incidents.

The beheading of Aassiya Hassan by her husband - Pakistani muslim Muzzammil Hassan. Both of them co-founded the "moderate Islamic" Bridges TV that was supposed to "counter negative stereotypes of muslims in America." I guess Muzzammil forgot that this stereotype prominently includes the fact that practising muslims have a strange predilection towards beheading others, mostly Kafirs.

Now, as Abul Kasem (one of the contributors to the book "Why we left Islam", has pointed out in this interview, what Muzzammil did is exactly in accordance with Islam. Islam insists that God has created man superior to woman, and essentially owns her. A woman is his property, and a property has very few rights. In Islam a man may divorce his property by simply saying "I divorce you" thrice, but the woman cannot escape an abusive husband because Islam does not grant women the right to divorce.

The Kuran also says that women must be beaten if they misbehave. And that is where the second Shari'a appetizer comes in. Mohammed Fagirad - an Afghan diplomat - beat his wife for a full 15 hours, and said "she was a dog and I will treat her like a dog." Here is an excerpt from the report:

At one point, prosecutors said, Fagirad threw his wife up against a wall, held her there by the neck and then let her drop to the floor, where he beat her with a belt.

Fagirad told police his "wife was a dog and he was going to treat her like a dog," prosecutors said.

To understand both of these tragic events, we must understand one thing very very clearly. Islam is a male religion. Women are the possessions of men. When they are Kafir women, they become part of "War booty" that Jihadi muslims can acquire upon defeating Kafirs. War booty is nothing but the property of the defeated Kafirs, and Kafir women are like any other property, from Islam's point of view. When Islam defeats the Kuffar, this property becomes the property of muslim men. Just like any other inanimate property. Islam is very clear that captured women become sexual property of their new muslim owners. Once again, this is not my interpretation, but something all schools of Islamic law agree upon. You can read a Hadith on the rape of captured Kafir women in the presence of Muhammad here

Within Islam, the woman has one function alone - as a sexual organ. Indeed, Islam says all of woman is "Awra" which means "private part/genitalia/object of shame" in arabic. This is not my interpretation, but is explicitly stated in various Islamic law books, such as Hedaya (the lawbook of the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam).

I want to end this article with a request to my readers. Fight Islam. Fight Islam because it is the right thing to do. Islam reduces women to the status of property - inanimate sexual objects. It is not wrong to fight this ideology. On the contrary, it is very unethical to silently watch this ideology subjugate and degrade women. I also request all of you to see muslims as fellow human beings. They are the biggest victims of Islam. Please treat them with compassion. My own observation is that a vast majority of muslims are unaware of what is written in the Kuran and Hadith. Many would leave Islam if they only knew. Our job is to simply show them what is written, and let their conscience guide them.

Ahadith on killing those who leave Islam

2009-02-21T08:30:00.003+05:30

(Muslim apostates being hanged. Courtesy shariaalert.com)

Islam is very clear on what is to be done to those who leave Islam (i.e., apostates). They must be killed. Every single school and scholar of Islam agrees on this issue. This principle is inviolable since, like almost all of Islam, it can be traced back to Muhammad.

Here are two ahadith (plural of Hadith) which talk of Muhammad's death sentence on those who left Islam. Both are from the Hadith collection that almost all muslims rank the highest of the six canonical Hadith collections - Hadith Sahih Bukhari.

Hadith Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated 'Ikrima:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

The next Hadith is even more interesting because it clarifies Islam's position on those people who simply chose to revert back to their original faith. In the following Hadith, a Jew who had temporarily converted to Islam (perhaps under duress) and chose to return to his original religion, is killed.

Hadith Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:
Narrated Abu Burda:

Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this man?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"

There is absolutely no dissension within Islam on this issue. It was a little surprising to me that one of the things about the program "Undercover mosque" that shocked viewers was that the Islamic teacher instructed her students thus:

"What do we do if someone leaves Islam? We kill him. Kill him."

This is not surprising - it is simply the law of Islam, and something all muslim schools agree upon.

Islam is a one-way street. You can (and everyone eventually must, on pain of death) enter Islam.

But you can't ever leave.

PS: Sounds very much like Islamic marriages from the male point of view. The male is free to divorce his wife by simply repeating "I divorce you" thrice. But if the woman tries to leave her abusive husband, she is beheaded.

Swat's descent into darkness: The tragedy of Mahmud's destruction of Uddiyana

2009-02-20T08:45:00.007+05:30

(A girl's school in Swat burnt down by the Taliban. Courtesy CBS. Mahmud of Ghazni forcibly converted Hindu-Buddhist Swat to Islam in 1000AD. He too burnt down schools and all the "Kufr" books he could find. Islam hates freedom of thought (maybe because it makes Islam look bad?))

Swat has been in the news lately. The Pakistan government has reached an agreement with the Pakistani Taliban which will impose Shari'a law on Swat. Girls' schools will be closed. Women will be placed in full body burkhas. It will be an Islamic district, where women will be beaten in public and reduced to the status of animals.

Civilizationally, Swat has reached the darkest abyss (read 7th century Arabia) from which it will be very hard to extricate it.

Yet how many know that in days long past, this area was known for its high culture - art, philosophy, and spirituality. As one of the western provinces of the Hindu-Buddhist civilization of India, it had reached a high level of culture that drew visitors from far away.

I had been thinking of doing a story on how Swat went from being a cradle of Hindu-Buddhist civilization to the depths of Islamic darkness. I was collecting sources, and found a source (the Dharma Fellowship ) that writes the story better than I could, so I am simply reproducing it below in a slightly shortened form. Read on..

A long time ago, in the far northwest corner of Old India, there once was a verdant and splendid Kingdom, inhabited by a gentle and cultured race of people. Surrounded by high, rugged mountain peaks, the broad valleys of this Kingdom fostered fertile farms and bustling towns. Frequently the traveler could see, nestled in quiet vales, here and there throughout the land, the golden pagoda roofs of whitewashed temples and monasteries, where learned sages treasured wondrous archives of hand scripted books recording mankind's accumulated knowledge. Here too could be found the pleasant sanctuaries of gracious ladies of wisdom, the convents and forest chapels of a unique sisterhood-priestesses, prophetesses (name them as you will, there does not appear to be a proper English term for a wise woman of religion who need not be a nun) dedicated to knowledge and the science of harmonious spiritual development.

Here and there, in ages long gone, industrious men had raised towering white cenotaphs, with golden spires; those pyramidal monuments known in the East as Stupas, which honour the remains of some particularly renowned saint. In the towns of this magical Kingdom, merchants plied their ceaseless trade, displaying all the riches of greater Asia: the finest coloured silks from far off China, the softest kashmere from Kinnaur, lustrous golden ware from the matriarchy of Suvarnadwipa, rubies and emeralds from southern India and Ceylon, gleaming white pearls from the legendary island of Bahrain, delicate copper work from the craft shops of the Himalaya, orange coloured saffron from nearby Kashmir, subtle spices from Indonesia, and finely wrought sandalwood carvings from Nepal. From Persia came inlay and fine jewelry and poetry. From Bactria they imported skilled doctors and medicine and lapis lazuli and Greek knowledge from yet further west. This was a wealthy land.

This was the ancient Kingdom of Uddiyana; so beautiful a Kingdom, that its very name means "the royal garden" (from the Skt: udyana). With cascading pure rivers splashing down from ice-bound lakes high in the snowy peaks beyond, and quiet pools stocked with fish, with lush meadows, in raiment of every variety of wildflower, Uddiyana truly seemed a paradise on earth. No wonder people from far and wide spoke of it as a magical place, the hidden flower garden of the wise and compassionate Lord Buddha.

We today are able to gain a fairly vivid picture of the ancient Kingdom of Uddiyana, because in the year 630 A.D., a renowned heroic Chinese Buddhist pilgrim, known by the name of Huen Tsiang, passed through the heart of Uddiyana on his way to India. Thankfully, he left behind him a brief but clear description of the now lost Kingdom's geography, culture and people. Huen Tsiang describes Uddiyana as a country bounded by snow capped peaks; a land of rugged mountains and broad valleys, of wide marshes, green meadows and high plateau, where grapes grow in abundance. He describes a land blessed by fine crops, by herds of well fattened cattle, and teeming with orchards of fruit-bearing trees—truly a nation of milk, bread, honey and wine.

Uddiyana is a land, said Huen Tsiang, that is rich in gold and iron and other profitable minerals. Throughout the year the temperature is never too hot nor too cold. It is thus, he said, a most agreeable land. The hillsides are covered in dense forests and the valleys are rich in flowers.

The people of Uddiyana, according to Huen Tsiang, were gentle, soft and effeminate. In our imagination he conjures a scene of healthy, tanned people, mostly clothed in pure white cotton. The men have white turbans, the women soft flowing saris, also white. These are a gentle, happy people, rarely endangered by war or calamity. They are a society appreciative of fine culture, and they are all, reported Huen Tsiang, great lovers of learning.

The usage of mantra recitation seems to have been Huen Tsiang's sole criticism of these people. And whether "addicted to reciting charms" or not, Huen Tsiang also perceived how devoutly "all the people greatly reverenced the profound teachings of the Buddha."

Where is the location of the magical lost Kingdom of Uddiyana today? It is to be found amongst the rugged mountains of northern Pakistan, and consists of the high valleys of Swat, Dir, Pangkora, Bunir, Bijawar, and Chitral. Indeed, the Swat Valley and these other districts still have a garden like quality. A vivid scattering of flowers are seen everywhere, and the great clear rivers still pour forth their bountiful waters, as in the past. Vast broad valleys, bounded as ever by their magnificent mountains, continue to support a happy and hospitable people.

Swat is the long valley in the mountainous territory north of Peshawar, through which the Swat River cascades southwards, descending from the Hindu Kush mountains of the north. The Greek conqueror Alexander the Great crossed the Swat River with his Army and did battle with the locals at Udegram, before making his way on into India. It was his successors who later merged Swat into the [Hindu-Buddhist]Mauryan Empire. Now the Swat Valley can be easily found on any map of Pakistan as a favoured stomping ground for ardent trekkers from Europe. And just as Huen Tsiang said thirteen hundred years ago, it is an idyllic land, never too hot nor too cold.

In a sense everything in Swat, Dir and Chitral has changed. The old glories of Uddiyana have gone. Even its remains have been largely erased by time and the careless destruction of man. In another sense nothing has changed. The people who once occupied these valleys are not so different than they were in the past. In fact the same race of northern Pakistani people who lived in Huen Tsiang's era, a people now known as Swatis, live there to this day, though they share their land with the dominant immigrant population of Yusufzai Pushtuns.

Unfortunately today, as a result of centuries of human occupation, the green forests described by Huen Tsiang are severely depleted. The landscape is browner than it once was. The people are poorer, the farmlands less fertile. This is largely due to the peculiar system of land tenure which came along with Islam, as a result of the Moslem Invasion when, now generations ago, the country was despoiled of its ancient treasures. Consequently the people, direct descendants though they may be of ancient Uddiyana, in Huen Tsiang's age, no longer enjoy their past bounties. With their glorious wealth, art and culture all gone, they must today scrape a less luxurious living from the ruined soil.

Before Huen Tsiang passed through the Kingdom of Uddiyana we know that the capital was a citadel up the neighbouring Indus River. However by the time Huen Tsiang arrived on the scene, he tells us that a new capital had been erected on the Swat River. This new capital was evidently where today stands the modern town of Mingora. In fact the very name "Mingora" can be traced directly back to the ancient site itself, which Huen Tsiang tells us was called Mangalakosha, the treasury of good blessings. Professor Foucher has found references to this capital city in a Nepali manuscript of the 9th century, which mentions that a Royal Temple dedicated to the Bodhisattva Vajrapani was located there.3

In ancient books we are also able to find mention of the long forgotten names of the various valleys or districts that once existed within the ancient Kingdom: names such as Hurmudzu, Rukma, Sikhadhara, Dhanakosa, etc. These various districts were apparently governed by vassal rajas or princes, under the overlordship of a single sovereign who is frequently referred to as great King Indrabhuti. This renowned king's name spans several generations, which tells us that more than one king of Uddiyana must have borne the same titular. We are also able to discover, by examining the Chinese Tang Annals, that one of these famous King Indrabhutis occupied the throne of Uddiyana in the year 642 A.D., just ten years after Huen Tsiang's visit.

The reason why the Kingdom of Uddiyana became a lost civilization is a sad one. In the 11th century the Moslem conqueror, Mahmud of Ghazni, raided up the Swat Valley and turned the beautiful garden of Uddiyana into a desolate wasteland. The whole culture of the Kingdom was destroyed for ever. The population was put to the sword, the children pressed into slavery, the women forced into the harems of the conqueror, the golden roofed Temples and all the ancient monasteries—all the old centers of learning—were sacked. The sisterhood of the ladies of wisdom disappeared, or dispersed. The scholarly monks were slain, the nuns raped, and every single book was thrown to the fire.

Thus vanished much of the lore of archaic ages: fragile paper texts and parchment scrolls penned in Sanskrit, archaic Kharosthi, Gandharan, Central Asian, old Greek, Bactrian, perhaps even Armenian scripts. Today nothing is left of the ancient glories other than nameless ruins. Swat, and Dir, and Chitral are now entirely Moslem territories. The people have forgotten their past.

After the terrible Mahmud, came the first Pashtuns, forcing the native Uddiyans (ancestors of the present Swatis) north and east. By the 15th century Yusufzai Pashtuns, driven in front of the Moghul invasion of Babur, poured into southern Swat, Dir and Mardan. With them came violent missionaries, forcing at the point of the sword any remaining unconverted Uddiyans to Islam.

We have crossed 15000 hits

2009-02-16T11:12:00.002+05:30

When I started this blog, it was mostly for cathartic effect. I had been studying Islam for a few years, and had been very disturbed by what Islam, as an ideology, promoted. After the Mumbai attacks, a lot of us were very upset. I was sitting with 3 friends at a tea shop in Bangalore when they suggested I write a blog. It wasn't a big deal at all - just a passing comment.

The blog now has over 15,000 hits. 15,000 more than I expected.

I thought I should drop all the readers a humble Thank You note. This is YOUR blog. I merely write for it. It is the readers who own a blog.

A sampler of what is coming up - I am working on excerpts from chronicles of Muslim historians describing the destruction of Hindu Dharma during the Islamic invasions. A few more insights into the Islamic doctrine of Jihad should be up soon as well.

Rape and Jihadi Romeos - Two faces of the sexual Jihad

2009-02-16T06:38:00.008+05:30

It is by now fairly common knowledge that when the muslim population rises in an area, the Kafir women of that area suddenly find themselves targetted for rape and other sexual violence. Statistics from Britain, Sweden, The Netherlands etc. suggest a far higher rate of rapes of non-muslim women by muslim men than would be suggested by the proportion of muslims in the population. Here is an assortment of headlines on Muslim men raping British women in mid-2008 alone:

Girl -14 -raped while out walking her dog

Man jailed for committing more rapes while on bail for rape

Sex Attack by mosque leader "Changed my girl" says Mum

Muslim man kidnaps 14 yr old school girl for sex

Muslim Men rape four British School Girls at Amusement Park

UK Muslim preacher jailed for rape

The Sydney gang rapes, committed by groups of muslim men upon Australian women, are still fresh in memory. The men taunted the women while raping them, saying that the women "deserved it" because they were not covered and staying at home as Islam commands women to do.

Now this phenomenon, already so pronounced with small muslim populations (The 2001 census showed the UK had 1.5 million muslims), evolves into something even more sinister as the muslim population rises. Women are kidnapped (they simply vanish in the vast network of "Islamic centers"), used to commit terrorist acts, and so on. Let us look at some such incidents in India in the past few months. First, a bit of historical and theological background.

The very first accounts of the muslim invasions of India, by Mohammed Bin Qasim in 712AD, talk in some detail about the women captured and sexually enslaved. Indeed, it is described as one of the major accomplishments of the subjugation of the Hindus.

The collective consciousness of Hindus has since those days known that Hindu women are targets of muslim men. At a psychological level, one may explain it thus: Islam covers its women in burkhas, and keeps them at home. Therefore, the freer Kafir woman becomes an object of lust in the mind of the muslim man. This is a fair explanation. However, there is another explanation that is more rooted in Islamic theology. You see, when Muhammad formulated his doctrine of permanent Jihad upon Kafirs, the carrot he dangled to his soldiers was "war booty." This meant the wealth and women of defeated Kafirs. Muhammed himself took a fifth of this war booty (known in arabic as "Khams") and distributed the rest among muslims. Read here for a Hadith describing the fate of captured Kafir women in the presence of Muhammad.

Back to today - the culture of sexual conquest of Kafir women is quite deeply ingrained in many Islamic societies that live alongside Kafir populations. In the Indian state of Kerala recently there have been a spate of suicides of Hindu girls who were trapped by Jihadi muslim romeos and then raped. Kerala has a Muslim population upwards of 25%, and large parts of the state are muslim majority. The Hindus form the majority, at about 45%, and there are about 25% Christians. Here are two recent reports from Kerala which reveal the modus operandi of what some have begun calling "The Jihadi Romeo":

Kozhikode: Intelligence agencies intensified the search for the missing Hindu girl who had converted into Islam. The girl who hails from Moovattupuzha in Ernakulam was one among few others who fell into the trap of Jihadis.

The Jihadi modus operandi to lure girls towards Islam is by [pretending to] fall in love with Hindu and Christian girls and there after convincing them about the importance of getting converted into Islam, if they want to lead a life together.

The girls in most cases bought up in a secular way of life are too naïve to understand the true nature of Islam and the motives of these Jihadi Romeos. After convincing them to convert, these girls are handed over to Mullahs in the Kozhikode conversion centre.

From there they are completely brainwashed and in most cases these girls are recruited for terrorist activities or projected as showpieces in Islamic seminars. These girls are also used to convince other girls to follow the path of Islam.

This gang of Jihadi Romeos most often target Hindu and Christian girls who are studying outside Kerala. Mangalore is one of the havens of these gangs. The aforementioned girl was studying Nursing in Mangalore when she fell into this trap. Now no one knows where she is and intelligence agencies suspect that she might be recruited for some terrorist mission.

More than 1000 teenage boys and girls were converted in Kozhikode and Ponnani Islamic conversion centres. When the girl was in this conversion entre, her Family members tried to rescue her but to the authorities haven’t allowed them to talk to her. By time Police got involved the girl was moved to some other safe hide out.

Here is another recent report following a suicide by a Hindu girl in similar circumstances:

Ongoing Sexual Jihad - One more Hindu girl ends her life
11/02/2009 14:46:09 HK

Mangalore: Sixteen year old Aswini Kulal is the recent victim of Sexual Jihad against Kafirs. Aswini Kulal who was raped by Abdul Salam ended her life on a piece of rope. Police arrested 26 year old Abdul Salam in connection with the suicide of this School girl.

Aswini was lured by Abdul Salam who raped her by taking her into his hideout in a hill top near Venoor. Three school girls consumed poison and ended their life in Alappuzha, Those responsible in that case were also Muslim youth. The surge of Jihadi Romeos in Mangalore and near by areas is not isolated incidents (As our Secular Pandits wish to believe) but bitter truth. We urge the secular parents once again to enlighten their daughters about these monsters lurking behind.

Kerala is also one of the two Indian states which is ruled by the Communists. The communists, as always the gravest danger to any nationalist idea, ensure that mainstream Kerala media outlets suppress this news. As elsewhere, the Islamists and the leftists are bedfellows. It is Hindu and Christian girls who pay the price for this alliance for the leftist media's insistence that there is nothing sinister and terrifying about Islam as an ideology.

Foreign observers of Hindu-Muslim relations in India have commented upon this aspect of the sexual Jihad. For instance, read Koenraad Elst's chapter entitled "Kafir women in the service of muslim demography" on Bharatvani. (I recommend Internet Explorer for Bharatvani - Firefox seems to misread some characters).

Remember, women are always Islam's first victims.

PS: I have a follow-up post to this, please read it here.

Some thoughts on "Undercover mosque"

2009-02-15T22:25:00.003+05:30

Most descriptions of the program "Undercover mosque" which aired on Dispatches (Channel 4), and can be seen here, begin thus:

Chilling undercover investigation into the influence of Saudi Arabian religious extremism throughout the UK. Despite being considered Britain's principal ally in the Middle East, this disturbing report reveals Saudi Arabian Islam - Wahabism - is spreading a message of bigotry and hatred to a section of Muslims and predicting an imminent jihad. An undercover reporter joins Islamic worshippers.

I have read all the canonical texts of Islam - and I can say that what is taught in these sermons leaves out some of the most objectionable teachings of Islam. Islam preaches continuous Jihad on Kafirs, and this does come out in these sermons. But Islam also recommends the enslavement of the Kafir populations after their defeat. This includes the sexual enslavement of the Kafir women. These sermons do not stress this, making them actually quite moderate.

And there is no such thing as "Saudi Arabian Islam." There is only one Islam - that which follows the Kuran and the Hadith. And everything that the clerics in this program preach is orthodox Islam. Sure, there are minor differences - Wahabism belongs to the Hanbali school which tends to be a little more literal in its interpretation, but the difference is MUCH smaller than the left would have you believe. For instance, 3 out of the 4 schools of Islam (not just the Hanbali) say that Hindus must be killed if they don't convert to Islam. The fourth school grudgingly gives Hindus the right to live (because there are too many to murder), with 18 strictures they must obey which will ensure their complete humiliation, subjugation, and eventual conversion. That is the most moderate Islam gets. Most of the murderous muslim monarchs of India were not of the Hanbali school. They still murdered millions of Hindus and demolished thousands of Hindu Temples. As I said, there is no "moderate Islam" any more than there is an El Dorado.

Nor is this teaching typical only of "Wahabi mosques." This is the kind of teaching coming out of most mosques. Why do most hateful, violent protests start right after the Friday mosque sermon? Because most mosques preach the type of intolerance that is captured by this video. I mean, you can't expect a mosque cleric to preach the Upanishads or the Sermon on the Mount, can you? He has to preach Islam, and Islam is NOT about peaceful co-existence. Read the Kuran and Hadith if you don't believe me.

It continually amazes me that people still believe that there is some mythical "moderate Islam." If it is moderate, it is not Islam. Because Islam is entirely defined by the Kuran and the Hadith. And these are anything but moderate. Read them! There are entire chapters on Jihad, enslavement of Kafirs, enjoying their women, and so on.

And here is the follow-up of this investigative report:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4375443657383100435

These teachings are given at Britain's LARGEST mosque. Is is any wonder why the "British muslim of Pakistani origin" seems to be appearing with ever higher frequency in acts of Islamic terror.

I would like to bring my reader's attention to one aspect of Islam that comes through clearly in these reports - the two faces of Islam. One face when you are in a minority, in a position of weakness. This face is friendly, but assertive. The other face is when you are with other muslims. Then you reveal just how much you hate Kafirs. Once Islam is in power, this hatred plays out in the form of actions. Kafirs are killed, their temples destroyed, their women enslaved.

Islam is perhaps the only religion that actually has a well developed and practiced doctrine of dissimulation (lying for sake of the spread of Islam). It is called Al Taquiyya. I will have a separate post on this doctrine fairly soon.

Babar's demolition of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple complex: The gloating muslim accounts

2009-02-13T07:13:00.000+05:30

(Left: An oil painting of Babar - the founder of the Mughal empire, who demolished the Hindu temples at Ram Janmasthan and erected a Mosque in their place.)

To the western world, an iconic image of Islamic aggression is the conversion of the Hagia Sophia - Eastern Christendom's greatest church - into a mosque by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet. It was his first act upon entering the conquered city of Constantinople (now Istanbul) in 1493AD.

It is relatively unknown in the western world that a mere 35 years later, in 1528AD, his fellow Turk - Zahir ud-din Babar, the founder of the Moghul empire in India, and a descendant of Tamerlane - demolished one of Hinduism's greatest temple complexes, and erected a mosque in its place, which is known in India as the Babri Masjid (Babar's mosque).

It is the purpose of this article to give my western readers a glimpse into this act of destruction, and to provide further evidence of the compulsive aggression and profanity of Islam.

Through the centuries of brutal Islamic rule over India, tens of thousands of Hindu temples were destroyed and mosques built at their sites. In northern India, which was under Islamic rule for a longer period of time, hardly any temple has survived the Islamic period. Among the temples destroyed were the 3 greatest temples of Hindu Dharma - those dedicated to Shri Ram, Shri Krishna, and Shankar, at Ayodhya, Mathura, and Benaras (Varanasi), respectively.

Muslims kept fairly accurate accounts of their temple demolitions, since they considered them acts of great piety. By destroying the temples of the "kufr", they were doing Allah's bidding, and imitating Muhammad, who himself had destroyed all the idols in the Kaaba and made it into a mosque. Muslim rulers throughout history have repeated this act. The West knows of the conversion of the St. Sophia in Constantinople into a mosque. Hindudom knows of thousands of such tragic instances.

Given below are some of the accounts left by muslim historians of the destruction of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple in Ayodhya - one of the greatest temples of Hindu Dharma. We will never know its splendour, but judging by the temples of South India that did survive Islamic rule, it must have been a stupendous feat of architecture.

The muslim writers unanimously describe the following:

1. The temple complex comprised of the Janmasthan of Shri Ram at Kot Ram Chander, the private apartments (mahal sarai) of King Dashrath and Shri Ram, and a temple and a kitchen popularly known as Sita Ki Rasoi, where tradition held that Sita (wife of Shri Ram) lived.
2. All three were demolished and a mosque constructed thereupon in 1528 A.D. under orders of Babur's commander Mir Baqi, and the religious guidance of a Muslim cleric named Sayed Musa Ashikan.

The earliest of such authors is none other than the granddaughter of the Mughal (Mogul) emperor Aurangzeb. Many of these Muslim writers were residents of Ayodhya (Awadh) and some were eye-witness to or participants in the Hindu-Muslim clashes that resulted from the numerous (77 recorded) attempts by Hindus to regain control of their holy site. Muslim records state that over 100,000 Hindus, over the centuries, perished in attempts to regain the temple.

Let us now see what the Muslim writers have said:

1) Abul Fazl (late sixteeth century)

Abul Fazl, the author of Akbar Nama and Ain-i-Akbari is an eminent writer of the Moghul age who describes Ayodhya as the residential place (banga) of Sri Ram Chandra who during the Treta age was the embodiment of both the spiritual sovereign supremacy as well as the mundane kingly office. Abul Fazl also testifies that Awadh (Ayodhya) was esteemed as one of the holiest places of antiquity. He reports that Ram-Navami festival, marking the birthday of Rama continues to be celebrated in a big way.

2) Safiha-i Chahal Nasaih Bahadur Shahi, written by the daughter of Bahadur Shah Alamgir during the early 18th century.

Out of the above Chahal Nasaih ("Forty Advices"), twenty-five instructions were copied and incorporated in the manuscript entitled Nasihat-i Bist-o-Panjam Az Chahal Nisaih Bahadur Shahi in 1816 AD, which is the oldest known account of the destruction of Ram Janmabhoomi for construction of the Babri Mosque, and its author is none other than Aurangzeb's grand daughter.

Mirza Jan, the author of Hadiqa-i-Shahda, 1856, Lucknow, has reproduced the above text in Persian on pp.4-7 of his book. The text runs as follows:

"... the mosques built on the basis of the king's orders (ba farman-i Badshahi) have not been exempted from the offering of the namaz and the reading of the Khutba [therein]. The places of worship of the Hindus situated at Mathura, Banaras and Awadh, etc., in which the Hindus (kufar) have great faith - the place of the birthplace of Kanhaiya, the place of Rasoi Sita, the place of Hanuman, who, according to the Hindus, was seated by Ram Chandra over there after the conquest of Lanka - were all demolished for the strength of Islam, and at all these places mosques have been constructed. These mosques have not been exempted from juma and jamiat (Friday prayers). Rather it is obligatory that no idol worship should be performed over there and the sound of the conch shell should not reach the ear of the Muslims ..."

3) Hadiqa-i-Shahada by Mirza Jan (1856), pages 4-7.

The author was an eye-witness and an active participant in the jihad led by Amir Ali Amethawi during Wazid Ali Shah's rule in 1855 for recapture of Hanumangarhi from the Hindus. His book was ready just after the failure of the jihad due to stout Hindu resistance, and was published the following year (1856) in Lucknow. In Chapter IX of his book, entitled Wazid Ali Shah Aur Unka Ahd ("Wazid Ali Ahah and His Regime"), we find his account of construction of the Babri mosque.

Mirza Jan who claims to have gone through various old sources says in his own account as follows:

"The past Sultans encouraged the propagation and glorification of Islam and crushed the forces of the unbelievers (kufar), the Hindus. Similarly, Faizabad and Awadh(Ayodhya) were also purged of this mean practice [of kufr]. This [Awadh] was a great worshipping centre and the capital of [the kingdom of] Rama's father. Where there was a large temple, a big mosque was constructed and where there was a small mandaf, there a small kanati masjid was constructed. The temple of Janmasthan was the original birthplace (masqat) of Ram, adjacent to which is Sita Ki Rasoi, Sita being the name of his wife. Hence at that site, a lofty (sarbaland) mosque has been built by Babar Badshah under the guidance of Musa Ashikan... That mosque is till date popularly known as Sita Ki Rasoi..."

(see Annexure 3)

4) Fasana-i Ibrat by the Urdu novelist Mirza Rajab Ali Beg Surur.

Dr. Zaki Kakorawi has appended an excerpt from this book by Surur (1787-1867) in his work. The excerpt reads as follows :

"During the reign of Babar Badshah, a magnificent mosque was constructed in Awadh at a place which is associated with Sita ki Rasoi. This was the Babari mosque. As during this period the Hindus could not dare to offer any resistance, the mosque was constructed under the benign guidance of Saiyed Mir Ashikan. Its date of construction could be reckoned from [the words] Khair-Baqi. And in the Ram Darbar, a mosque was constructed by Fidai Khan, the subedar."

5) Zia-i Akhtar by Haji Muhammed Hasan (Lucknow 1878), p.38-39.

The author states :

"The mosque which had been built by Saiyid Musa Ashikan in 923 AH in compliance with the order of Zahiruddin Badshah, Delhi, after demolishing the private apartments (mahal sarai) of Raja Ram Chander and the kitchen of Sita, as well as the second mosque built by Muiuddin Aurangzeb, Alamgir Badshah, [in fact] both these mosques have developed cracks at various places because of the ageing character. Both these mosques have been gradually mitigated by the Bairagis and this very fact accounts for the riot. The Hindus have great hatred for the Muslims..."

6) Gumgashte Halat-i Ajudhya Awadh ("Forgotten Events of Ayodhya"), i.e. Tarikh-i Parnia Madina Alwaliya (in Persian) (Lucknow 1885), by Maulvi Abdul Karim.

The author, who was then the imam of the Babri Masjid, while giving a description of the dargah of Hazrat Shah Jamal Gojjri states :

"To the east of this dargah is mahalla Akbarpur, whose second name is also Kot Raja Ram Chander Ji. In this Kot, there were few burjs [towery big halls]. Towards the side of the western burj, there was the house of birthplace (makan-i paidaish) and the kitchen (bawarchi khana) of the above-mentioned Raja. And now, this premises is known as Janmasthan and Rasoi Sita Ji. After the demolition and mitigation of these houses [viz. Janmasthan and Rasoi Sita Ji], Babar Badshah got a magnificent mosque constructed thereon."

7) Tarikh-i Awadh("History of Ayodhya") by Alama Muhammad Najamulghani Khan Rampuri (1909).

Dr. Zaki Kakorawi has brought out an abridged edition of this book. An excerpt from vol.II (pp.570-575) of this edition runs as follows :

"Babar built a magnificent mosque at the spot where the temple of Janmasthan of Ramchandra was situated in Ayodhya, under the patronage of Saiyid Ashikan, and Sita ki Rasoi is situated adjacent to it. The date of construction of the mosque is Khair Baqi (923 AH). Till date, it is known as Sita ki Rasoi. By its side stands that temple. It is said that at the time of the conquest of Islam there were still three temples, viz. Janmasthan, which was the birthplace of Ram Chanderji, Swargadwar alias Ram Darbar, and the Treta ka Thakur. Babar built the mosque after having demolished Janmasthan."

8) Hindustan Islami Ahad Mein ("India is under Islamic rule") by Maulana Hakim Sayid Abdul Hai.
The book contained a chapter on "The Mosques of Hindusthan" (Hindustan ki Masjidein), giving at least six instances of the construction of the mosques on the very sites of the Hindu temples demolished by the Indian Muslim rulers during the 12th-17th centuries. As regards Babri Masjid, he writes :

"This mosque was constructed by Babar at Ajodhya which the Hindus call the birthplace of Ram Chanderji. There is a famous story about his wife Sita. It is said that Sita had a temple here in which she lived and cooked for her husband. On that very site Babar constructed this mosque..."

It is this Babri mosque, built as a symbol of the subjugation and humiliation of Hindus at a spot they venerated so highly, that was damaged by a crowd of Hindus in 1992 at the height of the nationalist movement to rebuild a temple for Shri Ram at the site which had been venerated as his birthplace by Hindus for millenia.

Islam deliberately destroyed and desecrated what was most sacred to Hindus, and replaced it with a symbol of Islamic victory. The same reason Sultan Mehmet converted the Hagia Sophia into a mosque. The Hindus and the West have been fighting the same foe for centuries.

I end with the lament of Will Durant, from his Story of Civilization

"We can never know from looking at India to-day, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed."

All of that grandeur and beauty - laid waste by Islam.

Related articles:

What Islamic invaders did to India (A very good article on Islam-watch)

The Ram Janmabhoomi issue revisited
(My article, on this blog)

Hindus, Jews, and Jihadi terror in Mumbai (On American Thinker)

Islam's other victims - India (From Frontpage magazine)

Islam's six destructions of Somnath

2009-02-11T10:54:00.000+05:30

(The Somnath temple as it stands today, destroyed by Islam six times, rebuilt by Hindus six times.)

Muslim invaders and rulers destroyed over 10,000 Hindu temples over the centuries. Perhaps none was destroyed as many times, and rebuilt as many times, as Somnath. The destruction of Somnath by Mahmud Ghazni is well known. Here is a list of the lesser known destructions of Somnath. Each time, the temple was rebuilt by Hindus, often accompanied by great loss to Hindu life. Somnath is the symbol of Hindu defiance and resilience in the face of barbaric assault that would have (and did) bury most other civilizations.

1. The first temple of Somnath is said to have existed before the beginning of the Common Era.

2. The second temple, built by the Maitraka kings of Vallabhi in Gujarat, replaced the first one on the same site around 649AD. In 725AD Junayad, the Arab governor of Sind, sent his armies to destroy the second temple. This was destruction No. 1.

3. The Pratihara king Nagabhata II constructed the third temple in 815AD, a large structure of red sandstone. In 1024AD, Mahmud Ghazni raided the temple from across the Thar Desert. During his campaign, Mahmud was challenged by Ghogha Rana, who at the ripe age of 90, sacrificed his own clan fighting against this Islamic warrior. The temple and citadel were ransacked, and more than 50,000 defenders were massacred. Mahmud personally hammered the temple's gilded lingam to pieces and the stone fragments were carted back to Ghazni, where they were incorporated into the steps of the city's new Jamiah Masjid (Friday mosque). This was destruction No. 2.

4. The fourth temple was built by the Paramara King Bhoj of Malwa and the Solanki king Bhima of Gujarat (Anhilwara) or Patan between 1026AD and 1042AD. The wooden structure was replaced by Kumarpal who built the temple of stone.

5. The temple was razed again in 1297AD when the Sultanate of Delhi conquered Gujarat, and again in 1395AD, and once more in 1401AD (please see quote at end of this article). These were destructions No 3, 4, and 5.

6. The last destruction of Somnath was by the last Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in 1706AD, just a year before his death. This was destruction No. 6.

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, then Home Minister & the first Deputy Prime Minister of India took a pledge on November 13, 1947 for Somnath's reconstruction for the seventh time. A mosque present at that site was shifted few miles away. The construction was completed on December 1, 1995 and the then President of India, Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma dedicated it in the service of the nation. The present temple was built by the Shri Somnath Trust which looks after the Shri Somnath temple complex.

I end with the description of Muzaffar Khan's destruction of Somnath, taken from M. M. Syed's "History of the Delhi sultanate", pp. 184:

"Next year, in 1395, Muzaffar Khan invaded Somnath, burnt the temple, and
destroyed the idol. He killed many hindus, and left the place after arranging
for the erection of a mosque. In 1401, news reached him that the hindus were
trying to restore the temple of somnath, and revive their customary worship.
Muzaffar immedaitely proceeded thither with an army, and the Hindus, defeated
after a sharp encounter, retired to the fort of the lop. This fort also fell
after a few days of fighting, and Muzaffar killed the entire garrison, and had
the men trampled under the feet of elephants. He then demolished the temples and
laid the foundations of a mosque."

Related Posts: For a visual history of the multiple destructions by Islam, and reconstructions by Hindus of another iconic temple - the Ram Janmabhoomi - please read my post The Ram Janmabhoomi issue revisited.

Al Qaeda "warns India against attacking Pakistan"

2009-02-10T11:38:00.000+05:30

So it seems Pakistan now needs and gets protection from Al Qaeda!

This news, just breaking:

Al-Qaida warns India against any attack on Pakistan
NDTV Correspondent
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:12 AM (New Delhi)

Al-Qaida's military commander in Afghanistan has warned India against any retaliatory attack on Pakistan.

In a recently released videotape, Al-Qaida leader Mustafa Abu Yazid referred to the November 2008 terror assault in Mumbai, saying the Indians suffered "humiliation" in the attack and more was in store if India decides to retaliate against Pakistan.

"India should know that it will have to pay a heavy price if it attacks Pakistan. The Mujahideen will sunder your armies into the ground, like they did to the Russians in Afghanistan," said Yazid.

The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Lashkar-e-Toiba are the three iconic Islamic terrorist entities of our times. It should be noted that in the past month, all three of them have vowed to "defend" Pakistan against any Indian attack. The Taliban, supposedly "fighting" the Pakistani army in Waziristan, emphatically stated that they would help the Pakistani army should there be hostilities with India. I guess nothing like hatred of Kafir Hindus to unite muslims. Muslims may fight with each other when there are no Kafirs to kill, but they all are united when it comes to facing Kafir Hindus.

Is this Islamic spirituality?

2009-02-09T07:39:00.000+05:30

Islam's prescription for how to live life is simple - live as Muhammad did and said. His words and deeds are recorded in the Kuran and Hadith, and Islam says that is the blueprint for the perfect life - the life Allah wants every Muslim to live. Islam, more than submission to Allah's will, is a religion of total submission to Muhammad's words and the example of his deeds. It is all about one man - Muhammad.

This is why you see muslims with their beards dyed red (Muhammad had his dyed red), pull their pants above their ankles, and so on. This is carried to such extremes as are hard to believe. Look at the fatwa below on "Standing and urinating", on a very respected Islamic website, where a muslim asks the Imam whether he should urinate while sitting down because that is how Muhammed urinated:
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=92983da83c5bbfc0cc42d32c9818c785

Or consider the following ahadith from one of the four most respected Hadith collections - Sunan Abu Dawud. They are all from the Kitab-i-Taharah (Book of purification)

Narrated AbuMusa: AbutTayyah reported on the authority of a shaykh (an old man): When Abdullah ibn Abbas came to Basrah, people narrated to him traditions from AbuMusa. Therefore Ibn Abbas wrote to him asking him about certain things. In reply AbuMusa wrote to him saying: One day I was in the company of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). He wanted to urinate. Then he came to a soft ground at the foot of a wall and urinated. He (the Prophet) then said: If any of you wants to urinate, he should look for a place (like this) for his urination.

Narrated Salman al-Farsi: It was said to Salman: Your Prophet teaches you everything, even about excrement. He replied: Yes. He has forbidden us to face the qiblah at the time of easing or urinating, and cleansing with right hand, and cleansing with less than three stones, or cleansing with dung or bone.

Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri: I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: When two persons go together for relieving themselves uncovering their private parts and talking together, Allah, the Great and Majestic, becomes wrathful at this (action).

I would like my readers to ask themselves a few questions:
1. Is it the purpose of religion to dictate how a man should urinate?
2. Is it the purpose of a religion to dictate what colour of dye a man should use on his beard?
3. Is it the purpose of a religion to dictate the manner of cleaning after defecation? The Hadith says use only stones, not bones, because "bones are the food of jinns." Not only that, one must use at least 3 stones, not less.

Is this a religion or some kind of total mind and body control cult that could only have existed in the harsh culture-less desert of Arabia in the 7th century?

I am a very religious Hindu. I read the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita almost daily. They talk about the spirit, about the Atman (soul) and its relationship with the higher reality. The Upanishads about whom the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said

"It is the most profitable and sublime reading that is possible in the world; it has been the consolation of my life and will be that of
my death."

The Upanishads which provide the inspiration for some of the most moving imagery of Tristan und Isolde. The Bhagavad Gita, about which Henry David Thoreau wrote:

"In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavat Geeta, since whose composition years of the gods have elapsed, and in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial."

These writings have no ink to waste on the trite details of one's daily excretement.

I feel the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita embody what religion is for - to satisfy our deeper philosophical yearnings because answering these questions sheds light on our relationship with a higher reality. The Sermon on the Mount performs the same purpose. These are true spiritual treasures of mankind. They do not discuss urination and defecation, because the purpose of religion is not to discuss issues like urination and defecation!

Islam is not a religion. At least not one that fulfills the spiritual needs of its faithful adherents. It does serve as a highly effective control mechanism that steals the creative spark of mankind from all of them, though. Those muslims who still retain their individuality, their creativity, their humanity, and their conscience are not faithful to Islam. They are non-practising muslims. For if they were truly practising muslims, then they would agree to abide by all the minutae of Islamic Shari'a that would completely deny them any freedom and any human expression. Every single action in their lives would be totally dictated by the words spoken 1400 years ago by one man - Muhammad.

For purposes of this article, I have not even considered ahadith such as this one:

During sexual intercourse, man must not look at his wife’s sexual organ; for, this may cause blindness.
- Hadith Fayz ul Kadir

This discussion is only about the Kuran and the 4 most respected authentic Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, and Malik).

Islam's compulsive aggression and profanity

2009-02-09T00:48:00.001+05:30

(The destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha statues in 2001 by the Taliban, courtesy CNN.)

Islam is a predatory religion. It seeks to demean and destroy other cultures and replace them with Islamic-arab culture. To this end, it finds the things most sacred, most symbolically sublime in cultures it encounters, and then proceeds to systematically profane them.

When Islam invaded India in 712AD, they found the Hindus to be very different from themselves. Alberuni, an Islamic historian who accompanied the brutal Islamic invasions of Mahmud Ghazni in 1000AD, states that the Hindus were, in every way, the opposite of muslims. It is interesting and educative to read his accounts. For instance, he mocks the Hindus for "consulting their women in every matter of importance" - referring to the high position of women in pre-Islamic India and the pathetic animal-like existence of women within Islam. In Islam, a woman is a mere possession of a man meant almost entirely for sexual pleasure - so a muslim would indeed find a Hindu consulting a woman on an important matter most incredible! Remember folks, women are Islam's first victims, and there is something very just about fighting an ideology that reduces women to the status that they "enjoy" in Islam.

Another aspect of Hindu civilization that the muslims found singular was the Hindu veneration for the animal kingdom in general, and the Cow in particular. As I have explained elsewhere, Hindu Dharma lays great stress on harmony between humans and the animal and plant kingdoms. Our earliest scripture - the Rig Veda - prays for the well being of all three simultaneously. Hindu Dharma stresses that mankind does not own this planet, and must strive to live harmoniously with all other life. To remind Hindus of this, one representative is chosen from each of the two kingdoms, and venerated in daily religious life. The Cow is chosen as the representative from the animal kingdom because it is peaceful, easily domesticated, provides us with milk, and is a gentle kind animal. Similarly, the Tulsi plant is chosen as the representative of the plant kingdom because of its many medicinal properties. A pious Hindu will feed a Cow, and water a Tulsi plant as part of his daily ritual to remind himself that he must live at peace and harmony with animals and plants. This is also why religious Hindus do not eat meat - they feel the animal has as much right to live as they do.

Yes, Islam is very different! In Islam, a non-muslim has little to no right to life. A Hindu must be killed if he does not convert, a muslim must be killed if he does, continuous Jihad must be waged upon all infidels, and so on. Islam is the very opposite of peaceful harmonious co-existence. Islam is predatory. Islam is murderous.

Back to Islamic invaders of India. When they saw that the gentle cow was held in special veneration by the Hindus, they made it a point to slaughter cows en masse. To rub it in, they always slaughtered a cow at the very spot where a Hindu idol stood, before erecting a mosque in its place. Most of the time, the idol was smashed, mixed with cow meat, and placed at the steps of some mosque for the "faithful" to tread upon as they came for prayer.

We thus read in Alberuni's India:

"..When Muhammad bin Al Qasim conquered Multan (in today's Pakistan), he inquired how the town had become so prosperous and flourishing, and how so many treasures had accumulated there. The Hindus told him the idol was the cause, for there came pilgrims from all sides to visit it (Multan had been a pilgrimage for Hindus). Therefore he thought it best to have the idol where it was, and hung a piece of cow's flesh on its neck by way of mockery. On the same place, a mosque was built.
When the Karmatians occupies Multan, Jalam Ibn Shaiban smashed the idol into pieces and killed the Hindu priests."

Tragically, there are literally hundreds of such gloating accounts of Islamic invaders on the atrocities and murder they heaped on the Hindus. I will try to reproduce some of them on this blog. It is very important to understand that this behavior of unbridled aggression towards non-muslims is prescribed by the Kuran.

Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you. (Sura Al Tauba: 123)
Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute. ( Sura Al Tauba: 29 )

Historian such as K.S.Lal have estimated that during the course of the 1400 year encounter with Islamic Jihad, the Hindu population lost 50-80 million by way of slaughter, deprivation, and transport during enslavement in terrible conditions. The mountain range of the Hindu Kush (literally "Hindu slaughter" in Pashto and Farsi) is possibly so named because of the millions of Hindu slaves who died there in the cold while being transported from India to Arabia by Islamic conquerors. Here is the account of enslavement of Hindus from the first Jihad by Mohammed Bin Qasim in 712AD, taken from the Chachnama by Qazi Ismail - the first Qazi of Alor after its conquest by Islam:

During the Arab invasion of Sindh (712 C.E.), Muhammad bin Qasim first attacked Debal, a word derived from Deval meaning Hindu temple. It was situated on the sea-coast [not far from modern Karachi]. It was garrisoned by 4000 Kshatriya soldiers and served by 3000 Brahmans. All males of the age of seventeen and upwards were put to the sword and their women and children were enslaved. 700 beautiful females, who were under the protection of Budh (that is, had taken shelter in the temple), were all captured with their valuable ornaments, and clothes adorned with jewels. Muhammad despatched one-fifth of the legal spoil to Hajjaj which included seventy-five damsels, the rest four-fifths were distributed among the soldiers.

Thereafter whichever places he attacked like Rawar, Sehwan, Dhalila, Brahmanabad and Multan, Hindu soldiers and men with arms were slain, the common people fled, or, if flight was not possible, accepted Islam, or paid the poll tax, or died with their religion. Many women of the higher class immolated themselves in Jauhar, most others became prize of the victors. These women and children were enslaved and converted, and batches of them were des-patched to the Caliph in regular installments. For example, after Rawar was taken Muhammad Qasim halted there for three days during which he massacred 6000 (men). Their followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken prisoner. Later on the slaves were counted, and their number came to 60, 000 (of both sexes?). Out of these, 30 were young ladies of the royal blood Muhammad Qasim sent all these to Hajjaj who forwarded them to Walid the Khalifa. He sold some of these female slaves of royal birth, and some he presented to others.

In Sindh female slaves captured after every campaign of the marching army, were converted and married to Arab soldiers who settled down in colonies established in places like Mansura, Kuzdar, Mahfuza and Multan. The standing instructions of Hajjaj to Muhammad bin Qasim were to give no quarter to infidels, but to cut their throats, and take the women and children as captives. In the final stages of the conquest of Sindh, when the plunder and the prisoners of war were brought before Qasim one-fifth of all the prisoners were chosen and set aside; they were counted as amounting to twenty thousand in number (they belonged to high families) and veils were put on their faces, and the rest were given to the soldiers.

My friends, my readers, all of this is very depressing reading, particularly so for a Hindu. I am sharing this pain with you because I do not want there to be such slaughter ever again elsewhere. Where ever you are - in Europe or America - make sure Islam does not do to your civilization what it did to mine. You owe it to your civilization. And you owe it to those poor Hindus who died in the bitter cold while being transported like animals in cages through the Hindu Kush.

I end with a famous quote by the great historian Will Durant, from his History of Civilization:

"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within."

Stop Islam. Save Civilization.

Legacy of Muslim rule in India, by K. S. Lal

2009-02-08T11:03:00.000+05:30

I regard Shri K. S. Lal as a truly great historian. At a time when the central and state governments in India actively prohibited any discussion of the atrocities perpetrated upon Hindus during the period of Islamic rule, a few brave intellectuals like Shri K. S. Lal, Shri Sita Ram Goel, and Shri Ram Swarup created works of great scholarship.It is only today when one is permitted to speak somewhat more freely about the horrors of Islamic rule that the works of these giants are beginning to get more attention. Ironically, it is historians outside India who are noticing the scholarship of their work, and the quality of their analysis.

Much of their work is available online, courtesy Bharatvani (aka Voice of India) - a publishing house that Shri Sita Ram Goel set up and single handedly manned for years.

Here is a chapter from The Legacy of Muslim rule in India, by Shri K. S. Lal:

http://bharatvani.org/books/tlmr/ch8.htm

It is best viewed on Internet Explorer. Firefox seems to show the quotation marks as question marks.

I also request readers to consider supporting Bharatvani by purchasing hard copies of the fine books they have put up on line. They are most reasonably priced, and I acquired some for my friends as well.

Death by Hadith: A report on the banality of Islamic murder

2009-02-08T06:46:00.000+05:30

(The execution of 35 year old Zarmina after 2 days of brutal torture after which she "confessed". Courtesy rawa.)

Today, several newspapers carried an article on an execution by the Pakistani Taliban. The Taliban kills people at the drop of a hat, so most people might not even have bothered to go into the details of this particular Taliban murder.

The report, filed from Islamabad, Pakistan, began thus:

ISLAMABAD: A teacher who once fought as a mujahideen against Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan as been gunned down by the Taliban in Pakistan’s troubled Swat valley for not hiking up his ‘salwar’ or trousers above his ankles.

Now for those who do not know much about Islam, this might seem a little odd. A war hero murdered for the length of his pants?! Is this a mistake?

Unfortunately, not. This is not a mistake. This is Shari'a law. Shari'a law is Islamic law, based on what is written in the Kuran and the Hadith. So why does Shari'a law want to kill those who prefer to wear long trousers? Because the in the following Hadith (and many others like it), Muhammad says that a man who wears long trousers will burn in the fires of hell! Don't believe me? Read for yourself:

Hadith Sahih Bukhari
Volume 7, Book 72, Number 678:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "The part of an Izar which hangs below the ankles is in the Fire."

Here the "fire" refers to hell fire.

Now here is what I would like the readers to ponder. Based on such a silly meaningless Hadith, a man lost his life today. Under Shari'a law, murder is banal. Death is banal.

Think about it. Do you want such a law to govern every aspect of your lives? Is that life? Or the existence of a Kuranic/Hadithic automaton? Wear your pants above your ankles, do not shave, color your beards red like Muhammad did, beat your wives if they disobey you, kill anyone who leaves Islam, murder all polytheists, wage war upon Kafirs,..., copy Muhammad in every regard,... Why? Because this is the will of Allah, and we only have Muhammad's word for this. Also included in the word of Allah are that Muhammad should have sexual access to all his slave girls, and his wives should silently bear his sexual excesses, Muhammad should have his own daughter-in-law Zainab as his own wife, and so on. Words of Allah, or the clever manipulations of a 7th century warlord who used one of the oldest tricks in the book - the "I am in touch with God himself, so you guys better listen to what I say" argument? You be the judge.

Shari'a law is a law for the primitive bedouins of 7th century arabia. It does not belong to the modern age, or to any place with more subtleties and more life than the arabian desert. Recognize it for what it is, and fight to keep it where it belongs. Not here!

The Ram Janmabhoomi issue revisited

2009-02-08T06:41:00.000+05:30

(I can't do better than post this link for the background and history of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement.)

I was appalled today to read the newspapers. Kalyan Singh has "claimed responsibility" for damaging the Babri mosque. Immediately, the Congress party stated that they would not associate with him in order to assuage their muslim votebanks. Muslim groups said they would "not forgive" him for his role in damaging the mosque, and all of India's sickening self-loathing Hindu-bashing was on free display throughout the day. I will talk about the mosque in question, but let me introduce the topic to my western readers.

When India was under muslim rule, over 10,000 Hindu temples, large and small, and of varying religious significance, were demolished, desecrated (almost always by slaughtering a cow at the spot where the Hindu idol stood) and replaced with mosques. We don't have to speculate upon this - the muslim rulers themselves recorded their acts as those of great piety, and considered themselves "Ghazis" (Islamic holy warrior) for destroying the temples of the Hindus and replacing them with mosques. As but one example, here is the inscription at the site of the first mosque built in India - the Quwwat ul Islam mosque in Mehrauli, built with the remains of 27 Hindu temples.

"This fort was conquered and the Jami Masjid built in the year 587 by the Amir, the great, the gloriuous commander of the Army, Qutub-ud-daula wad-din, the Amir-ul-umara Aibeg, the slave of the Sultan, may Allah strengthen his helperes. The materials of 27 idol temples, on each of which 2,000,000 Delhiwals had been spent were used in the construction of the mosque."

To western readers, the image of the Turks conquest of Constantinople will come to mind. Sultan Mehmet's first act upon entering the city was to convert the Hagia Sophia - eastern christendom's greatest church - into a mosque. And so it has been everywhere Islam has conquered. Islam takes great joy in desecrating and destroying places of worship of other cultures, and then replacing them with mosques. This continues to happen - the Taliban destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas also comes to mind.

Back to the Hindu temples. Sita Ram Goel co-authored, along with Arun Shourie and others, 2 books entitled "Hindu Temples - What happened to them, parts 1 and 2." He also wrote a short article in the Indian express called "The tip of an iceberg" recounting just some of the evidence for the destruction of thousands of Hindu temples.

Among the temples destroyed during muslim rule, and replaced by mosques, were the 3 major temples of North India. The temples dedicated to Shri Ram at Ayodhya, Shri Krishna at Mathura, and Shankar at Kashi Vishwanath. The first of the these was destroyed by Mir Baqi, a general of Babar, the first Moghul emperor. The last of these was destroyed by Aurangzeb, and a mosque built at its site. We have his own court chronicles that detail this destruction.

Babar's autobiography, the Babar-nama, contains this couplet in Persian, translated into english below:

For Islam’s sake, I wondered in the wilds,
Prepared forward with Pagans and Hindus,
Resolved myself to meet the martyr’s death,
Thanks be to Allah! A Ghazi I became.

According to Islamic theology, a ‘momin’ (believer) becomes a "mujahid" (holy warrior) when he wages wars against the infidels, and becomes a "Ghazi" when he kills them.

The 1922 English translation of the Persian autobiography of Babar Nama by Annette Beveridge contains the following in relation to the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple:

"Babar, a devout Muslim, was impressed by the dignity and sanctity of the ancient Hindu Shrine at the Shri Rama Janmabhoomi"... "as an obedient follower of Muhammad, Babar regarded the substitution of the temple by a Mosque as a dutiful and worthy action".

Now consider this - over 10,000 temples destroyed. Some estimate as many as 30,000. And yet, till 1992, most Hindus made no demand for any of them to be returned. The most "extremist" of the Hindu groups requested that muslims had over the 3 major temples only, and that as a gesture of goodwill Hindus would bear the full cost of relocating the mosques built at these 3 holiest sites of Hindudom. Even this request was turned down by the other side.

Remember, the request was ONLY for the three holiest sites. The Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem for Hindus, if you will. Even the most "extremist" Hindu groups did not ask for any compensation for the 10,000 other temples destroyed. And these "extremist" Hindus offered to build grand mosques just a few kilometers from the Hindu shrines. Compare this to Islam - non-muslims are not even allowed to enter Mecca!

When finally all failed, a large crowd of Hindus who had collected at the site of the Ram Janmabhoomi lost their patience and damaged the mosque. A decrepit mosque where no prayers had been offered for years. A mosque of no religious significance to muslims. A mosque whose ONLY purpose was to humiliate Hindus and show them their status as subjugated Dhimmis under Islamic rule. Yet, such was the collective furore against this action that the leader of the "Hindu party" - the BJP - stated that this was the "darkest day of my life."

Just think of this for a little while. Hindus, after 1300 years of being slaughtered, enslaved, forcibly converted, having their temples destroyed, and being the object of the most unimaginable barbarism at the hands of Islam, make a most humble request - give us back only 3 of our holiest shrines. We will bear the entire cost of relocating the mosques you have built at their site. When even this is rejected, a few Hindus damage the mosque, and the entire country (82% Hindu) is outraged.

Would this have happened with any other civilization? Had Islam been a defeated and conquered civilization, and the Kaaba been demolished by their conquerors, and a few muslims damaged the imposed structure - do you think muslims would have risen in mass outrage? No. The people who damaged the structure would be heroes in Islamic countries. (I must say though that Europe now seems to be going the way of the Hindus, just judging by the capitulation to Islamic intimidation that I have witnessed there in the past few years.)

The Hindu capacity for taking punishment at the hands of Islam, and for condemning those Hindus who display even the slightest fight against this, is shocking. So ingrained is our dhimmitude and our lack of self-confidence that we feel compelled to condemn our own for standing up for us!

I want to end with two quotes that speak to these issues. The first speaks to the issue of the usurped shrines.

"Mosques built after destroying temples are the sign of slavery and Muslims should hand over the same to Hindu Society" - Mahatma Gandhi in 'Navjeevan' dated July 17, 1937.

The second quote tells us what the other side thinks of us, precisely because of our refusal to stand up for what is sacred to us.

"Hindus profess secularism because they are cowards and are afraid of Muslim countries." - Syed Shahabuddin - Convenor of Babri Masjid Coordination Committee (BMCC) in 'Sunday' dated March 20, 1983.

Related Posts: For a history of the six destructions by Islam, and reconstructions by Hindus of another iconic temple - Somnath - please read my post Islam's six destructions of Somnath.

Wafa Sultan on the status of women in Islam

2009-02-08T04:12:00.001+05:30

Herself born into an orthodox Sunni muslim family in Syria, Wafa Sultan has boldly drawn attention to the barbarism in Islam, and repeatedly stressed that Islam is not compatible with modern civilization.

In this video, she talks about the status of women in Islam. A woman of true courage and integrity.

Focus on Pakistani School Textbooks

2009-01-20T06:25:00.001+05:30

The hatred against Hindus in Pakistan is inculcated from a tender young age. A Pakistani institution - the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) - conducted a study on this disturbing aspect of their education. The BBC carried a report on the findings of the SDPI, which readers can access here. The study reveals how children are systematically indoctrinated with a totally fabricated version of history, with the primary purpose of instilling in them a visceral hatred of Hindus. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about History will see the total reversal of facts. Here is the SDPI report in full:

http://www.sdpi.org/whats_new/reporton/State%20of%20Curr&TextBooks.pdf

Excerpts:

(page 27)
"Four themes emerge most strongly as constituting the bulk of the curricula and textbooks of the three compulsory subjects.
1. that Pakistan is for Muslims alone;
2. that Islamic teachings, including a compulsory reading and memorization of Qur’an,
are to be included in all the subjects, hence to be forcibly taught to all the students, whatever their faith,;
3. that Ideology of Pakistan is to be internalized as faith, and that hate be created against Hindus and India; and
4. students are to be urged to take the path of Jehad and Shahadat."

The irony is that these Pakistanis are themselves descendants of Hindus who were forcibly converted by invader after invader, starting from Mohammed Bin Qasim in 712AD. You can read accounts of his horrific cruelties, in his own words, here. So it transpires that one generation of Kafirs bears the cruelty of Jihad upon them. A few generations later, Islamic cult behavior takes root among their descendants, and they are taught to hate their own heritage, their own forefathers; and to perpetuate this institutionalized cruelty, called Jihad, upon other hapless Kafirs. And the cycle of Islamic expansion and hate continues.

By hating Hindus, Pakistanis are hating their own forefathers, and their own civilization. Pakistan is not an arab country. It is an Indic country, in that its civilization is Indic (or Hindu). Their forefathers were the same Hindus that composed the Ramayana and Mahabharata - the latter being the longest poem in the world, and eight times as long as the Illiad and Odyssey combined. Their forefathers were the same Hindus who led the world in many areas of science and math as late as the 10th century AD. Instead of being justly proud of this glorious heritage, Islam teaches them to hate their own past. Not being a psychologist, I cannot accurately describe how such self-negation affects the average Pakistani, but a casual observer would indeed find it very strange. I happened to watch some Pakistani TV, and saw some advertisements showing Pakistani arab wannabes. So these people, descendants of a Hindu civilization that is 5000 years old, wants to ape a desert culture of bedouins and camels (that is what arabia was till oil was discovered)! I cannot image an irony greater than that.

This is carried to the extreme in Islam. There is a tradition in Islam that even Muhammad's own father went to hell. Why? Because he was not muslim - Islam came after his death, and so he died a Kafir. I have never seen so much self-negation and self-hatred.

Islam's creed seems to be twofold - "hate them before you exterminate them; villify them after you exterminate them." The Hindus are yet in the first category, since we survived the Islamic onslaught (which rankles all Islamists - every single one of them says that the conversion or extermination of Hindus is the unfinished agenda of Islamic rule over India). The arab pagans fall in the latter category. Muhammad's hordes exterminated them. And today, every single muslim is taught that they were evil people who (of course) deserved to be exterminated. But I have read the Hadith, and the times it mentions the arab pre-muslim pagans, the accounts are usually that of a noble people who were unaware of the machinations of Muhammad's hordes. In a way, they were like the Hindus - so used to accomodation in their religious life that they found it hard to comprehend that Muhammad would want to kill them simply because they worshipped "other Gods." Whether they had a profound panentheistic/monist philosophy behind their religious methods, we shall never know. Would the world have seen the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads had Islam succeeded in destroying Hinduism totally? Only those that survived can tell their side of the story.

That is another reason why the idea of "peaceful co-existence" with Islam is a fallacy. It simply cannot happen. And it has never happened throughout Islam's history. This is not a coincidence of course, given that Islam defines itself as a "religion to end all other religions." It's very definition is predatory. It seeks to destroy other religions and replace them with Islam. Muhammad did this successfully in arabia, and Hadith records his desire to expel all Jews and Christians from Arabia (the others had already been exterminated or forcibly converted - the only 2 options available to those who are not Jews or Christians under Islam).

Let be aware of the facts. One cannot argue intelligently when one is unaware of facts. Perhaps when the facts are known, we might find a way out of this mess. But unaware of facts, we are only committing mass suicide.

Bangladesh 1971 - The forgotten genocide

2009-01-18T22:45:00.000+05:30

The single best site for learning about the 1971 Genocide is:
http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/

The website provides scholarly references to books which studied and documented this genocide.

Excerpts:
"The mass killings in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) in 1971 vie with the annihilation of the Soviet POWs, the holocaust against the Jews, and the genocide in Rwanda as the most concentrated act of genocide in the twentieth century."

“…… we were told to kill the Hindus and Kafirs. One day in June, we cordoned a village and were ordered to kill the Kafirs in that area. We found all the village women reciting from the Holy Quran, and the men holding special congregational prayers seeking God’s mercy. But they were unlucky. Our commanding officer ordered us not to waste any time.”

"In what became province-wide acts of genocide, Hindus were sought out and killed on the spot. As a matter of course, soldiers would check males for the obligated circumcision among Moslems. If circumcised, they might live; if not, sure death."

" Susan Brownmiller likened the 1971 events in Bangladesh to the Japanese rapes in Nanjing and German rapes in Russia during World War II. "... 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped."

"The number of dead in Bangladesh in 1971 was almost certainly well into seven figures. It was one of the worst genocides of the World War II era, outstripping Rwanda (800,000 killed) and probably surpassing even Indonesia (1 million to 1.5 million killed in 1965-66)."

All this in the name of Islam of course. The Jamaat-i-Islami, the largest Islamist party in the subcontinent, provided the ideological foundations for this genocide, saying that while Kafir Hindus obviously deserved to be killed, even the Bengali muslims who had been "contaminated with Hindu ideas" should be killed as per Islamic law.

And make no mistake, the Jamaat-i-Islami is not contrite about what they did, nor have they changed their views on Hindus. Recently, one of their senior ideologues said in an interview that once India is conquered and put under Islamic rule, all Hindus will be enslaved and each Pakistani muslim will get Hindu slaves, as per Islamic law on enslavement of defeated Kafirs. Recall that Islamic law on defeated Kafirs is that (a) all men over puberty are to be beheaded, following Muhammad's example in numerous such campaigns and (b) all women and children are to be enslaved and distributed among muslims, again following Muhammad's example. The women become sexual slaves of their muslim masters, and Muhammad himself kept such sexual slaves.

Islam is dangerous. Very very dangerous. Ask the victims of Bangladesh.

Lashkar-e-Toiba blogsite

2009-01-18T08:27:00.000+05:30

Here is a blogsite that Lashkar-e-Toiba, or some people affiliated with it, use:
http://www.hotklix.com/?ref=link/152870

Notice a few things:

1. The arabic verse on the LeT flag is verse 8:39 of the Kuran, which says "and fight them (the unbelievers) till all disbelief has ended, and religion is of Allah alone." Through the centuries, this verse has been understood by all Islamic clerics, and all 4 schools of orthodox Sunni Islamic law as saying simply what you would expect it to say - that muslims are to continuously wage war upon non-muslims till all religions except Islam have ended, and the entire world is a large Islamic state.

2. If you click on the links on the right hand side of the page, entitled "understanding Jihad", and listen to the tapes, you will find that there is no real talk of Kashmir or any other such temporary dispute. The talk is entirely Kuranic. The speaker justifies Jihad (holy war) and Qital (slaughter) entirely on the basis of Kuranic verses. In other words, this is not about anything other than Islam. Pure Islam. Pure Islam, which decrees that muslims must wage Jihad upon Kafirs till the latter are annhilated or converted to Islam.

None of this is hard to understand. It is clear as daylight from the Kuran and Hadith. Yet, vested interests, and ignorant people, deliberately obfuscate plain reality.

But the Jihadists themselves are far more clear about why they are waging Jihad. The Lashkar-e-Toiba even has a pamphlet called "Why we are waging Jihad?" which explains why they want to kill Hindus. It is simply because we are Hindus! No other reason. They want to finish the unfinished business of Islamic rule in India. They want to finish off Hindu Dharma once and for all, and make India part of the global Islamic state which they are convinced Allah wants and will eventually deliver to muslims.

Can we really blame these people for following their religion? I am a very religious Hindu. I follow my religion. I don't eat meat, I venerate all life, I try to see the divine in every living thing, I try to do my dharma, and leave its results in the hands of the almighty as per the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita. I also follow many Hindu rituals. It is just that my religion does not teach me to go and kill non-Hindus. It teaches not to kill anyone, not even plants, if it can be avoided. It also says that the truth is attainable in infinitely many ways - and one should find the path that best suits your personality. It encourages plurality of spiritual thought.

Islam on the other hand - when followed faithfully - is an extremely violent and intolerant faith. It says there is only one path (Islam), and all deviation from this path should essentially meet with the death sentence.

All religions are not equal - they don't all teach the same thing. Islam is a predatory religion. It wants to end all other religions and establish a global Islamic state. THAT, to me, is the real issue.

Is Islam a Violent Faith? Violence, Hatred and Discrimination in the Koran

2009-01-17T23:53:00.000+05:30

An excellent article by Dr. Sami Alrabaa (himself raised a muslim). You can read it
here. Courtesy Family Security Matters.

..And the world remained silent

2009-01-10T11:19:00.000+05:30

A video on the Religious cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir.

A little bit of history: Kashmir was a Hindu state for centuries. It was forcibly converted to Islam mostly under the rule of the notoriously cruel despot Sikandar Butshikan (the last name means "breaker of idols" or "iconoclast"). Most Kashmiri muslims to this day retain their Hindu last names, such as "Dar", "Butt (Bhat)", etc. as a relic of their Hindu past. Even after this mass forcible conversion, Hindus lived as a 5% minority in Kashmir till 1990.

In 19th January, 1990, even that second class existence, in a land that has been a cradle of Hindu civilization, was terminated.

Overnight, fliers in the name of various Islamic Jihadi groups appeared all over the Kashmir valley asking the Hindus to leave since Kashmir was to be made an Islamic state and "cleansed of Kafirs". The flyers warned the Hindus that their women would be taken away from them if they stayed. Some flyers asked only the men to flee, and leave their women behind. Understandably, there was a mass exodus of Hindus from the valley. The few who stayed were targetted brutally over the next decade. (Picture: A victim of the massacre of Kashmiri Hindus at Wandhama by Islamic Jihadis)

Since 1990, over 400,000 Kashmiri Hindus, evicted from their centuries old homeland, have lived in squalid refugee camps spread over North India. No political party gives them any attention since they present no significant political gains. The same politicans who bend over backwards to be photographed at Iftar and Eid parties in order to get muslim votes would not be seen within 10 miles of a Hindu refugee camp. The left, which cries hoarse about issues as far removed from India as Palestine, will not speak a word in protest of the cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus from the valley. Such is India's "secularism" and such is the dishonesty of our "intellectuals."

And you don't have to guess what has come concomitant with the religious cleansing of Hindus from the valley - Islamization. At about the same time the Hindus were asked to leave the valley, Kashmiri women were asked to start wearing the Burqua, or face the consequences. Women who were seen in public without a veil were often subject to acid attacks, disfiguring them for life. Men were encouraged to grow Islamic beards. The valley became an Islamic state. Guess what? That is what the Kuran and Hadith say is the ultimate goal of Islam - to make the entire world into one Islamic state where Shari'a law governs every single detail of your daily living. It has happened in Kashmir during our lifetimes.

Here is the video.

Jamaat-i-Islami, Islamism, and their views on Hindus

2009-01-09T10:10:00.001+05:30

"In reality Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals. 'Muslim' is the title of that International Revolutionary Party organized by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary programme. And 'Jihad' refers to that revolutionary struggle and utmost exertion which the Islamic Party brings into play to acheive this objective."
--Sayeed Abdul A'la Maududi, founder of Jamaat-i-Islami, Jihad in Islam p8

"Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State."
--Sayeed Abdul A'la Maududi, founder of Jamaat-i-Islami, Jihad in Islam p9

The Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) is Pakistan's largest Islamist party. Before partition, there was a single JI, and after partition there are two - the JI-Pakistan and JI-India. Both have, obviously, the same ideology since they were the same party till 1947.

So what does the Jamaat-i-Islami (Pakistan) say about Hindus? Let us go to their website, which is here, and click on the "links". You will go here. Now, you will see a large link called "Hinduism-Inside and out". If you click on it, you see the most misleading, caricaturized depiction of Hindu Dharma imaginable. It says that Hindus are a "group of polytheists with a sick fetish for cattle."

To my western readers: Hinduism stresses that humans do not own this earth, but must live in it in harmony with both the animal and plant kingdom. Both these must be respected just as we respect fellow human beings. To remind us of this in our daily lives, we choose one representative from each kingdom and venerate it in our prayers. The cow is chosen as the representative of the animal kingdom since it gives more than it takes, it is the picture of non-violence (which is very central to Hindu Dharma), and because it takes over from our mother as the supplier of milk. Similarly, the Tulsi plant is taken as the representative of the plant kingdom because of its many medicinal properties. Both these representatives - one from the animal and one from the plant - symbolize our ability to live symbiotically, and in harmony (rather than as exploiters) with the animal and plant kingdom. Hence, pious Hindus will feed a cow, and water a Tulsi plant in their daily religious life as a reminder to respect animals and plants and share this planet in harmony with them. Thus, Hindu veneration of the symbolism of the Cow (among animals) and the Tulsi plant (among plants) express our desire for harmonious non-invasive existence during our stay on earth. Our earliest scripture - the Rig Veda - stresses that we must pray not only for ourselves, but for all life on earth simultaneously, since the only way we can prosper is by being at harmony with nature.

Of course, all this is somewhat beyond the simplistic and brutal "kill everyone who is not like us" thinking that is at the core of Islam.

But back to the Jamaat-i-Islami. Have you wondered WHY the JI Pakistan would even care to put such a prominent hateful link on its website when there are no more Hindus left in Pakistan? At the time of Pakistan's formation, it had a 25% Hindu population. The ethnic cleansing that Islam has specialized in throughout its history has left the Hindu population at a mere 1.4%. So why still hate something you have already exterminated?

Because hatred is at the core of Islam. Islam's holy texts preach hatred. Hatred towards polytheists, Jews, Christians, and everything else (in that rough order). The foremost objects of hatred, and those who have no right to life as per the Kuran and Hadith are the polytheists. When Islam came into contact with Hindus, they branded us as polytheists and idolators (when in reality Hinduism is panentheistic/monist and uses idols as symbolism. Hinduism is easily the religion that uses symbolism more than any other, and idols are symbolisms of the various interactions humans have with the various aspects of the all encompassing unity that lies beyond our understanding. So an idol of Shiva would symbolize the ultimate destruction that anything that exists must face, and so on). Thus, Hindus met with the same fate as the arabian polytheists - extermination. In lands where Islam was able to rule without resistance, Hindu civilization was destroyed. All traces of it were removed. Afghanistan, which was home to the beautiful Gandhara civilization (Hindu-Buddhist) was Islamized, and all traces of this former civilization removed. This process continued with the Taliban who destroyed the priceless Bamiyan Buddhas.

The Jamaat-i-Islami Pakistan was also the ideological fountainhead of the genocide of Hindus and "Hinduized muslims" of Bangladesh. The JI said that while the Hindus must be exterminated as per Kuran 9:5, the muslims who had allowed their culture to become "contaminated" by Hindu contact also deserve to be exterminated. The result of such a hateful ideology? 3 million people were killed. Almost half a million women raped. TIME magazine called it "the greatest genocide since the Holocaust."

The party that provided the ideology for this genocide is still alive, and thriving.
It's website still carries the same hatred. Nothing has changed. And nothing WILL change till we call a spade a spade and scrutinize the source of all this hatred, which is the Kuran and the Hadith.

Shari'a vs. Civilization

2009-01-07T10:46:00.001+05:30

(Overwhelmed by the support I have received from readers in the Netherlands, I have decided to make this post in support of Geert Wilders [Thanks to GoV for the banner]. Hello to my Dutch readers from your Hindu friends in India. Let us fight side by side.)

Modern civilisation is based upon a few axioms. These are held as self-evident, and while not every society has been able to arrive at successful practice of them, most would agree with them in principle. These are:

1. Equality of all human beings in the eyes of the law. In particular, men and women are equal in the eyes of the law, and members of all religious groups are equal in the eyes of the law.

2. Freedom of beliefs in general, and religion in particular. A person is free to choose his beliefs, including her/his faith and the manner of her/his worship.

3. Freedom of expression and freedom to dissent. Freedom to intellectually scrutinize any doctrine, including a religious one.

4. Belief in democracy as the ideal mode of governance.

Once again, while no society has arrived at this perfect ideal in practice, most modern nations would agree to all four axioms in principle. There is one more axiom which is so basic that we usually no not even discuss it anymore and take it as assumed.

5. Emphatic and categorical rejection of the institution of slavery.

However, Islamic law (Shari'a) is categorically and emphatically opposed to ALL 5 axioms of modern civilization. Let us inspect each one in turn.

1. Shari'a law denies equality to women and to non-muslims. Both the Kuran and Hadith - the foundations of Shari'a law - assert that women are inferior to men, and this is reflected in Shari'a law. In particular, the testimony of a woman is worth only half of a man in a Shari'a court.

Similarly, since the Kuran and Hadith assert that "unbelievers" are not the equal of muslims in any manner, the testimony of a non-muslim is worth only half of a muslim.
Once again, this is not just the case with "radical Islamists", but has been agreed upon by all 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki) since their beginning.

2. While Islam exhorts all muslims to wage continuous war (Jihad) upon non-muslims in order to expand the Islamic state, Shari'a law does not allow any muslim to leave his faith. This includes someone who may have originally been of a different faith before converting to Islam, and now wants to return to her/his original faith. The penalty for a muslim who leaves Islam is death, according to all 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence. This is based on numerous Hadith where either Muhammad directly says that those who leave Islam must be killed, or his close companions bear witness to him having said so. In several Hadith, this sentence is actually carried out (i.e., a former muslim is put to death, and this is recorded in the Hadith). Indeed, there is a Hadith which records the execution of such a person (who was originally Jewish, became muslim, and reverted to Judaism).

Shari'a law also does not give non-muslims the right to build or repair their places of worship. It does not allow idol worship as a means of worship, and generally approves of the demolition of the temples of anyone it considers "polytheist" or "idolator". This has been used to justify the destruction of literally thousands of Hindu temples all over India during the dark centuries of Islamic rule. Even today, strict implementations of shari'a law demolish idols, such as the Taliban's destruction of the centuries old Bamiyan Buddhas.

3. Shari'a does not allow any sort of open discussion of Islam. Islam is held to be a doctrine straight from Allah, binding upon humans for all time and in all places. Hence, criticism of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad is punishable by death. This is part of law even in countries that do not have full fledged Shari'a law, such as Pakistan. Under Pakistan's Tauheen-e-rasool (literally "disrespect of Prophet") act, any criticism of Muhammad is punishable with death. To my dutch readers: Theo Van Gogh's murderer was only doing this duty as a muslim and following the example of Muhammad who ordered the assassination of the aged poetess Asma Bint Marwan in 624AD. She was murdered in her sleep as her five children played nearby, all for merely criticizing Muhammad in her poetry. Islam does not tolerate criticism.

4. Shari'a is a strict alternative to democracy. In other words, Shari'a posits itself as a political system, and does not recognize the legitimacy of any other political system such as democracy. Every single school of Islamic jurisprudence says governance by Shari'a is the only acceptable form of Islamic government. Indeed, bringing about such governance by Shari'a law is considered the ultimate goal of the muslim "umma" (muslim nation). Democracy is categorically rejected as an acceptable system of governance. Almost every Islamist writing pours scorn on democracy and secularism as "western inventions" that are "contaminating the muslim ummah."

5. Islamic law consecrates slavery in a very central way - as the "war booty" of Islamic holy war (aka Jihad). All schools of Islamic jurisprudence say that it is the religious obligation of muslims to wage continuous war (Jihad) upon non-muslims and extend the boundaries of the Islamic state till all other religions are either extinguished or "subdued." Now what is to become of the defeated "Kafirs"? That is where Islam prescribes slavery, following the example of Muhammad. All schools prescribe the enslavement of the women and children of the Kafirs (and the killing of all males of fighting age, generally defined as males having pubic hair) captured after defeating non-muslims. The enslaved women become sexual property of their muslim masters, and all schools of Islam allow the masters to sexually possess them. The chronicles of muslim invaders of India such as Mohammed Bin Qasim, speak gloatingly of the tens of thousands of Hindus enslaved and dispatched "in installments" to Baghdad and Damascus, and thousands of Hindu women enslaved for sexual purposes.

One should not be fooled into thinking that the Islamists have relinquished such thinking. Recently a senior ideologue of the largest Islamist party in Pakistan - the Jamaat-i-Islaami - assured Pakistanis that once Hindu India is conquered, the Hindus will be enslaved and distributed among Pakistani muslims. The atrocities upon the Darfurites by muslim arabs also follows the Islamic blueprint for Jihad upon Kafirs to the word - a fact carefully hidden by the leftist media. The Darfurites are not "pure muslims" - following their animist beliefs alongside Islamic ones. Thus, they are kafirs and fit to be exterminated, enslaved, and raped. This is the underlying ideology of the genocide in Darfur. European readers will now understand why some of the muslims protesting the Danish cartoons would chant "we want your women as war booty", etc. Enslaving the women of infidels as "war booty" is a central tenet of the Islamic doctrine of war.

So Islamic Shari'a law is opposed to all five basic axioms of modern civilization as we know it. It is not a coincidence that Islamic societies "look very different" from free societies. I have not even gone into issues such as barbarity of punishments (such as stoning to death, chopping limbs etc. which are imposed under Shari'a law). I am speaking simply of the basic axioms that underlie modern human civilization and society and which mankind has generally come to agree upon, with the one exception of Islam. Islam rejects all these axioms. To accept any imposition of Shari'a law, no matter how "harmless" it is deliberately made to appear, would be tantamount to rolling back centuries of human civilisational progress. I particularly appeal to British readers of this blog to understand that by allowing even a mild form of Shari'a, they are allowing the imposition of a system that does not accept women and non-muslims as complete human beings and forever relegates them to a status between human and animal. Is this what Britain stands for these days? I am appalled. Please, my British readers, raise your voices now.

What I have written here is not something our venal politicians will openly state. But these are the issues we face today. In India, as evidenced by the Shah Bano case, politicians are only too eager to please their muslim vote banks by allowing limited forms of Shari'a. Shari'a law has been allowed in limited form in Britain - a startling new story in Europe's lack of will to stand up to this civilisational assault. The Indian media, in a characteristically spineless display, did not give any coverage to the Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) posters saying "No to democracy, No to secularism, Yes to Shari'a" which appeared in many muslim localities of cities including Mumbai. Make no mistake - rejection of democracy and secularism, and their replacement by Shari'a, is core to Islamist teaching. It is up to honest intellectuals to inform the public about what Shari'a means.

It means the end of civilization as we know it.

Was Muhammad tolerant of other faiths? The blueprint for religious cleansing in Islam

2009-01-06T11:26:00.000+05:30

Here is a sample chapter from Hadith Sahih Muslim, which talks about Muhammad's desire to expel Jews and Christians from the Hijaz (which is the part of Arabia that contains Mecca and Medina and which was the extent of Muhammad's power), as well as his expulsion of Jews from Medina. As you can see, he was quite intolerant of other religions, even Jews and Christians. As far as idolators, the verdict is even more intolerant - simply kill them all (Kuran 9:5).

Chapter 20: EVACUATION OF THE JEWS FROM THE HIJAZ

Book 019, Number 4364:

It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar that the Jews of Banu Nadir and Banu Quraizi fought against the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) who expelled Banu Nadir, and allowed Quraiza to stay on, and granted favour to them until they too fought against him. Then he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of 'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

Book 019, Number 4366:

It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

This chapter is the twentieth in an entire book on Jihad in Hadith Sahih Muslim. This book can be found here.

Now, this is the original Islamic blueprint for religious cleansing. It was the first time in Islam entire religions were wiped out from areas under muslim control. This was done by Muhammad, and his example is the "gold standard" for all muslims for all time. So is it surprising that where ever Islam gains hold, religious minorities are cleansed out. Remember Kashmir valley in 1989? One fine day, flyers appeared all over the valley asking the Kashmiri Hindus to leave or be killed. And by the way, the flyers also said "leave your women behind." Again, this aspect of Islamic warfare (Jihad) upon infidels is following Muhammad's example and teachings, which say that women of infidels are nothing more than "war booty" (maal-e-ghanimat) for the enjoyment of muslims. There are entire chapters in the Hadith that deal with capture and rape of infidel women, such as this one where Muhammad is asked whether his muslim soldiers should use coitus interruptus while raping these captured women. Please understand that this is all in the religion of Islam. If it shocks you that a religious book should have an entire chapter devoted to the use of coitus interruptus while raping captured infidel women, it should!

Again, the problem is Islam. Islam consecrated religious cleansing when Muhammad killed/forcibly converted all the polytheist arabs, and expelled/killed the Jews and Christians. Islam consecrated the capture and rape of infidel women when Muhammad asked his followers to do this. There are Hadith where Muhammad even takes "first pick" among the captured women (one famous example is Safiya, a beautiful woman who Muhammad took for himself and bedded on the same night he had murdered her husband and brother in war). Since Muhammad's example is normative for all muslims for all time, this behavior has to be repeated by muslims everywhere. And we can see that muslims have followed this example in various places such as Kashmir, from where almost half a million Hindus were expelled in 1989. In 1971, 2 million Hindus were killed, 10 million Hindus were driven out of Bangladesh, and the Pakistani army ran "rape camps" with Hindu women. The extent of genocide and mass rape compelled TIME magazine to describe it as "the greatest genocide since the Holocaust of Jews by the Nazis..".

Now here is some news: All of these atrocities simply follow the example of Muhammad as recorded in the Hadith. If you read the Hadith you will see for yourself that nothing that was done in 1971 to Hindus in Bangladesh, or in 1989 to Hindus in Kashmir is against Islam. On the contrary, it is exactly as per the diktats of the Hadith. Our politicans will not tell us this. Our dishonest "intellectuals" will not tell us this. But we need to know this so it does not happen again. Hiding the ideology behind Islam's murder is like hiding the ideology of the Nazis from the Jews. It is criminal.

I request all readers of my blog to stand with Kashmiri Hindus who are languishing in refugee camps since 1989. Those that dared to stay behind were murdered in targetted brutal attacks, the most infamous one being at Wandhama.

It is OK to kill women and children of polytheists

2009-01-06T11:13:00.000+05:30

One of the purposes of this blog is to convey the status of Hindus in Islam. All 4 schools of Islam regard Hindus as polytheists and idolators. This means every single verse in the Kuran and Hadith which prescribes violence and death for polytheists and idolators is applicable to Hindus. Let me cite the specific verses in the Hadith which talks about killing women and children of polytheists. One may verify these verses from the Hadith database, available here:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4321

Book 019, Number 4321:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.

Book 019, Number 4322:
It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them.

Book 019, Number 4323:
Sa'b b. Jaththama has narrated that the Prophet (may peace be upon him) asked: What about the children of polytheists killed by the cavalry during the night raid? He said: They are from them.

In each of these Hadith, Muhammad dismisses any ethical concerns about killing women and children in raids on polytheists by saying that "they are from them" (i.e. it is alright to kill them since they are also polytheists).

Now why is this relevant today? Islam bases its ethics and morality entirely on one man - Muhammad. Everything he said, and he did, becomes the moral code. Islam rejects any ethics and morality that does not agree with the example set by Muhammad. Now, since he says in these ahadith that it is alright to kill the women and children of polytheists, it becomes the example for all muslims to follow for all time. Obviously, this is a serious problem, especially for Hindus who are regarded as polytheists by all 4 schools of Islam. Never mind the truth here, which is that Hinduism is panentheistic; what matters is that Islamic law regards them as polytheists and therefore killing of Hindu women and children is permissible in Islamic law, in accordance with the quoted ahadith.

"But what about the peaceful verses?"

2009-01-06T08:53:00.000+05:30

Perhaps the biggest ploy used by those who wish to depict Islam as a religion of peace is to quote Kuran 2:256, which says:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clear from error"

Yet, the history of Islam seems to completely ignore this apparent "free choice" in matters of religion. If the Kuran does indeed preach free choice of religion, why do we have literally hundreds of chronicles by muslim invaders gloating over how many hindus they slaughtered, and thereby claiming that they are Ghazis (Islamic holy warriors)? Why? Were they all ignorant about the "peaceful nature" of Islam? Also note that in many of these Islamic chronicles, the ruler says "I consulted so-and-so cleric, and he told me to kill these Hindu idolators." So has everybody missed this verse in the Kuran, or is there something further going on?

Here is the fine print which no apologist wants us to read: Verse 2:256 is no longer valid! Indeed, it has not been valid since the year 622AD, when Muhammed immigrated from his hometown of Mecca to start the Islamic state in Medina. In particular, verse 2:256 has been "abrogated" and "replaced" by a later verse, which in this case is verse 9:5.

To understand this, one must keep in mind that the Kuran was revealed to Muhammed over a period of 23 years. When at first Muhammed started preaching to the Meccans, he was not a powerful person in any position of authority to impose his will. His only claim to position in society was that his wife was a fairly wealthy Meccan businesswoman of a prominent tribe. Accordinly, the verses he said Allah had revealed to him during his Meccan period are fairly tolerant, such as Kuran 2:256. At this time, he was trying to win over Meccans through non-violent preaching. He could not resort to violence, simply because he had no power!

However, after several years in Mecca, Muhammad had very few followers. Islamic sources say that he had around 100 followers after about 10 years of preaching in Mecca. So Muhammad decided to move to Medina, and start his small "Islamic state" there. In Medina, he would no longer be at the mercy of the haugthy Meccans who had given him no respect.

That is the beginning of the shift in Islamic teaching, and the start of the first Islamic state, where Islam was not just a religion, but also a political entity. In Medina, Muhammad's verses grew increasinly intolerant and violent. To explain this inconsistency, Muhammad put forth the doctrine of abrogation, whereby Allah has provided "better verses to replace earlier verses." Thus verse 2:256 is replaced with verse 9:5, which says

"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush"

In short, verse 2:256 is no longer part of Islam. It remains in the Kuran, but is no longer applicable. Its validity has expired, and no muslim will act in accordance to it. That is why you never hear this verse being quoted by mullahs when muslims are in a majority. Its only purpose seems to be to deceive ignorant non-muslims when muslims are in a minority. Given that the doctrine of abrogation is very central to Islam, I feel fairly certain that all the scholars of Islam who quote this verse know fully well that it is no longer valid, and has been replaced by the extremely intolerant and violent verse 9:5.

For Hindus, this is a particularly serious matter. This is because the newer verse 9:5 says "slay all the idolators..." Hindus do summon the divine by means of idols, and hinduism does not disallow idols as a symbol of the divine. Owing to this, every school of Islamic jurisprudence takes verse 9:5 to apply to hindus. This is why 3 of the 4 schools of sunni Islam - Shafi, Hanbali, and Maliki - say that hindus must be killed if they don't convert to Islam.

In effect, Kuran 9:5 was a death sentence upon Hindus. In accordance with this death sentence, literally tens of millions of Hindus have been murdered over the centuries. Kuran 9:5 must surely rank as the single sentence that has led to more murder than any other in the history of mankind (I can think of no other single sentence that has led to so much murder).

What is "radical Islam"?

2009-01-05T06:38:00.000+05:30

There is a serious problem we run into when we try to define "radical Islam." What is "radical Islam?"

First of all, nothing the radical Islamists say is outside the Kuran and Hadith. The Kuran and Hadith are the pillars of Islam, not only of radical Islam. That poses a serious problem. Because no muslim body has ever stated that parts of the Kuran and Hadith are now "outdated" or "irrelevant." The Hadith, for instance, gives numerous instances of rape of female captives captured after defeating infidels, in the presence of Mohammed. Since Mohammed is considered the perfect person and example for all to follow by ALL Of Islam, what does this mean? It means that ALL muslims must find this practise agreeable, at least in principle, and therein lies the problem.

People say "radical Islam" but what they mean is the radical verses in the Kuran and Hadith. Radical by whose standards? Not by the standards of Islam, since these verses have been accepted without any controversy within Islam for centuries. These verses are not radical for muslims, but they are radical by non-muslim modern civilization.

Take another example - the verse 4:34 in the Kuran that says that wives who are disobedient must be beaten. "Radical muslims" like the Taliban used to frequently quote this verse to justify their open violence against women. But this verse is in the Kuran! It is not in a separate book called "Kuran for radicals." It is in the one and only Kuran, and is equal to any other verse. So why is it radical? Because in today's modern society, we do not find this practise acceptable.

So it seems that the problem is that Islam is radical. It is not that there is a separate religion called "radical Islam", but that the religion of Islam has many components that are considered radical/unacceptable/violent by modern societies.

So what is the way out? My firm belief is that a reformation within Islam is needed. It won't happen though till we obfuscate plain facts. The plain facts are that numerous verses in the Kuran and Hadith say things which are simply unacceptable (and considered barbaric) by today's society. Let us say it as it is, instead of pretending that there is a separate ideology called "radical Islam." There isn't. Nothing that Bin Laden says is outside the Kuran and Hadith. As someone said - there are radical muslims and moderate muslims, but there is nothing called moderate Islam. Islam IS RADICAL. To make Islam moderate, we would have to expurgate many verses (and entire chapters, such as that on raping female captives without impregnating them, so that their slave price does not fall) from the Kuran and Hadith. Are we prepared to ask moderate muslims to do that?

The other obfuscation is that some people are "hijacking Islam." Who is? Bin Laden? Every single action he has done is justified by the Kuran and Hadith, and he has taken great pains to provide the verses that justify his actions. Not only that, for centuries, people like that were hailed as Ghazis (holy warriors) within Islam. It is not for nothing that in the muslim world, a majority of people hail him as a hero. It is only when you are trying to hide from the scrutiny of the west that you say he has "hijacked Islam." He is merely a person who follows Islam to the word. He is, in many ways, a true muslim. In numerous Hadith, Muhammed says that the best muslim is not one who fasts and prays, but who gets on his horse and fights against infidels (especially polytheists) for the spread of Islam. That is what Bin Laden is doing. What about the innocent women and children he kills? Guess what - the Hadith emphatically state that it is perfectly alright to kill the women and children of polytheists. Nothing Bin Laden does is outside the Kuran and Hadith. He is not a "radical" muslim, he is merely a practising muslim!

Let us be honest about this - the problem is not a chimera called "radical Islam." The problem IS ISLAM. Islam, as it exists in the Kuran and Hadith, is far too violent, intolerant, and yes, "radical", to co-exist with modern society. The moment a muslim starts following true Islam, he appears incredibly radical to us all, and we say "he is a radical muslim" when all he is doing is following his religion!

The ideology of Nazism led to the Holocaust. The ideology of Islam, and not "radical Islam", led to what TIME magazine called "the greatest genocide since the holocaust" - the butchery of 2 million Hindus (and 1 million muslims who were regarded as "contaminated by Hindu ideas") in East Pakistan by the Pakistan army between 1970-71. I discuss that in a separate post. Again, it is Islam, and not "radical Islam" whose teachings play a big role in the ongoing genocide and rape in Darfur. I will have a post on that shortly as well.

What would we call people who tried to hide the murderous ideology of Nazism, and tried to attribute the Holocaust to other causes? We would call them "abettors in Nazi genocide." Similarly, I call those who are trying to hide the true teachings of Islam abettors in Islamic genocides. Please, let us stop this intellectual cowardice and call it as it is. How many more must die to Jihad till we finally call it Jihad? Till we finally say "Yes, it is Islam that is causing all this violence?" Please say it today, and be on the side of truth.

Is this about Kashmir?

2009-01-05T00:14:00.001+05:30

As I have repeatedly stated, the purpose of my blog is to get to the root of Islamic hatred towards hindus, which has driven all the genocide of hindus during Islamic rule, and continues to drive Jihadi terrorism against hindus today.

The root cause is Islam, which categorically and emphatically states that polytheists must be eradicated: their men murdered, their women and children enslaved. The women are then sexual property of their muslim masters. So why does it surprise anyone that this is EXACTLY what was done to hindus during Islamic rule, and during the genocide in East Pakistan in 1971? This is EXACTLY what the Kuran and Hadith say must be done to hindus, and these orders were carried out.

I feel strongly that hindus must learn what is written in the Kuran and Hadith in order to understand the mindset of the Jihadis. The Kuran does NOT say that "fight hindus till Kashmir is handed to you." It says "kill idolators and polytheists whereever you find them, till they are eradicated." This is very very important. Jihad upon hindus is not allowed to end with the solution of Kashmir or any other problem. Those are mere milestones in the eventual eradication of hindus. Pretending otherwise is suicidal, as far as hindus are concerned.

And as proof positive, we have the Jihadi groups THEMSELVES telling us that they intend to conquer all of India and make it an Islamic land. These words are not coming from any hindu organization, but from the Jihadis themselves. When they themselves are shouting from rooftops about what they want, why does our press and our politicans deliberately refuse to listen/report. Is it because this truth is very inconvenient?

Anyway, Lashkar-e-Toiba, which carried out the Mumbai attacks, has a pamphlet called "Why we are waging Jihad." It says that Kashmir is only the beginning - their goal is to make all of India into an Islamic state. They consider this the unfinished business of Islamic rule in India.

One can read about the various ideologies of these south asian jihadi groups in a research paper written by Hussain Haqqani (ambassador of Pakistan to US) here:
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/Current_Trends_in_Islamic_Ideology_vol_1.pdf
(go to page 24 for "why we are waging Jihad").

What does MAINSTREAM Islam say?

2009-01-04T12:55:00.000+05:30

One of the purposes of this blog is to convey to the average hindu that MAINSTREAM Islam is an extremely violent, intolerant, and totalitarian ideology that simply does not give hindus the right to live. Here is an article to the same effect by a former member of an Islamist terror group:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009890

Something every hindu MUST know

2009-01-04T12:43:00.000+05:30

Islam rests on 2 documents - the Kuran, which is believed to tbe the word of God, as dictated to Mohammed; and the Hadith, which are records of what Mohammed did and said in various circumstances. A true muslim must follow both to the word.

Now based on these 2 sources, there are 4 schools of Islamic jurisprudence (ie schools of Islamic law, also called Fiqh in arabic) - the Shafi, Hanafi, Hanbali, and Maliki. All sunni muslims belong to one of these. Most Indian muslims are Hanafi. The difference in the schools is not very much - on most important matters, they agree.

So, what do these 4 schools of Islamic law say about hindus? Guess. 3 of the 4 (all except Hanafi), say Hindus must be killed if they refuse to convert to Islam. As simple as that! This is because in both the Kuran and the Hadith, there is absolutely no right to life given to polytheists. The Kuran says even Allah hates the polytheists, and is going to use them as fuel for the fires of hell! And muslims are ordered to kill these "dirty" polytheists on earth. All 4 schools of Islam regard hindus are polytheists, which means all these decrees hold when it comes to hindus.

The Hanafi school allows hindus to live, but only as degraded third class citizens. They are "to open their mouth wide open if a muslim wishes to spit into it", and so on. In other words, 3 of the 4 schools say "kill hindus" and the 4th says "treat them worse than animals."

This is Islamic "tolerance." And I think it is very very important for hindus to know what Islamic law says about them. Because when hindus are hopelessly outnumbered (like they were in 1971 in East Pakistan), it is the maulvis who dictate, using Islamic law, what is to be their fate. And that is why in 1971, they were butchered - because that is what Islamic law says should be done to hindus! It is that simple, folks. Islamic law prescribes death for hindus.

I know one thing - if someone wants to kill me, I would rather know that fact, rather than remain ignorant of it. One purpose of my blog is to explain to hindus what is written in the Kuran, Hadith, and the 4 schools of Islamic jurisprudence, so that they know the realities better.

Islamic invasion of India - a brief sampler

2009-01-04T12:36:00.000+05:30

Two brief samplers of the Islamic invasion of India:
http://islam-watch.org/Ibrahim.Lone/Demystification-of-the-Islamic-Rule-in-India.htm

www.shaktibad.net/downloads/IslamicAction.pdf

And inspite of this, Pakistani textbooks keep telling young Pakistanis that Islam spread in India on its merits, without any violence. Before the age of the internet, one might be excused for believing such things, but today the truth is but a few mouseclicks away.

"How many hindus have you killed?"

2009-01-04T11:58:00.000+05:30

The atrocities of muslim rulers in India, starting from Mohammed Bin Qasim in 712AD, right up to the end of the mughal rule as a result of hindu reconquest of India by marathas, is now coming out. The muslim rulers themselves recorded, with glee, how they had murdered hundreds of thousands of "kafirs" and "polytheist hindus" and "cleansed the land of impure religion and replaced it with Islam."

The question some ask is - OK, agreed that muslim rulers murdered so many. But that type of thinking died with the middle ages, right? Such things won't happen anymore, right? We are being paranoid if we think it can, right? WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

As recently as 1971, the same large scale genocidal anti-hindu murder resurfaced. It is estimated that 3 million people were killed in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in the year prior to Bangladeshi liberation. Of these, it is estimated that 2 million were members of Bangladesh's hindu minority. That minority was targetted specifically since the WEst Pakistani leadership thought the hindu minority was causing all the separatist sentiment. [These experiences caused Abul Kasem to leave Islam. He now writes prolifically for Islam-watch.com. You can read his interview here
http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/Abul-Kasem-Interview-An-Apostate-Speaks.htm
where he talks about the murder of hindus in 1971.)

One can read the Hamoodur Rahman report which investigated the genocide. There were open orders from the Pak military high command to "kill all hindus." Simple! Just kill them. The commanders asked their subordinates "How many hindus have you killed?" Here is the report:
http://www.bangla2000.com/Bangladesh/Independence-War/Report-Hamoodur-Rahman/default.shtm

All this was only 37 years ago, not in the middle ages. Indeed, this murderous ideology of Jihad upon kafirs lies just an inch below the surface at all times. What is happening in Darfur is another example. This has always been the way Islam spread and established itself - through large scale genocide of native cultures, large scale sexual enslavement of women (as happened in 1971, and is happening again in Darfur), and a lack of all humanity shown to kafirs.

Let us be aware of the facts.

The movie "Fitna"

2009-01-03T12:45:00.000+05:30

The arabic word "Fitna" roughly means "disorder." It famously appears in Kuran 8:39, which instructs muslims to fight till "all fitna has been subdued, and the only religion is of Allah." This has been understood by all 4 schools of sunni jurisprudence (Shafi, Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki) to mean that muslims are obligated to fight kafirs till all of them convert to Islam.

Dutch MP Geert Wilders has made a movie called Fitna, which shows the Kuranic verses terrorists frequently cite in support of their actions. It can be watched here:
http://www.themoviefitna.com/

It is quite short (18 minutes) and well worth the watch.

What do the Jihadis want? In their own words

2009-01-02T10:54:00.000+05:30

Interview with a senior advisor to the Jamaat-i-Islaami, which is a dominant member of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) alliance that is in power in the NWFP in Pakistan. That means this man is not a fringe loony, but a real ideologue of a party that is in power in a province. This interview was not reported by a single Indian newspaper, thought it would seem to be extremely relevant in understanding what drives the Jihadi mind. Here it is:
http://www.islam-watch.org/JihadiUmmah/What-Islam-Wants-Nabiullah-Khan.htm

Excerpts:

"ALL CAPTURED HINDUS WILL BE MADE SLAVES
HINDU TEMPLES POLLUTE MUSLIM LANDS
After Independence, a lot of Hindus migrated to India. Yet after the
migration, the Pakistani Hindu population was 15%. Do you know what is the
percentage now? It is less than 1%. How was this made possible? How did the
Hindus convert to Islam in a short span of 20 years whereas for 700 years they
had never converted to Islam? That is purely because of the terror of the
Partition.
That terror forced the Hindus who remained in Pakistan to become
Muslims. Pure and simple. JI used similar techniques in Punjab and Sindh. Each
time a riot breaks out in India, we had used that pretext to strike terror among
the Hindus, Christians and Ahmaddiahs. The similar terror will be at the heart
of every non-Muslim, both Hindu as well as Christian, in the coming years in the
entire of India. "

Now, these are the words of a senior ideologue of Jamaat-i-Islaami, not any hindu's. The politically correct crowd don't like to report such truths, because they are unpleasant. Doesn't make them any less true (and makes them FAR more dangerous, since the liberal/politically correct crowd deliberately hide the dangerous intentions of our enemies from us.).

For more on what the Jamaat-i-Islami says about Hindus, please read another post I have on this blog.

Is Indian gun control partly to blame for Mumbai?

2009-01-02T06:37:00.000+05:30

Have you wondered what kind of people live in a city of 15 million, and let 10 armed jihadi terrorists hold them to ransom for 3 full days? The answer: An unarmed people. People who have no means to defend themselves, their family, and their nation. Precisely the kind of victims jihadis love. Consider the following similar situation that happened in Israel:

A couple of terrorists armed with machine guns went to a McDonald's and
opened fire. They killed one Israeli, before someone in the crowd pulled out a
gun and killed one of the terrorists, and others subdued the other terrorists.
The captured terrorist said they had not known that Israeli civilians carry
firearms. They had hoped to kill many in McDonalds, before moving to other
locations to carry out more murder [familar to Mumbaikars].

Our draconian gun control laws have ensured that large cities filled with millions of Indians have no way to defend themselves. We are among the softest victims in the world - we have no compulsory military service (unlike Israel, Germany, Switzerland, etc.), and no access to firearms. Consider that the US has 96million gun owners for a population of 300million. India has almost no gun owners compared to its large population. You think 10 terrorists could hold an American city hostage for 3 days? Not a chance. Any of the 600 odd guests at the 2 hotels in America might have had a handgun, which would have ended the siege pretty quickly.

Here are 3 great articles on Indian gun control:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/mumbais_harsh_lesson_on_gun_co.html
http://www.gunweek.com/
http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/

Here is a website about Indians who feel the same way - that Indians ought to own guns, just like Americans do, and that an armed citizenry is the best guarantee of public safety
http://www.indiansforguns.com/

Minor comment: Gandhiji's pacifism

2009-01-02T06:00:00.000+05:30

Michael Savage hosts a talk radio show called "The Savage nation" on AM 910 in the USA (I listened to a few shows when I visited). It apparently has a larger listernership than any single program (on TV or radio). Here is what he said about Mumbai:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYFCW4S9qTw&feature=related
I don't necessarily agree with everything Savage says (nor how he says it), and I respect Gandhiji immensely, but definitely worth listening to, if for no other reason than to get a viewpoint that is opposite to the political correctness laden stuff our own journalists keep spewing out. Go to minute 4:00 for the discussion on the Mumbai attacks:

What did Pakistan achieve? It drove hindus out (finally, after 1300 years of resistance) from 2 land masses, one of which is arguably their holiest land. It gave radical Islam a place it could do its planning without hindrance. It gave us a headache for all times. And it did nothing to solve the hindu-muslim problems in India. History will record that the only lasting effect of partition was finally driving out the hated kafir hindus from lands they had inhabited for thousands of years (namely, Pak and Bangla).

Of course, Gandhiji's pacifism has been discussed in great depth elsewhere, and this does not purport to be an addition to the debate. Just something I found interesting, thought I would share with readers.

Jihad upon hindus of India-Pakistan-Bangladesh

2008-12-31T06:41:00.001+05:30

Please read this article to see how hindus were done in by deceit and treachery, which is inherent in Islamic teachings such as Taquia (deception) etc.
http://islam-watch.org/HistoryOfJihad/Jihad-against-Hindus-of-India-Pakistan-Bangladesh.htm

Taquia is an Islamic doctrine which says that when in a position of weakness, muslims must pretend to be tolerant of other's beliefs, while they prepare to fight them. This has firm foundation in both Kuran and Hadith.

Islam’s Other Victims: India (by Serge Trifkovic)

2008-12-31T03:45:00.000+05:30

Dr. Trifkovic, author of "The Sword of the Prophet", is among the foremost western scholars who has brought the "Hindu holocaust" (as he, and others call it) to the attention of the western world. For centuries, the murder of millions of hindus by muslim rulers was relatively unknown outside India. After independence, this holocaust was deliberately suppressed in Indian school history textbooks for fear of creating communal tension, and other political reasons. Now the truth seems to be coming out.

Islam’s Other Victims: India

By Serge Trifkovic
(Taken from FrontPageMagazine.com Monday, November 18, 2002 )

Adapted from The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam by Dr. Serge Trifkovic.

The fundamental leftist and anti-American claim about our ongoing conflict with political Islam is this: whatever has happened or does happen, it’s our fault. We provoked them into it by being dirty Yankee imperialists and by unkindly refusing to allow them to destroy Israel. But two things make crystal clear that this is not so:
1. The political arm of Islam has been waging terroristic holy war on the rest of the world for centuries.
2. It has waged this war against civilizations that have nothing to do with the West, let alone America.
This is why the case of Moslem aggression against India proves so much. Let’s look at the historical record.
India prior to the Moslem invasions was one of the world’s great civilizations. Tenth century Hindustan matched its contemporaries in the East and the West in the realms of philosophy, mathematics, and natural science. Indian mathematicians discovered the number zero (not to mention other things, like algebra, that were later transmitted to a Moslem world which mistaken has received credit for them.) Medieval India, before the Moslem invasion, was a richly imaginative culture, one of the half-dozen most advanced civilizations of all time. Its sculptures were vigorous and sensual, its architecture ornate and spellbinding. And these were indigenous achievements and not, as in the case of many of the more celebrated high-points of Moslem culture, relics of pre-Moslem civilizations that Moslems had overrun.
Moslem invaders began entering India in the early 8th century, on the orders of Hajjaj, the governor of what is now Iraq. (Sound familiar?) Starting in 712 the raiders, commanded by Muhammad Qasim, demolished temples, shattered sculptures, plundered palaces, killed vast numbers of men — it took three whole days to slaughter the inhabitants of the city of Debal — and carried off their women and children to slavery, some of it sexual. After the initial wave of violence, however, Qasim tried to establish law and order in the newly-conquered lands, and to that end he even allowed a degree of religious tolerance. but upon hearing of such humane practices, his superior Hajjaj, objected:
"It appears from your letter that all the rules made by you for the comfort and convenience of your men are strictly in accordance with religious law. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the law is different from the one adopted by you, for you go on giving pardon to everybody, high or low, without any discretion between a friend and a foe. The great God says in the Koran [47.4]: "0 True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man."
In a subsequent communication, Hajjaj reiterated that all able-bodied men were to be killed, and that their underage sons and daughters were to be imprisoned and retained as hostages. Qasim obeyed, and on his arrival at the town of Brahminabad massacred between 6,000 and 16,000 men.
The significance of these events lies not just in the horrible numbers involved, but in the fact that the perpetrators of these massacres were not military thugs disobeying the ethical teachings of their religion, as the European crusaders in the Holy Land were, but were actually doing precisely what their religion taught. (And one may note that Christianity has grown up and no longer preaches crusades. Islam has not. As has been well-documented, jihad has been preached from the official centers of Islam, not just the lunatic fringe.)
Qasim’s early exploits were continued in the early eleventh century, when Mahmud of Ghazni, "passed through India like a whirlwind, destroying, pillaging, and massacring," zealously following the Koranic injunction to kill idolaters, whom he had vowed to chastise every year of his life.
In the course of seventeen invasions, in the words of Alberuni, the scholar brought by Mahmud to India,
"Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion toward all Moslems."
Does one wonder why? To this day, the citizens of Bombay and New Delhi, Calcutta and Bangalore, live in fear of a politically-unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan that unlike India (but like every other Moslem country) has not managed to maintain democracy since independence.
Mathura, holy city of the god Krishna, was the next victim:
"In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted." The Sultan [Mahmud] was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The idols included "five of red gold, each five yards high," with eyes formed of priceless jewels. "The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naphtha and fire, and leveled with the ground."
In the aftermath of the invasion, in the ancient cities of Varanasi, Mathura, Ujjain, Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi, and Dwarka, not one temple survived whole and intact. This is the equivalent of an army marching into Paris and Rome, Florence and Oxford, and razing their architectural treasures to the ground. It is an act beyond nihilism; it is outright negativism, a hatred of what is cultured and civilized.
In his book The Story of Civilization, famous historian Will Durant lamented the results of what he termed "probably the bloodiest story in history." He called it "a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within."
Moslem invaders "broke and burned everything beautiful they came across in Hindustan," displaying, as an Indian commentator put it, the resentment of the less developed warriors who felt intimidated in the encounter with "a more refined culture." The Moslem Sultans built mosques at the sites of torn down temples, and many Hindus were sold into slavery. As far as they were concerned, Hindus were kafirs, heathens, par excellence. They, and to a lesser extent the peaceful Buddhists, were, unlike Christians and Jews, not "of the book" but at the receiving end of Muhammad’s injunction against pagans: "Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them." (Not that being "of the book" has much helped Jewish and Christian victims of other Moslem aggressions, but that’s another article.)
The mountainous northwestern approaches to India are to this day called the Hindu Kush, "the Slaughter of the Hindu," a reminder of the days when Hindu slaves from Indian subcontinent died in harsh Afghan mountains while being transported to Moslem courts of Central Asia. The slaughter in Somnath, the site of a celebrated Hindu temple, where 50,000 Hindus were slain on Mahmud’s orders, set the tone for centuries.
The gentle Buddhists were the next to be subjected to mass slaughter in 1193, when Muhammad Khilji also burned their famous library. By the end of the 12th century, following the Moslem conquest of their stronghold in Bihar, they were no longer a significant presence in India. The survivors retreated into Nepal and Tibet, or escaped to the south of the Subcontinent. The remnants of their culture lingered on even as far west as Turkestan. Left to the tender mercies of Moslem conquerors and their heirs they were systematically destroyed, sometimes—as was the case with the four giant statues of Buddha in Afghanistan in March 2001—up to the present day.
That cultivated disposition and developed sensibility can go hand in hand with bigotry and cruelty is evidenced by the example of Firuz Shah, who became the ruler of northern India in 1351. This educated yet tyrannical Moslem ruler of northern India once surprised a village where a Hindu religious festival was celebrated, and ordered all present to be slain. He proudly related that, upon completing the slaughter, he destroyed the temples and in their place built mosques.
The Mogul emperor Akbar is remembered as tolerant, at least by the standards of Moslems in India: only one major massacre was recorded during his long reign (1542-1605), when he ordered that about 30,000 captured Rajput Hindus be slain on February 24, 1568, after the battle for Chitod. But Akbar’s acceptance of other religions and toleration of their public worship, his abolition of poll-tax on non-Moslems, and his interest in other faiths were not a reflection of his Moslem spirit of tolerance. Quite the contrary, they indicated a propensity for free-thinking in the realm of religion that finally led him to complete apostasy. Its high points were the formal declaration of his own infallibility in all matters of religious doctrine, his promulgation of a new creed, and his adoption of Hindu and Zoroastrian festivals and practices. This is a pattern one sees again and again in Moslem history, down to the present day: whenever one finds a reasonable, enlightened, tolerant Moslem, upon closer examination this turns out to be someone who started out as a Moslem but then progressively wandered away from the orthodox faith. That is to say: the best Moslems are generally the least Moslem (a pattern which does not seem to be the case with other religions.)
Things were back to normal under Shah Jahan (1593-1666), the fifth Mogul Emperor and a grandson of Akbar the Great. Most Westerners remember him as the builder of the Taj Mahal and have no idea that he was a cruel warmonger who initiated forty-eight military campaigns against non-Moslems in less than thirty years. Taking his cue from his Ottoman co-religionists, on coming to the throne in 1628 he killed all his male relations except one who escaped to Persia. Shah Jahan had 5,000 concubines in his harem, but nevertheless indulged in incestuous sex with his daughters Chamani and Jahanara. During his reign in Benares alone 76 Hindu temples were destroyed, as well as Christian churches at Agra and Lahore. At the end of the siege of Hugh, a Portuguese enclave near Calcutta, that lasted three months, he had ten thousand inhabitants "blown up with powder, drowned in water or burnt by fire." Four thousand were taken captive to Agra where they were offered Islam or death. Most refused and were killed, except for the younger women, who went into harems.
These massacres perpetrated by Moslems in India are unparalleled in history. In sheer numbers, they are bigger than the Jewish Holocaust, the Soviet Terror, the Japanese massacres of the Chinese during WWII, Mao’s devastations of the Chinese peasantry, the massacres of the Armenians by the Turks, or any of the other famous crimes against humanity of the 20th Century. But sadly, they are almost unknown outside India.
There are several reasons for this. In the days when they ruled India, the British, pursuing a policy of divide-and-rule, whitewashed the record of the Moslems so that they could set them up as a counterbalance to the more numerous Hindus. During the struggle for independence, Gandhi and Nehru downplayed historic Moslem atrocities so that they could pretend a facade of Hindu-Moslem unity against the British. (Naturally, this façade dissolved immediately after independence and several million people were killed in the religious violence attendant on splitting British India into India and Pakistan.) After independence, Marxist Indian writers, blinkered by ideology, suppressed the truth about the Moslem record because it did not fit into the Marxist theory of history. Nowadays, the Indian equivalent of political correctness downplays Moslem misdeeds because Moslems are an "oppressed minority" in majority-Hindu India. And Indian leftist intellectuals always blame India first and hate their own Hindu civilization, just their equivalents at Berkeley blame America and the West.
Unlike Germany, which has apologized to its Jewish and Eastern European victims, and Japan, which has at least behaved itself since WWII, and even America, which has gone into paroxysms of guilt over what it did to the infinitely smaller numbers of Red Indians, the Moslem aggressors against India and their successors have not even stopped trying to finish the job they started. To this day, militant Islam sees India as "unfinished business" and it remains high on the agenda of oil-rich Moslem countries such as Saudi Arabia, which are spending millions every year trying to convert Hindus to Islam.
One may take some small satisfaction in the fact that they find it rather slow going.
Serge Trifkovic received his PhD from the University of Southampton in England and pursued postdoctoral research at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. His past journalistic outlets have included the BBC World Service, the Voice of America, CNN International, MSNBC, U.S. News & World Report, The Washington Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, The Times of London, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer. He is foreign affairs editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. This article was adapted for Front Page Magazine by Robert Locke.

Taleban 'will kill school girls'

2008-12-30T22:21:00.000+05:30

The familiar spectre of Islam - the first sign is the brutal oppression of women and their subjugation to animal-status. And yes folks, this is all exactly as per Kuran and Hadith laws.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7799926.stm
Taleban 'will kill school girls'

Taleban militants in the Swat valley in north-west Pakistan have threatened to kill girls who attend school.
A local Taleban commander ordered parents to stop sending their daughters to school by 15 January.
In comments broadcast on an illegal radio station, he threatened to blow up schools which enrolled female students.
This year alone, Taleban militants have destroyed more than 130 schools in the Swat valley. They want to bring in Islamic sharia law in the region.
Militant attacks on schools in the region have deprived more than 17,000 students of education.
'Severe blow'
Although schools for girls have come under attack on numerous occasions in the past, this is the first time Taleban militants have issued a complete ban on girls attending them, the BBC's Ethirajan Anbarasan says.
A Taleban spokesman said the prohibition would remain in place unless and until Islamic sharia law was fully implemented in the region.
State-run schools are seen by the insurgents as key symbols of the government.
Now the militants have threatened to destroy private schools as well.
These schools are not Islamic religious institutions and the students are taught courses based on the government syllabus.
Locals say the ongoing attacks on schools have dealt a severe blow to education of girls and young women in the Swat valley.
Those who can afford it have already moved out of the region, but the poor have no other option than keeping their daughters at home, our correspondent says.
Al-Qaeda and Taleban militants are active in the Swat valley, which has been the scene of an insurgency since August 2007.
Hundreds of people have been killed since then in battles between security forces and militants led by Maulana Fazlullah, a cleric with links to the Pakistan Taleban movement.

"kill all the men and take women and children captive"

2008-12-30T11:33:00.000+05:30

As per Islamic law (aka sharia), when muslims defeat any kafir in war, they are to do 2 things:
1. Kill all the men (by beheading, since that was the example set by Mohammed)
2. Take the women and children as slaves and distribute among the muslims

Prophet Mohammed himself started these practises, as recorded in the following Hadith:

Hadith Sahih Bukhari 5:59:512:
Narated By Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it
was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever
we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for
those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on
the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and women
taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share
of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet.

Hadith Sahih Bukhari 5:59:447:
Narated By Abu Said Al-Khudri: The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to
accept the verdict of Sad bin Mu'adh. So the Prophet sent for Sad, and the
latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet
said to the Ansar, "Get up for your chief or for the best among you." Then the
Prophet said (to Sad)." These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your
verdict." Sad said, "Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring and
women as captives." On that the Prophet said, "You have judged according to
Allah's Judgment."

Sensual rewards in Jannat (heaven) for kafir killers

2008-12-30T11:29:00.000+05:30

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1741.htm

This is the video of a lecture given by Saudi religious cleric on what awaits kafir-killers in jannat. Goes to show the kind of thinking Qasab and company have, and how radically different it is from what we might call civilized thinking.

Excerpt:

"Omar Al-Sweilem: Harith Ibn Al-Muhasibi told us what would happen when we
meet the black-eyed virgin with her black hair and white face – praised be He
who created night and day. What hair! What a chest! What a mouth! What cheeks!
What a figure! What breasts! What thighs! What legs! What whiteness! What
softness! Without any creams – no Nivea, no vaseline. No nothing! He said that
faces would be soft that day. Even your own face will be soft without any powder
or makeup.
You yourself will be soft, so how soft will a black-eyed virgin
be, when she comes to you so tall and with her beautiful face, her black hair
and white face - praised be He who created night and day. Just feel her palm,
Sheik! He said: How soft will a fingertip be, after being softened in paradise
for thousands of years! There is no god but Allah. He told us that if you
entered one of the palaces, you would find ten black-eyed virgins sprawled on
musk cushions. Where is Abu Khaled? Here, he has arrived! When they see you,
they will get up and run to you. Lucky is the one who gets to put her thumb in
your hand. When they get hold of you, they will push you onto your back, on the
musk cushions.
They will push you onto your back, Jamal! Allah Akbar! I wish
this on all people present here. He said that one of them would place her mouth
on yours. Do whatever you want. Another one would press her cheek against yours,
yet another would press her chest against yours, and the others would await
their turn. There is no god but Allah. He told us that one black-eyed virgin
would give you a glass of wine. Wine in Paradise is a reward for your good
deeds. The wine of this world is destructive, but not the wine of the world to
come."

Hadith on rape of kafir females captured in war

2008-12-30T11:20:00.001+05:30

There is an entire chapter in the Hadith on how to rape captured women without making them pregnant, so that their slave price does not fall (pregnant women fetch lower price).

Remember, this was the fate of millions of our hindu sisters who fell into muslim hands.

Chapter 22: AL AZL (INCOMPLETE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE): COITUS INTERRUPTUS

Book 008, Number 3371:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Book 008, Number 3377:
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that mention was made of 'azl in the presence of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) whereupon he said: Why do you practise it? They said: There is a man whose wife has to suckle the child, and if that person has a sexual intercourse with her (she may conceive) which he does not like, and there is another person who has a slave-girl and he has a sexual intercourse with her, but he does not like her to have conception so that she may not become Umm Walad, whereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: There is no harm if you do not do that, for that (the birth of the child) is something pre- ordained.

Was Sikandar Lodhi a "kind monarch"?

2008-12-30T11:13:00.000+05:30

Many people, notably the breed of historians who write Indian school textbooks, like to say that Sikandar Lodhi was very "kind." Among muslims, he is often cited as an example of a "very kind" monarch who built rest houses for pilgrims. The fine print is that the pilgrims had to be muslims. For Hindus, he, like most other medieval rulers, were cruel beyond description. Here is a story of the "kindness" of Sikandar Lodhi that is well known among students of medieval Indian history. Bodhan - a renunciate sadhu (monk), was burnt alive for only saying this:

"Islam and Hindu Dharma are both equally acceptable to God if followed with sincerety."

This detail is reported in "History of the Delhi sultanate" by M.M. Syed. It appears on page 176, and can even be seen on google books. The book gives further examples of his "kindness" such as:

"..he frequently razed temples to the ground and erected mosques in thier place, as evidenced by his behaviour at Mandrail, Utgir, and Narwar. At Mathura he prevented hindus from bathing in their sacred ghats or having themselves shaved.

The stones of broken hindu idols were given away to butchers (of cows) to be used as weights."

Interestingly, Sikandar Lodhi's mother was a hindu!

Lies in Pakistani history textbooks

2008-12-30T10:46:00.000+05:30

The lies that Pakistani history textbooks contain are truly unbelievable. Here is their account of the first muslim conquest in India, followed by the true account.

Pakistani Class VIth textbook describing the conquest of Debal by Mohammed Bin Qasim:

"In the middle of the city of Deebal (Sindh), there was a Hindu temple. There
was a flag hoisted on top of it. The Hindus believed that as long as the flag
kept flying, nobody could harm them. Mohd bin Qasim found out about this…. The
Muslims began to catapult stones at the temple and at the flag, ultimately
making it fall to the ground. The whole city became tumultuous and the Hindus
lost heart. Some Muslims clambered up the walls of the temple and forced open
the door. Qasim’s army entered the city and after conquering it, announced
peace. The Muslims treated the vanquished so well many Hindus converted to
Islam."

Here is the true account, from Mohd Bin Qasim's own chronicles:

"Mohd bin Qasim first attacked Debal. It was garrisoned by 4000 hindu kshatriyas
and supported by 3000 brahmans. All males of ages 17 and upwards were put to the
sword (killed) and their women and children enslaved. 700 beautiful females who
were seeking protection in the budh (probably meaning buddhist temple) were
captured with valuable ornaments. Mohd dispatched 1/5th of these to Hajjaj,
governor of Damascus as per Islamic law. This included 75 damsels. Other 4/5ths
were distributed among soldiers.

Thereafter whichever places were
attacked like Rawar, Sehwan, Dhalila, Multan, etc. hindu soldiers and men were
slain, the common people fled or had to accept Islam. Some died with their
religion (ie refused to convert). Many women of the higher class immolated
themselves (Jauhar) and most others became the prize of the conquerors. These
women and children were enslaved and converted. Batches of them were sent to the
Caliph in regular installments. After Rawar was taken, Qasim halted there for 3
days during which he killed 6000 men. Their followers and women were taken
captive. Later when the slaves were counted, there were 60,000. Of these, 30
young ladies were of royal blood. Qasim sent them all to the Hajjaj, who
forwaded them to Walid the Khalifa. A considerable number of hindus were
enslaved and deported to Iraq. The entire garrison of Multan was put to sword,
and families of the chiefs numbering 6000 were enslaved.

In Sindh,
females captured after every campaign were converted and married to arab
soldiers. The instructions given by Hajjaj to Mohd Bin Qasim were "give no
quarter to the infidels, but to cut their throats, and take the women and
children as slaves."

When the final conquest of Sindh was done, 1/5th of
all plunder was brought in front of Qasim. These were 20,000 women. Veils were
put on their faces and they were distributed among the soldiers."

MUST WATCH: The true face of radical Islam

2008-11-02T09:41:00.000+05:30

I think this is a must-see 30 minute free movie for those who want to understand just what Islam is capable of doing, and intends to do.
http://thethirdjihad.com/30min.html

Please pass this website to friends, and encourage others to educate themselves about this threat. You can watch the video below: