WHY MUSLIMS ARE VIOLENT
Posted by jagoindia on July 3, 2011
WHY MUSLIMS ARE VIOLENT
Posted by jagoindia on February 16, 2010
Islam and Violence
Excerpted from Link
Muslims who commit acts of violence and terror in the name of God, can find ample justification for their actions, based on the teachings of the Qur’an and the sayings and examples from prophet Muhammad himself!
Muslims who take upon themselves to destroy their alleged enemies in the name of God, can rightly claim to be following the commands of God in the Qur’an and imitating their prophet as their role model.
Groups in Islam who resort to violence, are not an aberration to Islam, but in fact can legitimately claim to be working within the basic parameters of Islamic Jihad. We will now turn to the evidence in support of our claim.
The following are only some of the verses in the Qur’an that can and have been used in the history of Islam in support of violence in the name of God and the glories of martyrdom in a holy war.
2:190-193 “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you … And slay them wherever ye catch them … And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God …”
2:216 “Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth and ye know not.”
2:224 “Then fight in the cause of God and know that God heareth and knoweth all things.”
3:157-158 “And if ye are slain or die in the way of God, forgiveness and mercy from God are far better than all they could amass. And if ye die, or are slain, Lo! It is unto God that ye are brought together.”
3:169 “Think not of those who are slain in God’s way as dead. Nay, they live finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.”
3:195 “… Those who have … fought or been slain, verily I will blot out from them their iniquities and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath; a reward from the presence of God …”
4:101 “… For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.”
4:74, 75 “Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God whether he is slain or gets victory, soon shall we give him a reward of great (value). Those who believe fight in the cause of God and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil, so fight ye against the friends of Satan, feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.”
4:89 “They but wish that ye should reject faith as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they. But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them…”
4:95 “Not equal are those believers who sit at (at home) and receive no hurt and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than those who sit (at home).
5:36 “The punishment of those who wage war against God 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 sides, or exile from the land. That is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
5:54 “O ye who believe. Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.”
8:12-17 “Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them. This because they contend against God and his apostle. If any contend against God and his apostle, God is strict in punishment … O ye who believe. When ye meet the unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day, unless it be a stratagem of war … he draws on himself the wrath of God and his abode is Hell, an evil refuge (indeed).”
8:59-60 “Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly). They will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of God and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know …”
8:65 “O apostle! Rouse the believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred. If a hundred they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers, for these are a people without understanding.”
9:5 “… fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) …”
9:14 “Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame …”
9:29 “Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and his apostle nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [religious tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
47:4 “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks, at length when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them) … but if it had been God’s will, he could certainly have exacted retribution from them (himself), but (he lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of God, he will never let their deeds be lost.”
61:4 “Truly God loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.”
A simple reading of such Qur’anic passages makes it obvious how easy it is for many Muslims to feel hatred and enmity against Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims. Although, many Muslims are very fond of quoting some of the more “open-minded” and “inclusive” verses of the Qur’an, one cannot ignore the weight and impact of the above passages on a devout Muslim who wants to find and obey the will of God as found in the Qur’an. Before, we go on to other examples from prophet Muhammad himself, we need to respond to two issues that some Muslims bring up at this point.
Many have claimed that Qur’anic verses in support of fighting, were for a special historical situation concerning the beginning of Islam. They argue that since prophet Muhammad, was persecuted in Mecca for the first thirteen years of his ministry, he was justified in his military actions in the last ten years of his life in Medina and for the support of the budding Islamic movement. The problem with this reasoning is that nowhere in the Qur’an itself the above commands to fight are restricted to a special time period or against a special people group. Unlike the divine commands found in the book of Joshua in the OT, that were specific to a time, place and people group, Orthodox Muslims believe that the Qur’anic commands are universal and thus applicable for all times and places.
A second objection that one hears is that Islam is a religion of peace and war in Islam is only for self-defense. Jamal Badawi, a popular Muslim apologist, claims, “Actual armed jihad is permissible under two conditions alone: one is for self-defense, and the other is for fighting against oppression.” (cited in Diana Eck, A New Religious America, HarperSanFrancisco, 2001, p. 238).
Although, Badawi is quite accurate in describing the conditions of armed jihad in Islam, what he fails to say is that the definitions of “self-defense” and “fighting against oppression” are much broader than usually understood. Many Orthodox Muslims believe that if a nation’s leaders do not acknowledge the rule of Islam, then those rulers are “oppressors” and thus a legitimate target for war (see John Kelsay, Islam and War, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993, p. 35).
Many Muslims argue that America is a cultural aggressor by exporting its Hollywood values all over the world, and thus any fight against Americans is done in self-defense (see the article by Mark Galli, “Now What? A Christian response to religious terrorism,” Christianity Today, Oct 22, 2001). Therefore, there is no end to how a Muslim group can define “self-defense” and “oppression” and thus find an Islamic justification for violence.
Posted by jagoindia on June 14, 2009
An Open Letter to President Obama
by Brigitte Gabriel
11 Jun 2009
Dear Mr. President,
You face difficult challenges in matters such as achieving peace in the
Middle East and protecting America from the threat of radical Islam and
terrorism. These are challenges that have vexed past presidents, going
as far back as our second president, John Adams. I have no doubt you
appreciate both the gravity of these challenges and the enormous
obstacles that exist to solving them.
I also have no doubt that you and your staff understood that, no matter
what you said in your speech last Thursday in Cairo, there would be
those who would take issue with you. That is always the case when
attempting to solve problems that are as deep and emotionally-laden as
these challenges are.
I am assuming it is your sincere hope that the approach you have chosen
to take, as evidenced by what I’m sure was a carefully crafted speech,
will ultimately prove successful. However, it pains me to say this sir,
but, while you said in your speech that you are a “student of history,”
it is abundantly clear that, in these matters, you do not know history
and thus, as Santayana noted, you are doomed to repeat it. In doing so
your efforts, however well-intentioned they may be, will not produce
what you profess to hope they will produce.
A wise man once said that if you start with the wrong assumptions, no
matter how logical your reasoning is, you will end up with the wrong
conclusion. With all due respect Mr. President, you are starting with
certain assumptions that are unsupported by history and an objective
study of the ideology of political Islam.
You began in your speech by asserting that “tensions” exist between the
United States and Muslims around the world, which, of course, is
correct. Unfortunately, you then proceeded, incorrectly, to lay
virtually all the blame for these tensions at the feet of America and
the West. You blamed western colonialism, the Cold War, and even
modernity and globalism.
A student of American history, who is not trying to reconstruct it to
fit a modern politically correct narrative, would state that tensions
between America and Muslims began with the unprovoked, four-decades long
assault by the Muslim Barbary pirates against American shipping in the
late 18th and early 19th centuries. I find it telling that you mentioned
the Treaty of Tripoli in your speech but ignored the circumstances that
led to it. That treaty was but one of numerous attempts by the United
States to achieve peace with the jihadists of the Barbary Coast who were
attacking our shipping and killing and enslaving our citizens and our
soldiers – and who by their own admission were doing so to fulfill the
call to jihad.
These jihadists were not acting to protest American foreign policy,
which was decidedly isolationist, and there was no state of Israel to
scapegoat. They were doing what countless Islamic jihadists have done
throughout history – acting upon the hundreds of passages in the Qur’an
and the Hadith that call upon faithful Muslims to kill, conquer or
subjugate the infidel.
A student of world history would know that, for all the acknowledged
evils of Western colonialism, these evils pale in comparison to the
nearly 14 centuries of Islamic colonialism that began in Arabia under
the leadership of Mohammed. The student of history would know that
Islamic forces eradicated all Jewish and Christian presence from Arabia
after Mohammed’s death, and then succeeded in conquering all of North
Africa, most of the Middle East, much of Asia Minor, and significant
portions of Europe and India – eventually creating an empire larger than
Rome’s was at its peak.
The number of dead and enslaved during these many centuries of Islamic
imperial conquest and colonialism have been estimated to total more than
300 million. What’s more, the wealth of many of the conquered nations
and cultures was plundered by the Islamic conquerors, and millions of
millions of non-Muslims who did survive were forced to pay onerous
taxes, such as the “jizya,” a humiliation tax to the Islamic caliphs.
Indeed, in some areas Christians and Jews were made to wear a receipt
for the jizya around their neck as a mark of their dishonor.
These facts have not been invented by Christian or Jewish historical
revisionists, but were chronicled by Muslim eyewitnesses throughout the
past 14 centuries and are available to be researched by any person
seeking an objective understanding of how Islam spread throughout the
You say in your speech that we must squarely face the tensions that
exist between America and the Muslim world. That is a laudable notion
with which I agree, but by casting Islam as the historical victim and
the West (and by implication, America) as the aggressor, you do not face
these tensions squarely, but alleviate the Muslim world from coming to
grips with the jihadist ideology embedded in its holy books and acted
upon for 1,400 years.
Even worse, you empower and embolden militant Islamists who regard your
gestures as signs of weakness and capitulation.
The issue is not that all Muslims are terrorists or radicals or
extremists. We all know that the majority of Muslims are not. We also
know that many peace-loving Muslims are victims of Islamist violence.
The issue is this: what drives hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide
to call for the death of Jews?
What drives millions of Muslims to riot, destroy property, and take
innocent lives in reaction to the Danish cartoons?
What drives tens of thousands of Muslims to demand the execution of a
British teacher whose only “crime” was allowing her students to name
their teddy bears “Mohammed”?
What drives countless Muslims worldwide to actively participate in, or
fund, or provide nurture to, terrorist organizations?
What drives Muslims in mosques in America to proclaim and distribute
materials that call for hatred of and the destruction of infidels?
What drives entire Islamic countries to prohibit the building of a
Christian church or synagogue?
To assume, as you apparently do, that what drives these actions is not
an ideology embedded in the holy books of Islam, but rather other “root
causes,” most of which you lay at the feet of America and the West, is
at best naïve and at worst dangerous.
Lastly, I must address your statement that “Islam has a proud tradition
of tolerance.” Unfortunately, the examples you gave are the exception
rather than the rule.
Historically speaking, I seriously doubt the Egyptian Copts, the
Lebanese Maronites, the Christians in Bethlehem, the Assyrians, the
Hindus, the Jews, and many others who have been persecuted by Islamic
violence and supremacism, would agree with your assertion.
For instance, Christians and Jews became “Dhimmis,” a second class group
under Islam. Dhimmis were forced to wear distinctive clothing; it was
Baghdad’s Caliph Al-Mutawakkil, in the ninth century, who designated a
yellow badge for Jews under Islam, which Hitler copied and duplicated in
Nazi Germany nearly a thousand years later.
I witnessed first-hand the “tolerance” of Islam when Islamists ravaged
my country of birth, Lebanon, in the 1970′s, leaving widespread death
and destruction in their wake. I saw how they re-paid the tolerance that
Lebanese Christians extended toward them. My experience is not an
isolated one. When you make an unfounded assertion about the “proud
tradition” of tolerance in Islam, you do a great disservice to the
hundreds of millions of non-Muslims who have been killed, maimed,
enslaved, conquered, subjugated or displaced – in the cause of Islamic
Mr. President, those of us like me who are ringing the alarm in America
about the threat of radical Islam would like nothing better than to
peacefully co-exist with the Muslim world. Most Americans would like
nothing better than to peacefully co-exist with the Muslim world. The
obstacle to achieving this does not lie with us in America and the West.
It lies with the hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide, including
many of their spiritual leaders, who take seriously the repeated calls
to jihad in the Qur’an and the Hadith. Who regard “infidels” as inferior
and worthy of conquering, subjugating and forcibly converting. Who
support “cultural jihad” as a means to subvert non-Muslim societies from
within. Who take seriously the admonitions throughout the Qur’an and the
Hadith to convert the world to Islam – by force if necessary – and bring
it under the rule of Allah.
Unless you are willing to courageously and honestly accept this, your
aspirations for worldwide comity and peace in the Middle East are doomed
Brigitte Gabriel is the New York Times bestselling author of They Must
Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It. She
is the founder and president of ACT! for America, www.ActforAmerica.org.
Posted by jagoindia on May 24, 2009
22 May 2009, AFP
ATHENS: Muslim immigrants clashed again with Greek police on Friday during a second day of protests in Athens over charges that officers tore up a Koran during an identity check of immigrants.
Nearly 1,000 Muslims rallied in the city’s central Omonia square in a demonstration organised by leftist, immigrant and anti-racism groups.
Several men in their 20s and 30s from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Syria and Somalia marched to parliament and the interior minister shouting “Allah! Allah!” and slogans in Arabic.
The Greek capital’s main streets were closed amid a heavy police presence.
Violence broke out at the end of the demonstration as around 100 protesters threw projectiles at police, who tried to disperse the crowd with tear gas.
“Immigrants are outraged. The incident on Wednesday was the straw that broke the camel’s back,” Vasso Akrivou, a member of the group Expel Racism, said.
Around 1,500 Muslim immigrants launched a demonstration on Thursday one day after hearing word of an incident involving the Koran.
Demonstrators said that when police stopped four Syrian immigrants to check their papers on Wednesday, one of the officers tore up a Koran and stamped on it.
The Greek police has opened an investigation into the allegations.
Police also used tear gas to disperse protesters who were throwing dustbins and stones on Thursday while a car was damaged during the clashes.
Greece is faced with a daily influx of immigrants from Asia via Turkey, many of whom are trying to reach Western Europe. Rights groups have complained of cases of police brutality against immigrants.
Interior ministry figures for 2008 show that more than 146,000 illegal immigrants were arrested in Greece, of whom 57,000 had arrived from Turkey.
The total number of illegal immigrants living in Greece is estimated to be 250,000, most of them Albanian nationals.
Posted by jagoindia on April 12, 2009
Murad Ali Baig , Hindustan Times
April 10, 2009
Mumbai. Afghanistan. Pakistan. The ‘Islamist’ terror attacks in South Asia all had the hallmarks of Wahabi ideology. Its followers are blinded by faith to believe that they have the mandate of Allah to rid the world of ‘infidels’ and ‘heretics’. Combating terrorism may thus be impossible until this Wahabi cult is thoroughly discredited.
Mohammed Abd Al Wahab, (1703-1794), redefined Islam in a narrow and intolerant way and injected into it such a virulent cult of hatred that, though repeatedly put down, it has risen to become the single greatest threat to world peace today.
A single rough Bedouin could so radically reinterpret Islam that his followers got away with destroying the tomb of Prophet Muhammad at Madina in 1803 and later stripped the sacred Kaaba at Makkah of the treasures that pilgrims had adorned it with. Wahab disallowed ceremonies for marriage or death, worship of saints, adorning of graves, tombs or other sacred objects, holding religious processions, art, music and dance and demanded the total suppression of women.
The Islam of the Quran suffered in the hands of many revisionists who changed its direction over time. The holy book was supplemented with the Hadith written 200 years later with further interpretations. In the Quran, Muhammad had defined jihad after the battle of Badr … “We are now finished with the lesser jihad (struggle against oppression) and are beginning the greater jihad (struggle against our own weaknesses),” but jihad is mentioned 199 times in the Hadith in stronger terms. Wahab seems to have understood the tremendous power of hatred to unite and inflame its followers in an intense ‘holy war’. He urged followers to mercilessly exterminate ‘infidels’, ‘blasphemers’, ‘idol worshippers’, Christians and even ‘Muslim apostates’ like the Shias and Sufis. He made them believe that Allah and his angels would assure success with the joys of paradise guaranteed to any who fell as martyrs for the cause. This lust for violence soon overcame inhibitions about innovations and the Wahabis soon grew adept at using the latest weapons and technology.
Wahab’s vision enshrined in his book ‘Kitab al-Tawhid’ (book of unity) encountered strong opposition when it was first preached around 1744. Religious teachers including his father and uncle were horrified but he was fortunate to find a patron in Muhammad Al-Saud who used this vitriolic new creed as a powerful weapon to propel his tribe forward. Al-Saud went on to win his descendents the kingdom of Arabia that they rule to this day. Then the discovery of oil in 1938 gave them the power to finance the spread of their creed.
With Indian Muslims making pilgrimages to Makkah, Wahabism spread to India by the 19th century. Wahabi, also called Salafi, centres were established in our country.
The ‘chhota (small) godown’ at Patna supplied funds, manpower weapons and materials to the ‘barra (big) godown’ at Sittana near Swat where the turbulent border tribes were drawn to this violent creed. The ‘Hindustani fanatics’ were rooted out several times by the British.
These fanatics had great influence in the Indian madrasas where most Muslim children were educated. In 1866, two mullahs set up a madrasa at Deoband, north of Delhi, that was initially known as the Arab Madrasa, to preserve Islam from British oppression. Though Wahabism never had mass support, as it was too violent and intolerant, few Muslims dared to speak up against them though some mainstream mullahs declared ‘fatwas’ against this heresy. After 1947 most Muslims in India were conscious of the need to fit in with a Hindu majority and the Wahabi influence diminished.
In Pakistan however, the fanaticism was kept aflame on the issue of Muslims being oppressed in Kashmir. They were greatly encouraged when the USSR occupied Afghanistan in 1979 and the CIA collaborated with Pakistan to fund and train the Taliban to fight them. Madrasas preaching Wahabism then infected the children of some three million Afghan refugees.
Deoband’s Dar ul Uloom, followed by a college of 6,000 Indian mullahs, recently condemned this terrorism. The gathering clarified the meaning of jihad, saying that killing women, children and Muslims was un-Islamic and rejected all kinds of injustice, violence, breach of peace, bloodshed, murder and plunder in any form. Muhammad’s merciful and beneficent Allah was clearly not the god of Wahab. Wahabism does not have majority support in Pakistan. But because Wahabis give all Muslims a bad name, Muslims need to make the fanatics understand that Wahabis are not heroes but heretics against the words of Muhammad. Indian Muslims were too intimidated by Wahabism to speak out fearlessly against this creed. It is time they did.
Posted by jagoindia on March 4, 2009
Fitna – The Movie Geert Wilders’ film about the Violent Quran (English)
February 26, 2009
(CNN) — A right-wing Dutch politician arrived in the U.S. Thursday to show his controversial film attacking Islam.
Geert Wilders says he fears the Islamization of Europe but his short film on the subject has provoked death threats, Muslim protests and led the UK to refuse him entry.
In the U.S., Wilders is touring with the film “Fitna” and meeting with lawmakers in Washington.
The 16-minute documentary juxtaposes passages of the Quran with the mass murder of 9/11 and other acts by extremist Muslims.
He says if liberal lawmakers in Europe can ban Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” then they should also bar Islam’s holy book.
But his critics argue he is twisting selected passages from the Quran to suit his argument in the same way that extremists do to promote terrorism.
Wilders told CNN: “It would be ridiculous to say all Muslims are terrorists. This is nonsense. But most of the terrorists in the world today are Muslims…
“Islam is not just another religion. I believe Islam is more a totalitarian ideology. I have nothing against Muslims. The majority of Muslims in our societies are law-abiding people.”
In another CNN nterview he said: “I believe that we should be proud and stand up and say, well we don’t want our children and grandchildren living in a world, in a country dominated by Islamic culture that is only at the end of the day costing us all our freedoms. “…I have nothing against Muslims, but I am very much afraid of the Islamization of our continent.”
Radwan Masmoudi, from the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy: said “I know he doesn’t have a beard and he looks nice with his blond hair, but his views and his opinions are extremely mirror image, exactly mirror images of what al Qaeda has been trying to teach. He is the al Qaeda of the Netherlands.”
Wilders was invited to the U.S. by Republican Senator John Kyl to show “Fitna” to lawmakers in a Senate building near the Capitol.
Kyl said “all too often, people who have the courage to point out the dangers of militant Islamists find themselves vilified and endangered.”
When he answered a similar invitation from a British politician, the UK government called Wilders a threat to community harmony and therefore to public security, and refused him entry to the country.
Posted by jagoindia on February 18, 2009
This interesting note is a comment by little indian this this Link
The writer articulates the difference between the holy Gita and the unholy Quran quite well.
littleindian on December 1, 2008 at 22:17
I followed the pingback to read your article. I wish to make a few points.
As you know in Mahabharata, at the start of the battle, Arjuna sees his step-brothers in the opposing army and questions why he had to fight.
Let us accept the war refered to is the historical event and not allegorical is some argues.
The Gita – is a narration of the alleged conversation between Krishna and Arjuna on the battle field following Arjuna’s refusal to fight.
Of the eighteen chapters of the Gita, it is only in two, the second and third, where Krishna instructs Arjuna of his duties as a warrior on a battlefield and why in certain situations war becomes necessary and the reasons why Arjuna had to fight that War. The rest of the text is Krishna revealing his true identity and discusses soul, religion, yoga, philosophy etc.
This was a conversation between two individuals about a specific task at hand. It does not advice battle against “non-believers”, idolators, or establishing a global hindu nation.
The text in Quran, gives a directive to fight a war against
1. obpression and injustice – I have no problems with that.
2. against non-believers who refuse to believe.
I have serious objections to that. It goes against my fundamental belief in equal human rights.
If, in this 21st century, ever a movement arises says the Gita (based on those two chapters of Gita) gives hindus the directive
1. to be intolerent of all other religions,
2. to wage wars to convert the entire world into hinduism 3. or to kill to wipe out a religion in entirely
- I will be one of the firsts to denounce it and burn those pages.
I expect all “moderate” muslims to do that.
I am fed up of hearing that those who kill in the name of Islam are not muslims.
Of course they are.
To me they are the honest followers of Islam – who are simply practicing what is written without denying their true directive.
I am unable to trust a “moderate muslim” for I will never know how fundamental are their unspoken beliefs.
Posted by jagoindia on February 15, 2009
The world famous historian, Will Durant has written in his Story of Civilisation that “the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history”.
India before the advent of Islamic imperialism was not exactly a zone of peace. There were plenty of wars fought by Hindu princes. But in all their wars, the Hindus had observed some time-honoured conventions sanctioned by the Sastras. The Brahmins and the Bhikshus were never molested. The cows were never killed. The temples were never touched. The chastity of women was never violated. The non-combatants were never killed or captured. A human habitation was never attacked unless it was a fort. The civil population was never plundered. War booty was an unknown item in the calculations of conquerors. The martial classes who clashed, mostly in open spaces, had a code of honor. Sacrifice of honor for victory or material gain was deemed as worse than death.
Islamic imperialism came with a different code–the Sunnah of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead, was a measure of the success of a military mission. And they did all this as mujahids (holy warriors) and ghazls (kafir-killers) in the service of Allah and his Last Prophet. Hindus found it very hard to understand the psychology of this new invader. For the first time in their history, Hindus were witnessing a scene which was described by Kanhadade Prabandha (1456 AD) in the following words: “The conquering army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people’s wealth, took Brahmins and children and women of all classes captive, flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious Turks.” That was written in remembrance of Alauddin Khalji’s invasion of Gujarat in the year l298 AD. But the gruesome game had started three centuries earlier when Mahmud Ghaznavi had vowed to invade India every year in order to destroy idolatry, kill the kafirs, capture prisoners of war, and plunder vast wealth for which India was well-known.
Posted by jagoindia on February 8, 2009
Anwar Shaikh on Islamic terror by Koenraad Elst
The answer, Mr. Sheikh argues, is quite straightforward: Mohammed himself was a terrorist, the most authoritative precedent for contemporary Islamic terrorists. To prove his point, he presents long lists of quotations from the Quran, the better-known Hadith (traditions of the Prophet) and also some lesser-known Hadith. In this respect, his book is a treasure-trove of first-hand data on the foundations of Islam and its doctrine of Holy War ( Jihad ).
Numerous canonical statements affirm that the Mujahid or Holy Warrior undoubtedly counts as the best among Muslims, e.g.: “Acting as Allah’s soldier for one night in a battlefield is superior to saying prayers at home for 2,000 years.” (from Ibn-e-Majah , vol.2, p.162) Or: “Leaving for Jihad in the way of Allah in the morning or evening will merit a reward better than the world and all that is in it.” (from Muslim , 4639) Jihad, while not a duty for every individual Muslim, is a duty on the Muslim community as a whole until the whole world has become part of the Islamic empire.
The cult of martyrdom is an intrinsic part of the doctrine of jihad: the martyr “will desire to return to this world and be killed ten times for the sake of the great honour that has been bestowed upon him.” (Muslim 4635) And from Allah’s own mouth: “Count not those who were slain in God’s way as dead, but rather living with their Lord, by Him provided, rejoicing in the bounty that God has given them.” (Quran 3:163) Contrary to a recent tongue-in-cheek theory which reduces the heavenly reward for the fallen Mujahid from 72 maidens to mere grapes on the basis of some Arabic-Aramaic homonymy, a number of Prophetic sayings, in varied wordings mostly not susceptible to this cute Aramaic interpretation, confirm the traditional belief that “the martyr is dressed in radiant robes of faith, he is married to houris (the paradisiac virgins)” etc. (Ibn-e-Majah, vol.2, p.174) This confirms that the suicide terrorists were not acting against Islamic tenets, as some soft-brained would-be experts in the media have claimed. On the contrary, to sacrifice one’s life in a jihadic operation against the unbelievers is the most glorious thing a Muslim can do.
In Jihad, it is perfectly permitted to deceive the unbelievers and subject them to terror. Anwar Sheikh provides all the scriptural references plus many precedents from history, which we cannot reproduce here. Suffice it to say there is ample evidence that Islam permits, and that by his personal example or by that of the men under his command, Mohammed has given permission for abduction, extortion, rape of hostages, mass-murder of prisoners, assassinations of enemies and dissidents, breaking of the conventions of civilized warfare, breaking of treaties, and suicide missions. From Osama bin Laden to the murderers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, the Islamic terrorists are faithful followers of the Prophet.
Read more here: Anwar Shaikh on Islamic terror by Koenraad Elst
Posted by jagoindia on February 6, 2009
Dutch politician wants Koran prohibited, compares it to Hitler work
Posted : Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:56:12 GMT
Amsterdam – A right-wing Dutch politician in a letter to a national newspaper on Wednesday has called for the Koran to be prohibited. Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Freedom party PVV, wrote in a letter to the daily Volkskrant that the Koran was a “fascist” book which incited people to violence.
Referring to an incident last Saturday when two Moroccans and one Somali youth attacked former Muslim and Islam critic Ehsan Jami, the legislator wrote:
“Enough is enough. Let’s stop politically correct twists and plotting. It is very good Jami now receives personal protection. It is a shame it did not happen sooner. But it does not solve the essence of the problem.”
Wilders continued: “The essence of the problem is the fascist Islam, the sick ideology of Allah and Mohammed as laid down in the Islamic Mein Kampf: the Koran.”
It is not the first time Wilders has made a bold statement about the Islam and the Koran.
Early 2007 the legislator said that Muslims who wanted to remain in the Netherlands should cut out half of the Koran and throw it away.
His remarks caused a stir in the Netherlands and beyond. But the wording of his current letter goes much further.
“Several suras (chapters of the Koran) call upon Muslims to oppress or kill Jews, Christians, people of different faiths and unfaithful, to rape women and use violence to establish a global Muslim state. There are too many suras that incite Muslims to be violent,” Wilders said in the letter.
“Prohibit that miserable book, just like Mein Kampf has been prohibited. This will serve as a warning to those who attacked Jami and other Islamists that the Koran is never an excuse to use violence,” he added.
In his letter, Wilders also criticized Dutch politicians, of whom he said the people should be “ashamed.”
“Their naivety and sick strive for a utopian moderate Islam will only bring our country hell and damnation,” he said.
In his final paragraph, Wilders said he was “fed up with Islam in the Netherlands: no more Muslim immigrants. I am fed up with the worshipping of Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands: not one extra mosque. I am fed up with the Koran in the Netherlands: prohibit the fascist book. Enough is enough.”
Abdeljamid Khairoun, chairman of the Dutch Muslim council, said he was not surprised about Wilders’ most recent statements.
“Wilders suffers from a religion syndrome. He always says the Quran is a bad book. I expect him to request a prohibition for the Torah and the Bible too,” Khairoun said.
According to Khairoun, Wilders takes passages from the Quran “out of their context.” He also said Wilders lacked the knowledge to say anything about the Islamic holy book.
Khairoun also said the Muslim council had previously invited Wilders to talk about his views of Islam, but Wilders had never responded to that invitation.
Following the publication in the Volkskrant, attorney Els Lucas from Lelystad, 40 kilometres north of Amsterdam, filed a complaint with the Dutch police.
Lucas said Wilders’ statements about Islam and Muslims violated Dutch law. His comparison between the Koran and Mein Kampf and his call upon the people not to allow any more Muslim immigrants, were particularly problematic.
His remarks could be defined as incitement against people of the Muslim faith, which is prohibited under Dutch law, Lucas said. The ministry of Justice confirmed a complaint against Wilders had been filed to the Dutch police.