Islamic Terrorism in India

Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims

Archive for the ‘Arabs’ Category

Islam: The Arab National Movement by Anwar Shaikh

Posted by jagoindia on June 20, 2010

Anwar Shaikh’s Interview with Chandigarh Times on The Arab National Movement

Dr. Ranjit Kanwar,  Chandigarh Times,  May 24, 1996

Ranjit Kanwar: We have heard your name in India, yet we do not know much about you. Will you tell me something about yourself?

Anwar Shaikh: I was born in 1928 in a village near the-city of Gujrat (Pakistan). Religion has been a part of my family tradition. Naturally, I was brought up to be a scholar of Islam: To the best of my knowledge, it was my great great grandfather, who embraced Islam.

He was a kashmiry pundit. After conversion, he became an Imam Masjid, a fervent preacher of Islam. My grandfather was conscious of his Brahmin ancestry, – . . and resented if anyone spoke ill of the Vedas yet he could not return to his roots owing to the psychological grounding he had received over the years. In Pakistan, I was a teacher and then became headmaster of a high school. Though economically,’ life was bearable, socially, it was not. I emigrated to great Britain in 1956.

After initial hardships struck lucky. At the height of business success, I suddenly realized that I wanted to do some reformative work instead of indulging in money-making it was in 1973 that I started winding up my commercial activities, and am glad that I did so because it gave me a chance to reeducate myself, especially in philosophy and religion.

Ranjit Kanwar: I have read your book: ” Islam, The Arab National Movement ” which is becoming world-famous rapidly. Did you write it to oppose Islam?

Anwar Shaikh: Its purpose is not to oppose, but expose Islam: it is a serious work based on long research and personal experience There is not one word of lie, insolence or intentional misinterpretation in this book. Since it is based on truth and nothing but the truth; it is an open challenge to those who use Islam as the tool of personal gain, politically and religiously. So great is the force and authenticity of this book that no Muslim scholar has come forward so far to refute its Contents.

Ranjit Kanwar: Are you another Rushdie?

Anwar Shaikh: I am being labeled as such. For example, the Urdu daily: “Pakistan” and weekly “Maharat” of Lahore, have called me “a Satan of much greater stature than Rushdie and Tasleema,” and The Daily “Jang” of London has described me “a Rushdie whose writings are infinitely more dangerous to Islam than Rushdie and Tasleema put together.” The Muslim readers of the “Jang” have written to this newspaper repeatedly begging the mullahs and other scholars of Islam to answer my questions to “save”-but they have deliberately kept quiet to the utter annoyance of the believers, who are really worried by the contents of “Islam, The Arab National Movement”. They demonstrated against Rushdie in every country through public meetings, processions, slogans and murders, but about my book they have willfully observed a conspiracy of silence because they do not want the world to know the truth about Islam. This clearly shows that I am the exact opposite of Rushdie. His work is fiction based on insult to the Prophet Mohammed and his family, whereas my book is a serious work founded on scholarship; reason and research. At the most, Rushdie is an artistic protester whereas I am a challenger to the very concept of Islam.

Ranjit Kanwar: I see. But has your book any relevance to India?

Anwar Shaikh: My book has a relevance to entire mankind, but is especially to India because before the coming of Islam, India was a prosperous, peaceful and proud country, which has not only been reduced to extreme poverty and ignorance by the Muslim predators and the Islamic rule, but has also been fragmented into geographical and political units. This book clearly demonstrates that, as Islam seeks to impose Arab cultural imperialism on other nations through a doctrine of divide and murder, India and Islam cannot live together. This book is a must for India.

Ranjit Kanwar: Do you realize that this book exposes you to serious danger? Aren’t you afraid?

Anwar Shaikh: The truth has its price, which I am prepared to pay. I have not resorted to swearing or falsification simply to uphold the dignity of truth. Fear is a part of human nature and it will be wrong of me to deny it. However, I must add that by making me a martyr, they will sound the death-knell of Islam.

Ranjit Kanwar: It is a revolutionary book with profound consequences. What prompted you to write it?

Anwar Shaikh: This is an excellent question and proves your competence as a journalist. Having lived in the West for such a long time, one day it crossed my mind why the white people love their countries but the Muslims of India hate their motherland. There is no exaggeration in it because they think of Bharat not as their Motherland but Dar-ul-Harb i=2Ee. battlefield, where people murder, plunder and deceive out of hatred and greed. Having given this point further thought I soon realized that Islam is based on the doctrine of hating and murdering non-Muslims and reducing them to the status of political slaves. It is totally false to say that Islam is the ambassador of international brotherhood.

Again, it is completely untrue that the Muslims of all countries are one nation. It is the law of nature that nationality is constituted by blood ties and geographical boundaries, that is, the homeland. A nation being an expanded form of family is subject to the familial rules of identity. Of Course, a person can adopt another nationality quite legitimately but it is an exception, and there fore, cannot change the basic rule. Calling Muslims of all countries as one nation is wrong because all these nations have their separate home lands with their independent interests and different policies. Pakistan was soon split into two halves i.e. Pakistan and Bangladesh. The government of Pakistan in 1951 stopped entry of all Indian Muslims into Pakistan despite the fact that they were the people who had made most sacrifices for the creation of Pakistan even more shameful is the treatment of Pakistanis from Bihar, who stood by Pakistan against the Bangladeshis.

Muslim nationality is a myth, which is extremely injurious to the non-Arab Muslims but highly beneficial to the Arabs. nd this is what leads to the inevitable conclusion that Islam is not a religion but the Arab National Movement.

Ranjit Kanwar: Good lord! Is it what Islam is? Do you mind explaining this point a bit further?

Anwar Shaikh: The philosophy that lies behind Islam is stunning and proves the consummate political skill of the Prophet Mohammed: by declaring all Muslims as one nation and the non-Muslims as another, he created the Two Nation Theory, perpetually setting Muslims against non-Muslims. Again, he stressed that in this struggle the Muslims would be victorious. This is exactly the theory that Karl Marx adopted after many centuries. Presenting his dialectical view of history; he emphasized that all material progress owed itself to eternal social strife between the capitalists and the proletariats in which the latter would win the struggle.

However, Karl Marx did not show the mastery that the prophet Mohammed did. By creating the Two Nation Theory, he subjected all non-Muslim Arabs to the cultural imperialism of Arabia. He achieved this purpose with a mind boggling subtlety: he made Arab- worship the cornerstone of Islam. Thus. those who embrace Islam naturally feel inferior to Arabia as a devotee believes in relation to his goddess.

Ranjit Kanwar: This is an unusual explanation of Islam. Can you tell me how the Prophet Mohammed raised reverence of Arabia sky-high and made it an artist of faith for his non-Arab followers?

Anwar Shaikh: Here is a small summary of the steps that the Prophet took to realize his dream.

1. e declared that when Adam was evicted from paradise, he came to Mecca where he built the first House of God. Thus, he identified Godliness with Kaaba, a Sanctuary of Mecca where God lives! Not only that, Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, also came to Mecca to rebuild the House of God!

2. For the purpose of imposing Arab psychological superiority on non-Arab Muslims, he decreed that they must prostrate five-times-a-day facing Mecca. This is not only an act of submission to Mecca, the capital city of Arabia, but also proves beyond a shadow of doubt that God lives in Mecca, otherwise why should people prostrate in that direction?

3. A Muslim must not defecate himself or answer the call of nature facing Mecca. It is a blasphemous act in view of the sanctity of Mecca.

4. When Muslims die, they must be buried facing Mecca, which is the guarantee of their salvation.

5. To make sure that the Arabs enjoy economic opulence, the Prophet made Hajj as obligatory ritual for his followers. It is a pilgrimage to Mecca. There are countless Indian Muslims who sell their homes and personal belongings to undertake this journeys can give many more examples to this effect but this should be enough to explain the real purpose of Islam.

Ranjit Kanwar: It does show the Arab national tendency of Islam, but the non-Arab followers of Islam do not have to adopt a slavish attitude to the Arab national Institutions to prove their Islamic faith. Do they?

Anwar Shaikh: I regret to say, Sir, like countless non-Muslims, you do not know the master stroke of the Prophet.

Ranjit Kanwar: I have never heard of this master stroke before. Can you enlighten me in the interest of humanity?

Anwar Shaikh: I am referring to the prophet’s declaration that Allah has made him the Model of Practice for his followers it has come to mean that the Muslims must copy him in everything, they must eat, drink, walk and talk like him, even must look like him, that is, they grow beard like his, have a similar hair-cut and dress like him. This is what is called followings the Sunnah .i.e., the Prophetic: Model which is the guarantee of salvation. One can easily say that Islam has been designed to induce respect and love for Arabia.

There are express commands of the Prophet, which state that a person is not Muslim until he loves him more than his own father and mother. The idea is that people must be weaned from their own nationalities and motherlands, and attached firmly to Mecca. This is the reason that the Muslims of India call their own homeland as the battlefield and Arabia the fountain of peace and celestial glory., Now, it is perhaps, easy for you to understand why the Muslims of India partitioned their own motherland for practicing the Arab cultural values in Pakistan (and Bangladesh).

Ranjit Kanwar: What is likely to happen if the non-Arab Muslims do not follow the Prophet in loving Arabia even if it involves unpatriotic practices against their own homelands?

Anwar Shaikh: The Muslims must love Arabia because the Prophet did so. They must follow him as the Divine Model of Practice. This is what Islam expects if don’t, they are sure to enter hell because the Prophet will not intercede on their behalf.

Ranjit Kanwar: What is intercession?

Anwar Shaikh: This is the special power of the Prophet Mohammed. He will recommend paradise for his followers on the Day of Judgment. His recommendation is final and Allah cannot deny it. It is available to all murderers, rapists, arsonists, cheats, thugs, pickpockets and pimps provided they are followers of the Prophet. On the contrary, all Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Christians will be cast into a flaming hell, no matter, how pious and God-fearing they may have been.

Piety has no meaning and value without believing in Mohammed and the greatness of his homeland. Intercession is the climax of the Prophet’s National wisdom–It is this Muslim belief which gives them the hope of free sex and economic abundance, and they feel obliged to kill in the name of Islam. This is why they are ever ready to stab their motherland. After all, caring about one’s country entails sacrifices whereas the comforts of paradise are sweet and splendid. And it is especially so when they involve no moral responsibility.

Ranjit Kanwar: Poor India! “Islam, The Arab National Movement” seems to be the book, not only for every Indian, irrespective of his religion, but also for every Pakistani and Bangladeshi as well. After all, they all belong to the Indian subcontinent. What have you done to propagate its contents?

Anwar Shaikh: By writing this book, I have discharged my duty. Its propagation, I believe, is a duty of every one.

Ranjit Kanwar: Will you be prepared to allow translations of this book into various languages without expecting any financial reward?

Anwar Shaikh: I shall be delighted to do so provided such a task is undertaken for public good, and not as a trade.
Islam: The Arab National Movement by Anwar Shaikh
Anwar Shaikh, a great mind of 20th century, whose grim discoveries about Islam shook the world, passed away on November 25, 2006. Anwar Shaikh was born on June 1, 1928 in Gujrat, the then greater India. His family was extremely religious, which influenced him to follow Islam with passion. In 1947, India was in a process of independence from Britain, and Muslims and Hindus were in a civil war. At this time, Anwar Shaikh, a young Muslim zealot killed two Sikhs and one Hindu without any remorse. His religious conviction was akin to that of a typical Muslim Jihadist, of the sort we see today.

However, at the age of 25, Anwar saw the light of humanity and left Islam

Information on  Anwar Shaikh via link
ISLAM: The Arab National Movement
by Anwar Shaikh

The Prophet Muhammad
Now, I may explain this theme further with reference to Allah, the God of Muhammad, the Arabian prophet:

Abu al-Qasim Muhammad Ibn Abd Allah Ibn Abd al Muttalib Ibn Hashim, the founder of Islam and the Arab Empire, was born in Mecca c. 570 A.D. after the death of his father. First, he was under the care of his paternal grandfather, and when he died, Abu Talib, his uncle, became his guardian. When he was six, he lost his mother, Aminah. He was married to Khadijah of the clan of Asad. This association which lasted for twenty-six years, was a happy one.

Muhammad belonged to the clan of Hashim which was a part of the tribe of Quresh, and inhabited Mecca where Muhammad was born. Though Mecca was a small town, it was a mercantile centre, and was respected for its sanctuary known as the Kaaba. The Quresh were descendants of Ishmael, son of Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, and claimed that it was Abraham, accompanied by Ishmael, who built the temple of Kaaba, for worship of God but it became the focus of idolatory, which lasted for many centuries. Muhammad died on June 8, 632.

Muhammad was accustomed to retiring to a desert cave called Hira where he reflected on the mysteries of creation. During 610 A.D. when he was meditating in the Hira, an angel of God, called Gabriel, appeared before him and said:

Read: In the name of thy Lord who createth. Createth man from a clot.
Read: And it is thy Lord the Most bountiful who teacheth pen, Teacheth man that which he knew not.

This was a written message from Allah. When Gabriel told Muhammad to read it, he said that he was illiterate and could not read it. Thereupon the angel caught him by the throat and commanded him again to read. Thrice Muhammad expressed his inability to read and thrice the angel choked him. He was extremely frightened. It was his wife, Khadijah, who told him that the “spirit” he saw was a good one, and not the devil. She assured him that he had been chosen by God as His prophet. Even then he needed a lot of persuation to accept the mission of prophethood.

Here is the old Semitic tradition of revelation at work, which requires a prophet to accept the apostolic dignity under duress. In the case of the Prophet Muhammad, it is even more amazing because the All-knowing Allah wants the illiterate Muhammad to read His message!

Islam was the name that the Prophet Muhammad gave his religion. Therefore, following the Semitic tradition, he had to find a deity that inspired this faith. Though there is no Biblical authority for it, the Prophet asserted Islam as the true religion of God who sent Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and many other prophets to promulgate and restate it. Thus, what he advocated, he claimed, was the same old faith but it had been corrupted by the Jews. So he had no qualm in adopting most of the Jewish principles and practices with a view to renovating the old religion of God, which he called “Islam” as opposed to Judaism, and Christianity. In fact, he made a great effort to convert Jews. He adopted, not only a good deal of their creed, but also repeatedly said that God had exalted the children of Israel over the rest of mankind. As a process of this wooing, he wanted to find a name for his God that should prove attractive to the Jews, and also to the Arabs, his real people.

Scholars have remarked that the early Jews worshipped a deity called El (Gen: 16: 23; 17: 1; 21: 33; 31: 13; 35: 7; ) . Jacob erected the altar called “El-Elohe-Israel” which has been translated “El the God of Israel.” Similarly, El was the high god in the Syro-Palestinian pantheon. Again, it is argued that some biblical passages such as Deuteronomy 3 2: 8 – 9 suggest that Yahwe was believed to be a member of the huge pantheon once ruled over by El. The Arabic name for El is Allah. No name could be better for the Islamic God than Allah who was once Yahwe’s superior, and also an idol of the Quresh known as the Lord of the Kaaba.

At this juncture, I should repeat that, according to the Semitic doctrine of revelation, a prophet wants to be treated as God, but without being called so; he is also a national hero because he wants to create a band of devoted people to carry on his name.

The Prophet chose Allah as the Supreme God for national reasons. At that time, the Jews held a considerable social status in the Arabian peninsula owing to their glorious history, religious precedence, defiance of persecution and material prosperity. He knew that his people could not be lifted to a higher position unless the Jews accepted his religion and thus made to behave as if they were Arabs. Failing that, they ought to be turned into second class citizens or banished.

First, the Prophet tried to woo them by making Jerusalem, the KIBLA, and treating them with a lavish praise. For example, the Koran in the Cow 40, states:

“Children of Israel, remember my blessing
wherewith I blessed you,
and that I have preferred you above all beings..”

For converting the Jews to his faith, the Prophet adored Abraham, the common ancestor of the Jews and the Arabs to identify them as one nation. The Koran says: “The best religion has he who foilows the creed of Abraham, a man of pure faith, and a Friend of God.” (Woman: 120)
He went even further to address his Arab followers: “(Islam is) the creed of your father Abraham: He named you Muslims.” (The Pilgrimage: 75)

When the Jews ignored this loving approach, they were enveloped by the apostolic wrath. The Prophet demoted Jerusalem as the Kibla of the Muslims and bestowed this honour on Kaaba, the Arab sanctuary. He went even further tc lay a curse on the Jews:

“God has cursed them for their unbelief.” (Women: 45 )

Over the last 1400 years the Muslim scholars have interpreted this curse to mean that the Jews shall remain homeless for ever and shall never have a national government of their own. The Muslims want to drown all Israelites because the state of Israel contradicts this Koranic verse.

Since the Jews refused to be a part of the Arab nation, their condemnation as an accursed race was not sufficient. Creation of a pure nation, demanded that the Jews must be expelled from Arabia. So, the policy of ethnic cleansing was adopted, and the Jews were banished. At this juncture, one ought to remember that Islam is less a religion and more an Arab National Movement.

As now, the Jews had always been proud of their racial superiority because Yahwe, the Jewish God, had chosen them as His own people by entering into covenants with the Jewish patriarchs such as Noah and Abraham. The latter had two sons: Isaac and Ishmael. The Bible clearly declares in Genesis 17-18 that God made an everlasting covenant with Isaac, the Jewish patriarch, but the Koran states quite differently:

“We (God) made covenant with Abraham and Ishmael.” (The Cow: 115)

There is no historical evidence whatever that the Jews altered the Old Testament to this effect. They did not need to do so because this statement had existed in their Scriptures many centuries before the Koran was composed. This is how the Prophet transferred the Divine sanctity to his own nation to make them feel exalted.
Glorification of Allah by the Prophet as the supreme and the only God is a part of Arab nationalism. Firstly, as stated previously, Allah was Yahwe’s superior, thus the Arabs, the people of Allah have to be better than the people of Yahwe, the Jews. Yahwe had been proclaimed as the God of Israel, but to be better, Allah had to be the God of the universe. This is exactly what the Prophet did: thus Allah is All- knowing, All-powerful and omnipresent. The Old Testament does not claim such attributes for Yahwe.

Why was Allah proclaimed as the most glorious and the only God? It is because He was an Arab god whose statue was worshipped in the Kaaba itself for centuries. Of course, Allah was not the only god of the Kaaba, which had developed into a pantheon owing to the influences of the foreign cults. It was very much like a Hindu temple devoted to idolatory and organised on the Hindu doctrine of Triad (Trimurti) which means three-in-one. Allah had his three daughters in the Kaaba, worshipped along with him.

Kaaba, referred to as the Meccan temple by historians, was under the hereditary management of the Quresh, the Prophet’s tribe and thus gave them some sanctity as the lords of the Kaaba. It is for this reason, they (Q’uresh) were known as the People of Allah or the Protected Neighbours of Allah. Allah, the idol, even then inspired considerable veneration into the Arabian hearts, and it is quite evident from the fact that the tribes on pilgrimage to the Kaaba, were called the Guests of Allah. Despite all this divine prest ge, Allah was still a par~ of a pantheon i.e. he was one of many gods. Therefore, the Prophet emphasised the singularity of Allah and condemnation of all other gods. It should be borne in mind, that the Prophet believed the Quresh, his tribe, to be the best of all people. This is the reason that he laid it down that only the Quresh had the right to rule. I shall discuss this point in due course. At this point, it is sufficient to say that the Arabs could be an exalted nation only if they were to be blessed by the only and universal Allah who was as much Arab as Yahwe was Jewish.

Since the doctrine of revelation affects the behaviour of more than half of the population of the world, it is the major issue of religion and metaphysics. Thus, we ought to look into the psychological make-up of a revelationist i.e. a prophet, to assess whether or not he is a person of dominant nature. This must serve as a deciding factor to establish the reality of revelation itself.

For this purpose, and not any mischief or insolence, I refer to the *Hadith, that is, record of the sayings and practices of the prophet which rank as the Islamic tradition. After all, the Koran repeatedly challenges the dissenters to produce an argument to support their point or view. What I am about to say is a matter of fact to the Muslim believers owing to their faith, but what will they say about someone else who made similar claims about himself and his dynastic background? To a just person, this is the guiding principle which he should bear in mind to decide the issue for himself.

* When Moslem scholars cannot answer a question, they say that the quoted hadith is a forgery. I have taken care to avoid apocryphal hadiths.


1. “God chose as the best the children af Ishmael, the son of Abraham. From Ishmael’s descendants, God chose the Quresh (the tribe of Muhammad) as the best of people; from the Quresh, God chose the Banu Hashim (Muhammad’s clan) as the best of people, and from the Banu Hashim, God chose Muhammad as the best of all men..” (Jame Tirmze, Vol: 2 )
I ought to mention that it contradicts the Jewish claim as stated in Genesis 17: 19-21. Jews are the descendants of Isaac. They believe that he was the only legitimate son of Abraham borne by his wife, Sarah, whereas Ishmael was given birth by Hagar, an Egyptian maid-servant of Sarah, made pregnant by Abraham. God made the covenant with Isaac and not Ishmael. Giving children of Ishnnael (the Arabs) preference over the Jews, appears to be an act of nationalism. Obviously, the purpose of Islam was to make the Arabs a great nation by bestowing racial distinction on them.

2. Of the two tribes that God chose as the best were the descendants of Ishmael and Isaac. God preferred the children of Ishmael (Arabs) to the children of Isaac (the Jews). Then, God created Muhammad in the chosen tribe of Quresh (the descendants of Ishmael ) and then He chose the best family among the Quresh and created Muhammad as the best of all men. ( Jame Tirmze Vol: 2 )

3. Muhammad was asked when he was made prophet. He replied that he was made prophet when the body and soul of Adam were still in the making. (Jame Tirmze Vol: 2 )

According to the “Sahih Muslim” already referred to, this dignity was thrust on Muhammad when he was forty years of age. It is strange that, despite being a prophet, even before the creation of Adam, he never claimed prophethood until he attained this age. Nor did he discharge his apostolic duties for the first forty years of his life!

4. …..God has chosen Muhammad as the best of all mankind. And it is not a boast but a fact. (Jame Tirmze Vol: 2)

5. …..On the Day of Judgement Muhammad would occupy the right hand side of God’s throne. Nobody else would be entitled or capable of doing so except him. (Jame Tirmze Vol: 2)

6. On the Day of Judgement, ask for Muhammad as the Waseela or Refuge, that is, the person who has the power of intercession to forgive sins. Thus he would be the only person who could act as the medium to paradise. (Jame Tirmze Vol: 2)

7. Muhammad would be the Chief of all mankind on the Day of Judgement. (Jame Tirmze Vol:2)

8. Muhammad is the first person who would be appointed as the intercessor. He would be the first person whose intercession would be accepted. It is he who would unlock the gates of paradise and would be the first to enter it, followed by his followers. He is superior to all men who were before him, or would come after him. It is not a boast but a fact. (Jame Tirmze Vol: 2)

9. “Send Darood on the Prophet,” that is, pray to Muhammad, supplicate him and praise him. He who sends darood on Muhammad once, God blesses him ten times. (Jame Tirmze Vol: 2)

These hadiths (the Prophet’s traditions) speak for themselves and need hardly any comment from me. However, better understanding of the subject requires that we should know Muhammad’s relationship with Allah, the Islamic God. Here are some examples.

1. Shahada is the basic doctrine of Islam. It is the confession which makes a person Muslim, the follower of Allah. It means:
Nobody has the right to be adored (worshipped) but Allah, and Muhammad is His messenger.

The meaning of Shahada is better understood when it is divided as follows:

Allah’s rights:

a. “Those who believe, love Allah more than anything else.” ( Baqra 12: 165 )

“Praise belongs to God,
the Lord of all Being.” ( Cattle: 45 )

b. To assert His right to praise or worship, Allah clearly states in the Koran (the Islamic Scripture):

“I have not created ….. mankind except to serve me. (The Scatterers: 55 )

At several other occasions Allah reiterates that He has created man for no purpose but worship and adore Him. It is amazing that Allah, despite being “the Creator,” “the All- knowing,” and “All-Powerful” cannot get man to adore Him the way He wants, and has to send prophets and messiahs to persuade man with the threats of hell and promises of paradise. Yet, the net result is the further division of mankind, disbelief and sin.
Since “Shirk” i.e. worshipping others with Allah, is the only unpardonable sin, it is clear that if God were really, the Creator, the All-knowing and the All-powerful, with such a burning desire for worship, He could have surely created the Obedient man. It is obviously not Allah, who desires to be worshipped; it has got to be man who wants to be treated as God and worshipped as such. This fact emerges when we look into part – 2 of Shahada, that is,

2 . Prophet’s rights:
a. Though the Prophet calls himself Allah’s ABD or slave, Allah allows him to be above His laws; for example, a Moslem is allowed to have no more than four wives at the same time but the Prophet had nine wives simultaneously.

b. Allah is willing for the Prophet to marry anybody’s widow or divorcee, but it is a monstrous act for anyone to marry the Prophet’s widow or divorcee. ( The Confederates: 50 )

c. It is a condition of polygamy that a Muslim has to be equitable towards all his wives but the Prophet can lawfully suspend any of his wives at will. (The Confederates: 50)

d. Allah is anxious to please the Prophet; He tells the believers how to enter his house, how long to stay there, and not to indulge in idle talk when they are in his house. (The Confederates: 50)

e. As I shall discuss later, Allah changed the Kibla, the direction of praying just to please the Prophet. It was certainly a major modification in a system which claims to be of divine origin. ( The Cow: 135 )

f. Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, was somewhat displeased when Khaula bint Halo, presented herself to the Prophet in marriage, but when God revealed to him:

“You may suspend any of them (Your wives) that you please” (33: 51 )
Aisha exclaimed: “…..Allah hurries in pleasing you.” (Sahih Al Bokhari Vol: 7)

g. In fact, Allah acts as Prophet’s factotum because He tells believers not to walk in front of him or raise voice above that of his. (Apartments: 1)

The Prophet was surely capable of giving such instructions himself. When one looks deeper into the relationship of the Prophet with Allah, it transpires that though the Koran originally treats Muhammad as human, gradually this relationship develops into duality and eventually, like Moses, Muhammad appears as God’s superior.
This is a delicate issue but fairness demands that the reader should weigh the arguments which I intend to offer, before jumping to hasty conclusions. The process of Muhammad converting his humanity into divinity is a long and complex one but I intend to keep the narrative brief and simple. Consider the following:

1. It is a condition of faith that a believer should love Allah, but this stipulation becomes insufficient because a person does not rank as believer until he loves the prophet “more than his father, his children and all mankind. ” (Sahih Al Bokh. vol: 1)
2. Muhammad is as great as Allah because the former like the latter, has ninety-nine attributes.

a. As Allah is closer to man than his jugular vein for being omnipresent ( QAF 15 ), “the Prophet is nearer to the believers than their selves..” (The Confederates: 5)

3. Though the Prophet is projected as mortal and Allah’s servant in the beginning, but as he grows stronger, obedience to Muhammad becomes as compulsory as to Allah:

a. “Obey Allah and the Messenger.” (The House of Imran 25, 125)

b. “..whoso obeys God and His Messenger, He will admit him to gardens.” ( Women: 15 )

c. Gradually, the Prophet shares authority with Allah:

“It is not for any believer, man or woman, when God and His Messenger have decreed a matter, to have a choice in the affair. Whosoever disobeys God and His Messenger has gone astray into clear error.” (The Confederates: 35)

Having established himself as co-commandant with God, he elevates his personal grace and significance beyond description because these are the factors which have recommended him to sinners all over the world. They are:

d. “We have not sent you, except as a mercy unto all beings.” ( The Prophets: 100 )
e. To make sure that everybody obeys and copies the Prophet to the letter, the Quran declares him as the Model of Behaviour.

“You have a good example in God’s Messenger for whosoever hopes for God and the Last Day.” (The Confederates: 20)

f. Originally, he had no intercessionary powers; he professed that he could not even save his daughter, Fatima whom he loved dearly. Then to enhance the appeal of his prophethood, he raised himself to the status of God:

“Truly this is the word of a noble Messenger having power, with the Lord of the Throne secure, obeyed, moreover trusty.” ( The Darkening: 15 – 20 )

For the last many centuries, this Quranic verse has been understood to mean by both the scholars and the laity that on the Day of Judgement, God will sit an His throne and Muhammad will occupy a seat on His right hand side. Allah will give the entire intercessionary powers to Muhammad, who will decide whether a person should go to heaven or hell. The criterion of judgement shall not be the quality of deeds but who has loved the Prophet the most. The Jews will head the queue to hell, followed by the Christians. The Hindus, the Buddhists, the deists, the atheists and the rest will be equally sorry, but all murderers, rapists, robbers, arsonists, cheats, thugs, twisters, etc., who ever mentioned Muhammad’s name affectionately even once in their life-time and believed in his prophethood, would go to paradise, where each of them would be given seventy most beautiful virgins and an array of pretty youths; their virility would be increased hundred fold for appreciating Allah’s bounties.
This is the statement of fact as believed by the Moslems. I have not exaggerated it. If anything, it is an understatement.

g. Slowly, the dignity of the Prophet excels that of Allah:
“God and His angels pray peace to the Prophet. O believers, you must also bless him, and pray him peace. (The Confederates: 55)

Praying peace and blessing in a meditative manner, as most religionists do, is the essence of worshipping. The Moslems lead in this field. They, in fact, worship Muhammad, yet they claim that “praise belongs to Allah,” and think of Shirk i.e. including anyone else in praising God, as the only unforgiveable sin!
Here is something extraordinary! Instead of man worshipping God, it is God, along with His angels, who worships man, the true purpose of the device of revelation.

This narrative should expose the true nature of revelation, that is, it serves as the tool of the dominance-seeker who wants to be loved and worshipped by his fellow-men by projecting himself as God indirectly. History testifies to this fact: whenever, the Prophet had a haircut, his followers vied with one another in gathering his trimmed hair and nails as divine souvenirs; they even collected his spittle and the water in which he had washed his hands. It is because they believed in their miraculous virtues of healing and salvation.

Again, to imprint his divinity on the subconscious mind of every new-born baby, he prescribed the recitation of his name as “God’s Prophet” in its ears almost immediately at birth. The process of learning known as imprinting is said to have been discovered in 1935 by Lorenz but the Prophet knew it fourteen centuries earlier. Imprinting, in fact, is the most effective device of brain-washing. If at birth, ducklings and goslings are led to believe that man is their true father, they follow him as his offspring. Revelation is the greatest medium of brainwashing because this is the agent of faith, which shuts down all doors of reasoning.

The reader should know the type of God Allah is; He is obsessed with self-praise:

“He is God;
there is no God but He.
He is the King, the All-holy,
the All -peaceable,
the All-faithful, the All-preserver,
the All-mighty, the All-compeller,
the All-sublime.
Glory be to God, above that they associate.

He is God,
the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper,
To Him belong the Names Most Beautiful.
All that is in the Heavens and the earth
magnifies Him:
He is the All-mighty, the All-wise.”
( The Mustering: 20 )

The reader should bear in mind that it is Allah who is praising Himself, and not man. This reveals the psychological make-up of the dominance-seeker.
Now one can see that Allah is most desirous of praise; when man worships Him, He is glad but when man neglects Him, He feels sad. How unstable Allah is! To boost His ego with the sycophancy of devotees, He does things which are beyond the realm of moral thinking: He allures man with the bribe of paradise full of beautiful women and boys; He threatens dissenters with the most sadistic punishment of flaming hell, and repeatedly asserts that He is the Most Terrible Avenger and His Retributive punishment knows no bounds; He even mocks and misleads the unbelievers; He curses them and swears at them. In fact, He hates those who do not prostrate before Him and recommends their slaughter until they are wiped out or submit to His will.

Is it really the character of a true God? He cannot be the Creator. If He were, He would have created man to obey Him because praise, worship and submission are His greatest desires, whose unfulfilment makes Him so unhappy and ruffled. If He cannot make Himself happy, how can he have the ability to make other people happy? Especially, when His happiness solely depends upon the deeds of man, he cannot be God. It has got to be the revelationist who puts on the cloak of an agent but wants to be treated as God.

After stating these facts, I may describe briefly what has led to the popularity ot the Prophet Muhammad. There are three major causes of this:

1. Firstly, he was a man of indomitable spirit. His will to succeed was simply marvellous. He could feel the pulse of history, and knew how to turn its course in his favour. On top of it, he was a man of some great qualities which rarely unite in one person. Having been born in a nation which was hardy, and capable of demonstrating great martial prowess, he had the vision and wisdom to mould these virtues to make Arabs into an imperial race. People forget that Muhammad was not only a prophet but also the builder of the Arab empire; and this was an integral part of his prophethood.
2. Secondly, the Prophet built Islam around the sanctity and significance of his own person. He achieved this position through the following means:

a. He projected himself as mercy to all beings (The Prophets: 100). Thus, he created a special attraction for his person to all and sundry.
b. He expressed obedience to himself as obedience to Allah, thus giving himself a divine stature which appeared simply stunning when his followers realised that even Allah and His angels prayed peace to him.

c. He declared himself to possess intercessionary powers and expressed his ability to find a place for all his followers in the paradise where they would enjoy eternity with total delight and peace. This being every human’s greatest desire, proved very appealing, indeed.

d. He was possibly, the greatest national leader born anywhere on earth. The way he imposed the hegemony of the Arabs on the Ajams (the non-Arabs) through a device of cultural subtlety is not only stunning but also highly praiseworthy and the proof of his vision and wisdom.

Islam is essentially an Arab national movement. As far as I am aware, nobody has touched upon this apostolic aspect of the Prophet before. Therefore, I ought to discuss it in reasonable details to convey the message to the reader. The main vehicle of national fervour was his assertion that God had sent him as the Model of Behaviour (Uswa-e-Hasna) for the believers. ( Confederates: 20 )
Copying the Prophet in all details as the Model of Behaviour, was laid down as the basic doctrine for the personal conduct of every Muslim. The Prophet used it with the utmost skill to serve the cause of Arab nationalism at the expense of the other Muslim nations.

Here, the reader is entitled to ask me: “Is there real evidence to show that the Prophet was an Arab national leader, and he aimed at establishing a system of Arab imperialism?” Of course, there is. Here is the proof:

One should remember that a nationalist is not only conscientious of his origin but is usually proud of it. This test equally applies to Muhammad:

1. According to Abu Huraira, when God revealed the verse: “Warn your nearest kinsmen,” the Prophet said in a loud voice: “O people of Quresh.”

When we look further into this act of self- identification, then we can clearly see the Prophet’s pride in his lineage. Let me requote the hadith to make this point:

God chose as the best, the children of Ishmael, the son of Abraham. From Ishmael’s descendants, God chose the Quresh (the tribe of Muhammad) as the best of people; from the Quresh, God chose the Banu Hashim (Muhammad’s clan) the best of people, and from the Banu Hashim, God chose Muhammad as the best of all men ….. ( Jame Tirmze. Vol: 2 )

The Jews have been called a keen racial group for their faith in national superiority. One can see for oneself the meaning of this hadith that I have paraphrased. Yet in another hadith, the Prophet says: “God created Muhammad in the chosen tribe of Quresh.”

As stated earlier, a prophet being desirous of dominance, needs a strong national group to perpetuate his name and teachings. This is why Moses created the Jewish nation in the name of Yahwe. The Prophet Muhammad did exactly the same thing in the name of Allah. Of course, he thought of the Banu Hashim, his own family, as the best of all families but their numbers were too small to be relied on as a racial band to continue the prophetic campaign. So Muhammad placed greater emphasis on his tribe (the Quresh) which was sufficiently powerful in numbers and secular influence.

2 . Having cal led the Quresh as the exalted people as Moses had declared the Jews as the chosen people, the Prophet put his personal stamp on the excellence of the Quresh:

a. “May Allah destroy those who intend to humiliate the Quresh.” (Jame Tirmze. Vol: 2 )
b. “O Lord, you gave the Quresh, the taste of torture (when they resisted Muhammad) but now give them the merits and blessings of this world and the world- to – come. ” ( Jame Tirmze . Vol: 2 )

c. On the authority of the Prophet, Uthman told his scribes to write The Koran “in the language of the Quresh.” ( Sahih Bokh. Vol: IV )

It shows that the Koran is in the Arabic spoken by the Quresh and not other tribes.

d. The Prophet shows an extraordinary zeal in the following hadith whose accuracy cannot be denied: …..The prerogative to rule shall remain vested in the Quresh, and whoever is hostile to them, Allah shall destroy him as long as they obey the laws of the religion.” (Sahih Bokhari. Vol: 4)

e. “The Quresh are the rulers of men in vice and virtue until the Day of Judgement.” (Sahih Tirmze. Vol: 1)

This hadith has also been narrated in volume 9 of Sahih Albukhari.

f. The right to rule (caliphate) shall belong to the Quresh even if two men existed. (Sahih Tirmze. Vol: 9)

The truth of these hadiths is revealed by two events:

1. In the eight hundred year long Islamic history of Spain, even one suzerain was not non-Quresh. It was simply because only the kinsmen of the Prophet i.e. The Quresh, were considered as the legitimate rulers of Islam.

2. There is a clearly stated episode in volume 8 of the Sahih Alburkhri, which historically establishes the Quresh right to rule and excludes everybody else from this honour. Even the most virtuous and capable non- Arab Muslims cannot legitimately rule. It exposes the racial nature of Islam and sounds the death-knell of the much-vaunted Islamic principles of equality and democracy. Again, it is amazing how Muslims of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and African origin deny nationality of their own, and claim to be Muslims only. This is the result of the psychological dominance of the Arab culture through Islam. It is for this reason that they have no national histories of their own. As a result, they cling to the Arab history, which they call the “Islamic history” for having some kind of identity, no matter how inferior.

The event* to which I have referred to, has been narrated by Omar the great, and has been universally accepted as true:
At the death of the Prophet, the problem ot succession became very acute. The Ansar of Medina, who had given the Prophet refuge, but were not Quresh, claimed that they were as good Arabs as any other tribe. They insisted that there

*Sahih Albokh, Vol: 8 Ch. 17. Hadieth 817

should be two rulers one from them (the Ansar) and one from the Quresh. Abu Bakr was quite blunt in stating the doctrine of government as laid down by the Prophet. He said, “O Ansar! you have all the great qualities that you have attributed to yourself but the government belongs only to the Quresh because they are the best of all the Arabs as regards descent and family.”

When things got heated up, Omar thought of a stratagem. He said, “O Abu Bakr, hold out your hand.” As he did so, Omar pledged his allegiance to Abu Bakr hurriedly, and the other emigrants (the Arabs who had left Mecca along with the Prophet to reside in Medina) followed suit rapidly. As the Ansar noticed it, being devout Muslims, they could not withhold their allegiance for fear of division in Islam, and surrendered to the Quresh hegemony accepting Abu Bakr as their first Caliph.

Here, one can see that the Prophet’s tribe reserves the right to rule. It certainly proves that the Prophet was first a Quresh and then an Arab. Thus the kind of nationalism he represented was narrower than that of the Jews who are known to have non-Jewish rulers by consent. The “pagans” of Byzantium or the Eastern Romans were far more international in their outlook; anybody from the colonies, irrespective of his colour and creed could become their emperor, who formed the fountain of all political power.

Of course, there are many components of nationalism but race and homeland are the two major factors. Having described the racial factor, now I may narrate the Prophet’s views about Arabia, his homeland. The Prophet’s sayings about Arabia, and especially Mecca, his birthplace, explain this truth:

1. “He who aggresses against Arabia, shall not win my love, nor will I intercede for him.” ( Jame Tirmze Vol . 2 )
2. The Prophet told Suleiman Farsi (the Persian), a freed slave, who gained distinction by fighting for Islam: “….If you bear grudge against Arabia, you bear grudge against me.” (Jame Tirmze Vol. 2)

3 . The Prophet said about Mecca, his birthplace: O Mecca, by Allah you are better than any part of the earth, and dearer to me than the rest of the world.” ( Jame Tirmze Vol: 2 )

4. “Mecca is the best place and dearer than any other place. Had my nation not driven me out, I would not have lived elsewhere.” (Jame Tirmze Vol: 2 )

Far more significant than these hadiths (the Prophet’s sayings) are the deeds of the Prophet which sought to exalt Mecca, and along with it the entire Arabia, over the rest of the world. He knew that Jerusalem had become the most revered place for the Jews and the Christians owing to the religious esteem attached to it by the Jewish innovations. Whether it was a European or an Eastern Christian, he preferred Jerusalem to his own homeland and paid it an especial tribute of respect. A similar reverential status attached to Mecca must make it a holy city and enhance the prestige of entire Arabia. It was David’s ingenuity which made Jerusalem the Home of Yahwe (the Jewish God) and when Solomon built a temple there, it became the holiest place to the Jews, and the birth of Jesus extended its boundaries of reverence far and wide.
Despite their internal jealousies, the Jews have always been a highly organised group owing to their sense of national superiority and commercial leanings by dint of their faith in the virtues of wealth. Thus wherever they have lived, they have enjoyed social distinction. Their position in the Arabian peninsula was no different. Since both the Jews and the Arabs have a common ancestor called Abraham, they have a good deal in common even without going back to their earlier Semitic origin. During the early period of his prophetic ministry, the Prophet did everything to woo them to his faith; he appointed Jerusalem as the Kibla, which the Muslims should face to say their prayers. It was, indeed, a great honour to the Jews. Then the Koran repeatedly said that Allah had exalted the Jews over all races. However, all these conciliatory steps had the opposite effect on the Jews, who made the mistake of joining the Quresh in opposing the Prophet. When he became victorious, he treated the Jews with contempt but forgave the Quresh, his kith and kin.

There is plenty of evidence which shows that the Prophet wanted to raise an Arab nation in contradistinction to the Jews, the Byzantinians, the Iranians and the Turks. His message has all the appearance of universality but in reality, it is nationalistic. I did not realise this fact when I was writing about the nature of the Islamic mission in my book: Eternity.

Here is the evidence to show that the Prophet wanted to raise an imperial Arab nation:

1. The Prophet said that the first contingent of my followers that would invade the Caesar’s city (Constantinople) would be forgiven their sins ….they would be granted paradise. (Al Bokhari Volume IV)
By “followers” is meant the Arabs because at that time, the only followers that the Prophet had, were the Arabs.

2. The Prophet said that the hour would be established only when the Arabs fought the Turks, the people with small eyes, red faces, flat noses …. and who wore shoes made of hair. (Al Bokhari Vol: IV)

3. The Prophet said that Khusru, the Persian Emperor would be destroyed and his line would be extirpated: Caesar would also be ruined and there would be no Caesar to follow him, and “you,” the Arabs, would spend their treasures in the cause of Allah.

He emphasised: “War is a deceit.” (Al Bokhari Vol: IV)

4. The Prophet wanted his followers even to look culturally different from the Jews and the Christians:

The Prophet said: “the Jews and the Christians do not dye their (grey) hair so you should do the opposite what they do.” (Sahih Albokhari Vol: 7)

The dying of heads and beards among the Muslims is a compliance to this prophetic command.

5. The Prophet did not want the Arabs to follow non- Arabs in their fashions and garments:

When the Prophet saw Abdullah b. Amr b. al-As wearing clothes dyed in Saffron, he forbade him to wear them on the ground that such clothes were worn by the non-believers. (Sahih Muslim Vol: 3)

One should note here the influence of the Indian culture. The yellow or saffron colour has been a distinction of the Hindu and Buddhist saints. Buddhism is known to have penetrated Iran and Arabia.

6. However, the Prophet’s national tendencies are more fully visible in the treatment of the Jews:

a. To neutralise the influence of Hebrew which was the language of the Jewish Scripture, the Koran stated that the Muslims should neither believe nor disbelieve the people of the Book i.e. Jews and Christians but must believe in the Quran only (which was in Arabic). (3: 84)

b. “By the Clear Book,
behold, we have made it an Arabic Koran
haply you will understard;” (Ornaments: 1)

This verse means two things:

1. The Koran is for the Arabs; it is revealed in the Arabic language so that they should understand it. Since it is rot in any other language, it matters not whether the non-Arabs comprehend it or not.

2. As the Koran is in Arabic, this must be the preferred language of the Arabs.

It was customary for the Jews to read the Old Testament in Hebrew and explain it in Arabic. By raising Arabic to the Scriptural status, the Prophet wanted the Arabs to attach no importance to Hebrew and treat Arabic as their national language.

c. As the Jews failed to respond to the Prophet, he adopted a really tough attitude towards them:
He changed the direction of Kibla from Jerusalem to Kaaba, a small shrine located near the centre of the Great Mosque in Mecca, Muhammad’s birthplace. Allah, obviously, af fected this change to please Muhammad, as is quite clear from the following verse:

“We have seen you turning your face about towards the heavens; now we will surely turn you. Turn your face towards the Holy Mosque; and wherever you are, turn your faces towards it.” ( The Cow: 135 )

The real purpose of this change was to found the Arab nationalism on a doctrine of self-reverence in such a way that the Arabs should believe in themselves as chosen by God-to be the exalted, the preferred and the best, and all non-Arab Muslims must yield to the basic superiority of Arab nationalism as the Divine command. The reader can see this truth for himself by realising that Muslims all over the world face Mecca (Kaaba) five times a day to bow and prostrate in prayers; they bury their dead facing Mecca; every Muslim is obliged by God’s command to visit the Holy shrine at least once in his life time provided that he has the means to do so. All national shrines of the muslim nations are inferior to the holiness of Kaaba.
No place on earth has ever exacted such a tribute of reverence from mankind as the Kaaba. Respect to the Kaaba means, respect to Mecca, respect to Mecca means respect to Arabia, and respect to Arabia, means respect to Arabs, the dwellers of Arabia.

The Moslems say that the Prophet had appointed Bait Ul Maqaddas (Jerusalem) as Kibla because at that time Kaaba, like a temple, was full of idols, which Allah hates. This explanation is contradicted by history: the change of Kibla took place in 624 A.D. when the Kaaba was still the Holy Shrine of the Quresh where they worshipped their idols, including that of Allah, and it was not until 630 when the Prophet entered Mecca as a victor and removed statues from the Kaaba.

According to the Koran, Allah hates idolatory, the only unpardonable sin, yet Allah the All-powerful, allowed idol- worship in Kaaba and could do nothing to evict them for nearly a thousand years, and He had to wait until the advent of Muhammad to be rid of this extreme abomiration. It is obvious that Allah is not a reality but a mental medium to strengthen the cause of Arabia. It is not surprising that Allah speaks Arabic and sends the Koran in Arabic to the Arabic- speaking people.

d. The Arabs have always known that Abraham was the comnnon ancestor of themselves and the Jews but the Bible has portrayed them as superior to the Arabs because according to the Bible, they are from the seed of Isaac, who was borne by Sarah, Abraham’s lawful wife, whereas Ishmael, though fathered by Abraham, was borne by Hagar, the Egyptian maid-servant of Sara, Abraham’s wife.

According to the Bible, as previously mentioned, God’s covenant is with Isaac and not Ishmael, but the Prophet reversed the situation because the Koran claims that:

1. It was Abraham, who along with Ishmael, raised up the foundations of the Kaaba, the House of the Lord;
2. This is where Abraham and Ishmael prayed to the Lord that He should make from their seed a nation which should be submissive to Him (the Lord), and

3. The Lord should send among them a Messenger ( Muhammad ) to recite his signs, teach them the Book ( Koran ) . .. . (The Cow: 120).

Here is a clear attempt to transfer the splendour of Divine distinction from the Jews to the Arabs. If this is not nationalism, then what is it?
Honesty demands that I narrate the whole truth; there is no historical evidence that Abraham ever visited Mecca. According to the Biblical records and archaeological evidence, Abraham was a native of Ur Kasdim, a Sumerian city, the modern Tall al Muqayyar (or Mughair) about two hundred miles south east of Baghdad in Lower Mesopotamia. After migration from Ur, Abraham first stopped at Harran, then at Bethel, a holy city, where prevailed the cult of El, the Canaanite god. This is where according to Genesis, Abraham built an altar and also took over the Canaanite sanctuary which he consecrated to Yahwe. When he moved to Mamre in Hebron, he received the revelation about the perpetuation of his race. This was the end of his journey. Thus his journey terminated on the Canaanite soil, and not at Mecca.

Again, the scholars have claimed that Abraham was not a monotheist, the believer of one God; he practised monolatry, that is, worship of one among many gods. It has been remarked that he swore by “the Lord God Most High” i.e., both Yahwe and El Elyon. It is this El who was to be known as Allah in Mecca and whose statue was worshipped in Kaaba for centuries.

Here one can see the struggle for national supremacy between the two Semitic wings; it has been going on for many centuries and is getting worse instead of showing any signs of abatement.

To raise the prestige of Arabia, the Prophet showered some stunning sanctity on Mecca, his birth place:

1. For example, the Koran says: “O Prophet! say to them I have been commanded to worship only the Lord of this town, Mecca.” (2′: 91)
It is an attempt to establish the special relationship of Allah with Mecca. He is, first of all the Lord of Mecca, and then of the rest of the world. It is Mecca, the birthplace of Muhammad where Allah lives.

2. Abraham in 14: 35-37 is shown asking Allah to make Mecca a place of peace and security. He calls Kaaba, God’s Sacred House.

3. In 5: 97, Allah declares Kaaba as the Sacred House, an asylum of security and pilgrimage for mankind.

The Koran goes even further and declares that Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but he was a Muslim (House of Imran: 60). Yet in another verse, Koran states that Islam is the creed of Abraham who “Named you Muslim.” (The Pilgrim: 75)

For making Arabia the focus of reverence to all believers, the Koran ( House of Imran: 90 ) has made it obligatory to visit Mecca at least once in one’s life-time if the believer has the means to do so. It is called Hajj and is one of the fundamental principles of the Islamic faith and carries the key to paradise. Those who contravene it, are not true Muslims in the eyes of Allah, who may refuse them the bounties reserved for a genuine believer.
Mecca at that time was just a large village, yet the “Arabic Koran” declared it the Mother of the Cities to raise its status above all the cities of the world. ( Counci l: 5 )

No national leader has ever devised such a patriotic scheme. Its beneficence to Arabia can be judged by a single factor: in modern times Mecca attracts at least two million pilgrims from all over the world every year. Assuming each pilgrim spends three thousand pounds sterling, Arabia draws an income of £6,000,000,000 per annum. The population of Saudi Arabia is said to be 6,000,000. It works out an annual income of £1 ,000 per person including women and children or £5,000 per family which is still greater for a comparable family on Social Security in Great Britain and many other European countries. Since the Hajj – income counted as the mainstay of the Arabs before they discovered their oil wealth, one can guage the patriotic magnitude of the Prophet. With it goes, the international reverence and the belief in the holiness of Arabia. Fancy several hundred million people throughout the world bowing and bending towards Mecca praying and begging for Heavenly mercy. And this happens not once a year or a month but five times a day!

In it lies the national magnitude of Muhammad, his vision, his wisdom and greatness of character. What a patriot the Prophet was! There is none who can be compared with him in patriotism.

The Prophet declared his nation and country as sacred by the force of revelation; he knew that his people could not rule the world until they were welded into an effective fighting force. So he formulated the doctrine of Jehad i.e. fighting against the unbelievers for taking over their country, personal possessions and women, and subjugating them to the Arabian hegemony.

This is how the doctrine of Jehad worked:

1. He told the Jews: “If you become Muslims, you will be protected, otherwise, you should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and I want to expel you from this land.” (Sahih Albukhari Vol:4)
2. Since the ambition to possess the entire earth or the best part of it required military enlerprise, the Prophet declared:
“The paradise lies under the shades of the swords.” (Sahih Albukhari Vol: 4)

3. To give his followers the status of divine warriors, the Koran declares:
“God has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of God; they kill and are killed; that is a promise binding on God..” ( Repentance: 1 10 )

Paradise is the place of plentitude replete with beautiful women and boys. If a Muslim soldier wins, his life becomes a paradise on this earth because of the booty he receives by way of wealth and women. If he is killed in the battle, he goes straight to the paradise. Therefore, he cannot be the loser. What a philosophical temptation to murder, pillage and imperialism it is!

4. Since Jehad is against the unbelievers, the Prophet created unlimited opportunities for holy wars by declaring all other religions false and ungodly:
“And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted….. (The House of Imran :85)

5. The Prophet abrogated all other religions because he called himself to be the apostle of all humanity. “Any Jew or Christian who heard of me but did not believe in me, would go to hell.” (Sahih Muslim Ch. LXX1)

6. The Prophet declared that he was commanded to fight against people ceaselessly until they confessed that there was no god but Allah and Muhammad was His Messenger (prophet). The lives and riches of the people could be guaranteed protection on his behalf on the fulfilment of this condition only. (Sahih Muslim Ch. IX)

In fact, these holy wars were the wars of national ambition and contained all those elements of savagery as did the wars of the infidels. The Prophet himself declared: “war is a deceit,” which it is. Therefore, its consequences could not be congenial to the Prophet’s claim of “being mercy to all beings.” Al Bukhari Vol. 8 has recorded some examples to this effect. Let me quote three:

1. The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men who belonged to the tribe of Uraina and let them die bleeding.
2. When men from Ukl committed crimes, the Prophet had them arrested. Their hands and legs were cut off, their eyes were branded with red-hot irons and they were thrown at Al-Harra. When they begged for drinking water, it was refused and they died thirsty.

3. Those who fought against him, he amputated their limbs and they died of bleeding.

The prophetic attitude is justified on the authority of the Koran:
The only reward of those who fight against Allah and the Messenger is execution or crucifixion or the cutting of hands and feet from opposite sides, or banishment from the land. (The Table: 33)

Thus, one can see that Islam is not a message of mercy but a secular code like all other contemporary codes. To perpetuate opportunities for war to keep the Mujahedeen (warriors of Allah) on war footing, Islam is based on the hatred of non-Muslims. Consider the following:

1. Do not pray for your dead mother, father, relatives or friends, nor go near their graves, if they were unbelievers. (Repentance: 189)
2. The believers must not take unbelievers for friends. (The Woman tested: 10)

3. Muslims must wage a struggle against the non- Muslims and be harsh with them. ( The Forbidding: 5 )

4. Slay the idolators wherever you find them. ( Repentance: S )

5. Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them; take not to yourself any one of them as friend or helper. ( Women 90 )

6. God urges the Prophet to be tough with the unbelievers and assures him that they will not be able to resist him much longer. ( The Confederates: 60 )

7. God has cursed the unbelievers and prepared a blaze for them. ( The Confederates: 65 )

It is quite obvious that as Karl Marx, centuries later, dreamt of creating a world order based on social abraison in which victory of the proletariats was assured, the Prophet wanted to found a world order on Divine friction which sought to assure ascendancy to his foliowers led by the Arabs.
Of course, there are certain verses in the Quran which suggest internationalism but their meaning is misunderstood. The faithful do not seem to realise that during the life-time of Muhammad, Islam was confined to Arabia. Therefore, whenever, the Koran addresses the audience as “people” “believers” or “faithful,” it addresses the Arabs who formed the audience. The fact that the Koran which emphatically calls itself as the Arabic Koran so that the Arabs must appreciate the nature of the message, clearly states the national spirit of Islam.

Nationhood is a natural social unit which also serves as a measure of morality. From the union of a man and woman emerge children who multiply into grandchildren, great- grandchildren, clans, tribes and nations, who come to occupy a certain land. Thus they have not only a blood-tie but also a common language and share customs and traditions common to their ancestors. Again, their land or country plays a major role in their destiny not only as their birthplace but also because their honour depends upon its freedom from the foreign predators. This racial unity of the people associated with the motherland (fatherland) gives birth to a common interest which is shared in varying degrees by all its people, and serves as the uniting force. Of course, religion or social dogma such as socialism also plays a role in the history of a nation but this is of secondary nature. Religion supplies a blind force which is weakened as the people become more intelligent and rational. Again the national interest always rides the religious interest unless a country is run by a group of traitors or religious fanatics. Even the Arabs are divided into many nations each looking after its own interest. The recent Gulf war has spelt this truth out quite clearly.

In fact the concept of national honour and the ambition to be a great nation form the pillar of morality. The greater nations have greater customs and traditions and higher standards of morality but the nations such as people of the Indian subcontinent who do not believe in nationalism practise convenient moralily which is the bane of their social and political integrity. The creation of Pakistan shows that nationhood is a reality and not a sentimental mumbo- jumbo. This country was created in 1947 on a religious basis but in 1979 the eastern half ended the union on racial grounds after a lot of bloodshed. The remaining four provinces are constantly bickering for similar reason. As there is no national sense of honour the moral integrity of its people is about to collapse any time.

However, Fascism and Natzism are the perverted forms of nationalism. They represent an acute condition of mental illness because a nation is an integral part of the human race and is thus accountable to the wider interests of mankind. No nation is intrinsically superior to other nations because they all have the same origin. A nation’s superiority is to be judged not by its political or economic dominance but by its services to humanity. Thus every powerful nation has a duty of care to the weaker nations.

A truly civilised nation abhors racism which is an expression of man’s lower instincts. This is the reason that the cultural decency is a part of nationalism. It means that a civilised nation opens its doors to the needy members of foreign nations to become its part on humanitarian grounds and treats them as if they were racially one of them. Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany and France are some examples of adoptive nationalism. It shows the human link of nations which overrides other conditions but it cannot be practised on a “free for all” basis owing to the local considerations.

The Prophet’s nationalism was imbued by the religious overtones. A Moslem had some privileges like the Arabs but he was still an Arab subject because the government belonged to the Arabs, especially the Quresh.

The Prophet made the sanctity of his own person as the cornerstone of the Islamic edifice. For example, without believing in him, the belief in God is absolutely useless. The projection of himself as the Behavioural Model ( USWA-e- HASNA) for the believers, no matter where they may be, has served as the fountain of Arab national superiority for centuries.

It should be clearly understood that the prophet was an Arab who had inherited the Arab culture. Therefore, he lived like the fellow Arabs. In the beginning, religion was the only difference between him and the fellow Arabs. Once they had accepted his faith, there were no other cultural differences to be resolved. They all spoke Arabic, wore similar clothes, ate the same food, followed similar customs and traditions, experienced similar winters and summers, shared the same national anniversaries, history and temperament.

Since nobody can enter paradise without the Prophet’s consent, and the Prophet will intercede for his followers only, it is thought absolutely necessary by the believers to follow the Prophet as the Behavioural Model in every detail with utmost sincerity. The faith has come to mean, not only to pray, fast and perform Hajj, the way the Prophet used to do, but also look like him, that is, to cut hair like him, wear clothes like him, walk like him, talk like him, sleep like him, eat like him, adopt his manners and customs. Above all, love and hate what he loved and hated. This tendency has had a devastating effect on the national character of foreign nations which came to accept Islam, possibly with the exception of the Turks. As the Prophet loved Arabia and its cultural traditions, the foreign Muslim nations started loving Arabia and its traditions at the expense of their own countries and cultures. It should be noted that the Prophet hated infidels. As the ancestors of these foreign nations were invariably unbelievers, they started hating their own forefathers to love the Arab heroes. The Prophet’s assertion that the Muslims are one nation, and infidels are another, accelerated the process of the foreign Muslims’ unity with the Arabs, but as the Behavioural Model was Arabian, the relationship between the Arabs and the foreign Muslims became that of a leader and the led or the master and the slave. This influence which was originally of individual nature, eventually penetrated the foreign institutions. For example, most of the Muslim shrines are in Arabia i.e. in Mecca and Medina, but all other shrines in the foreign lands are subordinated to the Arabian shrines. This cultural following of the foreigners has assumed slavish mentality because whatever they think or do must conform to the patterns of thinking and doing set by the Arabian soil and culture. As a result, the foreign Muslims have little or no loyalty to their own motherlands for being devoid of national honour. This is nothing but the miracle of the Prophet who imposed the everlasting hegemony of his own people on Muslims of foreign nations. I salute him and applaud his ingenuity because he has created similar relationship between Arabia and the foreign Muslim countries as it exists between a burning lamp and moths; these insects are impatient to cremate themselves on its flame without any coercion on the part of the lamp! This divine imperialism has no parallel in history. About two dozen countires which the Arabs conquered, are still in their possession as “Arab countries.” One wonders what happened to the original papulations. They are obviously ashamed of their real identities and want to be known as Arabs.

This concept of one Muslim nationhood or the Arabian over- lordship equally applies to the nations which were once the pillars of civilisation. What happened to the Egyptians, the great followers of the exalted pharaohs, whose splendour covered 3000 years of history? They all have become Arabs. What happened to the mighty Iranians who had not only a glorious history of 1200 years but produced their own prophets of gigantic stature? The grandeur of the Iranians was so great that the traditions of their imperial court were closely imitated by Alexander the Great, the Roman emperors and the European monarchs. They influenced the Raman law, checked the foreign advance in Asia and humiliated the Romans again and again. Their prophets such as Zaratushtra and Mani influenced religion and world thinking. But since they have become spiritual satellites or Arabia, their national stars have been on the wane. India is yet another example of this saga. This land has exerted more influence on the world civilisation than any other country in the world. Its inventiveness through steel, cotton and water technology made a tremendous contribution to the international culture, and its philosophical and religious movements have orientated the human mind in the East and the West. But now she is at the lower rung of the Third World. The Hindus, though did not lack the nerve to defend their country, never respected the idea of nationhood owing to the Caste System. Before the entry of Islam, India was not only a free country but also the richest and technically the most advanced in the world. It was her misfortune that neither it became an Arabian land like Egypt, owing to its strong local influences nor could it retain its quasi national character like the Iranian for lacking the proud imperial traditions. As a result, the Muslims of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, whose numbers touch the 400 million mark, totally lack the concept of nationhood. They are refugees in their own countries for having no real love and respect for their motherlands. Since national consciousness has the same relationship with a people as backbone has with the body, it is natural for these people to keep drifting until they realise that their homelands are, where they were born, and not in Arabia. This situation has been worsened by the fact that these “nations” are poor and victims of social tyranny, which pays lip service to justice and human rights, while doing exactly the opposite. It is usual that a person who lacks pleasure, habitually dreams more af it. Therefore, the Moslems of these lands miss delights of paradise violently and look forward to the fulfilment of their frustrated ambitions in the next world. As it is the Prophet who holds the key to paradise, these people have become even more fanatic followers of the Prophet, and are prepared to do anything in the name of Muhammad to qualify for admission into paradise. It is the national struggle for survival, honour and supremacy which makes a people great. By destroying the national spirit of the non-Arab Muslims, Islam has demolished the Asian centres of civilisation such as Egypt, Iran and India. This fact is amply vouched for by the economic and political splendour of the Far Eastern countries which have not been gripped by the Islamic concepts, and are guided by the law of reason, and national considerations. Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan, etc., are fairly free fram hunger, disease and tyranny. These nations are living in a paradise on this earth whereas the believers are dreaming of an imaginary heaven, and through sheer frustration, are becoming more and more fanatic. This is the reason for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, and not that they want to practise Islam, which is impracticable in the modern world. They are crying for an Islamic government under the force of propaganda without knowing anything about its nature. Therefore I may briefly touch upon this subject to show that revelation is neither for ever nor is it capable of solving human problems, which people have to tackle themselves. The Muslims claim that Islam is a complete code of life. It is nothing of the sort. This is the reason that no Islamic government has ever been introduced in the long history of Islam. It is just a political slogan of those who want to fool people to satisfy their own ends by exploiting people’s religious susceptibilities. Some fifty years ago, India was partitioned to create Pakistan for the introduction of an Islamic government. After half a century of cogitation, nobody knows what Islamic government is, nor is there any likelihood of its enforcement during the next century and thereafter. It was just a cry of the power-hungry men who exploited the word: “Islam” to gain power and wealth. If these leaders were honest in their assertions, they should have given the exact details of the Islamic government to the people before embarking on their mission.

Since Muslims are becoming more fundamentalistic every day, I may examine the major precepts of Islam to expose their irrelevance in the modern world:

1. The first Islamic assertion is that government belongs to God. No, government belongs to the people. What makes man a man is his free will i.e., the freedom to choose and refuse. He can do so only if the government belongs to man.
2. Muslems claim that:

a. Islam offers a particular system of government, b. and this system is democracy.

Neither of these assertions holds good: Firstly, when the Prophet died, succession became a very acute problem, indeed. He left no instructions how to appoint his successor though the Shiites claim that the Prophet had nominated Ali to take over the government. An indecision about such a vital point shows that there is no such thing as Islamic system of government.
Labelling a few laws as Islamic government, especially when most of them were borrowed from Iran, do not create the structure for an independent government.

Secondly, Islamic government is not democratic. As stated earlier, ils head has to be a Qureshi. At the most, it can be quasi oligarchic.

Its first four rulers were appointed differently: Abu Bakr was chosen through a stratagem. Omar was appointed by Abu Bakr. Having failed to persuade Abd-Ur-Rahman to accept nomination, Omar appointed a committee of six men to choose his successor. They chose Uthman. Selection by six men is surely not democracy. When Uthmam was assassinated, Ali was raised to the status of the Caliph by his own clan, the Hashamite. I need not mention the Battle of Karbla and the heroic deeds of Hussain. The fact is, thereafter the Islamic Caliphate became a dynastic rule or kingship.

Thirdly, the Khilafat-e-Rashida i.e. the rule of the first four Caliphs is considered as the Golden Period of Islam as well as the model Islamic government, and thus emphasis is laid on following its example. Unfortunately, the believers do not know the whole truth about this period. To start with, 90% of all Arabs after the Prophet’s death refused to pay Zakat and thus turned renegades (Murtad). They actually marched on Medina. It was the courage and timely action of Abu Bakr which repulsed them. Had they succeeded, it would have sounded the death knell of Islam. Only Abu Bakr died naturally after a rule of eighteen months whereas Omar, Uthman and Ali were assassinated.

How golden was this period, can be further assessed by the fact that the Arabs made a profession of robbing and murdering the non-Moslems in the name of Allah, but they called it Jehad. Egypt and Iran were the early casualties. It was the pillaged wealth and the abducted daughters and sisters of the foreign nations which lent the golden touch to this Arab era.

3. They claim that Islam is a Socialistic system. It is totally untrue. Of course, Islam is an advocate of charity and advises the faithful to give away what is over and above his needs, but this is completely a moral precept, and has nothing to do with the Islamic law, which is essentially feudalistic. Islam openly declares that God makes king whom he likes, and gives wealth to a person without reckoning: wealth includes all types of possessions, i.e., money, land, buildings, etc. It means that both democracy and Socialism are un-lslamic.
4. Islam has no economic doctrine. For example, it forbids receiving and giving interest whereas interest is an essential economic factor, and it is impossible to run an economy without it. All those Muslim leaders, both political and religious, who raise slogans for the abolition of Riba (interest) receive interest from banks, building societies, insurance companies and national bonds. Even the Islamic governments lend their petro-dollars on maximum interest. The advantages of interest as long as it is not extortionate, far outweigh its disadvantages.

5. Islamic laws are bound to be impracticable because they were devised or adapted 1400 years ago. Take purdah or hijab, for instance. It is a stern Koranic command, yet it has been ignored nearly by all the Muslim countries. This is equally true with regard to polygamy and the laws of inheritance, divorce, Khula, etc. To hide these deficiencies, the zealots have made misinterpretation as their greatest hobby. No matter how un-Islamic a practice, they quite artificially put the stamp of the Koran or the Hadith on it.

6. Islamic hatred for non-Muslims makes Islam the opponent of human rights. This is the reason that one cannot find many non-Muslims in the Muslim countries. The Prophet ordered his followers to expel all pagans from Arabia and he himself banished the Jews. In fact, a hadith says: a Muslim in anger can slap a Jew without fear of compensation. Similarly, a Muslim cannot be executed for murdering a non-Muslim. Further, the aggressive nature of an Islamic regime can be judged by the fact that the Muslims have their mosques in Benares (India), the spiritual centre of Hinduism, but nobody can build a temple, church or synagogue in Mecca. Again, as association of a Muslim with a non-Muslim is forbidden by the Koran, membership of the United Nations by all Muslim nations is un-lslamic. What a model of international brotherhood it is!

Posted in Arabs, Islam, Islamofascism, Muhammad, Muslims, Must read article | 1 Comment »

Israel finds more sympathy in Europe

Posted by jagoindia on January 20, 2009

Israel finds more sympathy in Europe
By Robert Marquand
The Christian Science Monitor
January 8, 2009

Concerns about Islamist threat have influenced traditionally pro-Arab
Europe’s view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Paris – European Union leaders this week flanked Israeli Foreign
Minister Tzipi Livni as she told the world’s news media, “We are all
opposed to terrorism.” For many observers in Europe, the moment
underscored a little-noted but ongoing convergence between European
and US-Israeli thinking – despite the tragedy and challenge that Gaza

For decades, Europe was a Middle East counterbalance – generally
sympathetic to Palestinians as the weaker party, critical of an
unqualified US backing of Israel. The Palestine Liberation
Organization had offices in Europe. France’s Navy helped Yasser
Arafat escape Tripoli in 1983. Europe backed the Oslo Accords, and
saw the Palestinian cause as a fight for territory and statehood.

Yet Europe’s traditional position on the Arab dispute has been
quietly changing: It is gravitating closer to a US-Israeli framing of
a war on terror, a “clash of civilizations,” with a subtext of
concern about the rise of Islam – and away from an emphasis on core
grievances of Palestinians, like the ongoing Israeli settlements in
the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and “occupation.”

Causes for the shift are complex and manifold, and in no small way
associated with the rise of Muslim populations in Europe. But since
Sept. 11, the discourse and psychology in Europe has shifted, with
pro-Arab support “diluting and weakening,” as Karim Bitar, with the
International Institute of Strategic Relations in Paris, puts it –
and converging with US-Israeli framing of a fight against terror.
[Editor’s note: The original version misspelled Mr. Bitar’s name.]

“There is convergence on goals [terrorism] between Europe and the US,
and a remnant of divergence on means [military logic],” argues the
French intellectual Dominique Moisi. “The Europeans are less pro-
Islamic Muslims now than before, after 9/11.

“We also see that even American Jews are not entirely at peace with
what Israel is doing. There’s more criticism of Israel than before,
in American opinion; and in Europe there is less support of what the
Arabs are.”

In the Gaza conflict, “European diplomats see a crisis with no exit
point,” says a senior French scholar with extensive Mideast
experience. “They think if the Israelis can put out Hamas and put in
Abbas, that would be wonderful. They don’t see Hamas as Palestinian
nationals, but as Islamic.”

A Euro-American convergence leaves European Union diplomats
supporting Palestinians on “shallower emotional and humanitarian
grounds,” says Mr. Bitar, “helping people survive, hoping economic
improvement is enough, and forgetting the old issues of substance,
and Israeli occupation. The two-state solution is nearly dead.”

Europe itself is not the Europe of decades past, dominated by French
diplomacy, with its Arab ties. There are 27 nations. Eastern and
former Soviet states, like Poland and the Czech Republic, often take
American positions on foreign affairs. As Prague took over the EU
presidency last week, it issued a statement that Israel’s actions in
Gaza were “defensive” – later backing down under French and British

In Scandinavia, traditionally pro-Arab states have found social
tensions with new Muslim populations – the crisis in Denmark over a
cartoon of the prophet Muhammad, for example – and public support for
Arabs is down in polls. In Europe today, nearly all major leaders –
France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, Germany’s Angela Merkel, Britain’s Gordon
Brown, and Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi – are seen as leaning toward
Israel. The lone pro-Arab leader is Spain’s José Luis Rodríguez

“There is a general ‘Arab fatigue’ in Europe,” says Denis Bauchard,
an adviser to the French Institute for International Relations in
Paris. “The Palestine issue continues, the violence continues, the
Palestinians are divided, and it just creates a kind of fatigue.”

“Europe fears an Islamist threat, whether internal or external, and
this has begun to change the overall views on the Israel-Palestine
conflict,” says Aude Signoles, an expert on Palestinian movements at
the University of La Réunion in Madagascar.

A Pew Global Attitudes poll in 2006 found that French sympathies were
evenly divided (38 percent) between those sympathizing with the
Palestinians and with Israel, marking a doubling of support for
Israel and a 10 percent gain for Palestinians over the previous two
years. In Germany, 37 percent sympathized with Israel – an increase
of 13 points over 2004 and more than double those who supported the

To be sure, Europe retains deep reservoirs of solidarity with North
Africa. Public opinion here is outraged by the Gaza inferno. There is
widespread condemnation of the Israeli attack, including by French
President Sarkozy. European media have been overwhelmingly
sympathetic to the Gazans, even while being barred from entering the

More fundamentally, says Antoine Sfeir, founder of the Middle East
review “Cahiers de L’Orient,” European leaders understand the
political realities in Israel, the problems of a state attacked by
rockets, and the need to protect citizens. Even if he disagrees with
the framing of the issue, “The Europeans don’t see this as a
Palestinian thing. They see it as a Hamas thing,” he says. “In fact,
this is not about terrorism; it is a war between Israel and
Palestinians that is being called a war on terror.”

Ironically perhaps, Europeans were the most vocal critics of the Bush
administration-coined phrase “war on terror.” It is seen as
overreaching and simplistic while being used to sanction wars like

Yet since Sept. 11, a discourse that advocates a tough confrontation
with Islam has emerged in Europe – based in part on Samuel
Huntington’s “clash of civilization” theory – in such venues as the
French magazine “Brave New World.” Sarkozy has been congenial to
these points.

Authors include former leftists like Pascal Bruckner, André
Glucksmann, Olivier Rolin, and Bernard-Henri Lévy who supported the
war in Iraq and view Islam as a creeping form of totalitarian
ideology moving into Europe. The most recent issue contains an homage
to Mr. Huntington, who died last month.

Bitar argues that “Islamophobia” feeds a popular confusion in Europe
about Muslims. “Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda are all viewed as the same
thing. Europe used to see the Arab conflict as about territory. Now
it is shifting towards the global war on terror, Islam versus the
West, clash theory.”

Mr. Moisi dissents from the Huntington thesis. His recent book “Clash
of Emotion,” describes a West characterized by “fear” and an Arab
world characterized by “humiliation.”

US and European differences on Israel have been deep and numerous.
The US and Israel have religious and theological sensibilities about
the Holy Land; Europeans view the Palestinian issue through a secular
and humanitarian lens.

America, with an influential Jewish population, has seen Israel’s
security and right to defend itself as central. Europe, without as
weighty a lobby, has stressed UN security resolutions, and
international law for Palestinians that have been a counterbalance.
European academics have not been uneasy with the phrase “state-
sponsored terrorism” to describe Israeli violence against
Palestinians; in America the phrase is seen as far-left.

Europeans saw President Clinton as an honest broker in the Mideast;
President Bush has been seen as wholly aligned with Israel.

Large differences still exist between the two continents on the
priority of the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

“In Europe, we see the Palestinian issue as major, one that, if not
solved, will continue the chaos and violence,” says Mr.
Bauchard. “Americans agree with Israel that the real issue is the
existential threat from Iran. The Israelis built a wall and treated
the Palestinians as unimportant.”

European media characterize the photogenic and well-spoken Ms. Livni
as a moderate – though she emerged from the hard-line party of Ariel
Sharon. “The Europeans really fear what will happen if [right-wing
Likud Party chairman Benjamin] Netanyahu wins in February,” says Ms.
Signoles. “So she is called a moderate, because in Europe, the term
right-wing means violent.”

Signoles points out that the main effect of a Europe that adopts an
American position is that the core Palestinian issues regarding the
cessation of settlements, a shared capital of Jerusalem, and the
right of return “may not be emphasized as before.. [T]he Israel-
Palestine issue is an asymmetric problem, and if the international
community does not raise it and balance it, there is little chance
that the rights of the smaller player will be raised.”

Posted in Arabs, Europe, Hamas, Islam, Islamofascism, Israel, Muslims, Palestine, Terrorism, United States of America | 1 Comment »

Many reasons why Arab nations do not absorb the Palestinians and solve the Palestine problem

Posted by jagoindia on January 11, 2009

Israel’s problems are due to its enlightened founders
By Kevin Myers, January 07 2009

The death toll from Gaza is of course, shocking, dreadful, unspeakable;
though it does not compare with the death toll amongst Israelis if Hamas
had its way. Recurring in the current debate are allegations about the
terrible deeds Israelis did in 1948. But that is history. That some of
these wrongs done to Arabs might have been prompted by local Arab
support for the invading Arab armies is irrelevant. Historical
injustices were certainly done in the formation of the Israeli state.

However, far greater wrongs were inflicted in 1945 on the Poles of
Eastern Poland, and on the Germans of East Prussia, the Baltic and of
the Sudetenland. We can go back a further quarter of a century, and look
at the fate of the Christians of Anatolia, and the Turks of Crete and
Thessalonika, or even, at a far lesser level, of the Catholics of West
and North Belfast and the Protestants of Cork, who in different degrees
were dispossessed, murdered, and exiled.

What was the difference between all those expulsions, and the
expulsion — let us settle for the word — of some Arabs from what was
to become Israel? It is that the exiles found homes in the states to
which they had fled, and there they were allowed to work, and become
full and active citizens. Turkey absorbed the Greek Turks, Greece
absorbed Anatolia’s Orthodox Christians, impoverished post-war Germany
absorbed the millions of Balts, Sudetens and Prussians, the Free State
absorbed the Northerners, (even appointing one of them, Dan McKenna, the
head of the Army).

But not Israel’s neighbours. No, they herded their fellow Arabs (not
then known as Palestinians) from the former Ottoman province of
Palestine into displaced persons camps, and kept them there. Not for
months, but for decades, causing all kinds of political, cultural and
moral claustrophobia. It was in these camps that the modern notion of
“Palestinian” was born. And though we hear a lot about the walls between
Israel and Gaza and Israel and the West Bank, we don’t hear much about
the walls between those densely populated Arab territories, and the
neighbouring countries of Jordan and Egypt. Arab brotherhood becomes
mysteriously indistinct whenever it requires solid gestures, rather than

The Israelis were told by the UN to leave Gaza. They left Gaza. Their
reward has been to have had thousands of missiles fired into half a
dozen of their cities from the territory they abandoned. And how many
demonstrations have the grisly cast of showbiz anti-Israelis mounted to
protest at these deliberate acts of indiscriminate terrorism? Let me ask
you another question, with a comparable answer: How many Jews are there
in Hamas?

Dear old Hamas, whose foot-soldiers are fed and supplied by EU and UN
humanitarian aid, and armed from across the border with Egypt (which,
naturally, is otherwise sealed to prevent Palestinians from leaving
Gaza). It is admirably honest on one issue: it is dedicated to the
destruction of Israel, and to the extermination of the Jewish infidels
in Palestine. So, the bombardment of Israel by Hamas terrorists is not a
temporary nuisance, but the first step of a genocidal strategy.

And whereas the overwhelming majority of Israelis would regret the
terrible slaughter of, say, the five Balousha sisters by an Israeli
bomb, Hamas would rejoice in a comparable massacre of five Jewish girls.
Moreover, I suspect I will win few friends by pointing out that the
Balousha family had initially left their home, right next to a
Hamas-controlled mosque, after the Israelis announced (as they often do,
to minimise civilian casualties) that all such mosques would be targets
for their bombers. But the girls’ father, Ibrahim, then decided to take
his chances back at home, where the sisters were killed by falling
rubble when the mosque was bombed, just as the Israelis said it would

Such pathological and tragic fatalism in the face of an almost certain
outcome defies all rational analysis. However, it does make stunning
propaganda for the global anti-Israeli lobby. Moreover, all the
arguments about the “proportionality” of the Israeli response are
meaningless. Hamas can do what it likes, without serious rebuke or
protests from the western intelligentsia and assorted celebrities: it is
only when the Israelis reply to the insufferable provocation of
Hamas-missile attacks that we suddenly hear the endless recitation of
the P-word.

But ‘proportionality’ is a meaningless and largely theological concept:
what is a proportionate reply to 8,000 missiles being fired into the
defenceless civilian populations of so many Israeli cities?

Israel’s current problems exist because its founders largely behaved
like enlightened Jews, rather than as Communists and Nazis, or even as
earlier generations of Americans or Australians had done. The Israelis
didn’t expel all the defeated peoples from their lands, but instead, let
many stay. In other words, they didn’t seek the kind of outcome which
the Romans inflicted upon Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War.
And that’s the real point about that much-maligned thing, a Carthaginian
Peace. For one tended not to hear very much from the Carthaginian
Liberation Organisation thereafter.

Posted in Arabs, Israel, Must read article, Palestine, West | Leave a Comment »

Torture in the Arab world versus resort living in Guantanamo

Posted by jagoindia on December 13, 2008

Written by Brigitte Gabriel
Thursday, 26 January 2006

Torture is accepted and even expected in the Arab world. Might makes right. Arab men – not those nice Arab men you may know who have immigrated to America, but Arab men living in the Arab world – prove their manhood by the way they treat their enemy.

After all, it’s what Mohammed did to the nonbelievers – Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians in the Koran – the ‘holy book’ allegedly mishandled in Guantanamo prison. Arab Moslem men gain honor by shaming, belittling, abusing and torturing their enemy in the most horrific ways.

Just look at how the Palestinians treat so-called collaborators by disemboweling them and hanging them upside down in Manger Square in Bethlehem. Look at the terrorist torture chambers that the coalition forces recently uncovered in Iraq.

When people refer to the prisons of Saddam Hussein and his regime they think he is the extreme exception. Not! The truth is his torture tactics are quite the norm in the Arab world.

If you want to see torture that is beyond what any Westerner can ever imagine, you can view this video of impalement. But I must warn you: this is so graphic you may throw up: the public rectal impalement of a man. This is what Arabs do to their own people.  (note: the video is not longer available in the website)

As someone who came from the Arab world and knows how they think, it frustrates me to see self-appointed self-righteous politicians and media pundits, oblivious to Arabic culture and thinking, criticizing America’s actions at Guantanamo.

The prisoners at ‘Gitmo’ are a bunch of Al Qaeda Jihadis who were captured while bent on killing us – the kaffirs or ‘unbelievers.’ They laugh watching our government bend over backwards, forwards and sideways trying to appease the critics.

The more we stumble over ourselves questioning our goals and tactics, the more the Jihadis think we are weak and easy to defeat. They smirk because they believe that Americans have demonstrated how stupid and weak they are by caving in to stories about maltreatment of Guantanamo detainees.

Actually Gitmo is a joke as far as the Arabs are concerned. Prison? You call that a prison? You know what prisoners call Guantanamo among themselves? Al muntazah al-dini lilmujaheden al Moslemin, The Religious Resort for Islamic Militants.

They are given three halal (Moslem kosher) meals a day in accordance to their religious dictates. How many Jewish kosher prisons are there for Jews in the Arabic world? None. Jews captured in the Arab world are butchered like those obscene pictures taken in Ramallah during the frenzied slaughter of two Israeli reservists who got lost.

Most of these Guantanamo detainees never had three meals a day in their entire life. They are gaining weight, and are living in what they refer to in Arabic as Al-Jannah, paradise. They have radio, television, soccer games, air-conditioning, clean clothes, servants, meaning American GIs, who wait on them hand and foot.

They have Islamic chaplains and handed Korans, the Hate Guide Against Infidels, by people so concerned as not to offend that they wear latex gloves and carry the book with two hands.

Rest here

Posted in Appeasement, Arabs, Islam, Islamofascism, Must read article, Non-Muslims, Terrorism, United States of America | Leave a Comment »

Stealth jihad: Indo-Jihadi Arab Forum launched in Delhi

Posted by jagoindia on December 4, 2008

This is a conduit to strengthen Islam and Wahhabi extremism in India Apparently well supported by the Indian government and businesses. Should we then complain when attacked by Jihadis when we allow them to set up these bases.

Read Saudi Arab kindness to Hindus: Saudi Arabia: Makeshift Hindu temple razed, three worshippers deported
Indo-Arab Forum launched in Delhi
Nilofar Suhrawardy | Arab News, Wednesday 3 December 2008 (05 Dhul Hijjah 1429)

NEW DELHI: India yesterday reiterated its strong concern over Israel’s months-long blockade of Gaza Strip, saying there could be “no justification for the denial of essential supplies, including food and fuel, to the civilian population” in the territory.

“We remain concerned with the isolation of Gaza and the recent upsurge of violence there. We also remain concerned at the adverse effects of the closure of access points into the strip on the prevailing humanitarian situation,” External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said at the inauguration of the Indo-Arab Cooperation Forum, a cultural event being held to celebrate the relations between India and the Arab world.

The Forum was launched here yesterday with its theme as “Partnership Through Culture.” Mukherjee and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, who was here as chief guest, inked the accord on setting up the Forum in the presence of envoys from Arab countries.

“We are taking an important step in our relations with the launch of the India-Arab Cooperation Forum. We believe that this Forum will emerge as a mechanism to strengthen and diversify our relations in various fields including, culture, trade, energy and human resources,” Mukherjee said.

Mukherjee and Moussa also inaugurated a weeklong cultural festival, which is marked by the presence of around 190 artistes from Arab nations, who are here to exhibit their paintings, handicrafts, music, dance and other cultural activities.

Reiterating India’s continuous support for the Palestinian cause, Mukherjee said: “We are concerned about lack of progress in the peace process. India has constantly supported the quest of the Palestinian people for a homeland in line with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 calling for a negotiated solution resulting in a sovereign, independent, viable and united state of Palestine living within secure and recognized borders, side by side at peace with Israel.”

Describing the Arab peace initiative, India “wholeheartedly supported” as a significant move, Mukherjee said, “Annapolis process needs to be taken forward.”

“There does not seem to have been much progress. We, however, remain convinced of the need for continued dialogue,” he said. “India and the Arab League should increase cooperation, as they have similar aspirations,” Moussa said.

Later at another function, Moussa said: “Indo-Arab relations have entered a new phase today as the Forum has opened several avenues of cooperation.” Dismissing the hype raised about clash of civilizations, Moussa said: “I believe that this does not exist.”

The function was organized by Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA) in cooperation with Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI). “The world today does not need a clash of civilizations but a harmony of civilizations,” ICWA acting director general Ashok Kumar said.

During his address, Minister of State for External Affairs E. Ahamed said: “A pluralistic society such as ours which stands for idea of composite culture and unity in diversity can never accept the concept of clash of civilizations.”

Posted in Arabs, Hindus, India, Islam, Islamofascism, Terrorism | 2 Comments »

Islamic terror in Mumbai: What can India learn from Israel? – must read

Posted by jagoindia on December 3, 2008

The Region: India and Israel: The parallels
Nov 30, 2008 20:27 | Updated Dec 2, 2008

For years, India has been subjected to periodic terrorist attacks throughout the country. But what happened in Mumbai is something new and different: a full-scale terrorist war.

This is the kind of threat and problem Israel has been facing for decades. What are the lessons for India from Israel’s experience?

First, India needs and has the right to expect international sympathy and help. It will get sympathy but will it get help? Once it is clear that other countries must actually do something, incur some costs, possibly take some risks, everything changes.

If the terrorists came from bases or training camps in Pakistan, India would want international action to be taken. Pakistan must be pressured to close such camps, stop helping terrorists and provide information possessed by Pakistani intelligence agencies.

But will Western countries make a real effort? Are they going to impose sanctions on Pakistan or even denounce it? Will they make public the results of their own investigations about responsibility for the terror campaign against India?

NOT LIKELY. After all, such acts would cost them money and involve potential risks, perhaps even of the terrorists targeting them. Moreover, they need Pakistan, especially to cooperate on keeping down other Islamist terrorist threats, not spread around nuclear weapons technology too much and cooperate on maintaining some stability in Afghanistan.

This parallels Israel’s situation with Syria, Lebanon and Iran. For decades, the US and some European countries have talked to the Syrian government about closing down terrorist headquarters in Damascus. The Syrians merely say no (though sometimes they have just lied and said the offices were closed). The US even did impose some sanctions. But by being intransigent, pretending moderation and hinting help on other issues, Syria has gotten out of its isolation.

So, despite all the pious talk about fighting terrorism, in real terms, India – like Israel – is largely on its own in defending itself from terrorism.

ANOTHER PROBLEM India faces, like Israel in the case of Lebanon, is that it is dealing with a country that lacks an effective government. Pakistan is in real terms a state of anarchy. Even within the intelligence apparatus, factions simply do as they please in inciting terrorism. Given popular opinion and Pakistan’s Islamic framework, even a well-intentioned government would be hard put to crack down.

In Israel’s case, the whole rationale for regimes such as those in Iran and Syria is radical ideology. So pervasive is the daily supply of lies and incitement to hatred that popular opinion supports the most murderous terrorism. Murder of Israeli civilians brings celebrations in the Arab world. Appeals to law and order, holding governments responsible for their actions, shaming them or going over their heads to turn to the masses on humanitarian grounds simply don’t work.

So what’s a country to do? It might consider cross-border raids against terrorist camps or retaliation to pressure the terrorist sponsor to desist. Sometimes it will actually take such action. But can India depend on international support for such self-defense measures or will it then be labeled an aggressor? How much is India willing to risk war with Pakistan even though it has a legitimate casus belli due to covert aggression against it by that neighbor country? And let’s not forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, a situation which Israel may soon face in regard to Iran.

Now we can see the logic of terrorism as a strategy by radical groups and countries pursuing aggression by covert means. Their victims are not only put on the defensive but have to make tough decisions about self-defense.

FINALLY, THERE is the dangerous “root cause” argument. Many Western intellectuals and journalists – as well as some governments – are ready to blame the victim of terrorism. In Israel’s case, despite desperate efforts to promote peace – concessions, territorial withdrawals and the offer of a Palestinian state – it is said to be the villain for not giving the Palestinians enough.

The terrorists and their sponsors use this situation to their advantage. By being intransigent – demanding so much and offering so little – they keep the conflict going and are able to pose as victims simultaneously.

Will some suggest that if India merely gives up Kashmir and makes various concessions, the problem will go away? This might not happen but it is worth keeping an eye on such a trend.

The Indian government is thus going to have some very tough decisions to make. How will it mobilize real international strategic support and not just expressions of sympathy for the deaths and destruction? How can it destroy terrorist groups, including installations outside its borders, and deter their sponsors?

Israel’s experience offers some lessons: Depend on yourself, be willing to face unfair criticism to engage in self-defense, take counterterrorism very seriously, mobilize your citizens as an active warning system and decide when and where to retaliate.

Defending yourself against terrorism is not easy. Unfortunately, even in an era of “war against terrorism” those truly willing to help in the battle are few and far between.

Since radical Islamists really believe their own propaganda, however, they tend to minimize their allies and maximize their enemies. You don’t want to make 900 million Hindus and additional other Indians, in South Asia and elsewhere, mad at you. There are about as many Hindus and Sikhs as there are Muslims and, as one Indian reader put it, “There is a Hindi saying: One and one makes 11. It is time for India and Israel to become allies. It is a jihad we are both facing.”

The writer is director of Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal.

Posted in Appeasement, Arabs, Grievances, Hindus, India, Islam, Islamofascism, Israel, Jews, Jihad, kafirs, Kashmir, Maharashtra, Mumbai, Must read article, Pakistan, State, Terrorism, West | 1 Comment »

It is not Palestine or Kashmir, the plan is world Islamic conquest

Posted by jagoindia on August 20, 2008

The below article taken from here is related to the Palestine issue, but is perfectly valid for India as well. Islamic terrorism in India is not about Kashmir at all. But Kashmir is only a strategyfor Islamic conquest.

In The Force of Reason, Italian journalist and novelist Oriana Fallaci recalls how, in 1972, she interviewed the Palestinian terrorist George Habash, who told her that the Palestinian problem was about far more than Israel. The Arab goal, Habash declared, was to wage war “against Europe and America” and to ensure that henceforth “there would be no peace for the West.” The Arabs, he informed her, would “advance step by step. Millimeter by millimeter. Year after year. Decade after decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand throughout the whole planet.”

Fallaci thought he was referring simply to terrorism. Only later did she realize that he “also meant the cultural war, the demographic war, the religious war waged by stealing a country from its citizens — In short, the war waged through immigration, fertility, presumed pluriculturalism.”

to read full article click Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims, by Baron Bodissey, Friday, September 08, 2006

also read: Oriana Fallaci asks: Is Muslim immigration to Europe a conspiracy?

Posted in Arabs, India, Islam, Islamofascism, Israel, Palestine, Terrorism | 1 Comment »

The Old Arab and The Turkey, Nixon on National Will and lessons for India

Posted by jagoindia on July 15, 2008

Kashmir Herald, August 2002

India — A Soft State And National Will
Vinod Kumar

My friend Chanchal Chatterji wrote: “Our inability to deal with hard targets strongly has given us the soft state image and everyone takes us for a ride.”

Well, it is not just an image — it is a matter of fact. It is this understanding that India is a soft state that almost every country takes India for a ride. This soft state status comes not solely from the lack of weapons in Indian armory but also due to India’s commitment to Gandhian and Buddhist concept (it will become clear later) of how to deal with adversaries and this has led to lack of “Will”. Even if India had all the weapons in the world but lacked the “will” to use them — these weapons will do no good. Every time we give in even to a minor terrorist demand — we convey the message that India is a soft state; it has no “will”.

I will give below two examples on this issue of “will” : One is how Nixon saw this issue of national “will” and another is an old Arab story.

I will relate the Arab story first and then quote Nixon.

The Old Arab and The Turkey
Someone told an old Arab if he ate turkey, he will become virile again. So he bought himself a turkey and fed it the best grain and watched it grow big. Every day he said to himself: “One of these days I am going to eat this turkey and be virile again. I am going to be a stud.”

He started eyeing the good looking young women around. One morning he found his turkey has been stolen. He gathered his sons around him and said in a somber voice; “Sons, we are in grave danger. My turkey has been stolen. Go, find my turkey.”

The boys laughed at him and said, “So what is the big deal, Old man? What do you need the turkey for anyway?” The old Arab replied, “Never mind, what I need the turkey for. The important thing is that our turkey has been stolen and it must be found. Go, find my turkey.” The boys walked away and paid no more attention to the old man or look for his turkey.

A few weeks later, old Arab’s camel was stolen. This time the sons went to the old man and said, “Father, our camel has been stolen? What shall we do?” “Forget about the camel. Find my turkey” the old Arab told his sons. The sons did not bother about the turkey but looked for the camel for a few days and soon they forgot about the camel too.

Another few weeks later the old Arab’s horse was stolen. The sons once again went to their father and said, “Father, our horse has been stolen, what shall we do?” “Forget about the horse. Find my turkey.” The old man replied. The sons again did not bother about the turkey but looked for the horse in the neighborhood. Again, after a few days the sons forgot about the horse too.

Finally a few weeks later old Arab’s daughter was raped. The sons were furious, went to father and said, “Father, our sister has been raped. We shall kill the bastard.” The old man looked at his sons and said, “No use showing your temper now. It is all because of the turkey. Once they found out that they can get away with the turkey, everything was lost. They knew they can get away with anything they want.”

Nixon on National Will
In his book “The Real War”, Nixon wrote: “Nations live or die by the way they respond to the particular challenges they face. Those challenges may be internal or external; they may be faced by a nation alone or in concert with other nations; they may come gradually or suddenly. There is no immutable law of nature that says only the unjust will afflicted, or that the just will prevail. While might certainly does not make right, neither does right by itself make might. The time when a nation most craves ease may be the moment when it can least afford to let down its guard. The moment when it most wishes it could address its domestic needs may be the moment when it most urgently has to confront an external threat. The nation that survives is the one that rises to meet that moment: that has the wisdom to recognize the threat and the will to turn it back, and that does so before it is too late.”

“The naïve notion that we can preserve freedom by exuding goodwill is not only silly, but dangerous. The more adherents it wins, the more it tempts the aggressor.”

Nixon went on to write: “There are two aspects to national will. There is will as demonstrated by the nation itself, and there is will as perceived by the nation’s adversaries. In averting the ultimate challenge, perceived will can be as important as actual will. Although an American President would launch a nuclear strike only with the most extreme reluctance, the Kremlin leaders must always assume that he might; and that if truly vital interests of the nation or the West required the use of nuclear weapons, that he would do so. If they are to be effectively deterred from the ultimate provocation, they must perceive that such a provocation carries with it the ultimate risk.

“National will involves far more than readiness to use military power, whether nuclear or conventional. It includes a readiness to allocate the resources necessary to maintain that power. It includes a clear view of where the dangers lie, and of what kinds of responses are necessary to meet those dangers. It includes also a basic, crystalline faith that the United States is on the right side in the struggle, and that what we represent in the world is worth defending.

“For will to be effective, it must necessarily include the readiness to sacrifice if necessary – to deter those goals that are merely desirable in order to advance those that are essential; to pay the cost of defense; to incur risks; to incur the displeasure of powerful constituencies at home and of raucous voices abroad.”

Nixon might have written these with India in view (but we know he didn’t) and he sums up the entire issue one sentence:

“The naïve notion that we can preserve freedom by exuding goodwill is not only silly, but dangerous. The more adherents it wins, the more it tempts the aggressor.”

When I referred to Gandhian and Buddhist concept — I was referring to “naive notion” that Hindus have that if they are nice to others, others will be good to them too. Or if we disarm, others will cause us no harm. If we go on bhookh hartal (hunger strike), the others will at least leave us alone if not give us what we demand. We have practiced these kind of “silly notions” for far too long and that is what led Will Durant to write:

“The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus had allowed their strength to be wasted in internal division and war; they had adopted religions like Buddhism and Jainism, which unnerved them for the tasks of life; they had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans and Turks hovering about India’s boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in. For four hundred years (600-1000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came.”

He went on to write:
“This is the secret of the political history of modern India. Weakened by division, it succumbed to invaders; impoverished by invaders, it lost all power of resistance, and took refuge in supernatural consolations; it argued that both mastery and slavery were superficial delusions, and concluded that freedom of the body or the nation was hardly worth defending in so brief a life. The bitter lesson that may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry.”‘

India has not only not learnt the basic lessons in national “will” and it failed to learn the basic facts of life.

Gandhi further pushed India into the abyss that “freedom of the body or the nation was hardly worth defending in so brief a life” except from the British. Unless we can tear ourselves asunder from the legacy of Buddha and Gandhi, any amount of arms or ICBM’s are not to going to help. Gandhi and Buddha might have expounded a philosophy that is good for peace of the mind and of the soul but it does not protect the body and the nation.

Posted in Arabs, Hindus, India, Islamofascism, Terrorism | 3 Comments »

HEIL HITLER, HEIL MUHAMMAD: Striking similarities between Islam and Nazism

Posted by jagoindia on July 9, 2008

Heil Islam

Thursday, 05 June 2008 (Ausralian Islamist Monitor)


by Sujit Das

There are many strange similarities between Muhammad’s teachings, Hitler’s speeches and the two equally lethal doctrines, the Mein Kamph and the Qur’an. The Nazi Party was a ruthless murder machine, so is Islam.

To read in full click here

Posted in Arabs, Islam, Islamofascism, Marxists/Communists, Muhammad, Muslims, Must read article, Nazism/Hitler, Terrorism | 12 Comments »

An Open Letter to Israel by an Indian

Posted by jagoindia on June 7, 2008

An Open Letter to Israel
by Susan Verghese, Published: 06/06/08

A non-Jewish doctor from India shares her thoughts

Dear Israel

I am an Indian doctor who has been living in Dubai for the past few months. I find the Muslims here very tolerant. Even though they follow their   religion   very righteously they are willing to let others live their lives. They love peace and know full well that peace means prosperity.

However, I watch the Aljazeera news channel regularly. I find that they regularly showing documentaries about Israel’s treatment of the Arabs. They show real life stories about children and women and families being affected because of the blockade.

Unfortunately we hardly ever see the Israeli perspective. Israelis are always projected as a group of monsters who have unlawfully taken over the land and are committing atrocities against innocent Arabs. Your side  of the  history  or  the problems you face  are  not  being projected any where .Very  few  of us  have any idea of what the Jews suffered  under successive regimes.

In India and the rest of the world, we have very little awareness of what is really happening in and around your country.

Prophetic Promise

Israel is being compared to the apartheid regime in South Africa. The recent visit of Archbishop Tutu only corroborated that charge, and that which is shown on the news every day is what the public at large will sympathize with.

It is high time your media began making real life TV programs showing the truth about the borders and what the actual problems in Gaza are. News shows about Hamas shooting rockets into Israel territory and the effect of those attacks on the daily lives of people there or the security wall that you never really wanted to build would be good topics. Or how about how you have developed your country within a short span of 60 years into a nation which has to be reckoned with.

Shows should also be made about the suffering of your people during World War II. Young people of many nations have only heard the word “Holocaust” but do not understand the true meaning if it .

Why can’t such stories be made into documentaries?  That will project your side of the picture to the world.

Israel Adds Stability

I feel that your media should do a better job of projecting all the good work going on in Israel to the world. It could be documentaries, TV shows , projects  done with   outsiders, humanitarian assistance, life stories of achievement , any thing that can be projected on news channels , like  CNN , NDTV, BBC  and others, which are watched  by millions the world over.

I believe if there is any stability at present in the Middle East it is because of Israel’s capability to act as a nuclear deterrent. Unfortunately even though the UAE and a lot of so-called “moderate” Muslims recognize this, they will not say it openly as they are worried about hurting the sentiments of their Muslim brothers in Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Quiet diplomacy and spreading knowledge about the truth about Israel & Gaza can achieve a lot more than what can be achieved through war!

I hope and pray there will be peace in the world.

Dr Susan Verghese is a Consultant Microbiologist originally from Chennai, India

Posted in Arabs, Islam, Israel | 1 Comment »