Pakistani men groom white girls for sex in Britain

Pakistani men grooming British girls for sex

Pakistani men grooming British girls for sex
IANS, Jan 5, 2011

LONDON: Pakistani-origin men in Britain are grooming white girls aged between 11 and 16 for sex with Asian men, a media report said Wednesday.

Police and social services were silent on the exploitation because of fear that it would be termed a racial issue, The Daily Mail reported.

Researchers from University College London’s Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science said the victims were “typically white girls” while “most central offenders are Pakistani”.

The offenders were not viewed as paedophiles but had picked the girls because of their “malleability”.

The report, however, concluded that “race is a delicate issue” that should be handled sensitively “but not brushed under the carpet”.

It said the grooming usually began with older groups of men befriending girls aged 11 to 16 they meet on the street.

The victim was initially treated as a girlfriend and showered with gifts and attention.

But the relationship quickly becomes more “sinister” as the abuser plies the child with drinks and drugs before effectively pimping her out to friends and associates.

The worst cases involve girls being moved around the country to be repeatedly abused.

However, charities working with police to help victims of sexual abuse have publicly denied there was a link between ethnicity and the grooming.

A police officer at West Mercia called for an end to the “damaging taboo” connecting grooming with race.

“These girls are being passed around and used as meat. To stop this type of crime, you need to start everyone talking about it but everyone’s been too scared to address the ethnicity factor,” Chief Inspector Alan Edwards said.

“No one wants to stand up and say that Pakistani guys in some parts of the country are recruiting young white girls and passing them around their relatives for sex, but we need to stop being worried about the racial complication,” he said.

In 17 court cases since 1997 where men were prosecuted, 53 of the 56 people found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, while just three were white, according to The Times.

Five Asian men were jailed in November 2010 for 32 years for sexual offences against girls aged between 12 and 16 in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.

Judge Peter Kelson said the men were “sexual predators”.

Mohammed Shafiq, director of Lancashire-based Ramadhan Foundation, a charity working for harmony, said: “I think the police are overcautious because they are afraid of being branded racist.”

Zakir Naik, Indian Muslim preacher of hate is let into Britain

From The Sunday Times
May 30, 2010

Muslim preacher of hate is let into Britain

Zakir Naik says the 9/11 attacks were an ‘inside job’ by the US

David Leppard

THE home secretary, Theresa May, is facing a stiff test of the Conservative party’s claims to oppose radical Islam after her officials chose to allow a misogynist Muslim preacher into Britain.

Zakir Naik, an Indian televangelist described as a “hate-monger” by moderate Muslims and one Tory MP, says western women make themselves “more susceptible to rape” by wearing revealing clothing.

Naik, who proselytises on Peace TV, a satellite television channel, is reported to have called for the execution of Muslims who change their faith, described Americans as “pigs” and said that “every Muslim should be a terrorist”.

In a recent lecture, he said he was “with” Osama Bin Laden over the attacks on “terrorist America”, adding that the 9/11 hijackings were an inside job by President George W Bush.
Related Links

· Extremist preacher lectures at the LSE

· Al-Qaeda ‘groomed bomber in London’

In opposition, David Cameron and other senior Tories led criticism of the Labour government for allowing radical preachers into Britain to stir up hatred on lecture tours. While in opposition, Cameron also campaigned to get Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian radical, banned from Britain.

Cameron and May now face a political test over Naik, whose inflammatory comments have led some moderate Muslims to call him a “truth-twister”.

One well-placed insider said: “Zakir Naik is a nasty man who makes al-Qaradawi look like a participant at a teddy bears’ picnic. He shouldn’t be allowed into the country to stir up hatred.”

The Home Office indicated that it was not planning to ban Naik, however.

Although Naik makes it clear he does not support specific acts of terrorism, his inflammatory speeches have included one, currently on YouTube, in which he states: “Beware of Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them … we don’t know.

“But if you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him.

“I don’t know what he’s doing. I’m not in touch with him. I don’t know him personally. If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist … I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist.”

According to reports in the Indian media, his organisation, the Islamic Research Foundation in Mumbai, was where Rahil Abdul Rehman Sheikh, suspected of being commander of a series of train bombings in Mumbai, and other alleged terrorists spent much of their time before the attacks.

The American terror suspect Najibullah Zazi, arrested last year for planning suicide attacks on the New York subway, is said to have been inspired by Naik’s YouTube videos. There is no suggestion Naik had any knowledge of terrorist plotting.

The UK Border Agency said: “Each case is considered on its own merits. When assessing a visa application, we will consider the previous conduct of the individual and we will ensure the UK does not provide a platform for the promotion of violent extremism.

“We reserve the right to revoke someone’s visa if they are found to be promoting extreme views which are contrary to UK values.”

Naik will be appearing at Wembley Arena in London and in Sheffield on his British tour. When he last came to Britain in 2006, his visit was condemned by David Davies, the Tory MP for Monmouth, who described him as a “hate-monger”.

A doctor by profession, Naik has distinguished himself from dozens of other “mad mullahs” through his intellect and his ability to recite verbatim extended sections of the Koran.

Peace TV has a huge following in the Muslim neighbourhoods of Mumbai, Naik’s native city. He has been named as the third most popular spiritual guru in India.

Last year he was ranked 82nd in a list of India’s most powerful people.

Since the 9/11 attacks, he appears to have developed a particular hatred of America. He is reported to have said: “The pig is the most shameless animal on the face of the Earth. It is the only animal that invites its friends to have sex with its mate.

“In America, most people consume pork. Many times after dance parties, they have swapping of wives. Many say, ‘You sleep with my wife and I will sleep with your wife’. If you eat pigs then you behave like pigs.”

Sermons of malice

“Western society has actually degraded [women] to the status of concubines, mistresses and social butterflies, who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers”

“People who change their religion should face the death penalty”

“It is a blatant secret that this attack on the twin towers was done by George Bush himself”

“If he [Osama Bin Laden] is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist … I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist”

Rajinder Singh, first Sikh to join British right wing party BNP: Only party he feels would take on Islamic fundamentalism

Rajinder Singh: ‘Why I’m proud to join the BNP’
Monday 15th February 2010

A 78-year-old Sikh, soon to be the first non-white member of the BNP, told today why he supports the far-right party.

Rajinder Singh (pictured) spoke a day after the BNP voted to change its constitution to allow black and Asian people to join.

The party made the decision at an extraordinary general meeting in Essex yesterday after it was told by Central London County Court to amend its constitution to comply with race relations laws or face legal action by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Yesterday, leader Nick Griffin said he expected to welcome Mr Singh soon as the BNP’s first non-white member.

Today, Mr Singh said he would gladly join the party, although being a member or not would not change his support of its policies.

“If they say ‘join’, I can’t chicken out now,” he said.

“I will support them to the hilt, for their policies.

“I’m just pleased for them, not pleased for myself, because it doesn’t change anything in me.

“It doesn’t change my attitude to them, my loyalty to them. That doesn’t change whether I am a member or not. I am still loyal to them.”

Speaking at his home in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, Mr Singh praised Mr Griffin for “taking on the whole storm of lefties” who, he said, wanted to encourage multiculturalism.

Mr Singh, who was born in West Punjab, India, said he left the country in 1967 after seeing years of violence caused by the partition of the country, which also saw the death of his father.

Today he said the BNP was the only party he felt would take on the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, and “save” Britain – preventing any repetition of what he had seen in India.

He said: “Britain is changing, it’s not the Britain I came to when I came in. The British people are worried, and the BNP is the expression of their worry.

“BNP are home-grown sons of this soil, not home-grown terrorists – there’s a big distinction.

“They want to save this country and, when they save it for themselves, it will be good for me too.”

He said he felt the BNP was currently “put in the corner” but added: “Opening up the doors to Asians will make them legal, make them diluted. It’s all positive, positive, positive.”

The retired schoolteacher, who provided a character reference for Mr Griffin at his trial in 2006, said he adhered to the idea of “when in Rome, do as the Romans do” and had adopted the “British way of life”.

“Some Sikhs say ‘You are not a Sikh’, but I have core Sikh values,” he added.

Responding to suggestions that he may be being used by the party, Mr Singh said: “I don’t say that he used me. My point of view is that I helped them out.

“From my side, I am being helpful and that’s a positive thing. From his side, there’s a little bit of joy that I am here and making the face of the party acceptable.”

But he said it would take time before more non-white members joined the party, especially after incidents such as its membership list being published, and the backlash some members received.

“The Labour Party pronounces judgment on the BNP as if they are wolves, and at the same time overlook the real wolves who say ‘We will Islamise Britain, we will enforce Sharia law’,” he said.

“I will not become Islamised, I would rather die.”

But when asked about some of the BNP’s other policies, Mr Singh maintained that its efforts to combat Muslim extremism were the most important.

He said: “Imagine a ship, huge inside, with chandeliers and dining tables.

“But there is a pinprick-sized hole in the hull. Nothing else matters.

“Nick Griffin is plugging that gap. And when the gap is plugged, we can get on with eating the meal. You think of the security of the ship first and then have champagne and a candlelit dinner.

“The British way of life is only ensured if that hole is plugged. But Tony Blair himself took an axe to it, by opening up the gates.”

He said he had seen the “potential of Islam” in India and did not want to see it repeated in Britain.

“Islam is global, it has zero loyalty to Britain.

“The BNP are sons of soil and they are standing up for their soil.

“I wish we had a counterpart of the BNP in India in 1946.”

But today the Unison union called for racism to be kicked out of politics.

General secretary Dave Prentis said: “Without the efforts of workers from abroad, the NHS would crumble, our schools couldn’t function and our elderly and vulnerable would be without the care they need.

“It is time that this massive contribution to our country was recognised.

“The BNP’s commitment not to be a ‘whites only’ party should not fool anyone.

“It is a ploy to make sure they can take part in the next election.

“They were forced to make a change to their constitution after legal action was taken against them. The party are already backtracking by promising not to become ‘multiracial’.

“However much they try to deny it, racism is at the heart of the BNP.

“And racism should have no part in 21st century Britain. It is time to kick racism out of politics.”

The Seeds Of Partition Were Sown 80 Years Before 1947

At Meerut, on March 16, 1888, Sir Syed referred to Hindus and Muslims as two nations, in fact as two warring nations who could not lead a common political life if ever the British left India.

So who was really responsible for Partition?
September 17, 2009

Sanjeev Nayyar

Jaswant Singh’s book has raised a fresh controversy on who was responsible for the Partition of India. Some think it was Mohammed Ali Jinnah; others say Jawharlal Nehru/Sardar Patel. The truth is that the seeds for Partition were sown at least 80 years before Partition actually happened.

Dr B R Ambedkar wrote in 1941, ‘The curious may examine the history of the 1857 mutiny, if he does, he will find that in part at any rate it was actually a jihad proclaimed by the Muslims against the British that owing to the occupation of India by the British the country had become Dar-ul-Harb’ (See Thoughts on Pakistan). This is substantiated by Professor Sheshrao More in The 1857 Jihad (Manas Publications). It is because Muslims took an active part in the 1857 mutiny that the British were anti-Muslim in the early post-mutiny period.

With the advent of British rule Muslim insecurity leapfrogged.

The condition of Muslims was best stated by a liberal, R M Sayani, in his presidential address at the 12th session of the Congress in 1896: ‘Before the advent of the British in India, the Muslims were the rulers of the country. The rulers and their chiefs were Muslims, so were the great landlords and officials. The court language was their own (Persian was the official language of India till 1842)… The Hindus were in awe of them. By a stroke of misfortune, the Muslims had to abdicate their position and descend to the level of their Hindu fellow-countrymen. The Muslims resented the treatment.’

Sayani argued that when the British introduced English education in the country, the Hindus embraced it, but Muslims resented competing with the Hindus, whom they once regarded as their inferiors. Hence Muslims were gradually ousted from their lands and offices, while Hindus rose under the Raj [History and Culture of Indian People, Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Vol. X: 295]

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan came at a critical juncture in the 1870s, and worked for a political rapprochement with the British. They were swayed in 1857, but a little tact and generous forgiveness could change Muslims into loyal supporters. Sir Syed conceived the idea of a Muslim college like Oxford and Cambridge — the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh. At Meerut, on March 16, 1888, Sir Syed referred to Hindus and Muslims as two nations, in fact as two warring nations who could not lead a common political life if ever the British left India.

For the British, Sir Syed’s overtures came at a very opportune moment. After two generations of English education, Hindus showed signs of political development. The British seized the opportunity offered by Sir Syed of enlisting the support of the politically undeveloped Muslims as a counterpoise to the progressive Hindu community.

Differences were accentuated in connection with the legislation for local self-government on an elective basis, and for the first time a demand was made for separate representation for Muslims. Said Muhammad Yusuf on May 3, 1883, “But it would be an advantage and more fit recognition of the claims of the Muslim population if provision could be made in the bill for the election of Muslims by reserving a certain number of membership for that community.”

The divide was visible in the number and frequency of Hindu-Muslim riots thereafter.

The British role in India’s division is best summed up by Sardar Patel. He said on August 9, 1945, “The British talk of Hindu-Muslim quarrels, but who has thrust the burden on their shoulders? Give me just a week’s rule over Britain; I will create such disagreements that England, Wales and Scotland will fight one another for ever” (Patel — A Life by Rajmohan Gandhi).

So when was Pakistan conceived? Dr Ambedkar wrote in 1941, “There is evidence that some of them knew this to be the ultimate destiny of the Muslims as early as 1923. In support of this reference may be made to the evidence of Khan Saheb Sardar M Gulkhan (who was president, Islamic Anjuman, Dera Ismail Khan) who appeared as witness before the NWF Committee to report upon the administrative relationship between the settled area of NWFP and the tribal area and upon the amalgamation of the settled districts with Punjab [ Images ].

“Many believe the Khilafat Movement (1919), a protest by Indian Muslims against Turkey’s abolition of the Caliph, religious leader of the Arab world, to be the first step towards India’s Partition. Gandhi spearheaded this movement but failed to realise that the Pan-Islamic idea cut at the very root of Indian nationality. What did the movement achieve?

“First, Muslim fanaticism secured a position of prestige in Indian politics; thereafter their religious loyalty took precedence over national loyalty. Two, the Muslim population hitherto divided among various groups and political pulls now became a solid force. Three, a new fanatic leadership riding on the crest of the Khilafat wave came to wield the reigns of the Muslim leadership.”

Could the Hindus have avoided Partition? Not if you believe the above-quoted words of Dr Ambedkar.

The British had ensured that the armed forces consisted primarily of Muslim soldiers from the area that is modern day Pakistan. They sought to justify this predominance by saying that men of the north-west belonged to the martial classes.

Some studies show that the predominance of the men of the north-west took place as early as the mutiny of 1857, some 20 years before the theory of martial and non-martial classes were projected in a distinct form in 1879. Their predominance was due to the fact that they had helped the British suppress the mutiny in which the Bengal army was completely involved. The British changed the composition of the Indian army [ Images ] between 1914 and 1930.

After 1930 there is no information available on the communal composition of the Indian Army. Some believed that Muslims constituted 60-70 percent. Obviously it was high enough to cause alarm to the Hindus. Veer Savarkar was probably one of the few leaders who kept exhorting Hindus to join the Indian Army in large numbers.

My conclusion, hence, is that:

It is a myth that Nehru, Jinnah or Patel were responsible for Partition. They were merely implementing a partition plan scripted in the 19th century.

Hindus were apprehensive that Muslims wanted to rule India again. Muslims feared that under the principal of one man one vote, it would be a government for and by the Hindus.

Separate electorates for Muslims, reservations, caste and religion-based divisions are some of the tactics used by the British to divide India

All those who wish to know the underlying thoughts behind Partition should read Dr B R Ambedkar’s book Thoughts on Pakistan back to back.

Sanjeev Nayyar is the founder of http://www.esamskriti.com

Two Muslims arrested for horrific sulphuric acid honour attack

The 24-year-old Asian victim, believed to be from Denmark, is in a critical but stable condition in a specialist burns unit in Essex. He has lost part of his tongue, been left blind in one eye and has 50 per cent burns and fractures to his face after being attacked in Leytonstone, East London, on July 2.

‘Honour’ acid attack: Muslim wife under threat as her ‘lover’ is stabbed and maimed by masked gang
By Vanessa Allen
24th July 2009, http://www.dailymail.co.uk

A married Muslim woman has been warned her life is in danger after a man she is suspected of having an affair with was blinded in an ‘honour’ attack.

The victim is fighting for his life after a masked gang stabbed him twice and forced him to swallow sulphuric acid.

The assailants also poured acid over his body and are feared to have beaten his face with bricks, leaving him blind in one eye. 

 The blood on the fence and the acid stains on the path mark the scene where the victim was attacked in Marchant Road, Leytonstone , East London

The attack was allegedly carried out because the woman’s family believed she was having an affair with the 24-year-old man.

She has denied having a relationship with him.

Police have reportedly warned the woman, whose family is from Pakistan, that her life may be at risk.

Detectives from Scotland Yard were said to have given her an ‘Osman warning’  –  a formal alert she is under threat  –  but she has denied that she could be at risk.

Police, who have charged two men with attempted murder, are assessing how to protect her. Sources said one of the men is the woman’s brother.

Witnesses said the gang wore masks and gloves as they carried out the assault.

The victim’s tongue was destroyed by the acid he was forced to swallow and his throat was severely damaged.

He suffered skull fractures and the acid caused 50 per cent burns to his body.

 He managed to scream for help after the attack in Leytonstone, East London, and was taken to Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford, Essex, where his condition is said to be critical but stable.
It is not known if the man, originally from Denmark, will survive.

Witnesses who saw him seconds afterwards said he wailed ‘like a wounded animal’.

The attack happened on a residential street at around 2am on July 2. Details have only just emerged because of the sensitivity of the case and fears for the woman’s safety.

The man was set upon 200 yards from his bedsit on a neighbouring road. Police are investigating whether he had been lured out on a pretence of meeting the woman.

One witness, Kay Dice, 52, said: ‘He was screaming and screaming. He was pleading for help.

‘I thought he had a huge cross on his back, but in fact it was where his skin had peeled away.’

An ambulance worker said: ‘I am surprised he is still alive.’

Police are understood to be working on the theory that the victim was attacked to end the alleged affair and to prevent the woman’s family from being shamed.

Community leader Imtiaz Qadir, of the Active Change Foundation, said: ‘Honour crime happens a lot in our community, especially the Pakistani community, but we do try to educate the people.’

Police have arrested seven young men since the attack.

A 19-year-old and a second man, aged 25, both from Walthamstow, have been charged with attempted murder.

The men, who cannot be named for legal reasons, appeared before magistrates in Waltham Forest yesterday and were remanded in custody until September 30.

Two other men have been released on police bail.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: ‘Officers are keeping an open mind as to the motive for the assault.’

Muslim woman in fear after friend ‘loses tongue in acid honour attack’

July 23, 2009, www.timesonline.co.uk

Two men have appeared in court after the suspected lover of a married Muslim woman had acid thrown in his face and was stabbed twice in the back in a possible “honour attack”.

The woman was warned that her own “wellbeing may be in danger”, a source at Scotland Yard told The Times.

Detectives have been told that the man and woman were not in a sexual relationship but were just friends. However, their relationship is said to have upset her family.

The 24-year-old Asian victim, believed to be from Denmark, is in a critical but stable condition in a specialist burns unit in Essex. He has lost part of his tongue, been left blind in one eye and has 50 per cent burns and fractures to his face after being attacked in Leytonstone, East London, on July 2.

The two accused, aged 19 and 25, come from East London and are charged with attempted murder. Neither can be named for legal reasons. They were remanded in custody after appearing at Waltham Forest Magistrates’ Court yesterday. They will appear at the Old Bailey on September 30.

Both men are said to be related to the woman. One is understood to be her brother.

A police source said that the woman had not been moved into a safe house but that police were in daily contact with her.

The man was allegedly attacked at 2am by a gang wearing masks and gloves. Five other men have been arrested and bailed pending further inquiries by police. A 16-year-old youth was rearrested last night and is being held at an East London police station.

At the time of the attack, a police source said: “It looks like this gang set out deliberately to target this man. They were dressed in masks and gloves so none of the acid would get on them.”

Police searched the house in Walthamstow of one of the defendants on Monday. A neighbour said the family were “an ordinary Muslim family”. She added: “The police were here from dawn until I went to bed. The family were there all day, but they were not allowed back into the house. They are nice neighbours, very friendly.”

A few roads away neighbours of the other defendant said that police arrived on Tuesday and sealed off a shed at the bottom of the garden with police tape.

Nighat Darr, a project co-ordinator for the Kiran Project, a refuge for Asian women fleeing forced marriages and domestic violence based in Leyton, said that the Forced Marriage Act had been effective in dealing with so-called “honour attacks”. She added: “But we do come across some cases involving horrendous violence. We’ve women who’ve had their nails ripped out by pliers. Another woman was fed dog food. It can be triggered by anything from not willing to be forced into marriage to being caught looking out of a window.”

The organisation was founded in 1990 and helps about 25-30 women, mostly with children, every year. Their clients are mostly in their twenties and thirties.

The Muslim Hindu divide was started by the British

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Can Pakistan say no?

M.B. Naqvi

ONLY one newspaper has carried the story. It was about the four-hour in-camera briefing of the Parliament by Pakistan Army Chief on May 15. No one knows whether the account is accurate but it does look like being based on that briefing.

Supposing the account is accurate, we do not definitely know whether the briefing was confined simply to informing the Parliament of either the Pakistan Army decisions that have been authoritatively taken or it was at least thinking of the Pakistan Army made known to the Parliament that the Army cannot be withdrawn from its locations of covering the expected attack routes or alternatively to mount its own operations. The question is of very high significance. The background is well-known.

The Americans have been trying hard in their Afghan-Pak thinking to make Pakistan withdraw the bulk of its Army from positions of confronting India to its western borders where the Taliban trouble is still going strong. What is clear is that Pakistan Army is simply not willing to withdraw from positions of checkmating Indian military forces.

The next question arises whether Pakistan would continue to resist American pressures to relieve the bulk of its troops to serve on its northwestern frontier. The raison d’etre of Pakistan was that it could not live in a Hindu-dominated India. Pakistan in its first partial year of existence devoted some 43 per cent of its budget to defence. It was meant in Muslim League government’s thinking that it would prevent Pakistan from being gobbled up by India.

That situation has lasted 62 years. This is now almost an article of faith for all conservative sections. To move away would be such a radical shift in Pakistan policy that it is hard to imagine it can be agreed to. The Americans are recommending such a radical departure from traditional Pakistani view that has congealed into an ideology. The conservative political class — which is most of it — does think that India is an existential and permanent threat to Pakistan. To move away from the original is now too hard an exercise. No major request of Pakistan Army, to one’s knowledge, has ever been rejected by Islamabad, whether democratic or a dictatorship at the time.

On the other hand, Pakistan agreed to join the west in lieu of military and some economic aid. The Americans were clear headed. They had made it plain from day one that their aid is not to be used against India. But General Ayub Khan, the first Commander-in-Chief, believed that what can America do if we do use its aided equipment? He did use it in 1965 war and the Americans were angry. They imposed sanctions on Pakistan; aid was suspended for some years.

But the Americans always knew that Pakistan would do such a thing when needed. They showed their anger more for the record than actual punishment of Pakistan. Later America relented and the aid was resumed. New sanctions were imposed on Pakistan and were fairly quickly lifted. There are contrary considerations on this subject.

Pakistan and its Army cannot possibly annoy Americans in any big way. Without American aid Pakistan Army cannot be sustained. It now requires anything from $ 500 million to 1 billion a year in foreign exchange. This is one consideration. There are others: Can Pakistan say no to what Americans may insist on? Can Pakistan sustain a policy of defiance to America? It is easier said in a conference or in a briefing. Some political posturing is permissible by the donors but not in terms of fundamental choices.

The Americans today are demanding a different fundamental choice by Pakistan that goes wholly against the thinking behind the Pakistan Movement and later politics of Pakistan. If a fundamental change has to come about it will not be because of someone else saying so. It is only up to India and Pakistan to compose their differences; no one else can do so.

Let us not forget the reasons why this great Hindu-Muslim problem of Indian Empire arose. One asserts that it did not exist before 1857 when Mangal Panday, the leader of the 1857 Mutiny, was demanding of the rebellion’s aim as no more than the restoration of powers and privileges of the Mughal King Bahadur Shah Zafar. He was a devout Hindu. So were many other devout Hindus who were loyal citizens of Mughal Empire. If they could rebel against the rising British power and demanded the restitution of Mughal power, it simply means that the Hindu-Muslim problem did not really exist.

To come back to the particular debate, Pakistan is ruled by a political class that is largely absentee landlords of large sizes. Their present status owes their origin to the loyalty of their ancestors to the British who restored large estates to their trusted people. The British intention was clear: They were creating a new ruling class in the then India that would always support the British. The behaviour of this absentee landlords class of large landholdings could always be trusted by the British.

The question arises how did this Hindu-Muslim problem arise in a matter of say 80 or so years pior to the partition of India. What the British did was deliberate. Their intention was to place one community against the other. For the purpose they made religion the main identity of a person for official purposes. Which is one reason why this Hindu-Muslim problem arose. Through slow stages the British played Muslims against the Hindus and delayed the freedom.

After 1906 the Hindus were grouped to vote for Hindu representatives in various bodies. Hindus voted for Hindus and Muslims voted for Muslims. What was the upshot? Muslims seemed to need more aid and support from the British. ‘The Hindus are ahead of us in education and in economic activity; they have already some industries and would go on progressing leaving us behind’. This was inherently anti-Hindu. This became the raison d’etre for Pakistan after Jinnah took over the League in 1937.

The question now is: can America, Britain or any other power order India Pakistan to make up? It is simply not possible. If ever a reconciliation comes about, it will be through political forces of India and Pakistan coalescing together and reconciling with one another in realistic stages for their own reasons.

Then there is the sordid turf reasons. If Pakistan Army is not needed to deter India then what is it meant for. Pakistan Army’s basic need was India and not Taliban or any other passing show. Other enemies cannot last like India. Army’s longevity depends on a big permanent threat. That is way to save the job for the boys.

M.B. Naqvi is a leading Pakistani columnist.

Pakistan: The epicentre of jihad and Islamic terror, a threat to the entire world

Pakistan: the epicentre of Islamist terror
In the lush, green valleys of the Punjab, young men are being schooled in the principles of mass murder.

By Sean Rayment, Security Correspondent
12 Apr 2009

Some 70 miles north of Lahore, in a 200-acre camp that also houses a large mosque, swimming pool and fish farm, volunteers are taught how to assemble bombs, fire weapons, create terrorist networks and communicate covertly using the internet and mobile phones.

They are also instructed in resistance to interrogation techniques and how to create cover stories in the event of being captured.

This is the headquarters of the Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) – which in Urdu translates as “army of the pure” – the organisation widely believed to be responsible for the Mumbai massacre in November which left 172 people dead.

LeT, which professes to be a peaceful organisation, is known to have close links with al-Qaeda and is understood to train around 40,000 young men every year at its madrassas (religious schools) and military bases.

Some of the trainees at its base in the Punjab are British.

Many of those who graduate from the camps are sent to the front line in Kashmir to wage war against the Indian army, others venture north to Afghanistan to fight against Nato forces, while many of the British return to the UK and begin plotting.

Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer are both thought to have visited the camp several times before carrying out the 7/7 suicides attacks on the London Tube network.

Mohammed Ajmal Khan, who was sentenced to nine years in March 2006 for fundraising for terrorist groups operating in Pakistan and Afghanistan, also admitted visiting one of the organisation’s camps.

Virtually all of the al-Qaeda terrorists convicted in Britain since 2001, including the 7/7 bombers and Dhiren Barot – the so-called “Dirty Bomber” – received training in Pakistan.

Gordon Brown recently stated that three quarters of all British terror plots originate from within the state.

However, monitoring everyone visiting or returning from Pakistan is an impossible task for Britain’s police and MI5.

Up to 400,000 British Pakistanis visit the country every year, the vast majority for completely legitimate reasons. Up to 10,000 young Pakistanis enter the UK every year on student visas.

It is also believed that some of the 12 terrorist suspects arrested in Wednesday’s Operation Pathway may have been trained to form a covert cell in Pakistan before entering Britain.

LeT is a hardcore terrorist organisation committed to using extreme violence to achieve its aim of forcing India to leave the disputed area of Kashmir.

But in the 18 years since its creation, the movement has forged links with other terror groups, most notably al-Qaeda, and has become a major threat to many western countries.

After the Mumbai attacks, it emerged that the group had compiled a worldwide hit list of 320 targets. Yet despite being banned by most western countries, the Pakistani authorities stand accused of effectively having turned a blind eye to its operations.

And the organisation is not alone. Another militant group, Lashkar-e-Janghvi is believed to have been behind the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore last month, also operates openly, while other groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen are understood to be expanding their influence in Punjab, an area with strong British connections.

In one area of Kashmir roughly the size of the West Midlands, 25 militant groups are known to operate with impunity.

Many of their volunteers sign up here for jihad – or ‘holy war’ – before taking the next step of joining other organisations committed to attacking the West.

It is against this backdrop that Pakistan has now acquired the dubious distinction of being epicentre for Islamist terrorism in the world.

At the same time, MI5 and the CIA are becoming increasingly worried by the country’s inability to clamp down on militants.

Pakistan is now a very dangerous country for Westerners to live and work. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office only allows its diplomats to work in the country unaccompanied, meaning partners, wives and children must remain behind in the UK.

As far as the FCO is concerned, Pakistan is as dangerous as Afghanistan, which is currently in the grips of a full-blown insurgency.

The rise of militant Islamist groups in Pakistan began in the early 1980s under the country’s then leader General Muhammad Zia-ul-Huq, largely in response to the growth of Shia fundamentalism in Iran and in a bid to support the Mujahideen who were fighting the Soviets in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Over the last 30 years, the country’s leaders have been content for various Islamist groups to train and recruit in Pakistan, and to wage a proxy war with India over the disputed Kashmir region. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Inter-Services Agency (ISI), the intelligence wing of the Pakistan army, funded the Mujahideen and, later, the Taliban in the mid-Nineties.

Although Pakistan is fighting its own counter-insurgency war against militants, the ISI is believed to have firm links with groups like the Taliban and even al-Qaeda, much to the consternation of Britain and the US.

MI5 treats any intelligence passed to it by the ISI with caution, given that much of it is politicised, although the relationship between the two organisations remains strong.

But the US, which over the last few years has funded the Pakistan military and therefore the ISI to the tune of £7 billion, is said to be increasingly frustrated with rogue, Islamist-supporting elements within the ISI.

Washington wants the Pakistani government to clamp down on the militant groups operating within the country and to cleanse the ISI of Taliban and Islamist sympathisers.

Admiral Michael Mullen, the US Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs and America’s most senior officer, recently called for the ISI to make “fundamental” changes in its relationship with militants.

But despite the frustrations, there have been some major advances.

The bilateral agreement between Pakistan and Washington, which had been a secret until recently and allowed America’s heavily armed unmanned aircraft, known as Reapers, to attack al-Qaeda and Taliban targets inside Pakistan, have produced enormous dividends.

Security sources said the various strikes over the past 12 months have severely disrupted al-Qaeda operations in Pakistan and their lines of communication back to the UK.

MI5 are convinced that the current lack of so-called “late-stage plots” – in which “cells” of terrorists are close to launching attacks – is partly down to the Reaper strikes in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border regions.

Pakistan, however, remains a country on the brink of catastrophe.

The ‘Talibanisation’ of the Swat Valley in the tribal areas of the northwest frontier province serves to illustrate how the central government is beginning to lose control in certain areas.

It is in this region that more than 75,000 soldiers of its Frontier Corps are waging a bitter counter-insurgency war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

The war has reached a stalemate and is causing deep divides within the Pakistani Army. While the officer class support the war, the rank and file see little honour in killing fellow Muslims. The potential for revolt within the Army is very real.

The economy is also in freefall, with some estimates suggesting that Pakistan will be bankrupt within six months, a position which will play further into the hands of the militants, who already recruit the majority of their foot soldiers from the poorest areas.

Pakistan is a country of 150 million people, many of whom are trapped in poverty. It is in desperate need of help, probably more so than neighbouring Afghanistan.

If the economy implodes, the Army revolts and the Islamists gain power – a sequence of events that is entirely possible – the problems for the West will dwarf anything seen in Iraq or Afghanistan and will take international terrorism to a new infinitely more dangerous level.

For the first time since the Cold War, the West would have an enemy with a nuclear capability.

UK Muslim population increases 10 times faster in just four years

One implication should be that jihadi population should have also increased 10 times. Serves them right. After all the UK supported the Islamifascists over Kashmir. We now look forward to a Muslimistan in UK.

Muslim population multiplied 10 times faster in UK
Feb 01, 2009

London Immigration, higher birthrates and conversions to Islam are considered as major factors behind rise of the Muslim population in UK by more than 5 lakhs to 2.4 million in just four years.

Experts have also suggested a growing willingness among believers to describe themselves as Muslims because the western reaction to war and terrorism had strengthened their sense of identity.

The Muslim population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics done during the period of 2004-2008 reveals. In the same period the number of Christians in the country fell by more than 2 million.

“The implications are very substantial. Some of the Muslim population, by no means all of them, are the least socially and economically integrated of any in the UK… and the one most associated with political dissatisfaction,” David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford University was quoted as saying by ‘The Times’.

“You can’t assume that just because the numbers are increasing that all will increase, but it will be one of several reasonable suppositions that might arise.”

There are more than 42.6 million Christians in Britain, according to the Office for National Statistics, whose figures were obtained through the quarterly Labour Force Survey of around 53,000 homes.

Muhammad Abdul Bari, general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain said that the greater platform that Muslims would command in the future should not be perceived as a threat to the rest of society.

Who looted India more? — The Muslims or the British

Who looted India more?
By M.S.N. Menon, The Organiser, Sep 11, 2005

The British, say the ignorant Hindus. And they are not a few in this country. The talk is always of colonial exploitation. Of Jalianwala massacre.

It is also said that the British transferred huge amounts to Britain and that they tried to maximise revenue collections in India.

What are the facts? Prof. Dharma Kumar of the Delhi School of Economics refutes the charges. He writes: “This is very far from the truth and may indeed be more true of the Mughal rulers, if one takes the texts of the period and the work of the Aligarh school of historians seriously.”

And he goes on to quote the first volume of the Cambridge Economic History of India, which says that “a tiny ruling group consisting of the Mughal Emperor and 8,000 or so nobles (of a total population of 100 million ) actually collected over half to one-third of the GNP as revenue.” According to the US economist Raymond Goldsmith, the income appropriated by the top group in Mughal India was the highest known to man. The only exceptions were the Egyptian and Mesopotamian theocracies.

True, the British tried to collect as much as they could, but they were a people used to low taxation. In fact, in the first budget speech after the 1857 Mutiny, it was said that Hindu taxation law was generous to the rulers. Prof. Kumar says that the British might have collected 7 per cent of Gross National Product (GNP) in 1872-73 as revenue. During the World War II, the revenue collection was by no means high, he says. Thus during the World War II, it was not more than 12 per cent. Tax revenue fluctuated between 6 per cent and 7 per cent of the national income between 1900 to 1947.

In the last year of British rule, land revenue constituted. less than one-tenth of the total tax revenue. The land revenue probably did not exceed 5 percent of gross agricultural output in the 20th century for the country as a whole. This is in contrast to the Mughal period, when land tax was the highest. In fact, Britain was reluctant to impose high land tax after the rise of nationalism.

Prof. Dharma Kumar writes: “Indian historians are too often obsessed with the exploitative nature of colonialism and generations of students have learnt from them. It is true the British exploited, but they were also building a new modern India.”

As against this, after imposing their rule over India for over seven centuries, the Muslim rulers remained as foreign dynasties and refused to identify themselves with India. In these seven centuries, they did not build one great school or hospital. All they did was to build palaces and gardens for their enjoyment, tombs to perpetuate their memory and forts for their security. In fact, India continued to be a Dar-ul-Harb for the Muslim rulers, whereas India was the jewel of the British crown.

In the long period of the Muslim advent, the Muslim invaders and rulers did not spare one Hindu or Buddhist temple or Vihara. Everything was looted for gold and precious stones. The destruction was complete in the north. The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb alone is estimated to five, if not six, digits, according to his own court chroniclers. There was nothing left for the British to loot in India. In any case, they never indulged in looting the temples.

India was the richest country in the world till the advent of Islam. All the great diamonds belonged to India. India knew mining and processing of diamonds. The Mughals had two underground rooms of a capacity of 150,000 cu. ft., each packed with precious metals, diamonds and stones.

Mohd. bin Qasim robbed Sind of 630 million dirhams in the 11th century. Mahmud Ghazni raided India 17 times to loot temples and palaces. The sultanates sent looting expeditions to the south. On the invasion of Ghazni, Nehru writes: “From Thaneswar he took away, it is said, 200,000 captives (for sale) and vast wealth. But it was at Somnath that he got the most, for this was one of the great temples and the offerings of centuries had accumulated there.”

The Muslim armies had plans to loot the rich cathedrals of Europe, but they were routed by the French. Similar ambitions to loot China were frustrated by the Mongols who devastated the Muslim empire and destroyed the Caliphate.

Loot was the first objective of every Muslim invader, not conversion. This is sanctioned by Islam. It says : “Eat what you have taken as booty. It is lawful and good.” (The Spoils 65) ( As against this , the Isha Upanishad says: “Enjoy what God has given the. Covet not that which belongs to another. “)

The legitimisation of plunder by Islam was what made the Islamic advent in the world so gory.

But our Indian “comrades” are ever ready to distort history. Prof. Prabhat Patnaik of JNU for example writes: “Every act of the British… was meant to serve rapacious colonial interests. ” No sensible thinker can pen such nonsense. Was the creation of the Asiatic Society also a “rapacious colonial” enterprise? More men of eminence are on record in British history, who opposed colonialism.

Saudi school teaches Jews are monkeys and Christians are pigs

School’s books are racist, says sacked teacher Clare Dyer, legal editor
The Guardian, Tuesday 6 February 2007

A Saudi-run school in London uses textbooks which describe Jews as monkeys and Christians as pigs, according to papers filed with an employment tribunal by a former teacher.

Teaching materials used at the King Fahd school in Acton, west London, translated from Arabic for an unfair dismissal claim against the school, say Jews “engage in witchcraft and sorcery and obey Satan”, and invite pupils to “name some repugnant characteristics of Jews” and to give examples of worthless religions, such as Judaism and Christianity.

Colin Cook, 57, a British convert to Islam who taught English at the school for 19 years until he was dismissed last December, said pupils had been heard saying they wanted to kill Americans, that 9/11 was good, and that Osama bin Laden was a hero. He is claiming £100,000 compensation for unfair dismissal, race discrimination and victimisation.

The school was originally set up to educate the children of Arab diplomats, but most of its 750 pupils are now British Muslims. It teaches Wahhabism, the dominant faith in Saudi Arabia, which is an extreme form of Islam that insists on a literal interpretation of the Qur’an.

Mr Cook’s solicitor, Lawrence Davies, said he was taking the “extraordinary step” of issuing a statement because British pupils were being put at risk. “We are concerned at the fact that these racist textbooks are being taught in a Saudi-funded school to British pupils and to date no school inspection by Ofsted has identified this appalling practice.”

The teacher, who earned £35,000 a year, says he blew the whistle to Edexcel, the examinations body, after children were allowed to refer to their annotated texts in an English language exam in breach of the rules. The school denies his allegations and claims he was rightly dismissed for misconduct. His tribunal hearing is expected to be held later this year.