Another long comment so best responded in a post.
This comment is from: Author : Thcoder (IP: 202.56.7.174 , 202.56.7.174)

@ Thcoder, I have responded in between your text for convenience.

@littleindian,
i am sorry, could not manage time to read the whole post. have read a part. yeah, I am a muslim too. I never support such terrorism. I am not a big practicing Muslim. So don’t know much inside things. thats surely my badluck. like you, I am also looking for the meaning of fundamentalism.

Before I reply to your comment, may I point out that you have confirmed you do not know “much inside things”. I assume you refer to your knowledge or reading of the texts in Quran. So it is possible that many points you have raised is not necessarily correct.

i think that person’s comment about fundamentalism is not wrong. see it: LINK
Believing in fundamental things does not mean that it can’t be changed. A core theory of medicine, mathematics can be changed. yes, in islam it can’t be changed because Al Quaran and Al Hadiths can’t be changed. But yes, they can be re-interpreted.

If the core of science and knowledge can be questioned and changed, I question why the core theory of Islam CANNOT be changed?

Islam is a religion that is believed to be the words of God revealed to a SINGLE individual 1400 years ago said. Unlike, say the Bible which is a record of events that happened in public, there are no witnesses, nor evidence that any such revelation did happen. But Islam is a religion that does not allow any individual to QUESTION.

Islam calls for the universal Ummah, for all to be ruled under the Shariya Law.
Rousseau said,

Every law the people has not ratified in person is null and void — is, in fact, not a law.

Why should I be forced to live under the Shariya Law if as a non-believer I will never have the right to question it?

That goes against the rights of every individual human being.
To me any such religion that denies me my individual rights, because I have no evidence to believe in it other than the word in a text written years ago; I cannot consider such a religion to be of peace, but of INTOLERANCE.

The many things of Islam highly depend on interpretation of Quaran and Hadith. A believe that has be believed by millions of people may changed after a new interpretation of the Al Quaran and Hadith. The terrorists that are killing people, I strongly believe, are due to misinterpretation of Islam -> Al Quran and Hadith.

The terrorists who they are the faction of muslims that have correctly interpreted Islam and are killing in the name of Islam.
It cannot be disputed, Islam has text in its Holy book that can be interpreted in such extreme ways that allow killings as we saw in Mumbai. As long as their are texts in Quran, that CAN BE represented as a directive to kill non-believers, then to claim mis-representation is itself a mis-representation of Quran.

“Islam is a religion of peace? Only when there are no non-believers left.”
When we discuss, I think we should discuss fairly without going for an quick conclusion. Can you name any religion that advises to break the peace? See, you are an Indian. Each year, many Hindus kills many Muslims, burn their houses. Is it the core theory of Hindu religion? I don’t believe. All religion came for peach and happiness on the earth. But a part of mis-believers always go out of the circle and spoil the peace. Thats a common problem and it should be faced unitedly rather than blaming each other.

Yes. Islam.
A religion that does advice to break the peace – preach religious intolerance.
Before you bring Hindu killings here, explain why,

1. Why were the school textbooks in Pakistan “Islamicised” in the 80′s? – To promote intolerance.
2. Why are Hindus being killed and raped and ethnically cleansed by muslims in Bangladesh? ? Because of intolerance based on religion.
3. Why is it, in nearly all inter-religion conflicts past and present, one side is islam?

The denominator? Islam’s intolerance of all other religions.
As long as such conflicts, such terrorism continues in name of Islam it cannot be called a religion of peace.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is also a fundamental ideology that accepts every humans’ individual rights. The indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights has been confirmed by the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action:

“ All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and related. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis ”—Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, World Conference on Human Rights, 1993

Yet muslims are unable to accept it? Why?
Why the need for the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam of 1990?
A declaration that does not guarantee EQUAL RIGHTS, but merely EQUAL DIGNITY. And does not give a guarantee of FREEDOM OF RELIGION?

And it places the responsibility for defending those rights, NOT on the United Nations, but upon the entire Ummah. An Ummah that only represents a fraction of the world’s community – NOT UNIVERSAL. Then how can Islam be a religion of peace, if it cannot accept other religions to be equal?

To face together and not blame each other?
It is Pakistan that has refused to deal with terrorism arising from her soil for 60 years. The blame of the Mumbai killing is SOLELY on Pakistan. Pakistan can try and point blame back to India, the world will no longer fall for it.

The circle of killings

How far in back in history do you dare to go back to find how this circle of killing started? I can take you back to the 10th century – the invasions of Ghaznis and Ghoris spreading intolerance and hatred – killing in the name of Islam.

The intensity of hatred towards muslim grew – for every hindu killed, every temple desecrated for every day of the 700 years of Islamic atrocities on Hindus. If muslims are prepared to kill in name of Islam, they have to be prepared to be killed in return. You cannot play the eternal victims and fool the world for ever.

Why don’t you think, who is the most beneficiary if India-Pakistan war takes place? Who is patronizing the terrorism? Where these terrorists get the modern ammunitions? Why USA can’t capture Bin Laden in spite of having world’s best technologies? Isn’t it a great joke that a man in hill tracks is much clever than USA->CIA->Pentagon and their beyond space technologies?

Good try bringing up the laughable ‘international conspiracy’ theory.

Who is patronizing this terrorism? It is a nation called PAKISTAN.
A nation and its lying doubletalking ex-President that has fooled the Americans for 7 years they were fighting ‘terrorism’ – while all along they have been protecting the terrorists themselves. And took $10 billion off the united suckers of america and diverted the money to his own homegrown terrorists.

The rhetorics following 9/11

Musharraf’s Address to People of Pakistan on 19 September 2001

I must tell them that I and my government are much more worried about Afghanistan and Taliban. I have done everything for Afghanistan and Taliban when the entire world is against them. I have met about twenty to twenty five world leaders and talked to each of them in favor of the Taliban.

I have informed Mullah Umar about the gravity of the situation. We are trying our best to come out of this critical situation without any damage to Afghanistan and Taliban. This is my earnest endeavor and with the blessings of Allah I will continue to seek such a way out.

“Pakistan comes first, everything else comes later”

If Pakistan is truly with the world to fight against the terrorists on their west front, why refuse to let NATO assault troops to use their territory to attck their common enemy.

Indo-Pakistan War?!!

There will not be a Indo-Pakistan war till it is of benefit to Pakistan ALONE. As vociferously confirmed by Musharraf, “Pakistan comes first, everything else comes later”.
Who was to benefit from the Kargil War? Pakistan, a nation obsessed for 60 years to take over the whole of Kashmir. Musharraf’s grandiose promise to fly the Pakistani flag atop the Srinagar Assembly.

If there is a war now, it will ONLY be Pakistan’s effort to hide its involvement with the ‘terrorists’. The military and the ISI. Zardari made a mistake by agreeing to send the ISI chief to India, not knowing how deeply involved the ISI is with the ‘terrorism’ they are claiming to fight against.

good luck. i will try to return later and read the post.

Luck indeed. Lucky that I am in a part of the world where I can exercise my rights to freedom of independent thoughts and my freedom to expression to write this. In an Islamic nation I would be dead for voicing my thoughts.

@ Thcoder, you have to try better to try and contradict my articles. I do not fall for empty propaganda.

I read the translation of the lecture by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
to a group of his disciples on November 30 – focussed on the recent terror attacks in Mumbai.

It is a long lecture to quote in entirety. But these are his lines that strikes out.

Muslims have gained nothing from terrorism

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan | translated by Yoginder Sikand for Rediff.

I have studied in Muslim seminaries, madrassas and have participated in numerous Muslim gatherings, and in many of these places hatred and pride is instilled in the minds of Muslims. They are taught: ‘We are the caliphs and vice-regent of God on earth.“

I once met an Arab whose first question to me was, “Who are we?” He then said: “We are the Caliphs of God on earth.” I told him that this is not written anywhere in our books. The Sahih Al-Bukhari says that Muslims are witnesses of God. That is, they have to spread the message of God on earth. The same is alluded to in the Quran, that is, the task of Muslims is to spread God’s message and lead a life according to His instructions.

However, Muslims have made themselves the self-appointed Caliphs, and have launched all sorts of movements that propagate the ideology of capturing political power. This thinking emerged when the Ottoman and Mughal empires declined, and Muslims started considering the rest of the world as usurpers and oppressors who snatched their rights and power from them.

Today I receive this comment. A muslim who by his own declaration a proud fundamentalist. It is a long comment, his text is within the blockquotes. I hope you do read the entire post.

SAJJAD | ……..@rediffmail.com | IP: 116.72.188.176

WHY ARE MOST OF THE MUSLIMS FUNDAMENTALISTS AND TERRORISTS?

This question is often hurled at Muslims, either directly or indirectly, during any discussion on religion or world affairs. Muslim stereotypes are perpetuated in every form of the media accompanied by gross misinformation about Islam and Muslims. In fact, such misinformation and false propaganda often leads to discrimination and acts of violence against Muslims. A case in point is the anti-Muslim campaign in the American media following the Oklahoma bomb blast, where the press was quick to declare a ‘Middle Eastern conspiracy’ behind the attack. The culprit was later identified as a soldier from the American Armed Forces.

Let us analyze this allegation of ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘terrorism’:

1. Definition of the word ‘fundamentalist’
A fundamentalist is a person who follows and adheres to the fundamentals of the doctrine or theory he is following. For a person to be a good doctor, he should know, follow, and practise the fundamentals of medicine. In other words, he should be a fundamentalist in the field of medicine. For a person to be a good mathematician, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of mathematics. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of mathematics. For a person to be a good scientist, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of science. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of science.

This is a typical explanation of a propagandist – made to sound convincing but in reality illogical.

Fundamentalism refers to deep commitment to a belief, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles mostly religious. A fundamentalist has to adhere to that set of beliefs even in the face of criticism or unpopularity.
A true scientist, mathematician or a doctor cannot be “fundamentalist”. They have to be flexible enough to accept all possibilities and challenge the fundamentals to make new discoveries, to progress. The early belief was the sun revolved around the earth, a fundamentalist astronomer would never be able to challenge it.
Fundamentalism is only possible in religious beliefs. More so in Islam which does not give anyone the right to question or challenge, but to only blindly follow.

But his logic only goes to confirm my views about Islam.
The more devout are the followers of Islam, the more fundamental or even extreme their beliefs. After every atrocity, the muslim community now says that the killers are not true muslims. But this comment confirms that a muslim terrorist has to have fundamental beliefs – and be a devout muslim.

That is the paradox, that no muslim will ever admit, the more devout a muslim, the more the possibility of becoming an extremist; or even a terrorist.

2. Not all ‘fundamentalists’ are the same
One cannot paint all fundamentalists with the same brush. One cannot categorize all fundamentalists as either good or bad. Such a categorization of any fundamentalist will depend upon the field or activity in which he is a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist robber or thief causes harm to society and is therefore undesirable. A fundamentalist doctor, on the other hand, benefits society and earns much respect.

To call a thief or a robber a fundamentalist by his profession is beyond the ridiculous.

He argues a fundamentalist who causes harm to the society is undesireable. This leaves it open to every individual to decide which activity is good and which is bad fundamentalism.

To the non-muslim world, an islamic fundamentalist is a cause of harm to the society – Mumbai killings for example. Applying his own logic such Islamic fundamentalists too are undesirable.

3. I am proud to be a Muslim fundamentalist
I am a fundamentalist Muslim who, by the grace of Allah, knows, follows and strives to practise the fundamentals of Islam. A true Muslim does not shy away from being a fundamentalist. I am proud to be a fundamentalist Muslim because, I know that the fundamentals of Islam are beneficial to humanity and the whole world. There is not a single fundamental of Islam that causes harm or is against the interests of the human race as a whole. Many people harbour misconceptions about Islam and consider several teachings of Islam to be unfair or improper. This is due to insufficient and incorrect knowledge of Islam. If one critically analyzes the teachings of Islam with an open mind, one cannot escape the fact that Islam is full of benefits both at the individual and collective levels.

Islam may benefits some individuals and society, but to say that it has to be the way for the entire world is just an arrogant delusion. But that is what is frightening – the fundamental belief of every ‘true muslim’ that the entire world HAS TO FOLLOW ISLAM.
There cannot be another way that is as good or even better.

4. Dictionary meaning of the word ‘fundamentalist’

According to Webster’s dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ was a movement in American Protestanism that arose in the earlier part of the 20th century. It was a reaction to modernism, and stressed the infallibility of the Bible, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record. It stressed on belief in the Bible as the literal word of God.
Thus fundamentalism was a word initially used for a group of Christians who believed that the Bible was the verbatim word of God without any errors and mistakes. According to the Oxford dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ means ‘strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, especially Islam’. Today the moment a person uses the word fundamentalist he thinks of a Muslim who is a terrorist.

The original definition was to describe a narrowly defined set of beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community. The important point here is ‘strict maintenance of ancient doctrines’ and usually narrowly defined.
Islam’s fundamentalism takes away the right of every individual’s independent thinking and beliefs.

5. Every Muslim should be a terrorist
Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.

This is explanation is meant as a justification for ‘terrorism’.
The policeman is a ‘good’ terrorist – because he creates ‘terror’ in a criminal.

The 10 pakistani Islamic terrorist who created terror in Mumbai, to be good terrorist, they had to .
create terror in anti-socials. The innocent people who were killed were by his logic anti-socials; ‘thieves, dacoits and rapists. They all had to die – because in the eyes of Islam they were criminals?
This warped logic is what makes every ‘law abiding muslims’ a potential ‘terrorist’.

6. Different labels given to the same individual for the same action, i.e. ‘terrorist’ and ‘patriot’

Before India achieved independence from British rule, some freedom fighters of India who did not subscribe to non-violence were labeled as terrorists by the British government. The same individuals have been lauded by Indians for the same activities and hailed as ‘patriots’. Thus two different labels have been given to the same people for the same set of actions. One is calling him a terrorist while the other is calling him a patriot. Those who believed that Britain had a right to rule over India called these people terrorists, while those who were of the view that Britain had no right to rule India called them patriots and freedom fighters.
It is therefore important that before a person is judged, he is given a fair hearing. Both sides of the argument should be heard, the situation should be analyzed, and the reason and the intention of the person should be taken into account, and then the person can be judged accordingly.

By definition ‘terrorism’ is
deliberate and systematic spread of terror to coerce a result – to achieve a goal.

Sure I agree, one man’s terrorists is anothers’ freedom fighters. There were many indians prior to independance of india (who came from all classes and religions); who engaged in activities for the independence of India AND pakistan. Their actions were aimed at spreading terror in the British administration, with an aim to coerce them to leave – to achieve an independent India.
But they never mislead the world about their intentions.

To the non-muslim every Islamic killer is a terrorists, but to every devout muslim each of these killers, be it Md Atta or Ajmal Amir Kasab, they are holy warriors, patriots, and if they get killed – martyrs. This only proves what I have written before. The reason no apparent ‘law abiding muslims’ will ever denounce the killers of the Mumbai tragedy.

The SOLE AIM of Islamic terrorism is to cause ‘terror’ is TO GAIN POWER to make the entire world an Islamic world – the Islamic Caliphate. They will never admit to it.

7. Islam means peace
Islam is derived from the word ‘salaam’ which means peace. It is a religion of peace whose fundamentals teach its followers to maintain and promote peace throughout the world.
Thus every Muslim should be a fundamentalist i.e. he should follow the fundamentals of the Religion of Peace: Islam. He should be a terrorist only towards the antisocial elements in order to promote peace and justice in the society.

By this warped logic, every muslim is / or should be a fundamentalist / extremists. And CAN BE A TERRORIST towards anti-socials anti-social and peacebreakers. Except those that get killed are innocent civilians. Besides who gave the muslims and the religion of islam the mandate to maintain and promote peace throughout the world?

WAS ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD?
How can Islam be called the religion of peace when it was spread by the sword?
Answer:
It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force. The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam.

1. Islam means peace.
Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).

Islam’s fundamental belief, for true peace EVERYONE has to SUBMIT their will to the alleged supreme WILL OF ALLAH. If you do not wish to ‘submit’ yourself – to Islam you are a non-believer and can be persecuted.

2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.
Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

Again this is a partially true.
Islam’s permission to use force is not restricted to fighting oppression, it is clearly directed against non-believers – as quoted here.
In religious parlance, this use of force is called Jihad, and in the Qur’an it can be classified in two distinct categories:
Firstly, against injustice and oppression.
Secondly, against the rejecters of truth after it has become evident to them.

The muslim propaganda typically is always set to deceive by such omissions.

3. Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary.
The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book ’Islam at the cross road’ (Page 8):
’History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.’

4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.
Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.
Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

Another deception by omission.

This is a verse from Quran:
Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and are subdued. (9:29)
And it is a directive related to both the Jews and the Christians. The punishment mentioned in these verses was in fact a show of great lenience to them because of the fact that they were originally adherents to monotheism.

He, the fundamentalist muslim must know why and how some christians got spared. He does not explain it, neither does he mention the status of the ‘dhimmi’ in an islamic caliphate and the jizya tax.

The primary reason why the non-muslim falls for the propaganda everytime, for they do not feel bothered to read the text of the Quran for themselves. And the propagandists knows it and takes full advantage.

6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India.
The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

This is another example of muslim propaganda.
This muslim quotes the demography of 21st century india to prove that between 10th – 17th century, Islam did not forcibly convert hindus with the point of their swords. No mention of the many records of history that rubbishes his claims.

Was There an Islamic “Genocide” of Hindus?

Dr. Koenraad Elst – a Belgian Catholic – it cannot be any more impartial.

… important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust.
Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like “punishing” the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty.
The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526).
The Moghuls (1526-1857), even Babar and Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison. Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate,

7. Indonesia and Malaysia.
Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, ’Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?’
8. East Coast of Africa.
Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, ’Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?’

9. Thomas Carlyle.
The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book ’Heroes and Hero worship’, refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: ’The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.’

10. No compulsion in religion.
With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse:
’Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error’
[Al-Qur’an 2:256]

11. Sword of the Intellect.
It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:

’Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord
with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are
best and most gracious.’
[Al-Qur’an 16:125]

Except under the Laws of Jihad it also says,
II. The Directive of Jihad
Prophet! Rouse the believers to wage war. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will subdue two hundred: if a hundred, they will subdue a thousand of the disbelievers: for these are a people without understanding. (8:65)
IV. Captives of War
So, when you meet [in the battlefield] those who disbelieve, strike off their heads.

They may be self-contradictory passages, but they are very much the text of Quran. It is the degree of fundament of a believer to decide which to follow. History documents hundreds and thousands of such conversion.

12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984.
An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?

13. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe.
Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?

The explanation is simple.

The Demographic Siege.

explained by Koenraad Elst
Many Hindus take an alarmist view about the numerical growth of Islam through high birth rates and migration. This alarmist view is even stronger in Europe, with its low birth rates, than in India. The impressively higher Muslim birth rate is a plain fact, which is why the secularists are so zealous in denying it. Admittedly, birth control is now catching on in countries like Iran and Turkey (not in Pakistan), but Iran’s population is still expected to double before reaching zero growth. If you extrapolate present trends, it is certain that Islam will take over Europe in fifty years, India and the US in a hundred at most.

These numbers so proudly quoted in the comment only confirms that Islam has no respect for any other religion. No respect for another’s right to have an independent thought, belief and ideology or religion. If anyone writes or draws anything that goes against their beliefs – they become a target to kill, on the run from a fatwa.

No one, muslims or not, believers or non-believers have the rights of a independent human being,
I have a problem with that – I refuse to follow doctrines set in the 7th century. This is a from an interview with mr Elst. This echoes the words of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan.

An Interview With Koenraad Elst

By Dr. Ramesh Rao – AUGUST 2002
Or take a more fundamental item, the core belief of Islam: that Mohammed is God’s prophet.
Suppose one of your colleagues told you one day that henceforth you have to obey his every word, as he has become God’s spokesman receiving exclusive messages from above. Presumably you would guess he had developed a serious mental problem. Well, that’s exactly what Mohammed’s contemporaries thought, as the Quran itself testifies a dozen times. It is also what modern psychologists have said: Mohammed suffered of a classic case of paranoia, a grand delusion about himself nurtured with audiovisual hallucinations.
A real secularist is sceptical of the defining belief of Islam and feels sorry for all those Muslims trapped in it. So there you have a properly secularist point to take up with the Muslims: do you want to continue regulating your lives after the injunctions of a 7th-century Arab businessman who heard voices? Do you want to base wars, states and laws on the non-secular belief in Mohammed’s deluded claims? Instead, the only thing the secularists ever discuss with Muslims is a joint strategy against the Hindus.

I agree with V.S. Naipaul: the non-Arab Muslims suffer from the conflict between their ancestral cultural roots and their imposed religion. Every Muslim is an abductee from the civilization in which he once belonged. Where I differ with the Nobel-winning author is that I would apply the same diagnosis to the Arabs. Though they did not have to adopt foreign customs and language, which made the transition to Islam less disruptive, they too were cut off from their original culture. Either way, Muslims would do well to take a critical look at the basics of their religion. I don’t think anyone else can do it for them,

14. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson.
Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, ’People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born’

Except, it is called the Islamic bomb, created by Pakistan with American dollars and Chinese help.
And predicted to go off in a world’s major city within five years.

I do not care what a muslim believes, as long as they have the honesty and courage to clearly say they are ‘fighting’ ONLY to convert every nation and every individual to Islam. Every conflict like Bosnia, Kosovo, Kashmir, is just an excuse.

This comment almost says it, but did not have the courage to confirm it.
The final aim of Islam – an Islamic Caliphate.

26th November: Mumbai killings
27th November: Identity of the solitary arrested terrorist revealed.

5th December: An indian muslim member shaan333 writes on rambhai – an Indian blog portal:

there are few possibilites about terrorist attack in Mumbai. . .

1. Pakistan organised that
2. Any terrorist group did that. . .
In this case, you cant blame Pak cause they are also suffering because of it.
Hope that you guys are having idea about attack on JW Marriot hotel in Pak
3. Any Indian extremist group did that (any religion)
4. Any political party organised that just to create the scene for ongoing election (our politics is so dirty that i could not ruled out this point)

may be these points sounds funny or idiotic to others but thats what i think about this issue

when
the only truth is the arrested terrorist HIMSELF has confirmed
his identity
his home
his involvement in terrorism and links to Lashkar -e -taiba
and details of his training for this ‘killing till last breath’ mission
after he and his squad had killed 163 indians and foreign nationals,

an Indian muslim
has the audacity to suggest that these 10 terrorists could be
1. any terrorist group
2. any indian extremist group of any religion – (meant to read – hindus)
3. any indian political party to win votes in future elections – (meant to read – the BJP).

This is a deliberate effort to hide the truth while cleverly diverting the focus on hindus and BJP.
And the rest of rambhaiyas including the hindus accepts his reasoning without questioning. Read the full thread of comments – LetsDiscuss: the excuses and denials: islamic jihad | “me no big chief …

What is so frightening is the number of Indians and hindus
who will accept such propaganda with even an attempt to find the truth for themselves.

There is even further confirmation

Mumbai terrorist came from Pakistan

Saeed Shah in Faridkot, near Depalpur

An Observer investigation has established that the lone surviving gunman caught by Indian police during last week’s terrorist attacks on Mumbai came from a village in the Okara district of the Pakistani Punjab.

Ajmal Amir Kasab, interrogated in custody after last month’s attacks, which killed 163 people, reportedly told Indian security officials that he came from a place called Faridkot in the Punjab province. His father was named as Mohammed Amir, married to a woman named Noor.

A villager, who cannot be named for his own protection, said the village was an active recruiting ground for the banned militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba. ‘We know that boy [caught in Mumbai] is from Faridkot,’ he said. ‘We knew from the first night [of the attack]. They brainwash our youth about jihad, there are people who do it in this village. It is so wrong,’ he added.

When asked to prove that Islam does not direct killing of non believers,
this muslim ‘Indian’ responds in the ever evasive manner of a propagandist,

In the last 21 years of my life, i never find a line in Quran which told to kill others. None of my family members, my muslim friends or any Maulana told me to kill people of other religion.

I do not want to know what Mr Shaan333 has been ‘told’.
I asked him to prove there is no such text in the Quran, which as a muslim he must have read.

So instead of marching with banners and blaming
our government,
intelligence services,
anti-terrorism legislation
and the incompetence of our military /police forces,
every Indian hindu should first learn the whole truth beyond any doubts
about Islam and its teachings
and how the ‘extremist’ madrassas in pakistan can use the text in Quran
to create killing fields – from mumbai to manhattan
EVERY 26/11s and the 9/11s

Or accept some responsibility for these killings – for there will be more to come.

And do not wait for Indian muslims to join you to fight this “terrorism”
for in their hearts these are the holy warriors of Islam.

Pakistan, it is reported is inching towards a payment crisis.

Clock ticks down on Pakistan’s payments crisis

By Simon Cameron-Moore | Reuters | Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:31pm IST

ISLAMABAD, Oct 17 (Reuters) – Pakistan moved closer to a balance of payments crisis on Friday, as the rupee slumped to a record low after the central bank reported it had barely enough foreign currency to cover six weeks of imports.

HOW MUCH FOREIGN CURRENCY DOES PAKISTAN HAVE?
As of Oct. 11, Pakistan’s foreign currency reserves totalled $7.75 billion, having fallen $570 million in a week. Critically, the central bank’s share of this has fallen to $4.34 billion, while commercial banks held $3.41 billion. The News daily said on Friday central bank reserves had slid to just under $4 billion as of Oct. 16 and out of that $1.5 billion had been consumed by currency forward booking liabilities.

HOW LONG CAN PAKISTAN GO ON BEFORE IT RUNS OUT OF DOLLARS?
The data shows the central bank has barely enough foreign currency to cover six weeks of imports. Including commercial bank reserves, it has two months’ cover.

It is all too easy to lay the blame on the global financial meltdown.

A nation born with a million hopes has in 61 years been reduced to beg,
It has received billions of dollars in aid over the years,
Money that could be better spent on building the infrastructure of a new nation.
then how and why did it all go wrong?

The answer is simple.
Pakistan is a nation that has been driven by one obsession, one greed, one motive –

Kashmir

August 1947: Birth of Pakistan as a sovereign state.
October 1947: On the 22nd Pakistan launched a full-scale invasion of Jammu and Kashmir, though intrusions had begun almost immediately following the partition of India on August 15th.

In “RAIDERS IN KASHMIR”, Major General Akbar Khan writes,
“We had assumed that Kashmir would naturally join Pakistan …
Our own safety and welfare also demanded that the State should not go over to India .. Pakistan’s military security would be seriously jeopardised if Indian troops came to be stationed along Kashmir’s western border.

“…Ultimately, I wrote out a plan under the title of “Armed Revolt inside Kashmir”. As open interference or aggression by Pakistan was obviously undesirable, it was proposed that our efforts should be concentrated upon strengthening the Kashmiris themselves internally—and at the same time taking steps to prevent the arrival of armed civilian or military assistance from India into Kashmir…

That is exactly what happened.
In their greed to take over Kashmir, they got sucked into a war with India.
As a newborn nation, instead of trying to create a good relation with neighbour India,
they had created a perpetual “enemy”.

Every pakistani government in power, both military and civilian, has preached India is their enemy,
created and magnified a paranoia that India would destroy Pakistan.
In sixty years, there has been three major wars, one minor war and
numerous armed skirmishes between the two states.

To fight wars a nation needs an army, artillary, guns and armoured vehicles
and finally missiles and now nuclear bombs.
It costs money, billions and billions of dollars.
How could Pakistan have acquire that much money or the technology?
More importantly, what happened to the fortune poured into the country?

The dollars had come as “aids” from US and oil rich islamic states.
The dollars also poured in to fund America’s proxy war against the soviets in Afghanistan.

The Kashmir Jihad:
The aid did not reach those who needed it,
most of it was siphoned off to continue the conflict, to train and aid terrorist incursions in Kashmir.

The Pakistan Army, and their intelligence service ISI were the US ally in the war in Afghanistan,
they trained the mujahideen, and supported the Talibans, they also trained terrorists for Kashmir.
America turned a deliberate blind eye to what they were creating in Kashmir.

It is not a coincidence that in 1989 the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and almost immediately the scale of incursions in Kashmir increased.

Nuclear technology:
Some of the nuclear technology was stolen from Netherland’s gas centrifuge factory.
But most of the nuclear technology came from China.
There are enough documents to prove the Americans were aware of China’s nuclear proliferation.
It is entirely possible that Pakistan handed over tracts of Kashmir to China, as a payment for China’s assistance with nuclear technology as far back as 1963. It is almost certain that Pakistan’s missile technology came from North Korea in exchange for nuclear knowhow.

It was General Musharraf, confident of his unlimited US support launched the war in Kargil.
He, (his then PM Sharif has claimed), was solely responsible for the Kargil attacks.
And he boasted he would hoist the flag of Pakistan atop the Srinagar Assembly.

He lost the war, but not his obsession to win Kashmir.
Nawaz Sharif was removed from power and he took over power.
But all plans to start another war, to his dismay, crumbled with the twin towers on September 11.

He became a reluctant, double dealing ally of the US war on terror.
He successfully fooled the US government to extract $10 billion in aid.

Money that should have been better spent on building the economy.

October 2008: Pakistan has reserves worth six weeks imports.
And if the world doesn’t pour in more alms, if America doesn’t, China will. Perhaps some more of Kashmir will be handed over to the chinese as payback.

To simply pour in more aid will only perpetuate the problem that is Pakistan today.

Instead of begging, Pakistan should be made to ‘earn’ the money they need to survive.
Like others in debt, to balance their books Pakistan has to trade or sell off their assets.

1. Their ill-gotten nuclear arsenal is a threat to the entire world, they should be made to give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for any financial aid.

2. They should also be made to comply with the UN resolution, 47 (1948) RESOLUTION OF 21ST April 1948 [S 726] and withdraw from Kashmir.

3. And finally, to open their borders to allow the real fight against terror to proceed.

For 60 years,
Pakistan has relied on the world’s charity to fund their wars against India and terrorism in Kashmir.
It is time Pakistan is taught to take responsibilities of their own future and welfare,
to give back to the world something in return,
peace and security.

AmericaPakistanEconomyChinaterrorismKashmir

[digg=http://digg.com/offbeat_news/I_don_t_want_to_be_a_human_Ma/blog]

“Ma,
I promise to be a good little mangabey,
please don’t let anyone evolve me into a human.

Ma please?”

A four-day-old cherry-crowned mangabey clings to its mother at Colchester Zoo, UK.
The species is under increasing pressure from human activity in its native Nigeria.

When I saw the picture of the baby mangabey,
I could only think that in its original primate simpleness,
its life would probably be less painful, away from the horrors
us humans, the evolved and intelligent primates, gift to each other.

If the baby knew of our humans’ devious ways and dishonest lives,
would it ever wish to evolve into humans, or choose to remain as a mangabey?
Happily forever.

This a quote from
Eisenhower, from way back 50s.
It seems even more appropriate now,
with the world poised at the brink of another possible war,
perhaps even more devastating than any we have seen before.

Has evolution been an upward step?
or are we on a perpetual downward white knuckle ride? You decide.

Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953 – on humanity

“Every gun that is made,
every warship launched,
every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense,

a theft from those who hunger and are not fed,
those who are cold and not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers,
the genius of its scientists,
the hopes of its children.

This is not a way of life at all in any true sense.
Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

humanitywarhumansanimalsevolution

A product of Time Lord technology,
“a properly maintained and piloted TARDIS
can transport its occupants to any point in time and space”.

That thing, I was to believe, was a time machine and a spacecraft.
A TARDIS, Time And Relative Dimension(s) In Space.

I simply refused.
For by then I had seen
the proper spacecrafts, the likes of the Enterprise.

They had bridges,
elaborate controls panels, flashing coloured lights;
they had warp drives, travelled at speeds greater than light,
had phase cannons and photonic torpedoes, polarized hull plating.

But that, that was just a phone box.
The interior was an optical illusion, made bigger than outside
after all the Doctor and his companions could not be expected to
stand cramped in a tiny space and deliver their lines, how unromantic.
And, it looked like a cheap theatre set, and never the bridge of a spaceship.

The BBC producers had simply failed to convince me.

I have been trying to catch up with many lost ‘Doctor Who’ years.
In The Robots of Death
I find, the Fourth Doctor had tried to explain to his companion Leela,

how a larger cube can appear to be able to fit inside a smaller one if
the larger cube is farther away but immediately accessible at the same time

Trying to understand what that meant,
I stumbled upon the concept of the fourth dimension.
The inside of the Tardis is not just the script writers’ yarn,
nor an optical illusion, but an example of the Time Lords’ transdimensional engineering.

Yikes!! Yikes Yikes and Yikes again!
I feel embarrassed to admit that all these years,
I had missed the significance of the “Relative Dimension” in the TARDIS.
I was existing happily in 3D, ignorant of the possibility of other dimensions.

From now on, everytime I see an abandoned
phone box, scruffy, worse for wear and blue, I will take a look inside, just in case…

Doctor WhoTARDISscience fictiontravelfourth dimensions