Indian media intends to prove Islam is tolerant!

Indian media found a way to prove Islamic tolerance by not reporting flashy incidents of 'Islamic intolerance' or some times twisting the facts while reporting. It is similar to the way our leftist-ideologues have whitewashed 500 years of persecution of Hindus and others by Muslim rulers and Islamic conquests which always have involved pillage, deportation, massacres, rape and enslavement. Most people do not even know about existence of institution of slavery in India during Islamic rule. Slavery was a word used by these enlightened historians to describe British rule in India but it was British who banned slavery.

Silence of media on many occasions which involved Muslims, like recent violent protests in New Delhi over a Mosque, deserves contempt (here, here). One blogger reported that when many people were pressing Bakhra Dutt for reasons behind media's black out on New Delhi violent protests, she simply said NDTV and others were simply following NBA guidelines (here). So, our self created 'secular ethics' dictate that violence by Muslims is genuine and understandable and it should go unreported while, there is nothing absolutely wrong with reporting Digvijay Singh's outlandish statements on so called Hindu terror with out any basis or analysis. This should be a concern to people who care about their future or freedom because such selective coverage means green signalling jihadi activities and  condemning resistance to such acts; perfect example is episode of Deganga.

Here, I just mention few more incidents of Islamic intolerance which went unreported in media. The list is not exhaustive but one can visit websites of hindu samhati or south bengal herald for more news on Islamic jihad in West Bengal.

GEERT WILDERS on why Islam is dangerous and its FOUNDER.

Undeniably, Geert Wilders is a rare politician. If Europe is going to survive through ongoing attempts to Islamize Europe, it will be in large part because of him. Ever since he made the movie Fitna, in which he merely quoted verses from Koran and also has shown Islamic terrorists quoting those same verses, he has been the collective target of Islamists, much powerful secular-liberal ruling class of politicians, leftists and media. Instead of disproving him and his charges or debating with him, all that liberal-left ruling class could do is harass him in courts through fake charges of incitement of hate against Muslims as if speaking for safeguarding western civilization is a criminal act. Despite the fact that he has to attend trials in Dutch courts, he was relentless and fearless in his efforts to bring attention to Europeans on Islamic imperialism, suicidal policies of liberal-left and hollowness of prevalent attitude of multiculturalism among the, so called, elite opinion makers or enlightened.

In all this, one lesson that should be learned is right strategy to deal with Islamic supremacist ideology. Concerned Hindus in India should realize that public discourse on Islam and its teachings is much better than attempts to construct Ram temple or some other temple. Can any one tell how construction of Ram temple is going to save Kerala, Assam and West Bengal from Islamization? In fact, our present day experiences suggests that such misplaced interests only serve the agenda of Islamists as they claim status of victim hood - which is also endorsed by witless and inept politicians, corrupt and compromised media and fake liberals and intellectuals - which in turn only emboldens Islamists as they realize that they could get away with any  act of jihad or claim exemptions and concessions to further their dark agenda however outrageous it might be.

Coming back to Geert Wilders, he brilliantly summarizes many important things on Islam and its founder Prophet Mohammad in an essay, originally written in Dutch but translation is available at jihadwatch.org (here). I am posting this article here because it's content is very much relevant to India too.

Indian PM and Secular Muslim leaders of India host a DINNER for a Saudi 'Sheik' HATE preacher.

An Imam - Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayis - from Saudi Arabia, Imam at the grand mosque of Mecca, was invited to India by Jamiatul Ulema-e-Hind, political wing of Deoband sect of Islam whose ideology and teachings have inspired Taliban like and produced Taliban. Considering that Indian Muslims see Saudi Arabia as cradle of Islam, many of them were elated with this Sheiks visit, at least if we go by the reporting of Muslim media in India (here): 

Lakhs of Muslims from different parts of the country thronged the prestigious Darul-Uloom seminary in this Uttar Pradesh town to participate in the Friday prayers led by the chief Imam of the Masjid-al-Haram in Makkah - Islam's most sacred site......He was accompanied by former Indian cricket captain turned MP Mohammad Azharuddin, union Minister of State for Tourism Sultan Ahmad and Urdu daily Sahafat's editor Hasan Shuja....

This is understandable and those lakhs of ordinary people can not be blamed! But, what about elected representatives, so called moderate Muslim leadership including our Vice President and 'chest thumping' Hindu secularists of Congress who shamelessly acted in utter disregard of basic values of humanity by extending invitation to a hate preaching Imam from intolerant and fascist Saudi Arabia and attending dinner parties too? Where were the secular ethos of these Congress men? If any one still does not think present day secularism is a bogus and corrupt concept and nothing more than appeasement of Islamic extremists in the pursuit of politics of Muslim vote bank, they should seriously do some introspection!

Pakistani channel Geo TV's talk show on Jihad. (Video is in URDU)

COURTESY: MEMRI
The entire episode of the talk show in URDU - mentioned in previous post, the one that took place on Pakistan's Geo TV - devoted to the subject of jihad can be viewed here. (URL addresses are given at the bottom.)

Jihad according to Pakistan's Geo TV.

Not a single news paper in India will ever dare to publish how present day main stream Islam understands Jihad or even better, how Jihad was understood by overwhelming number of Islamic scholars and rulers since the time of Prophet Mohammad: Jihad is a duty, incumbent on all Muslims, to strive to remove all barriers (or opposing forces) to spread Islam and rule of Islam (dominance of Islam) all over the world. The word 'strive' can point to many actions but in Koran, there are numerous verses which imply that 'striving' or the phrase 'to strive' (In Arabic, Jihad) means physical fighting or killing for the sake of Allah's rule.

According to Prophet Mohammad, Jihad need not be fighting all the time; it can mean any action, including lying, to further Islam and its ultimate goal of world domination. Modern day Islamic apologists living in Non Muslim nations would love to fool infidels by saying Jihad means spiritual struggle hiding the fact that this kind of concept of Jihad came in to existence only in the 19th century when power of Islam is at its lowest in military terms (capability). Of course, (late)Al-Banna, founder of Muslim Brotherhood, dismisses this concept of Jihad meaning spiritual struggle and casts doubt on authenticity of Hadith suggesting such meaning.

Many articles were put in this blog, some written by me, or else where, on the concept of Jihad including what many Islamic websites have written on Jihad and its meaning. And people are somehow sure that - regarding concept of Jihad and its consequences, Islam claiming superiority over others and dichotomous Islamic view of world in 'us' and 'them' or dar al-Islam (the land of Islam) and dar al-Harb (the land of Non Muslims or war) - Islam, its teachings and community of Muslims do not really mean all that. Or people like me are lying (which should also include most famous and popular Islamic scholars and rulers). People who try to present how Muslims understand Jihad and what Islamic doctrines say about it are also labelled hate mongers or Islamaphobes. Hoping that better part of sense prevails on people in future, yet again, I am presenting how Muslims are understanding what is Jihad from a TV program or talk show that was aired on Pakistan's Geo TV in August, 2010.

Another victim of blasphemy law in Pakistan.

The quoted cause of a Christian's death in prison is heart attack and it may be real but the prospect of spending his rest of life in prison and occasional bouts of violence in prison cell from pious Muslims, security guards or other criminals, is the one that made him dead long back. The report says he was accused of blasphemy by business rival in the year 2006 and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment last year.

In Islamic Pakistan, all it takes is a rumor or an allegation to put lives of Christians in danger; conviction in courts is not needed as in some cases the accused have been shot dead by pious Muslims even after they were found non guilty (here, here, very recent case); this constant threat, in addition to official discrimination and persecution, must be keeping Christian community under tremendous pressure and some simply seek conversion to Islam as an escape route out of this as it was found out recently.

Fatwa says democracy is against Islam.

When listening to statements made by Muslims, one needs to be very thoughtful about words like peace, tolerance, liberation of women, justice, oppression, brotherhood and democracy because Muslim supremacists have distorted the meanings of these words in their critiques and sermons e.g. 'Islam preaches tolerance', they say this with out mentioning that this tolerance will only come when Non Muslims agreed to pay jizya and abide to live by many other humiliating conditions. So, is the notion of Islamic democracy.

One can not be certain whether Islamic theology has room for democracy but democracy need not be against Islamic law. The fine example is Iran; it elects its leaders and parliament and also has a constitution based on Sharia; all this means Iranians elect a Govt. to enforce Islamic law but not to make new laws.

The basic elements in society are law(constitution), people who make laws and people who enforce these laws.

In Islamic system, constitution is based on sharia which can not be amended or criticized and the Govt., whether elected or hereditary or dictatorship, exists only for enforcing this sharia and other peripheral laws. This kind of system is not similar to how we understand democracy, i.e.western secular democracy, where constitution is made by people and can be amended too.

So, when stealth Jihadists say democracy and Islam are compatible, this is what they mean. They never tell the whole story. Here, a spiritual leader says democracy is un-Islamic:

A Pakistani actress gets death threats for acting in Indian TV show.

I am not a supporter of Pakistani actors or actresses acting in Indian movies or vice versa. Such novelties improving the relations between two countries are for consumption of people who choose not to live in real world. Considering that  headquarters of Bollywood is in Karachi, these things happen for their own reasons which are not definitely genuine. Despite dissembling of a pseudo intellectual, also father of accomplice of a terrorist, Mahesh Bhatt and other Bollywood Khans who are proponents of myth of shared culture and common heritage, Pakistan's present and future face is more and more Islamic in addition to inherent hatred towards Hinduism. If one wants a proof, one can just check the demographic trends of Hindu population: 30% at the time of partition, 15% in 1960s and less than 1% at present (here). Never mind that this statistic never occurs to any 'Khan' because such extermination  never even matters to our intellectuals or media. But then, foreign policy based on sentiments of Muslims is OK and secular but expressing dismay at such inhuman treatment meted out to Hindus in Pakistan (or Bangladesh) is communal and politically incorrect.

'Death threats for actress who 'shamed' Pakistan'

Hamas prays to Allah on its TV, "count and kill jews, christians and communists."

Most people think of Hamas as some organization in Palestine fighting for its liberation from Israel. But it is a  branch of Muslim Brotherhood and it is dedicated to destruction of state of Israel and also for Islamic superiority on the entire world. In the video showing the footage aired on Palestine TV controlled by Hamas, it is calling for killing all enemies of Allah i.e. Jews, Christians and Communists. Of course, Koran says (verse 2:098 or here), "...Allah is an enemy of all unbelievers."

"Whoever is an enemy to Allâh, His Angels, His Messengers, Jibrael (Gabriel) and Mikael (Michael), then verily, Allâh is an enemy to the disbelievers." (Al-Hilali)

Who is an enemy to Allah, and His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael! Then, lo! Allah (Himself) is an enemy to the disbelievers. (Pickthall)

Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His messengers and Jibreel and Meekaeel, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers. (Shakir)

Islam is a cult of death; Hamas celebrates killing of 3 small children.

Contrary to what some ignorant people talk about few terrorists and few people bringing bad name to a tolerant and universal religion, it is Islam, its demented Prophet, its genocidal institution of Jihad, its political doctrine and overall its entire theology that are inhuman and its followers are just its victims. So, its not few people bringing bad name to Islam but it is Islam itself is the worst. Many of Muslims are like all other people trying to make a decent living but with inspiration of satanic-like Koranic teachings they do those things they are famous for.

When some militants killed 5 members of a Jewish family including 3 children, instead of condemning this ugly murder some Muslims have celebrated. Of course, the world has already forgotten Islamic world celebrating on the day twin towers were brought down by Al-Qaeda terrorists. Islamic world still believes that it is Jews, CIA and George Bush jr. who really were behind 9/11. Read the entire story including how main stream media reported this from below:

Times of India and Congress(I) are miffed by Karnataka Govt.'s donations to temples.

Most Indians, at least Hindus, joke that Indian secularism is for Hindus in principle and practice and it is never meant to be for Indian Muslims. Islamic faith is exempted from the requirement to commit itself to aspects of secularism. This sarcastic comment is not entirely with out valid reasons. Even Christians in Kerala have found this plausible reality to their detriment. In a notice issued by CDU in Sept. 2010, we find this:

...nobody reacts when the hands and legs of Christians are being chopped off...political parties and the ruling class are hunting the Christians and their institutions. They need vote banks. They want the support of the communities whose population graph shows an upward trend.....population of the Christians came down from 30 percent in 1950 to less than 20 percent in 2010....This is because educationally forward Christian community imbibed the spirit of the family planning program....

This means it is those communities and their ability to influence elections really matter; adhering to values, like family planning and other and secular and progressive concepts, and principles do not matter for our politicians. Is there any politician or any intellectual, Muslim or Non Muslim, who called for family planning among Muslims? Bal Thackeray, definitely not my favorite, did once and Muslims replied that it is against their religious beliefs (or read this); of course this belief will not stop them accusing Non Muslims of discrimination and oppression for their poverty. More importantly, such uncontrolled procreation is part of stealth jihad to establish Islamic rule in India again.

Another typical example implying it is numbers, and not some moral and ethical values, which dictate Indian secularism is Congress(I) apologizing to Muslims for Babri Masjid demolition while it never found it necessary to apologize for  massacre of 5000 Sikhs in New Delhi after Indira Gandhi's assasination; we even have a Bharat Ratna laurette (given posthumous) reacting to this massacre by saying, "When a big tree falls, the surrounding earth shakes." which literally amounted to justification of killing of innocents. The reasons are purely political for this dual ethic: Sikhs influence only 12 seats but Muslims influence about100 seats.

Even recently, a stealth Jihadist and an Islamist like Salmaan Khurshid, in a book named 'At Home In India: A restatement of Indian Muslims', blatantly quoted that what Sikhs suffered during 1984 riots was only due to their SINS committed against during 1947 partition. Forget about taking action against him for what he wrote,  even with a Sikh PM, but is there any mention of this and honest criticism in our erudite and secular media? When it comes to anything that deals with Islam or Muslims, politicians and media bend their backs to avoid pointing negatively towards Islam even when Muslim mob resorts to mindless violence. But, why?

For politicians, all it matters is about winning elections. Can this political necessity create likes of Digvijay Singh or Mulayam Singh? One has to understand that these people internalize their requirements, despite all the evidence pointing in other direction, as reality: Muslims are victims and others are victimizers. But media has its own reasons ranging from political correctness to influence of left-liberal ideology to myth of presence of Hindu fascism. So, media omits and censors news they think is unworthy or risky. They spit hatred with regard to anything that has to do with Hinduism forgetting same policies with regard to Muslims and Islam. Their self created selective amnesia is astonishing and appears unmistakably as intellectual arrogance.

So, we have TOI reporting that Karnataka govt. is granting Crores of rupees (at the best 120) to various Mutts and temples and implying that it is unconstitutional and against principle of secularism because, under this 'bogus' secularism public money can not be given to religious (Hindu) institutions.

But, did it ever mention and raise its voice against Govt. doling out nearly Rs 900 crores as Hajj subsidy? Or grants to those madrassas in the name of modernization?

Even elementary things are not mentioned like the fact that all the revenues from temples go in to Govt. coffers and it is Govt. that spends these funds often neglecting the basics of maintenance and development of basic needs of these temples and sometimes neglecting even renovation. Very disturbing and prevailing logic is: If public funds go from Govt. coffers to temples then it is illegal! But money going from temples to Govt. is secularism. We have seen the results of this kind of policy in the form of Sabarimalai tragedy (or here)and collapse of gopura of famous Sri Kalahasti temple. Have we seen any kind of outrage in media esp. English media? Much worse, various state Govt.s keep appointing persons of their choice having dubious character to post of chairmanship of various devasthanam boards. A fine example is AP Govt. appointing a liquor baron as chairman of  Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam board. This Hindu Tirumala temple gets Rs1500 Crores as revenues annually and it is Govt. which decides to spend this money. This is only possible in India.

Similarly, where was this English secular media and its outrage when the government of Jammu and Kashmir was imposing like Jizya like tax on Hindu pilgrims? Where was the outrage of secular and liberal class when various groups in Jammu and Kashmir were calling for restricting and controlling no. of Hindus pilgrims to various places in Kashmir? Any kind of abuse and denigration of Hindus and symbols of Hinduism passes as part and parcel of Indian secular policy; such practice is welcomed and held as virtue by English media which typically tries to copy and reproduce western concepts and culture to gullible masses.

Then, when this nation has accepted that its flag can not be hoisted in some parts like Sri Nagar, it is of no surprise at lack of sensitivity in the TOI reports and lack of public outrage at such reports. Finally, the measure of area where Indian flag can not be hoisted will only keep increasing and such senseless and one sided reports in English media will become more frequent. 

Islamic tolerance in Ethiopia!

Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance (ROP&T) to such an extent that Islam uses terror and violence against those who do not agree with Islam being ROP&T. One thing that Islamic supremacism can never with stand is scrutiny, criticism and critical analysis so, creating terror and fear using extreme violence is one of many ways through which it tries to shut down any honest discussion about Islamic doctrines and also to impose its superiority on Non Muslims. This same psychology also shapes how Muslims react to perceived insults; at one level, criticism and insulting have to merge and Islam with its imperialist and fascist ambitions deserves both. Muslims are perpetually outraged until they are superior and all Non Muslims are subjugated as Koran tells Muslims they are the chosen people and also the best people while Non Muslims are vermin. This is the reason why Muslims are so hypersensitive to even rumors of insulting their faith and symbols and resort to mindless violence. After all, superiors will not take any insults from inferiors. Recent incidents in Ethiopia amply demonstrate this (here and here):

Islamic tolerance in Egypt: Mosque with a name Al-Ramla comes up in the place of a Church.

Islam teaches tolerance? Yes. This is how: Non Muslims living under Islamic law or in Muslim nations must pay Jizya and accept other humiliating conditions and also accept the supremacy of Islam and Muslims; as long as Non Muslims live by these conditions (fully documented here) (this whole contract is called institution of dhimma) Islamic law gives them protection i.e it allows Non Muslims to live. Some of these conditions are like 1: Non Muslims can not testify in a court of law against Muslims. 2: Non Muslims can not build their places of worship. 3: Non Muslims can not repair their existing places of worship. 4: Non Muslims must not practice their faith publicly. 5: Non Muslims must not display their religious symbols in public. 6: Non Muslims should not proselytize. 7: Non Muslims should stay on the sidelines if they come across Muslims on roads. 8: The value of life of Non Muslims is never equal to the value of life of Muslims. 10: Non Muslims should neither covet Muslim women nor marry Muslim women; but Muslim men can marry Non Muslim women ...and the list goes on. But, the recorded history shows that even accepting and living under these conditions never guaranteed physical security nor material security. And without saying, if any infidel breaks this covenant i.e. cross the line....huhhhh. And this is pure Islamic tolerance! So, when a Coptic Christian marries a Muslim girl hell breaks loose (read the condition # 10).

Post revolution Egyptian constitution! it really makes no difference for coptic christians of Egypt.

In Egypt, when protests were going in Tahrir square for removal of Hosni Mubarak, which even entranced some Indians after spoon-fed by main stream media thought of those protests as struggle against oppression and corruption and wished similar protests take place in India too, Coptic Christians of Egypt, who constitute about 10% of population, faced a dilemma about whether to join the protests or not against the regime of Mubarak.

Translation of letter's text written by Killers of Shahbaz Bhatti. Of course, these people misunderstand Islam!

Islam is a religion of peace and it teaches tolerance! This is very evident in the way Muslims protest at slightest, seemingly or perceived insult to their religion. So called moderate Muslims are always more vociferous when protesting at these insulting perceptions than protesting at explosion of suicide bombs and other violent acts killing infidels. The argument of insults to Islam is just a way, besides others, to shut down entire critical analysis of Islam and its political ideology i.e. its relation with Non Muslims. Whether moderate Muslims violently and aggressively protesting against this critical analysis or so called radicals doing the actual killing, the end goal is same: silence the opposition to Islamic supremacism.

The leaflet left over by killers of Shahbaz Bhatti also contain a hidden message to religious minorities living in Pakistan: Be a good dhimmi and do not cross the line or else .... The leaflet reads:

Unrest in North Africa and Middle East with poverty as one of many reasons.

When I was writing on protests in Egypt (here), I mentioned various pundits mentioning poverty as one of reasons behind these protests and I explicitly stated that for a society which has TFR (total fertility rate) above 3 for more than 5 decades, no economic theory or program can solve the problems like poverty and employment. Well, it seems that Muslims themselves are saying this in Bahrain.

Bahrain is a small kingdom with 100% Muslim population, of which 70% of Muslims follow shia sect while 30% follow Sunni sect. But, much of political power is vested in Sunni as Royal family itself belongs to Sunni sect. This has resulted in uneasy relationship to the extent that Sunni executive power recruits people of Pakistan belonging to Sunni sect in to its army; Shites feel discriminated in every aspect of life while Sunnis maintain that shites are more loyal to Iran rather than their own country i.e. Bahrain. Sunnis want political status co to be continued while shites want political reforms thus, they are involved in protests against monarchy.

The New York Times writes:

....During 90 minutes over coffee in a street-side cafe in the city, they offered a critical counterpoint to the protesters. While the Shiites see themselves as discriminated against and marginalized, these children of the upper middle class said the Shiites were largely responsible for their own plight, a position that seemed to overlook established patterns of discrimination in Bahrain. They said that what the demonstrators wanted was not democracy, but superiority.

They blamed the Shiites for having too many children, for not being willing to work hard and for demanding handouts from the government. “Whose fault is it when you have five or six kids and you can’t afford two?” Ms. Mohammed asked. “Why is that the government’s fault?

Mr. Zainal was equally critical. “Plain and simple,” he said. “The uneducated people of Bahrain, or the world, you have kids to support and you pull the kids out of school to sell water at the roadside, you cannot blame the government.”

“The educated,” he said, “understand the value of keeping their children in school.”......

One can read the complete report here. 

'Islam abrogates all religions', An English Islamic website says.

I pointed out many times, here, the wide gulf that exists between what Islamic spokesmen say to Non Muslim audience, esp. in Non Muslim majority countries, regarding their religious teachings and actual teachings that appear in Islamic sacred texts and established Islamic sources. One of many, often seen, quotes is Islam teaches tolerance and asks its followers to respect other faiths. What they do not tell you is that this Islamic tolerance comes only after thoroughly subjugating those (conquered) Non Muslims i.e. Non Muslims agreeing to pay Jizya and to abide by many other humiliating conditions (documented here) which will eventually lead to destruction of entire civilization, like in the case of Byzantine Civilization. Even then, this nominal Dhimmi contract does not guarantee physical security to conquered Non Muslims and the best example is genocides of Armenian Christians in Turkey. Reasons for this kind of state of relations that should exist between Muslims and Non Muslims (the former being superior and later in state of abasement) are found in Islamic theology which unambiguously envisages the whole world under sharia law where in Non Muslims are treated as second class citizens. In other words, Muslims believe that Islam is the only true religion and Islam abrogates all other faiths and should rule the entire world.

Above statement is not just mine as, an Islamic website also says the same thing (source):

Position of Infidels, even if he is a minister like Shahbaz Bhatti, is always below Muslims.

In my earlier post, I noted that enough security might not have been provided to, already, slain-ed minister, Shahbaz Bhatti, even after he received death threats and fatwas for his death were issued by many leaders of Islamic parties. I also noted that all these security precautions, yet, might not have saved him because security guards themselves might pull the trigger as it happened in the case of Salmaan Taseer. Now, TOI reports:

Militants who killed Shahbaz Bhatti say, "He is a cursed man".

Apparently, Pakistan Taliban claimed the responsibility for killing Shahbaz Bhatti. It seems killers also left (scattered) leaflets at the site of shooting in which they said, "This is the punishment of this cursed man". (full report)

Leaflet left by killers. (source) (The translated text of this letter is presented at the end (date: 03/09/2011.))

Another victim of blasphemy law: Pakistani minister for religious minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti who asked for repealing blasphemy law, has been shot to death.

Shahbaz Bhatti, the minister for religious minorities in Pakistan, has been shot today by gunmen and he died later in an Islamabad hospital (here). He is a Christian, only Non Muslim minister in cabinet and is most known for his opposition to blasphemy law. He is the second high profile politician to be killed this year in the context of blasphemy law. Earlier this year, Salmaan Taseer, Governor of Punjab Province, was shot dead by his own security guard. After Taseer's killing, Mr. Bhatti predicted his death at the hands of militants (here, here).