Islamists in PM's team outed!

[Guest dada_rocks]

http://dailypioneer.com/144905/Islamists-in-PMs-team-outed!.html Islamists in PM's team outed! Kanchan Gupta Last week this column referred to closet Islamists in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Cabinet, pointing out that Minister of State for External Affairs and Muslim League leader E Ahamed, while presenting India's case in the United Nations Security Council on December 9, had mentioned the fidayeen attacks on Taj Mahal Palace, Oberoi-Trident Hotel and Leopold Café, but not the siege of Chabad House where six Jews, including a rabbi and his pregnant wife, were tortured and killed. On Monday a Muslim friend called to say that the Government was not doing his community any good by pandering to Islamists at home and abroad. "This only hardens popular perceptions of India's Muslims and casts aspersions on our loyalty to our motherland. I have read the full text of Mr Ahamed's statement. He not only failed to mention the slaughter at Chabad House but also suppressed the fact that 46 Muslims were among the 188 people killed by the terrorists," he told me. According to him, there was nothing innocent about this omission, just as the deletion of reference or allusion to Chabad House was not without a sly motive. "Islamists do not want the world, especially the Islamic world, to know that Muslims are killing Muslims in the name of jihad. This would knock the bottom out of their faith-based ideology and show them for what they are: Mass murderers who hide behind the cloak of Islam," he said, before letting loose a string of unprintable expletives. My friend's loyalty to the nation and his abhorrence of Islamic fanaticism are unquestionable. He is at peace in Hindu majority India and his aspirations are no different from those of middle class Hindus. He believes the burqa and the hijab are abominable impositions and, along with the kaffiyeh, symbols of forced Arabisation of India's Muslims by mullahs who want to perpetuate the hideous dogma of Muslim cultural, social and political separatism and promote their warped notion of faith over the idea of nationhood. Does this make him and other Muslims who think alike an insignificant minority within India's least of all minorities? While the official policy of the UPA Government and the shameless appeasement of those who feed on the maggot-ridden carcass of Muslim communal politics would suggest that the vast majority of India's Muslims secretly endorse butchery in the name of Islam as was witnessed in Mumbai last month, the reality is far removed from this perception. Indeed, most Muslims are as distressed as Hindus by jihadi violence and there is an increasing clamour that the community must be seen to be distancing itself from terrorists and their criminal misdeeds. The decision by those who manage Muslim graveyards in Mumbai not to allow the slain terrorists to be buried there as it would be an affront to their patriotic sentiments is only one of many indications that distraught Muslims want their voice to be heard as loud and clear as that of Hindus protesting against jihadi terror. To tar the entire community with the same brush, therefore, would be not only grossly unfair but amount to playing into the hands of Teesta Setalvad, Arundhati Roy and the entire cunning lot of professional human rights activists who constantly portray the perpetrators of terror as innocent victims and want Hindus to be on a perpetual guilt trip. It would also serve the purpose of Islamofascists, of whom there are many in this country, and lend credibility to their vile Islamist propaganda which contravenes the truth, famously articulated by noted Arab writer Abdel Rahman al-Rashed: "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims." But we digress from the issue of closet Islamists in the Prime Minister's team. It is possible that Mr Ahamed as well as Mr Manmohan Singh and Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee thought that the omission of any mention of Chabad House in the December 9 statement at the UN Security Council would go unnoticed in India -- after all, not everybody reads official texts posted on the Ministry of External Affairs website with great diligence and care; Indian journalists who reported on the statement stressed only those portions that were pointed out to them by the Permanent Mission in New York or the spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs, which speaks volumes about their professional ethics, if not abilities. To its credit, the Times of India picked up the story after the omission was pointed out in this column; to Mr LK Advani's credit, he raised it forcefully in the Lok Sabha. But I am reluctant to either accept Mr Ahamed's apology -- "I am very sorry. It is my duty to defend every Indian or any foreigner who is in India. We are all one," he said in response to Mr Advani's barbed comment -- or grant him the benefit of doubt: It was not an accidental miss, as has been claimed by the Ministry. Just as there's nothing unintended or accidental about the vicious remarks of Minister for Minority Affairs Abdul Rehman Antulay, who has converted his Ministry into a Muslim welfare bureau, insinuating that Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad chief Hemant Karkare was not killed by the Pakistani fidayeen who attacked Mumbai but 'somebody else'. The valiant police officer who went down fighting the jihadis, according to him, could have been a victim of "terrorism or terrorism plus something. I do not know ... the terrorists had no reason to kill Karkare". Within hours of this outrageous calumny, Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari told BBC that there "is no evidence" to prove Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab, the 'Butcher of Mumbai', is a Pakistani citizen! Which side is Mr Antulay, who we are told by the Shahi Imam of Delhi's Fatehpuri Masjid, has merely lent voice to what "millions of Muslims believe", batting for? Do his rancid views represent those of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet? If they don't, then he is guilty of not only violating the principle of collective responsibility (which many Ministers have done while thumbing their nose at the Prime Minister) but also of embarrassing the nation -- this Government is so bereft of shame that it cannot be embarrassed, no matter how hard anybody tries, which also explains why the Prime Minister has chosen to sit on Mr Antulay's letter of resignation instead of despatching it to the President for immediate acceptance. There is some comfort in the fact that at least two closet Islamists in the Prime Minister's team have been outed in less than a fortnight since the jihadi carnage in Mumbai. There will be cause to celebrate when this Government, which has so severely compromised India's national interest, is consigned to the dustbin of history.

[Kriterion]

"Islamists do not want the world, especially the Islamic world, to know that Muslims are killing Muslims in the name of jihad. This would knock the bottom out of their faith-based ideology and show them for what they are: Mass murderers who hide behind the cloak of Islam," he said, before letting loose a string of unprintable expletives.

thank you. indeed 90% of the victims worldwide are muslims and not "infidels". this means that this is everyone's problem and that the onus is on muslim institutions to correct their flawed approach to studying islam.

[Guest dada_rocks]

That is not a flawed approach at all Kriterion ...... the sword component has been built within Islam since Day 1. I sent you a link some time back about this.

actually for first 12 years when muhd had no army they did talk about peace but those peace verses under compulsion was since aborgated once muhd raised an army in medinnah....... I wud not midn though if islamist abrogate all the medinaah verses...

[Kriterion]

That is not a flawed approach at all Kriterion ...... the sword component has been built within Islam since Day 1. I sent you a link some time back about this.

the first 13 years of islam were markedly pacificistic. hence the sword component could not have been built in from day 1, it would have to been day 4616 at the very earliest. its interesting that the muslims fled from Mecca to Medina. had there been muslim swords brandishing since day 1, it would have been the quraish and their allies fleeing to medina and not the other way around. similarily, the first battle between the muslims and the quraish started at badr, which is situated 80 miles from Medina and 200+ miles from Mecca. indicating that the quraish intended to invade medina and not the other way around (i.e muslim invasion of mecca) even though the muslims had been forcibly evicted from their homes. i think that over the years those who have been in charge of muslim armies have committed immense atrocities against non-believers of many faiths or no faith. but if you actually scrutinize Islam as oppossed to muslims, you will find a pacifistic ideology with self defense as the only form of "violence" allowed.

[Kriterion]

actually for first 12 years when muhd had no army they did talk about peace but those peace verses under compulsion was since aborgated once muhd raised an army in medinnah....... I wud not midn though if islamist abrogate all the medinaah verses...

if these verses are abrogated, why are they still in the quran? doesn't the presence of these "inferior" verses, pollute the "purity" of the medina verses??? its interesting that there are peaceful verses in the medina chapters also.

[Guest dada_rocks]

if these verses are abrogated, why are they still in the quran? doesn't the presence of these "inferior" verses, pollute the "purity" of the medina verses??? its interesting that there are peaceful verses in the medina chapters also.

No buddy either you are pretending ton not know or you don't know.. Quran makes it clear that all verses which come later take precedence over the earliers ones if and when the conflict arise.. So actually medinaha verses nullify mecca verses BE honest to yourself mate .......

[Kriterion]

This is a logical fallacy and something that cannot be supported by hard facts. Muhhamad prescribed invasion of Pagan lands and this included Far off sindh and Iran. You will recall that the first (unsuccesfull) attempt to invade took place during his time. The first succes was had by Bin-Qasim in 711 AD and this is less than a century from Muhameds time.. kinda hard to beleive that a pacifist ideology got twisted so soon

the hard fact is simply this: that the meccan quraishi pagans had marched on medinah and were met at badr which is 80 miles from medinah, and 200+ miles from mecca. this was the first war of islam. given that mecca was not conquored until 2 years before the prophets death, and there were attacks nearer to arabian peninsula, i highly doubt any invasion of persia occurred between the years 630-632. in fact, as late as 628, Muhammad had not even sent out letters to the leaders of Persia, much less invaded. armies led by khalid bin al walid had not even reached mesopotamia (Iraq) until 632-34. so attempted conquests of persia most likely occurred after the death of Muhammad, and not at his instruction.

[Kriterion]

No buddy either you are pretending ton not know or you don't know.. Quran makes it clear that all verses which come later take precedence over the earliers ones if and when the conflict arise.. So actually medinaha verses nullify mecca verses BE honest to yourself mate .......

which verse in the quran states that medina verses take precedence over meccan ones? meccan chapters are still in the quran. if they were un-important they would have be left out of scripture. the very fact that they aren't, and that the first, and most important surah of the quran, is a meccan one, pretty much destroys this reasoning. additionally, surah ikhlas or tawhid (surah 112), is considered to be weighted one third of the entire quran despite being only 4 verses long, and guess what? its a meccan surah as well.

if and when the conflict arise..

interestingly, this situation only arises once in the entire quran. and that is with regard to the consumption of alcohol, which for our discussion is irrelevant.

[Kriterion]

http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/unseen/0001.htm

yes, i remember this link. sorry for not responding to it earlier. first of all, this in no way alters the fact that the first battle of islam was at Badr and was a defensive engagement against the quraishite forces led by Abu Jahl and Abu Sufyan. as for the linked hadith, my personal opinion is this: we have no way to verify if Muhammad himself said these words. Many hadiths are KNOWN to have been fabricated by someone along the "chain of narrators". given that muslims accept only the quran to be infallible, consistency with the quran is a great litmus test for the "authenticity" of hadiths. even those muslims who deem rejectors of hadith as disbelievers will agree or concede that quran supercedes any and ALL hadith in terms of authenticity. the problem with such links and hadiths, is that anyone could make it up and no one would know. the same can not be said of the quran, given that from the inception of it, there has been a steady chain of mutliple huffaz (those who have memorized the quran in its entirety). no such thing exists for the hadith. many people have memorized much of the hadith, but no one has memorized them all. the link opens with a reference to the current conflict in kashmir. it is not out of the realm of possibility that the person who wrote that page is a) a person with some bias and b) could have fabricated stuff himself. after all, what gurantee is there that such hadiths are not the creation of Muhammad bin Qasim, or Mahmud of Gazni? consider the following hadith from the sahih al Kriterion: Narrated Ikramah: I heard Allah's Messenger say at Woodstock "Blessed be those who attend Super Bowl LIV for Allah loves those who engage in physical activity and stay away from idleness." clearly a fabricated hadith, right? but this one would be harder to discern, especially if i slipped it into some book of hadith: Narrated Abu Hurairah: During the Battle of Uhud, while one of Ansar was digging the trench, I heard Allah's Messenger say "Labor only with the right hand, for Satan uses his left hand, and all of Satan's labor rest in futility" attempting to do the same thing with the quran, in arabic is however not possible. There are many who have every passage stored inside their craniums, and almost all have at least some part of the quran memorized. reciting "bismillahir rahminir gafuur" would be the equivalent of a christian reciting "The Ford is my shephard, I shall not want..."

[Ram]

Kindly desist from religious discussions.

[Ram]

This is not a religious discussion. This is a discussion on History. state your greiveiance corroborated with facts and logic but if you do not like facts get the heck out of here.

I can feel the love... :icflove:

[Ram]

You try to step in again with Politically Correct BS and you will get another dosage of pure love . Now if you will kindly hit the exit and watch how a debate is conducted .

Err.. No.. What do you intend doing? :haha:

[Ram]

Try it ... its free ( and pure )

So you dont know what you're gonna do? :haha:

[Desi Cartman]

another thread about balls .. wow..

[Ram]

I do ... just that there are no trials or flyers ... got balls ?

No Sir, I havent. :((

[Ram]

Oh Btw, go start sending your PMs..:icflove: