Bharat Rakshak

Anindya wrote:The actual cartoons....

Cartoons with Translations

Jhujar wrote:http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2012/09/coun ... ycott.html
Counterjihad Economic Boycott

I am practicing economic counterjihad. The good thing is that this is one of the sane and non-violent ways of opposing Islam. If I attack a Muslim personally, I will be in trouble. But by refusing to buy from Muslim-owned businesses, I take the economic oxygen out of Islam.When I was checking your site, I did not find any such initiative discussed. For Westerners, this is one of the very effective ways of "applied counterjihad." For example, in London, UK, most of the "Indian" restaurants are in fact owned by Bangladeshi Muslims. So maybe someone can find out which ones are actually owned by Muslims by visiting these places for lunch/dinner and casually talking to the owner/waiter. And once this intelligence gathering is done, the list of these restaurants can be published on counterjihad websites and you can appeal to other Westerners to boycott such places.
Counterjihad involves many different strategies. You should include this economic strategy among the tools available to counterjihadists. This is also a peaceful way which can be practiced individually.
When I share my opinions on some Hindu forums, I get ridicule. But there are also some Hindus who got convinced and are practicing this.

I asked him if I could publish his email on Citizen Warrior, and he said yes but asked me not to use his real name. Then he wrote:
I have a desire to start a blog like yours from the Indian perspective. But I am a bit scared. There is lot of dhimmitude in India. Politicians and general population suck up to Muslims. So if some Muslim complains about my blog, there is a strong possibility of police tracking the user of the blog, thats me. This has happened in India before. So it would be great if you can publish my ideas on your blog. Your blog is great and you seem to have lot of knowledge on these issues unlike many Westerners. But I am just wondering how come you didn't think my idea before. Economic counterjihad is one of the simplest things one can practice.

nakul wrote:What he is saying that terrorists do not take their inspiration to kill their infidels from the Koran but cite political injustice as the reason for their acts. He is missing that the Koran gives them the green light to commit horrible acts that a person (Muslim or otherwise) would recoil at. That is why not all Muslims are terrorists.

Muslims who harbor grievances (political or otherwise) use Koran to assuage their conscience. Terrorists are brainwashed by mullahs. They prepare the gunpowder (which is the time consuming part). Koran is used to apply pressure on the trigger (quicker but equally dangerous).

KJoishy wrote:Salman Khan had his annual Ganesh Chaturthi celebration at his home. Time for the mullahs to get intense khujlee.

Under a banner that read "Repel Evil With Good," a dozen Muslim and Christian leaders spoke to the crowd at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn.

Muslim rage: how the Prophet handled insult

Muslims, from Libya to Hong Kong, have exploded again. The rage is against an anti-Islam film, made in the US, and cartoons in France.
In Benghazi, deadly riots had tragic consequences: death of four diplomats, including US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.
A 14-minute video was first posted on YouTube on July 1, but it went largely unnoticed until Arab TV stations picked it up. An Egyptian religious channel, al-Nas, broadcast some scenes on September 8. Some scenes were dubbed into Arabic, posted online and viewed by thousands.
These protests, like earlier ones, could be protracted. They could intensify hostility towards America, although, I believe, the US diplomats became a target because the film was made in America. It need not have been so.
US secretary of state Hillary Clinton condemned the film, calling it “disgusting, reprehensible” and rejecting its contents. I believe that Clinton genuinely condemned the video, and did not just mouth platitudes for the sake of preventing more attacks on Americans.
One may dispute US foreign policies, but America’s constitutional commitment to religious freedom is unquestionable. Muslims, as a minority, in America are safer than, say, Christians in Egypt. Religious tolerance is deeply linked to America’s most abiding idea: liberty. America’s founding fathers assumed religious freedom to be the “first liberty”. Therefore, America ought to make religious bigotry a serious punishable offence. Sir, you are still free to practice your religion!
Incendiary films, literature and cartoons that poke Islam are not an expression of free speech. I consider them to be hate speech. Therefore, anybody who hates hate speech must protest. However, it is violence that we must all condemn.
Why is the Muslim world ‘provoked’ and why do Muslims react violently to denigration of Islam or insult to the Prophet?
Any representative portrayal of Prophet Mohammed is itself thought to violate Islamic tenets, let alone making fun of the Prophet. However, the problematic relationship between Muslims and the Western world, especially the US, may have more to do with the ferocity of such outbursts. Going by that logic, since the Koran refers to non-muslims in a derogatory manner, shouldn't we ban it??
In the Muslim world, Islam has a deep resonance in people’s daily lives. In the West, Christianity has been subjected to an utterly private realm, since the separation of the Church and the state. Therefore, the West is sometimes incapable of judging Muslim sensitivities. Besides, there is a great deal of confusion over what Islam is and what it isn’t.
In any case, mainstream Western writers or artists do not indulge in producing work that crudely denigrates either Muslims or Islam, with the exception of Salman Rushdie. Much of the incendiary stuff comes from far-right Christian bigots, who like Muslim bigots, are no better. The Brevik shooting case and, recently, the shooting of US Sikhs are before us. Paki ishtyle ==
The anti-Islam film that triggered the current rage is itself the work of far-right religious groups. Evidence suggests three Christian groups were behind the film. The Southern Poverty Law Council, a prominent anti-White supremacy non-profit, has classified two of these as “hate groups”. Click here A third advocates the cause of Egyptian Christians, or Copts, who have faced worst recent violence from Muslims. See here
Muslims ought to look back at the life of the Prophet, who is the object of universal Muslim love. The Prophet routinely ignored the gravest of insults from his enemies. Then why does it violate islamic law?
Western countries, on the other hand, must shift from just condemning religious bigotry to criminalizing it, building on the UNHRC’s Resolution 16/18. That’s the way forward. AoA! Cure has been found!

Arabian folklore

Allah was worshipped in pre-Islamic Arabia and Nabataea with a family of deities around him among which was a triad of goddesses called "the three daughters of Allah": al-Lat ("Mother Goddess of prosperity") Al-Uzza ("Mighty one") the youngest, and Manat ("Fate") "the third, the other".[28][29] They were known collectively as the three cranes.[29] The name al-Lat is known from the time of the histories of Herodotus in which she is named Alilat.[30][31]

Aditya_V wrote:I belive we should have this international Blasphemy law which should apply with retrospective effect for those belive in AIT, insulting Hindu gods also, then most of the miltary leaders, Mullah's and royals in Arabian Muslim countries wil;l also be punished under it.

anupmisra wrote:Meanwhile, somewhere in Syria, Assad is going "Thank god for that film".

Yogi_G wrote:Thank goodness the Islamic countries are sawdust in the overall order of power in the world. Their combined military might even pales before the might of tiny Israel. Their economic prowess is isolated to only parts of the world economy and doesnt have much pull. Just imagine what the world would have come to if they had HAD some semblance of real power in the world affairs. The blasphemy law would have been in place by now in that case.

Y. Kanan wrote:

anupmisra wrote:Meanwhile, somewhere in Syria, Assad is going "Thank god for that film".

Ha! I said as much to a liberal friend of mine last week. He said something along the lines of "that filmmaker shouldn't have done what he did, he should have known it would get people killed." To which I replied "Actually, that guy probably saved far more lives than we'll ever realize. Now they probably won't bomb Syria, and the Sunnis won't be able to take over and massacre all the Shias. That 'Innocence of Muslims" guy might have just saved a few hundred thousand lives."

A third common feature is their recognition of Muslims throughout the world as one community (the Ummah). For them this is not just a figure of speech, or even an intellectual position, but a deeply felt belief. Every Muslim feels himself to be part of this community, and thus connected to each of its members, wherever they may live. Good or ill fortune befalling any part of the community is felt by other Muslims as if it had happened to them or their family.
A fourth common feature among Muslims worldwide is their antipathy to the West. This has nothing to do with the dictates of their religion (as some with vested interests would like people to believe), but is rooted in their history, specifically their feeling of having always been at war with, or under attack by, the West. These wars began soon after the rise of Islam with the conflict with the Byzantine Empire that lasted from the 7th to the 11th centuries. There followed the successive Crusades against the Muslims during the 12th and 13th centuries, while the destruction of the Muslim states in Spain in the Reconquista went on from the 8th to the 15th centuries. The 14th and 15th centuries saw the wars between Europe and the Ottoman Empire. From the 17th century the era of European colonialism bloomed and most of the Muslim world was taken over and brought under Western rule, remaining under subjugation well into the 20th century.
While the details of these earlier conflicts are known only to the educated, they reside in the collective memory that colours the attitudes of succeeding generations. However, several generations of Muslims now living have personally experienced the eras of colonialism and/or post-colonialism. Those who lived through the former not only experienced the humiliation of living under foreign Western rule but also felt their culture to be under attack. The ending of colonial rule often exacerbated old wounds. The botched handover of power by the British in the partitioned Indian subcontinent led to horrendous killings and displacements

Brad Goodman wrote:
Actually a pretty good answer. Last week I had a similar discussion with a liberal friend and his argument was similar. He was like why throw stones in mud. Film maker should have known how the mobs would react to such work. He said innocent life (US ambassador to libiya) was lost because of this guy and so it was not worth it (making the film). I was shell shocked and had no counter arguments

Brad Goodman wrote:Another counter argument that I keep hearing from liberals is. We were disussing TSP and fanaticism of ROP and this guy is like. How was life before partition were the people of that area not living peacefully all these years. What happened during partition was a result of flare up of emotions by few politicians. He did an == with 1992 riots in Mumbai. So things happen we have to forgive/ forget and move on. Now I think this is how the WKK and liberals think. There needs to be a serious writeup to counter these lines of thinking.

darshhan wrote:^^ Devesh ji, Supporting Khilafat movement was Probably MKG's biggest mistake. It practically legitimised Islamic fundamentalism. Although I am of opinion that even without Khilafat, Indian muslims would have accepted islamism. Quran would have ensured it.

RoyG wrote:

Yogi_G wrote:Thank goodness the Islamic countries are sawdust in the overall order of power in the world. Their combined military might even pales before the might of tiny Israel. Their economic prowess is isolated to only parts of the world economy and doesnt have much pull. Just imagine what the world would have come to if they had HAD some semblance of real power in the world affairs. The blasphemy law would have been in place by now in that case.

They are strategically located, important bankers, oil and terror exporters, drug producers, human traffickers, own and have stakes in imp companies, and have powerful lobbies in the West. They also control a very large and growing Muslim diaspora which is becoming increasingly radical. They don't need a powerful military to take on Israel.