Bharat Rakshak

A crowd gathers outside the mosque and all the men agree that Taseer’s murder was justified.

--But there’s more, and worse, to come. An extraordinarily important fatwa has been issued by Dr. Imad Mustafa, the professor on that subject at al-Azhar University, the world's most important Islamic university. He began by stating the well-known doctrine of “defensive jihad,” that is Muslims must go to war against infidels who attack them. Of course, the word “attack” is often spread rather thinly to justify aggression.

But now Mustafa is publicly and explicitly proposing a new strategy for those hitherto seen as reliably pro-government clerics who were seen as relativley non-threatening. This trend, little noticed in the West, has previously non-Islamist clerics increasingly sounding like al-Qaida.

He explains:


“Then there is another type of fighting against the non-Muslims known as offensive jihad…which is to pursue the infidels into their own land without any aggression [on their part]….

“...Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in order to secure Islam's border, to extend God's religion to people in cases where the governments do not allow it, such as the Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and to remove every religion but Islam from the Arabian peninsula....”

What does it mean about extending "God's religion," i.e., Islam? On the surface, "where the governments do not allow it" and the reference to Pharaoh seems to imply the complete prohibition of Islam.

But in the current context, I think this means that it is permissible to wage jihad on a country.if anything "necessary" to Islam according to (hardline) clerics' interpretations is blocked (polygamy, child marriage, special privileges at work places, building mosques anywhere, permitting the wearing of headscarves or burqas, and so on).

In practice, according to this doctrine, then, any non-Muslim can be attacked anywhere in the world. Thus, mainstream, powerful clerics are now calling for a seventh-century-style Jihad against non-Muslim lands even if the victims cannot be accused of attacking Muslim-ruled lands! Merely to "extend God's religion" to others is a sufficient motive. Mustafa says that two of Islam's main schools have always endorsed offensive Jihad but I doubt if he would have made that argument ten or twenty years ago.

Of course, that doesn't mean most Muslims will accept this new stance. But it does mean that radical groups now have mainstream support for their most extreme, aggressive behavior. Even if nobody repeats Mustafa's statement publicly--if for no other reasons than it is bad public relations in the West--this idea will be more and more taken for granted. Presumably, Mustafa won't be forced to retract this fatwa by his colleagues or Egypt's government. Moreover, we probably won't see senior clerics denouncing and rejecting the doctrine of offensive Jihad.

This is a development of stupendous proportions that will probably not even be covered in the Western mass media. If this view point continues to spread--along with the growing al-Qaida type doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood--it could be a historical turning point that will greatly intensify revolutionary Islamist terrorism and attacks on the West. Watch this trend very carefully.

ecent remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder on the threat posed by "radicalized" American Muslims are revealing—not just because of what they say regarding the domestic situation, but for their international implications as well. According to Holder:

"[T]he threat is real, the threat is different, the threat is constant. The threat has changed … to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens—raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born. It is one of the things that keeps me up at night. You didn't worry about this even two years ago—about individuals, about Americans, to the extent that we now do." Holder noted that while he was confident in the United States' counter-terrorism efforts, Americans "have to be prepared for potentially bad news…. The terrorists only have to be successful once."

Holder's assertion that "the terrorists only have to be successful once" has important implications: aside from the obvious—that it only takes one strike to create devastation on U.S. soil—it is also a reminder that when people argue that most American Muslims are moderate, and only a few are radical, it does not help our security. It took nineteen to commit 9/11; and we have already seen that some American Muslims are radical. According to Holder, in the last two years, 50 of the 126 people charged with terrorism were U.S. citizens.

Conversely, Holder's point that "You didn't worry about this even two years ago—about individuals, about Americans, to the extent that we now do," is odd. Why should Americans not have been a worry two years ago? Anyone even moderately familiar with Islamist ideology knows that it allows for absolutely no national allegiance. The notion that some American Muslims could become radicalized should have been a concern since 9/11—nearly a decade ago, not two years ago. It should have been a concern when it became obvious that American Muslims—like John Walker Lindh, Gregory Patterson, Levar Washington, Kevin James, Christopher Paul and Jose Padilla—were turning to violent jihad.

More significantly, the fact that Americans are being radicalized not only bodes ill for U.S. security; it also suggests that American efforts in the Muslim world are doomed to failure. Consider: if American Muslims, who enjoy Western benefits—including democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression—are still being radicalized, why then do we insist that importing these same benefits to the Muslim world will eliminate its even more ingrained form of "radicalization"?

After all, the mainstream position, the only one evoked by politicians, both Democrat and Republican, is that all the sacrifices America makes in the Muslim world (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), will pay off once Muslims discover how wonderful Western ways are, and happily slough off their Islamist veneer, which, as the theory goes, is a product of—you guessed it—a lack of democracy, liberty, prosperity, and freedom of expression. Yet here are American Muslims, immersed in the bounties of the West—and still do they turn to violent jihad.

In short, America needs to rethink its strategy for the war on terrorism—both at home and abroad. Domestically, this means cracking down without compunction on anything that smacks of Islamist activity, without fear of being "politically incorrect;" it means better monitoring of jihadist websites which play a major role in radicalizing American Muslims, such as Inspire (which was started by a North Carolina Muslim); and it means exercising prudence when granting visas to people from dubious backgrounds. Internationally, it means understanding that the one solution to war promoted by most Western politicians—spreading Western values and ways of governance—is no solution at all.

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.

London: British Prime Minister David Cameron has distanced himself from comments made by the only Asian member of his cabinet, Saeeda Warsi, that Islamophobia had become acceptable in British society.

Pakistan-origin Warsi made the comments in a speech at the University of Leicester on Thursday. Warsi sparked controversy when she declared that prejudice against Muslims had "passed the dinner table test" and was now seen as socially acceptable.

She said the practice of describing Muslims as either "moderate" or "extremist" fosters prejudice against all Muslims. Cameron's official spokeswoman refused to answer when asked repeatedly if the Prime Minister agreed with Lady Warsi.

"The Prime Minister thinks this is an important debate. We want to see that debate continue. We're looking forward to hearing what she has to say," said the spokeswoman.

Studies have indicated that Islamophobia had risen in Britain after September 11 and the London Tube bombings. Philip Hollobone, a Conservative MP who has called for a ban on Muslim women wearing the burkha in Britain, said Warsi had not described the reality.

"One of the difficulties with Muslim communities is that a lot of people feel that they adapt least to our way of life. That is a perfectly legitimate concern to raise at the dinner table or anywhere else," he told the Daily Telegraph.

"There are other groups who are facing increasing prejudice in Britain today, not least Christians. It would be refreshing if Sayeeda Warsi came out to condemn that at the same time as condemning Islamophobia," he added.

Lord Tebbit, former Conservative chairman, also suggested that Lady Warsi had been wrong to speak out.

"The Muslim faith was not discussed over the dinner tables of England, nor in the saloon bars, before large numbers of Muslims came here to our country. She might consider who is in need of her homilies on prejudice," he said.

"A period of silence from the baroness might not come amiss." Michael Nazir-Ali, a Church of England bishop, insisted that the distinction between extremist and moderate Muslims was valid.

However, Muslim commentators backed the speech. Ghaffar Hussain of the Quilliam Foundation think tank said the speech would help address prejudice.

"While Islamist terrorism and Islamist extremism pose a clear danger to our society that needs to be tackled, this cannot justify the demonization of Muslims as a whole. British Muslims have a right to live their lives without fear of attack and without being discriminated against because of their religion," said Hussain.

In a BBC interview, Warsi stood by her central argument about the spread of Islamophobia.

"It has seeped into our society in a way that it is acceptable to have these conversations where anti-Muslim hatred and bigotry is openly discussed. This is not about controlling the conversations that go on in peoples homes. This is about drawing a line as to the state of anti-religious hatred or bigotry in Britain today," said Warsi.

As President Obama does everything in his power, using every resource and every propaganda ploy to diminish the “Muslim problem” that exists, not only in the United States, but around the world, the truth remains, fundamentalist Islam is a problem that is growing, not diminishing. Many on the Left and in the Progressive camp insist that the number of people within the Islamic religion who practice fundamentalist Islam – radical Islam; those who, when asked, champion the violent element within their religion, are but a scant ten percent. But when we put that percentage in realistic terms, realizing that nearly one-fourth of the world’s population is Muslim (1.57 billion adherents) and that the number of those following the Islamic religion grows by 1.84% annually, we can divine that ten percent of the Muslim population – those who subscribe to fundamentalist Islam and violent jihad – amounts to 157,000,000 people and growing. That number, to equate it to something tangible, is over one-third of the population of the United States of America.
According to the poll, 68 percent of the French and 75 percent of Germans believe Muslims are “not well integrated into society.” German chancellor Angela Merkel went as far as to say that the notion of “multiculturalism” in German society – given the issue of non-assimilation by foreigners – had “utterly failed.” Germany has one of the largest Muslim immigrant populations in Europe at 4.3 million. The Muslim immigrant population in France is 7 million and the British come in at 2.4 million. Experts say that almost 85% of the population growth in Europe, as a whole, was due to Muslim immigration and that the Muslim population alone will double by 2020.The poll goes on to say that:
“...55 percent in France and 49 percent in Germany believe the ‘influence and visibility of Islam’ is ‘too large’, while 60 percent in both countries say the reason for the problem is Muslims’ own ‘refusal’ to integrate...Just as crucially, 42 percent of French and 40 percent of Germans consider the presence of Islamic communities ‘a threat’ to their national identities.
“An editorial in Le Monde adds: ‘As Islam becomes a permanent and increasingly conspicuous fixture of European societies, public opinion is clearly tensing up...’”

Hari Seldon wrote:^^??
kindly put inside url tags with some description etc only.

arjunm wrote:

Hari Seldon wrote:^^??
kindly put inside url tags with some description etc only.

Hariji These are the rare photographs of the "The Great Calcutta massacre", I am trying to post them in full, any way I am still trying,But warn you these are not for the weak hearts.

partha wrote:Don't know how banning burqa will help in reducing suicide attacks!

partha wrote:arunji, JEMji,
While I have many problems with burqa, I feel it is the right of a woman to wear whatever she wants.

Beginning in 2004, in four separate attacks twelve Chinese lost their lives on Pakistani soil. In addition, on occasions China warned Pakistan that Xinjiang separatists in collaboration with local militants planned to kidnap Chinese diplomats in Islamabad. Such warnings were at their highest during the Beijing Olympic games in 2008 and at the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic in 2009. However, timely coordination of the intelligence agencies of the two countries and Pakistan’s pre-emptive security measures prevented such plots from realization. Whether targeted attacks on Chinese in Pakistan had links with India or were collaborative efforts of local militants and Uyghurs – two convenient excuses from the Pakistani authorities – they did affect Sino-Pakistan relations. Beijing initially showed restraint, but as the attacks continued, it left diplomatic courtesy and went public pressuring Pakistan to ensure the fullest security of its nationals. Pakistan sensed the concerns of its trusted ally and provided extraordinary armed security for most of the 10,000 Chinese invited by the Pakistani government. These measures successfully prevented further attacks since the last incident in July 2007, in which three Chinese were killed.

Similarly, the liaison between Pakistan-based militants and Uyghurs and the latter’s sanctuary in Pakistani tribal areas was yet another issue on which Beijing had strong reservations. To address this issue, Pakistan intensified its crackdown against the Uyghur militants. The major breakthrough came in October 2004, when the Pakistani army shot dead Hasan Mahsum, head of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM). Over the years, Pakistani forces have eliminated, arrested and extradited a number of Uyghurs, claiming to have broken the backbone of the militant Uyghur groups in Pakistan. The exact number of those killed or extradited is unknown, but Pakistani measures have seemingly satisfied the Chinese authorities.

In the post-9/11 period, China also openly sought Pakistan’s support on the issue of Muslim separatism in Xinjiang. Beginning in December 2001, the then Chief Executive of Pakistan, General Musharraf, visited the Grand Mosque of Xi’an at China’s request and asked the Muslims to be loyal to the Chinese government. This was the first time a Pakistani leader went public to endorse China’s polices on Xinjiang. Pakistan has since backed Beijing on this issue. The most significant display of this support came during the July 2009 riots in Xinjiang in which almost 200 people were killed. Pakistan not only endorsed China’s measures to quell the riots but used its clout to prevent certain Islamic countries to take the issue to the Organization of Islamic Conference, thus saving Beijing from embarrassment.

35 killed in Moscow airport suicide bombing

Dmitry Zaks and Anna Malpas
January 25, 2011 - 1:09PM

A suicide bomber killed at least 35 people and wounded over 130 in the packed arrivals hall of Moscow's largest airport in an attack slammed by the Kremlin and the world as an act of terror. ............................

Russian investigators found a head of "Arab appearance" that is presumed to have belonged to the suicide bomber responsible for setting off the blast, Interfax said.

According to preliminary information, the bomber was a resident of the overwhelmingly Muslim Northern Caucasus region, Interfax said.......................

Staring out from the front pages of their newspapers this weekend is not the usual dark-skinned, heavily-bearded Islamist terrorist they have come to expect and fear but an ethnic Russian who looks like millions of Russians' brothers, sons or husbands.

The suspect, 32-year-old Vitaly Razdobudko, is one of the growing number of Russians who have embraced radical Islam, creating a security nightmare for Russia's anti-terrorism squads.

Inured to more than a decade of terrorist attacks on their trains, planes, schools, hospitals and theatres, ordinary Russians are facing up to an uncomfortable truth: the terrorists are now drawn from their own ranks, rather than exclusively from the impoverished Muslim population of the country's North Caucasus region.

"The appearance of Slav Muslims in the terrorists' ranks is threatening to become a tendency," said Andrei Kuznetsov, a commentator on the lenta.runews portal.
He (Razdobudko) is not the first Slav-Islamist terrorist. These are people who converted to Islam in the chaotic 1990s when it became clear to people living far from the capital that the future was not bright. They preferred to embrace radical Islam rather than rot in an alcoholic delirium or a heroin-induced stupour."

Vitaly Razdobudko appears to have become disenchanted at a young age.

A native of the pretty southern spa town of Pyatigorsk 800 miles south of Moscow, he studied at a local technical university and then went on to try his hand at a number of businesses including tourism.

Adam Serwer's take on this rang true: "I tend to think this would be more frightening if it were comprehensible, but it's a symptom of a basic problem which is that several basic heuristics conservatives use for slotting things into 'good' and 'bad' categories are clashing with each other. So democracy is supposed to be good, but Muslims are bad, liberals are bad, and if Muslims are bad and liberals are bad, then the {Egyptian, Tunisian, Jordanian} protests must be some kind of combined Marxist-Islamist conspiracy that will lead to Islamists and Marxists splitting the globe between each other

It is being reported that the girl may just have been a rape victim, but fell prey to mullahs' machinations