Understanding Islamic Society

[Prem]

Juhjar, the location of the writer shows his potential point of view. He is trying to blame the lLt Gen for the mess in AMU while the latter is trying to fix the mess.

Military guys are genuinly Indian, defender of soil and this is bothering the author. Again and Again the centreline theme, thought is to make, hold India hostage , subservient to Islamic interets and this fear, hope or wish keep peeping out from almost 99% of Articles penned by these islamic intellectuals, no matter how much they try to hide or cover up in flowerly terms. The major portion of pride is reserved for Muslim part and tiny one for being Indian while expecting the sky with contribution part completely forgotton.

[Agnimitra]

The major portion of pride is reserved for Muskim part and tiny one for being Indian while expecting the sky with contribution part completely forgotton.

I've said this before - even for the Tarek Fatahs and the MJ Akbars, the dilemma is between Akbar and Aurangzeb, that's all. They can't go back further in history.

Akbar the Great

[akashganga]

The major portion of pride is reserved for Muskim part and tiny one for being Indian while expecting the sky with contribution part completely forgotton.

I've said this before - even for the Tarek Fatahs and the MJ Akbars, the dilemma is between Akbar and Aurangzeb, that's all. They can't go back further in history.

Akbar the Great

That is a good point. The operating system called islam operating on a human brain always interrupts any thoughts about pre-islamic period and brings the attention back to islamic period. It does not matter whether the brain is that of a violent jehadi or the so called moderate mooslim.

[Prem]

="akashgangaThat is a good point. The operating system called islam operating on a human brain always interrupts any thoughts about pre-islamic period and brings the attention back to islamic period. It does not matter whether the brain is that of a violent jehadi or the so called moderate mooslim.

Neither the part of toppings on Indian Pizza,or Alloo in Chhaat, Gobhi in Parantha, Hing in Daal, Cumin In Sambar, Dahi in Barra, Twist in Jalebi, Its more like a having old Pickle spreading its aroma on Brunch Thalli scenario with Islamists.

[Prem]

Toothpaste: the root cause for the decline of Muslims
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?pa ... 2013_pg3_4

Do you know the real reason for the invention of toothpaste? If you think it was formulated to clean your teeth, protect them from decay, revitalise their shine, improve the health of your gums, reduce the incidence of dental abscesses and save your life, then you are wrong. You, like most innocent Muslims, have been misled, lost in the glamour, and blinded by the glare of western civilisation.The only exception is if the country of your origin is Pakistan. In that case, you won’t fall for their academic mumbo jumbo and ‘scientifically’ proven facts (thanks to our deep understanding of international politics). Here, even a five-year-old child, who cannot spell his name correctly, will be able to tell you the real reason for the development of such a ‘vicious’ compound. He knows it well that the west has always sought to attack the faith of the Muslims, and their devotion to Islam. However, despite their best efforts, they have made limited progress in breaking that bond, attracting only a few followers. Now, with the help of toothpaste, they want to ensure their presence in every Muslim household; they intend to corrupt all Muslim children, plan to deprave every woman, and are determined to brainwash all adults away from the right path. In their opinion, toothpaste can guarantee their long term success, a scenario they believe would develop after the Third World War, in which the number of human beings killed would be in billions and the ones who stay alive would be just a few hundred. According to their plan, only a morally corrupt and faithless Muslim should have a chance of being counted in that select group of survivors, and the truly dedicated followers should be excluded at any cost. Thinking way ahead, as early as the late 19th century, they anticipated the consequences of the Third World War decades before the first one had broken out.
Armed with this knowledge, I went to the United States of America a few years ago. My uncle, who lived in the USA for more than 20 years, and by the grace of God, hated everything about the country of infidels, received me at the airport. Even before we had left the building, he handed me a list of products that I could not use, under any circumstances, during my stay in the US. Almost all the toothpastes known to mankind were included in that list, except one that could be used with caution, as a last option. Besides the toothpastes, it also included shampoos, bathing soaps, facial creams, hair products and body lotions. Eatables, including most bakery products, could not be consumed, and eating in a restaurant was out of the question too. I was duly alerted to the corruptive powers lurking behind the façade of refined sugar, which he thought was impermissible to be used as well. The only products that I was allowed to take home were fresh fruits, vegetables, milk, ice, flour, rice and cooking oil.
This list was formulated by religious scholars of North America, who, after a tremendous amount of research, had determined that the compounds constituting these products could have pork ingredients in them. They were not sure but they had connected the dots, and the trail led to pig farms and animal origin-fat. They concluded that these products were not permissible. As my uncle shared this information with me, the onion of the west’s nefarious scheme was peeled in front of my eyes. I realised that had my uncle not given me the list that day, my whole body would have been polluted, which I thought was their original plan.Even though modern toothpaste was most likely invented for the first time in the ninth century by a Muslim polymath, Abul Hassan Ali Ibne Nafi, also known as Zaryab, his invention was stolen by a US scientist, Dr Washington Sheffield, in the late 19th century, who developed it in the modern collapsible form. I believe that was the time when the US government, along with its ally, Colgate and Company, launched their joint venture to corrupt the Ummah by making their product commercially available, and introducing it in every Muslim household. Their plan has succeeded. In the name of toothpaste and cleanliness, they have poisoned our souls. Their first victim was the Ottoman Empire after the First World War, as mentioned earlier, and their last target is going to be Pakistan, the fortress of Islam. We should, therefore, to protect our faith, stop using all products that they claim are developed for ‘hygienic purposes’.

[Agnimitra]

Could someone post the "oil drop" model and its diagram that shiv ji had once explained? The images seem to have disappeared here: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1133826
TIA.

[Agnimitra]

Example of Ashraf - Mawali relations, and also perversion of native culture. This is a funny video of an aam abdul speaking ridiculous Sanskrit with mostly Arabic words - supposedly to show how Sheikh Semnani (from Iran) had come and debated with the people of "kufristan" centuries ago. Notice the special status given to the racial Ashrafs on stage, and the rest of the converted faithfools.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc_IpjMQb2o

[Prem]

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... MYCF1LCG70
The psychological problem
( European lamentation)

The problem with Islam and Muslim culture is that there are so many psychological factors pushing its followers towards a violent attitude against non-Muslims that a general violent clash is -- at least from a psychological perspective -- inevitable. With such strong pressure and such strong emotions within such a large group of people -- all pitched against us -- we are facing the perfect storm, and I see no possibilities of turning it around. For people to change, they have to want it, to be allowed to change, and to be able to change -- and only a tiny minority of Muslims have such lucky conditions.Far too many people underestimate the power of psychology embedded in religion and culture. As we have already seen, no army of social workers, generous welfare states, sweet-talking politicians, politically correct journalists or democracy-promoting soldiers can stop these enormous forces. Sensible laws on immigration and Islamisation in our own countries can limit the amount of suffering, but based on my education and professional experience as a psychologist for Muslims, I estimate that we will not be able to deflect or avoid this many-sided, aggressive movement against our culture.

[ramana]

Not really. If Syria under Assad survves expect the KSA and its GCC aliies to get blowback. Ultimately Hejaz will be contested between them and one which is more modern will survive.
The monster unleashed by Lawrence of Arabia will be corked.

[Agnimitra]

The Nairobi Mall Massacre - lessons from Islamic origins and history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8F2K9Eg_U0

[JE Menon]

Brando
Post subject: Re: Miscellaneous Pictures - Indian Military
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2013
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Feb 2008
Posts: 590
vdutta wrote:
For all practical purpose he is a king who can go live in any country he wants.


He is most definitely NOT a King. His grandfather was conferred the title of "Prince" by the British for his "services" in fighting the Afghans during the Anglo-Afghan wars. The Aga Khan III himself has testified before the SC that the name "Aga Khan" is not a title but rather an "alias" so it has been in India. Even during the British Raj in India - the Aga Khan was lower in "peerage" than compared to nearly a dozen Maharajas, Nizams and others. Under the Indian Constitution his title "Prince" is meaningless, his only identity that can be recognized is as a "religious leader".

vdutta wrote:
Just like pope would be considered a royalty and would get the state honors i think Shri Aga Khan ji should get it too.


The Pope is a REAL head of state, he is the head of the Vatican State (a recognized state by the UN). The Aga Khan is NOT the head of any state. The Aga Khan is essentially equal to the Ayatollahs in order of importance in his sect of Shias. And just like the Dalai Lama or the Shankaracharya etc, the Aga Khan is of similar "religious" importance only and not required to be shown state honors.


JE Menon
Post subject: Re: Miscellaneous Pictures - Indian Military
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2013
Online
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970
Posts: 3147

The Ismailis, of whom the Aga Khan is the hereditary head, are like the Ahmedis on steroids. Totally outside the Islamic behaviour code, and rarely even perform the haj pilgrimage... The Paks have their knickers twisted beyond recognition about them, but it's rarely out in the public because the community is relatively small, and fairly influential in the aid business... Very entrepreneurial people, and quite well entrenched in various places across the Islamic world as well as India, and in the West - with some quite prominent personalities among its adherents. I think they were even refused to be included in some Islamic Conference Organisation meeting on the future of Islam or something of the sort... Hassan Al Sabah, the founder of the Hashasheen (Assassin) force, was an Ismaili, and the force was founded as a stealthy and effective way of keeping Ismailism alive and protected from threats; which it has been.

Added later: just realised this is way OT. Sorry, no more from me on this here.



PratikDas
Post subject: Re: Miscellaneous Pictures - Indian Military
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2013
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 1336
Location: GSLV launch pad sweeping team

Great insight though. Thank you.


Karan M
Post subject: Re: Miscellaneous Pictures - Indian Military
PostPosted: 30 Oct 2013
Online
BRF Oldie

Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 2486

JEM: Didnt they support partition and Pak though? What do you make of their attitudes to non Muslims (re:this intriguing bit "Totally outside the Islamic behaviour code, and rarely even perform the haj pilgrimage) You can reply in any other thread if you feel its OT and link it..
Thanks

[JE Menon]

Replying to Karan M's question above...

They probably did, though I don't know the details of it... They consider themselves Muslim. Regarding their attitude towards non-Muslims, it is quite Indic actually - as in to you yours, and to me mine. They don't wear their faith on their sleeves - at least those I know, quite a few actually over the last couple of years.

[ramana]

KaranM, I have travelogue by an English writer written in mid 1850s about how the original Aga Khan was induced to move from Syria region to come and settle in Mumbai region. Slowly his stature was built up as an Imperial policy against the Ottoman Turks. However once Arabia was deTurkified, Aga Khan lost his utility and became relegated to a playboy figure. And most of the recent Aga Khans are not even Arabic anymore.

The plan was to project the Ismaili faction as a new protected English backed Muslims.

[Prem]

Ayaan Hirsi tweeted that none of the Otooman Khalifa ever performed Hajj and they well are fond of living in state of "Hitchki"

[ramana]

Don't know about that. They built the train from Damascus to Mecca to increase the pilgrim throughput and that got the British the opening they sought to intefere in Arabia. The train cut-off the Arab baksheesh mode of living so they were happy to listen to Lawrence of Arabia types.

[Karan M]

Thanks JEM, Ramana, Jhujhar.. didnt know about the replies till JEM pointed it out. If these folks are truly, each to his/hers without compulsion types - then that has some real positivity in terms of finally determining a sect that can coexist with other faiths and if supported may influence mainstream Islam positively. Its pretty depressing otherwise to even see so called Islamic moderates ranting about other faiths etc.

[JE Menon]

It is important to note however that the Ismailis are not considered "real Muslims" by, of course, the real Muslims. What is a real Muslim these days is determined by Gulf money fanning out to the right pockets. They were denied a say/seat if I remember correctly in an Organisation of Islamic Conference debate. So there's no cause for concern. Islam is not in danger.

[Rahul M]

shekhar gupta's column on another muslim community.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/when- ... d/1173344/

[Paul]

Shis ruminations on Killings in Pakistan....they do not accept the root cause of the porblem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1DB_I0LklM

[ramana]

Agnimitra, Do us a favor and try to compare the Darius, Behusitan inscription with Manusmriti and tells us what they mean.

My hunch is most of the punishments and idea of the state were from Manu.

[Agnimitra]

^^ K ramana ji, will look at it.

[anupmisra]

Why Did so Many Wanted Nazis Convert to Islam?

[Agnimitra]

From Islamism & Islamophobia thread:

I always felt that PBUH was the world's pioneer of Marketing. He understood the concept of DIFFERENTIATION. His product may be flawed but he ensured that he made it different even though he stole features from Judaism and Christianity. As kids, I remember hearing the phrase "ulta saabi" which means "reverse muslim". Muslims did everything the other way from the norm. This is the reason.

The differentiation meme is reinforced by numerous ahadith in which the Prophet wants Muslims to differentiate themselves from non-Moslems in what seem like the most petty or trivial of ways. It was meant as a distinct marker of identity.

For instance, he advised disciples that when they were trimming their fingernails, they should do it one alternate finger at a time - because the Jews do it in sequence!

Or about trimming down the mustache to almost nothing - its because the Zoroastrian Persians apparently sported a full, thick mustache.

Some of the reasons for other typical Islamic appearance is also w.r.t. the non-believer -- either to avoid harassment and persecution or to signal aggressive intent. E.g., wearing a beard supposedly makes one look dangerous, and so less likely to be picked on by the mushrikeen.

It may be this cultural meme - of distinguishing oneself from non-believers in a particularly churlish manner - that justifies the way Islamic scholars have interpreted the word "naas" in the Qur'an to mean only the community of believers rather than mankind in general. The Arabic word "insaan" (human being) is related to the word "naas". In an earlier post I had wondered why all Islamic commentators interpret certain verses in a sectarian sense, when it seems to indicate that a Moslem should be "one among men":

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1490912

In modern Islamic communities within non-Muslim societies (West, India, etc.), the hijab is promoted among women as a public marker of identity, and a differentiation from non-Moslem women. I have also seen British Pakistani WOMEN rationalize acts of sex grooming of non-Moslem women within the community as being due to the immodesty of Western and Bollywood Indian women - again related to their adoption of hijab as a marker of identity and difference from the Other.

[ramana]

Moses started this differentiation trend that Muhammad took to the extreme.

Nizam College restrooms had assorted bricks all over the place. And a kind Muslim told me they were supposed to wipe with the bricks! I wondered how hygienic it would be with common usage of bricks.

[ramana]

A Syrian Perspective:

It also helps if his b***s are in a bear enforced vice-like grip to help him along the way. Ofcourse in the end, it's peace that matters, if it comes by hook or crook.

Here is a very pertinent article from Syrian Perspective blog author on the Saudi-Iran conundrum, Iranians offer intellect .. Saudis fear it more than anything else or so it suggests.

FIRST POST - NOVEMBER 23, 2013 - WHY SAUDI ARABIA FEARS IRAN; WHY SAUDI ARABIA CANNOT AFFECT IRAN; WHY DO WAHHABISM AND ZIONISM GO HAND IN HAND

WHY SAUDI ARABIA FEARS IRAN

If we look back before Arabians knew they had marketable, profitable petroleum with massive reserves, we would be looking at a race of mostly wandering Bedouins with no axe to grind and no grievances. After all, living the life of a vagabond inevitably erases wrongs and offenses by the mere fact of leaving them behind in the sand. To be sure, Arabians are fond of their poetry and will vilify an offender in rhyme....sometimes with trenchant sarcasm that resonates - reverberates back to the perpetrator of the offense with stinging effect. But, having a gripe against another people outside the blinding glass of the desert would be unthinkable. It is very likely that Arabians didn't even know that Iranians existed. They might have heard of Persians, but that is in the old poesy.

In the late 18th Century, the heretical beliefs of Muhammad Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhaab, a Najdi cleric heavily influenced by the crackpot theologian Ibn Taymiyya, had succeeded in allying himself to the rising Ibn Saud tribe with obvious results. When 'Abdul-'Aziz Ibn 'Abdul-Rahman Ibn Sa'ud, a cat burglar, highwayman, terrorist, polygamist and pederast, became King of Arabia, Wahhabism was a part of the package.

The Saudis under the influence of Wahhabism, already had a history of attacking Shi'ites in Karbala and Al-Najaf where sites holy to them were barbarously destroyed in acts of callousness typical of the ignorant, obnoxious, black-and-white simplism that would become emblematic of the Wahhabist style of seeing the world. But, Iran was still not a part of their Weltanschauung because Arabians had not yet absorbed the way oil would transform them from a worthless, shiftless, shallow, shoddy, shabby Bedouin people into a worthless, shiftless, shallow, shoddy, shabby but inordinately rich Bedouin people. It was like "The Beverly Hillbillies Go to Mecca". Or, maybe, "Ma and Pa Kettle Dock at the U.N". Or even more telling: "Tarzan's Cheetah Loves Geneva".

It was all so nice during the Cold War. Saudis, who have the perspicacity of an old divan, were satisfied with the Manichaeism of the time. Everybody knew where they stood. Even the Iranians, who would become a bete noir for the Arabian simpletons later in the 20th Century, were subject to American skulduggery as when the beacon of democracy, America, overthrew the legitimate government Mossadegh.
They were to do the same thing, of course, with the unlucky Chilean president, Salvador Allende, a few decades later. But that was okay to the narrow-minded Wahhabists because it was in pure hypocrisy that they found their niche. No diplomatic finesse here; just hypocrisy, the oldest method to a successful enterprise.

Because they rarely, if ever, read history, Arabians are the people most likely to repeat it. And as ignorant savages, they could never have figured out that the Iranian culture was starkly different from their own as far as intellectual accomplishments went. Whereas, on the one hand, the Arabians have contributed a solid zero in the areas of science, medicine, philosophy - only having excelled in generating ludicrous, draconian, empty-headed, constipated fire-and-brimstone religious cults, Iranian culture, on the other hand, is so filled with a thematic adoration for the intellect that it is hard to imagine they could have accomplished so much throughout the millennia being so close geographically to the pathogenetically stultifying gravitational pull of the Peninsular Arabians. (I make an exception here for the founder of Islam, the Messenger Muhammad, although I do it grudgingly.) It is not as though Iran and the Arabians are separated by a mere Gulf, greedily referred to by the latter as "Arabian", they are more accurately separated by the Andromeda Galaxy.

As decades of prodigal and dissolute spending continued unabated with anecdotes of Saudi Arabian idiocy reaching mythic levels, Iranian oil wealth was spent on domestic institutional development. Whereas the Arabians imported Filipino nurses for their hospitals, Iranians trained Iranians to do the same. Whereas Saudi Arabians were sent off to study in America as a welcome therapeutic break from the asphyxiating tedium of Wahhabist life, Iranians were studying abroad in order to return and teach in their own country. Where Saudi Arabia had to buy Pakistani mercenaries to fly their jets, Iran was training Iranians to build jets ............and fly them.

Now, throughout all this, the U.S., U.K., France and all the other pasty-faced white people in Europe had to put on a big smile as atrocity after atrocity emanated from the "magical" kingdom of Arabia. Hypocrisy is not easy to maintain with the right pallor of the skin- it's like a British motor vehicle - you have to keep a record of it else you'll find yourself sticking the old proverbial foot in your mouth. So, with Arabia, when women are not permitted to drive based on nothing more than some shaman's opinion, American diplomats have to be prepared to mouth expressions like this: "Oh, we're working on this with our Saudi friends". When the Saudis execute a woman for sorcery, the British ambassador, his mouth all full of rabbit marbles, has to utter his most Oxonian response: "Oh, well, deeeya. Really? Hmmmm. Are there sorcerers in Arabia still? Anybody up for a nice round of tennis?" When the Saudis arrest a man for offering "free hugs", the French must be prepared to shrug and say: "Bien. When in Mecca, you must do as the Meccan's do. Let him do it in Paris." And the hypocrisy goes on and on.

The Saudis were evidently very happy with the Shah of Iran. He was trusted by the U.S. He was a monarch; actually, the Shah of Shahs. He bought American military products and used them to police the Gulf, a form of free protection for the otherwise useless race of prosimian derelicts who populated the "Peninsula" ("Al-Jazeera"). When he was overthrown, the Saudis began to detect a change in the atmosphere. Imam Khomeini's extermination of the communists (Tudeh) might have made them feel somewhat comfortable, but his Marg bar Amreekaa (Death to America) and anti-Zionism mantras seemed over the top. In fact, the entire episode smacked of a resurgent Iranian regional assertion of power that necessarily challenged the status quo.

Saddam Hussayn had a huge army ornamented with the required equipment to undo Khomeini's revolution. Since the Arabians were, are and always will be incapable of doing anything proactively, they hired Saddam to do their dirty work. It is hard to tell if the U.S.'s own support for Saddam at this time was motivated by either a desire to antagonize the Iranians or not antagonize the Arabians. Whatever the case, the U.S. threw its full weight behind the Bad Boy of Baghdad, giving him technology to develop his own WMDs, SatInt and even sage advice on how to defeat the hundreds of thousands of Iranians who kept hectoring him with massive human waves across the marshes of southern Mesopotamia.

The Saddam gambit cost the Arabians, all of them, including the Kuwaitis, a bundle of cash and it resulted in a typical Arabian "ZERO". Saddam did not overthrow the Khomeini government. What happened instead was his own invasion of Kuwait! Well! As the feckless, useless, malodorous Kuwaiti Sabaah family headed for the dunes of Arabia to avoid Saddam's well-known tender mercies, so to speak, the U.S., ever mindful of its obligations to the etiquette of hypocrisy, took up the cause of - No! not destroying Iran - but, instead, attacking Saddam! (All these sentences are punctuated with exclamation marks to emphasize the surreal nature of this particular history.) But, then, when the U.S. could have decapitated the government in Baghdad, the Old Bush and his coterie of brainiacs decided that it was nice, after all, to have Saddam there as a cushion against the Iranians who are the cause of all this trouble anyways!

Nobody said American foreign policy was "neat". It's actually quite messy. Saddam was now the enemy of the Arabians. And so were the Iranians, but for different reasons. The Arabians, who "think" in the way that baboons have sensory input, maneuvered themselves into a genuine SNAFU for it was only a few years later that "Teeny-Weeny Bush" would be elected by the sagacious citizenry of America to finish the job. He had a real chip on his shoulder - bearing in mind Saddam - ever, the assassin - had plotted revenge against his "Pappy" during a visit to Teeny-Weeny Kuwait. Saddam never forgave the Elder Bush for April Glaspie's slip of the tongue. But, the Saudis would pay a heavier price for Saddam's fall and the U.S. failure in Iraq that would bring to power a Shi'i government under Noor Al-Maaliki.!!

As all of you probably know, hypocrisy makes strange bedfellows. Neoconservative-Zionist popinjays, largely Jewish Zionists and paid agents of the Khazar Settler State, had started to infest Washington with their ideology of using "military force" to bring about democratic change in the world. The truth is that Michael Ledeen couldn't give a rat's derriere about democratic change in the world. His only commitment was to the longevity of the counterfeit Zionist Settler State in historic Southern Syria (Palestine). Oh, but didn't they inveigle their way into the White House, cajoling intellectual powder-puffs like Cheney whose evil lies more in his ignorance than in any perfervid lust for lucre? They snookered Zionist Christians like Bush and his "base" of ranting, snorting, sniveling, cupiditous Televangelists. They even suckered Fouad Ajami, their resident satrap, into believing their paeans to democratic change were sincere, not meant to abase the Arabs but to release "their profound energies" in a world so Utopian it's amazing Ajami fell for it in the first place.

The neo-cons infiltrated the White House with personalities like Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz. These neo-Trotskyites, in reality, were agents of the Zionist Entity. Whatever the cause, it had to be seen through the prism of Zionism and the overarching impetus to extend the life of the Neo-Colonial Eastern European Jewish Ghetto State. Here, the bedfellows are the Saudi Arabians, who suddenly had a friend in Washington - (not the ineffectual, effete Arab lobbyists) - and the Neo-Cons who sniffed a rich old dowager slag (desperate for their affections) to finance their perverse world view. Bandar Bin Sultan, the "hawkish" but mentally sterile Saudi intelligence chief, is a neo-con in the meaning of "tolerated WOG". He languishes in the aura of acceptance by individuals he deems "vastly superior" to the Arab detritus among whom he must wallow. The neocons, for all their sufferance, withhold criticism of Saudi Wahhabist culture. After all, the Saudis bought their jingle, hook-line-and-sinker and were committed to "Israel's" durability.

So, what does Iran have to do with this? Very simple. What the Saudis have only lately realized is that the Iranians are smarter than the neocons. What the Saudis perceived as "Israeli" genius has turned out to be a canard, even a red herring. When in July 2006, Hizbollah, a paramilitary militia, beat the stuffing out of the Zionist army in South Lebanon with Iranian/Syrian planning, arms and finance, the Saudis knew something was amiss. All of you remember George Bush's public confidence in the Zionist army's ability to annihilate Hizbollah. Hmm. Didn't turn out that way.

The Saudis knew, as of July 2006, that Syria was a part of this Hizbollah-Iranian military axis. That Syria's president hailed from the Alawi sect was not an issue as long as he affirmed Syria's "Sunni" character and kept the Iranian beast far hence. But, Dr. Assad, like his father, saw something in Iran that he did not find in Arabia: raw internal power that can translate into tangible assets to fight the war to liberate Arab lands. As Syria was building up its missile manufacturing capabilities with the help of Iran and North Korea, the Saudis were aghast at Iran's massive, domestic nuclear program which outstripped the Zionist one by light years. Unlike Saddam and his Osirak Reactor which was destroyed by "Israel" in one fell swoop on June 7, 1981 with the help of the Saudi government, the Iranian project was much more complex, more protected, more well-thought-out, more impenetrable. Now, it was clear that the U.S. had to do the job for Saudi Arabia's fear of the Fatimid Crescent is embedded in Iran's Shi'ite character linked to the weaponization of its nuclear program. But, what if the U.S. saw it as too dangerous?

Sanctions upon sanctions were imposed on both Iran and Syria. No two nations in recent memory - not even North Korea - had suffered so much deprivation due to the confluence of Euro-American Zionist hegemonics. Yet, the Saudis watched in horror as General Vaheedi of Iran pooh-poohed the sanctions and praised them as having given Iran the impetus to develop internal capabilities far beyond what they would have been otherwise if Iran were still a part of the interlocking technological world run by the West. The Iranians had, in essence, thumbed their noses at the Arabians who, themselves, could not last 24 hours without the help of their Pakistani manservants, Filipina nurses or Ethiopian gardeners. Iran was on its way, inexorably, to regional superpower status - and all that at the expense of the Wahhabist heresy.

To break Iran, Saudia took it upon itself to make it clear that this was an "existential" matter which the Americans had better understand. Like the Zionist Entity, the Saudis positioned themselves in a square defined as "threatened minority reactionary unit committed to survival to protect the interests of a minority". It is the same logic as Zionism which is why Saudia and "Israel" are in the same bed for it is hypocrisy, not politics, that makes the strangest bedfellows.

The reader should note that the U.S., while publicly trying to assuage the hurt feelings of the Wahhabist monkeys, has also embarked on a new track, perhaps motivated by the same epiphany which persuaded Hafez Al-Assad to sign on with Iran against Saddam. Very courageous back then. Maybe, Obama has gotten the impression that Saudi Arabia is a relic of a pre-Iron Age society with no future and that the Iranian model could be the linchpin for a new American-Islamic engagement. It is precisely this volte-face that terrifies the Saudis as much as the Zionists for they are both in the same bed, sharing the same blanket and pillow. Their interests are one and the same. If any of you wonder if the Saudi regime cares a whit about the Palestinians, think of their relationship as no different from that of Zionism. When the Palestinians finally figure that out, they will know who their allies really are.

Iran has analyzed all of this. The evolution of their missile industry capable now of manufacturing anti-missile, anti-aircraft, anti-ship......anti-Saudi weapons is a sign of Armageddon for Riyadh and its noisome ideology of cultural suffocation. Iran knows why it is feared by the Saudis. The Saudi persophobia is not fear of Iranian Shi'is, it is fear of the intellect - what the Saudis cannot have for all their money and all the tea in China. ZAF

http://www.syrianperspective.com/2013/1 ... saudi.html

[ramana]

In boloji there was a long essay on religious systems and geometric objects and showed how Shiaism is a stable doctrine that allows individuals to think!

[devesh]

I'm not really responding to the above posts or to a particular poster.

when it comes to the Hindu, the Shia is ultimately just as Islamic as any other Islamic. in the end, that "sect" is as much a hurdle to Hindus and Bharatiyas as the Sunnis. they just hide it better as the Subcontinent Muslims are mostly Sunnis.

[ramana]

Some psychologists should study the eroticism of the violence propagated in the Koranic way of war.

[member_22872]

Nice article
India before the coming of islam

[Muns]

Been a while since posted. In spare time, started on a blog to post idea's and relieve tension. In a way, would like to say thanks to BR as well for which I've been following from almost the teen years. Many ideas of mine have been influenced by BR and posters on this forum.

Little while ago, came across a online copy of the Majma Ul Bahrain; Meeting of two oceans by Dara Shikoh. Thought that here was one sufi muslim who was a real takfir at heart and wanted to be more Hindu.
After reading through the Majma Ul Bahrain(translation), my ideas changed, I got the impression that he would hold the gold standard as being the Quran and would try to find/ force fit his vague understanding of Vedanta to make a equal-equal.

At the very least, he tried and perhaps he really did not spend a long time with Baba Lal Das Bairangi. I understand he took a undertaking to translate the Bhagavad Gita before he died and I would really like to have read his translation.

As people have often mentioned, India would have fared better under him, than Aurangzeb.

http://sanchitakarma.blogspot.com/2013/ ... ht-to.html

Blogs got other thoughts as well, on Vijayanagar, Xity etc....

[Karan M]

one strat guy who studied this as part of his education, once noted that despite the usual thinking, one view is that its better shikoh got taken out. because at the end of the day aurangzeb forced the issue with his atrocities and sparked a hindu/native resurgence against oppressive foreign/ mughal rule. under shikoh, sufi resurgence with soft power (backed by state) may have resulted in mass conversions amongst the confused and later radicalization by harder followers of the faith, and even bigger long term issue.

[devesh]

^^^
very much possible. but Shikoh might have been fundamentally undermining the doctrine in a way Sufis never did or could. from what I understand, Shikoh's ideas would have been a revolution. in the truest sense of the word. a radical upheaval piercing the heart of the theology itself.

either that or I've read some hagiography of Dara that got all dramatic.

[ramana]

See its like the roach motel. Once you cehck in you cant get out. The Sufi singers will entice you and then later mullas will harden you and your progeny.


Everything is for the good.

All those who condemn Aurangazeb and praise Dara bhai do so at the missed opportunity of converting Al Hind. At same time they forget Aurngazeb was spurred/egged by the ulema to do his jihad!!!

[member_22872]

Dara Shikoh, the forgotten Prince of Islam - An exhibition mounted by FACT - India

[RajeshA]

Sex & Jihad - Politics of Scarcity & Promise

One of the more fascinating aspects of any society is how it deals with the gender ratio. How does Islam do it? In Islamic society, manipulation of effective gender ratio is actually a fundamental tool to push its agenda. One could even compare it to hoarding of essential food items. Another aspect which needs to be studied is the division between the elite and the common man. Both these aspects are intertwined.

1. What happens when the elite Muslims marry four wives? By the way, four is just a number. The father of Osama bin Laden, Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden had 22 wives from whom he fathered 54 children. The propensity of the Islamic elite to overindulgence in marital bliss causes a certain scarcity among the women available to the rest of the males.

2. Also there is the issue of Mahr, an amount a groom presents to the bride at the time of marriage, a sort of 'purchase-money'. In many societies in Middle East, this amount is often large as it responds to supply and demand. The Islamic elite often push this amount ever higher. Thus one finds many Muslim youth who are unable to afford it.

3. There is a very strict control over the freedom of women, and often in many Islamic countries they are not allowed to go out, and even if they go out they often do it in Niqāb or Burqa, so that men are not allowed to see or talk to these women. They are a closely guarded property. Prostitutes too may be available but again only to the very rich. This is a complete visual deprivation of the opposite sex in Muslim society.

What this does is, it creates a market of scarcity of women, and increases sexual frustration by suppressing all avenues for a release. Prostitution, *****, homosexuality and even masturbation are prohibited or heavily controlled, basically creating a pressure cooker for the Muslim man.

At the same time, a controlled channel for release of this pent up sexual frustration is created through targeted propaganda.

1. Stories of Jannat with virgins waiting to embrace the Mujahiddin, those fallen in battle for Islam are standard nourishment for the young Muslim male mind.

2. Full sanction is given by the doctrine to pursue right-handed possessions of enslaved Kufr women.

3. A certain contempt for Kufr women among Muslim men is nurtured, so that his interest is confined to sexual pleasure and perhaps procreation rather than a healthy wholesome relationship with a woman to whom he pledges fidelity. Basically this is a form of vaccination against love and loyalty to Kufr women, so that the faith of the Muslim man is not corrupted by the culture of the Kufr woman.

4. In Syria one now sees Islamic clerics issuing fatwas favoring Muslim women to provide sexual services to Jihadis.

This system of building up pent-up sexual frustration among the Muslim men through a scarcity of Muslim women as well as presenting Jihad as a means of delivering sexual fulfillment is a sociopolitical model used by Islamic Elite to not only enjoy a life of sexual bountifulness but also a means to pursue their imperialistic agendas of pushing poorer Muslim men into global Jihad or making use of them as attack dogs to strengthen their control over Islamic society.

[Agnimitra]

Regarding the solid basis of subterfuge, deception, arbitrary breaking of treaties and infiltration of all types - demographic and of concealed weapons - found in teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as well as demonstrated by actions of his Holy Companions under his discipleship:

X-posting from the Future Strategic Scenario of Indian Subcontinent thread:

http://www.albalagh.net/qa/Kashmir_Jihad_qa.shtml

Treaty Obligations in Shariah: Kashmir Jihad and Simla Agreement

Further the interpretation of "not breaking treaty in secret manner but openly" is a kind of fudging. The precedences used to build the shariah in most schools of jurisprudence for this specific aspect is based on the founder's supposed actual behaviour in the early raids.

These cases actually can be and have been used historically by the ulema to justify surprise attacks on allies. Night time raids that affect women and children and non-combatants, on unarmed people who never expected the attack because they thought they were allies - were all undertaken. Mostly on the excuse that an angel had visited the founder in a vision with insider info that the hitherto allies were planning a betrayal.

With great glee and appreciation the ahadith spend line after line on the surprise with which "allied" people were simply getting up in the morning to go to their orchards when the early Islamics fell on them with full battle gear under the personal leadership of the founder.

But it is also patently dishonest on the part of the author of that piece to claim that these stuff were always done openly - no, for there are explicit pieces in both the main and the subsidiary texts that justify secret assassinations, support for such assassination raids, ambushes on people with whom there were formal treaties. The calls were given from the first or early mosque at Jewish outpost of Yathrib - renamed Medina after genocide of the Jews from the spot.

^^^

The phrase "الحرب خدعة" ("War is deception") is authentic (sahih) hadith from the lips of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It was narrated by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, and Tirmidhi, (among others).

There is commentary on this particular hadith also. since it is in Bukhari and Muslim, ibn Hajar and al-Nawawi have most likely commented on it. And since subterfuge and deception is now universally considered a very important aspect of war by all fundamentally political philosophies, many books about jihad will also speak about it.

Refer to the 'Mashaari al-Ashwaaq' - the english language lecture series by the Arab-American fugitive preacher Anwar al-'Awlaqi. He does touches upon this and tells the story of the assassination of Ka'b ibn Maalik the Jew, in which the Sahabah (Companions of the Prophet) who assassinated him deceived him first, pretending to be friendly and making up a story to be able to bring their weapons into the city without it being suspicious. He also narrates the story of Nu'aym.

Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari was a scholar who lived between 224AH and 310AH. Two of his very famous works: Tafseer al-Tabari, and Tareekh al-Tabari. [tareekh = history]

[Prem]

I think the Kaab who got murdered by deception was Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf.

[ramana]

Agnimitra, Read this

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Cont ... ion-338807

Let us take a moment to honor these heroes – all of them Jews – of the American Revolution: Francis Salvador, Benjamin Nones, David Salisbury Franks, and Haym Salomon. Salvador was one of the first Jews to join Washington’s Continental Army and fell in battle. Nones, a Jew born in France, joined the forces of liberty, rising to the rank of major. Franks, born in Philadelphia, served with honor as the aide-de-camp to Brigadier General Benedict Arnold and was exonerated after his commander’s treason. Haym Salomon – the Polish-born financier of the Revolution – is well-known today, his legend growing with the great wave of Jewish immigration to America from Eastern Europe over a century ago.

We honor our heroes. As the son of an infantry sergeant in the US Army – my father fought in battles in Germany and Bohemia in the last months of World War II – I am proud of my father’s service to America. Yet, when we acknowledge the role of Jews in the American Revolution, we must understand that this acknowledgment is tinged by apologetics and revisionist history.

The American Revolution was very much a holy and just religious war. Certainly this was so in the eyes of the Protestants who founded our nation and fought on the field of battle.

We often believe that Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was the sole spark that exploded into colonial rebellion against King George. In fact, as demonstrated by Professor James P. Byrd of Vanderbilt University Divinity School in his recent study of sermons delivered by ministers before, during and after the revolution, Christian clergy had great impact in inspiring the colonists to fight – and often to die – for their country.

Yes, as American Jews repeat often, the colonists had a strong sense of being the “New Israelites” and the basis of many of the sermons were stories of David and Deborah in the Hebrew Bible. Moses and the Exodus from Egypt were events in Israelite history that encouraged and emboldened the clergy and the Continental Army to rebel. But we must be much more honest about the role of Christian Scriptures – including “the New Testament” – in the religious rhetoric of what the fighters considered a war against demonic evil. The American Revolution – for many but not all of those who fought the British – was very much a “Christian War” fought by a “Christian Nation.” Every American – and anyone interested in the roots and history of the United States – should read Sacred Scripture, Sacred War: The Bible and the American Revolution. I would not dare summarize the complexity of author Byrd’s thesis in the space of this essay.

I was brought up believing that America of the revolutionary period was a “religiously neutral” nation. In fact, the reality of the American Revolution should make some American Jews – and a few secular humanists – a bit uncomfortable. Byrd devotes most of his study to the Hebrew Bible’s impact on pastors.

Byrd’s analysis of the sermons of the Revolution would not please Jewish apologists who would never admit to being “latecomers” to American soil who were not the prime founders of a country of Protestant Christians who, more than anything else, were followers of the militant Christ of Luther, not the Enlightenment God of Locke. The Vanderbilt divinity professor provides many examples of Christian Scriptures and their impact on Americans fighting a crusade. No, the Revolution was not just a fight against “taxation without representation.” It was a struggle with demonic forces in a religious – and sometimes apocalyptic – scenario.

This is seen most clearly in American ministers’ use of the book of Revelation in their sermons. While the apocalyptic book of Christian Scriptures was not the main source for the preaching of church sermons, it did play a critical role in inspiring men to fight the British. Revelation remains today a bizarre book with an array of strange images that have confounded readers and believers for millennia. Professor Byrd delves into Revelation as a source for Revolutionary sermons.

In an attempt to convince Americans that Jesus never condoned pacifism, ministers cited Revelation 19. This particular chapter features Christ as the “militant victor.”

This was a Christ wielding “a sharp sword” that would “smite the nations” in judgment, laying down “the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” King George embodied the demonic enemy who fought “Christ the Warrior.” During the Revolution, ministers invoked the “Christus Victor” of battle and violence to inspire their flock to fight. Americans martyred themselves on the field of battle, inspired by the image of a Jesus who fought evil {Founding fathers of America Jefferson always kept a Quran with himself.}, not a meek, “turn the other cheek” teacher.

The reality that Christian faith bolstered and emboldened the emerging nation of America in 1776 should be a threat to no one’s religious liberties today in the United States. It is simply a fact of history. But it is hard for American Jews to grasp this, especially when the Jewish experience historically in Christian lands has been an experience often of persecution and Jew hatred. The Christ as “militant victor” is the same force that persecuted Jews as the “sons of the Devil,” in the extreme hatred of Jews evoked by Luther in his later writings. To believe that the revolution which founded a nation based in freedom of religion was rooted in the same forces that represented anti-Jewish animus is a hard reality to swallow.

As well, American Jews are the most secular ethnic group in the US. Some Jews want to rewrite the narrative of American independence devoid of God. They are not comfortable with the reality that Christianity has played an important role in the development of our nation. Finally, while the masses of Jews came from Russia and Romania to America in the millions more than a century ago, American Jews still need to stake a claim in America’s founding to “fit in” and legitimize Jews as true Americans. While this is a legitimate enterprise, it should not be done at the risk of rewriting America’s history in Orwellian fashion.

Admitting that America emerged as a “Christian nation” with Christian founders – that many American colonists sacrificed their lives on the battlefield in the name of a Christian faith that promoted liberty and freedom from tyranny – in no way detracts from the heroism of the small Jewish population in colonial America in the War for Independence.

As for Moses in American lore, the picture is far more complex than that posed by American Jews who are proud of our country’s “Exodus Heritage.” In one of his few references to Judaism is his private correspondence, Founding Father Thomas Jefferson writes in 1820 to fellow patriot William Short: “Moses had bound the Jews to many idle ceremonies, mummeries and observances, of no effect towards producing the social utilities which constitute the essence of virtue; Jesus exposed their futility and insignificance. The one instilled into his people the most anti-social spirit towards other nations; the other preached philanthropy and universal charity and benevolence.”

Jefferson’s portrait of Moses is not flattering.

Jesus is Jefferson’s hero. Not a comfortable image for American Jews to find in the literature of a Founder of this great nation – but a real one embodied in our country’s history.

Let us face this reality with honesty, grace and a sense of history not distorted by an out-of-date and insecure apologetic stance.

is Islam's Muhammad based on the Revelation Christ figure? So far I had been mistaking him to be based on Old Testament figures and pre-Nicean Christians.

Second is Jefforson's chracterization of Moses and Jesus based on colonial dogma of the old being native/savage and the new being civilizing!

IOW another version of the AIT?

So Jews are Dravidians
Christians are Aryans?

[Agnimitra]

X-post from TSP thread:

THE SOUL OF A MAN CAN ONLY BE TOUCHED BY TERROR

i recently came across a book written by a retired Pakistani Brigadier, S K malik, " The Quranic Concept Of War"
The book written in 1979, is well known amongst Indian Army . The book has forward written by Zia himself.

some points are really revealing:

1.The quranic military strategy enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war, to the out most in order to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies.
2. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy, it is the decision we wish to impose.
3. Strike Terror, but never feel terror.
4. The ultimate objective of this form of warfare revolves around the human heart the enemies soul, spirit and faith.
5. Terror can be installed only if the opponents faith is destroyed.
6. It is essential in the ultimate analysis to dislocate the enemies faith.
7. Psychological dislocation, is temporary, spiritual dislocation, is permanent.
8. The soul of man can only be touched by terror.

It seems powerful, but from what we know, the PA will outsource terror and be happy looking after business like making corn flakes and NLC and will not keep the water from boiling over since it will affect their personal aggrandizement plans.

any way happy reading.
http://wolfpangloss.files.wordpress.com ... of-war.pdf

[Agnimitra]

is Islam's Muhammad based on the Revelation Christ figure? So far I had been mistaking him to be based on Old Testament figures and pre-Nicean Christians.

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his Qur'an repeatedly claim that they were foretold by the Bible and other Hebrew scriptures, and the Qur'an is very keen to win the approval of the Jews and win over trophy Jewish converts. In this scheme of things, Muhammad is identified with the holy spirit that is to come after Christ, but before the final doomsday scenario and the second coming of Christ. In that sense, Muhammad does act as the harbinger of the apocalyptic Christ of the Revelations. But on the other hand, Christian theologians for centuries have used other passages to prove that Muhammad is actually the anti-Christ, the impostor who also comes just before the apocalyptic clash and dissolution. In either case, real or impostor, the characteristics are pretty much the same as what flows from this Abrahamic conception of time, memory, and its 'progress'. (see below).

Second is Jefferson's characterization of Moses and Jesus based on colonial dogma of the old being native/savage and the new being civilizing!

IOW another version of the AIT?

So Jews are Dravidians
Christians are Aryans?

I wouldn't say that this idea of the dialectic of brutal conquest and then 'progress' necessarily characterizes the conquered people as "savage". Rather, they are typically characterized as an older, more sophisticated and "settled" but "encrusted" civilization that has become effete and lost its vitality, and is now full of rigid and fossilized injustices or is very tame and ridiculous, lacking in that primeval animal instinct. Then the less "civilized" but more mobile, fresh, energetic, expansive, living in present time, race comes and conquers it, and then absorbs the good stuff while subduing the bad stuff, and so the Hegelian 'geist' now enters the new race to take humanity forward. Etc. In this scheme of things, there is not only such dialectic conquest and wasting away of races, but even within a society there is this supposedly necessary wasting away - in a brutal, physical manner, and using oppression, brainwashing, manipulation and subterfuge (as opposed to an enlightened self-sacrifice). As Nietzsche said, "civilization" is built on "violence". This appears to be the Western Christian and also Islamic concept of the movements of time, historical memory and the self.