Month: September 2012

How ‘Religious Defamation’ Laws Would Ban Islam

Written by Raymond Ibrahim   

Wednesday, 26 September 2012

(Note – Insert in italics are byskanda987.)

Front Page Magazine
http://www.copts.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4124&Itemid=1

If films and cartoons defame Islam, the Quran itself defames other religions.

 

As the Islamic world, in the guise of the 57-member state Organization of Islamic Cooperation, continues to push for the enforcement of “religious defamation” laws in the international arena—theoretically developed to protect all religions from insult, but in reality made for Islam—one great irony is lost, especially on Muslims: if such laws would ban movies and cartoons that defame Islam, they would also, by logical extension, have to ban the religion of Islam itself—the only religion whose core texts actively defame other religions.

(There is already a valid reason why Islam can be declared illegal in any kafir country. The reason is – Islam does not approve any democratic government. Islam only accepts Sharia law and constitution. There is no separation of church and state in Islam.  Therefore, the kafirs need to unite and with grass root democratic action ammend the constitution declaring Islam illegal. – Skanda987)

To understand this, consider what “defamation” means. Typical dictionary-definitions include “to blacken another’s reputation” and “false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel.” In Muslim usage, defamation simply means anything that insults or offends Islamic sensibilities.

 

However, to gain traction among the international community, the OIC maintains that such laws should protect all religions from defamation, not just Islam. Accordingly, the OIC is agreeing that any expression that “slanders” the religious sentiments of others should be banned.

What, then, do we do with Islam’s core religious texts—beginning with the Quran itself, which slanders, denigrates and blackens the reputation of other religions? Consider Christianity alone: Quran 5:73 declares that “Infidels are they who say Allah is one of three,” a reference to the Christian Trinity; Quran 5:73 says “Infidels are they who say Allah is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary”; and Quran 9:30 complains that “the Christians say the Christ is the son of Allah … may Allah’s curse be upon them!”

 

Considering that the word “infidel” (or kafir) is one of Islam’s most derogatory terms, what if a Christian book or Western movie appeared declaring that “Infidels are they who say Muhammad is the prophet of God—may God’s curse be upon them”? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the Quran defames Christians and Christianity.

 

Similarly, consider how the Christian Cross, venerated among millions, is depicted—is defamed—in Islam: according to canonical hadiths, when he returns, Jesus supposedly will destroy all crosses; and Muhammad, who never allowed the cross in his presence, ordered someone wearing a cross to “take off that piece of idolatry.”

 

What if Christian books or Western movies declared that the sacred things of Islam—say the Black Stone in the Ka’ba of Mecca—are “idolatry” and that Muhammad himself will return and destroy them? If Muslims would consider that defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that the hadith defames the Christian Cross.

 

Here is a particularly odious form of defamation against Christian sentiment, especially to the millions of Catholic and Orthodox Christians. According to Islam’s most authoritative Quranic exegetes, including the revered Ibn Kathir, Muhammad is in paradise married to and having sex with the Virgin Mary.

 

What if a Christian book or Western movie portrayed, say, Muhammad’s wife, Aisha the “Mother of Believers,” as being married to and having sex with a false prophet in heaven? If Muslims would consider that a great defamation against Islam—and they would, with all the attendant rioting, murders, etc.—then by the same standard it must be admitted that Islam’s most authoritative Quranic exegetes defame the Virgin Mary.

 

Nor does such defamation of Christianity occur in Islam’s ancient texts only; modern day Muslim scholars and sheikhs agree that it is permissible to defame Christianity. Qatar-based “Islam Web” even issued a fatwa that legitimizes insulting Christianity.

 

Now consider the wording used by Muslim leaders calling on the U.N. to enforce religious defamation laws in response to the Muhammad film on YouTube, and how these expressions can easily be used against Islam:

 

The OIC “deplored… an offensive and derogatory film on the life of Prophet Muhammad” and “called on the producers to show respect to the religious sentiments held sacred by Muslims and those of other faiths.”

 

But what about the “offensive and derogatory” depictions of Christianity in Islam’s core texts? Are Muslims willing to expunge these from the Quran and hadith, “to show respect to the religious sentiments held sacred … by those of other faiths,” in this case, Christians?

 

Turkish Prime Minister Erodgan said the film “insults religions” (note the inclusive plural) and called for “international legal regulations against attacks on what people [not just Muslims] deem sacred.”

 

Well, what about the fact that Islam “insults religions”—including Judaism and all polytheistic faiths? Should the West call for “international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred,” in the case of Christianity, regulations against Islam’s teachings which attack the sanctity of Christ’s divinity, the Cross, and Virgin Mary?

 

Even Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti—who a few months ago called for the destruction of all Christian churches in the Arabian Peninsula (first reported here)—is calling for a “global ban on insults targeting all” religious figures, while the Grand Imam of Egypt’s Al Azhar is calling for “a U.N. resolution outlawing ‘insulting symbols and sanctities of Islam’ and other religions.” Again, they, too, claim to be interested in banning insults to all religions, while ignoring the fact that their own religion is built atop insulting all other religions.

 

And surely this is the grandest irony of all: the “defamation” that Muslims complain about—and that prompts great violence and bloodshed  around the world—revolves around things like movies and cartoons, which are made by individuals who represent only themselves; on the other hand, Islam itself, through its holiest and most authoritative texts, denigrates and condemns—in a word, defames—all other religions, not to mention calls for violence against them (e.g., Quran 9:29).

 

It is this issue, Islam’s perceived “divine” right to defame and destroy, that the international community should be addressing—not silly cartoons and films.

 

From the heart of a Muslim

 

From: devindersingh < >

(Note – The inserts in italics are by Skanda987)

Soon after Partition, Pakistani leaders realised that religious and political Islam would not transform into constitutional Islam that could accommodate all faiths and peoples. The Objectives Resolution passed by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in 1949, declared that `sovereignty belongs to Allah’ (not to the people) and the state should enable the Muslims to order their lives in accordance with Islam.

A study by Aparna Pande, a scholar at the well-known Hudson Institute, in the US, says that this very objective “gave rise to a central question that has bedeviled Pakistan ever since its creation: If Islam is to be the basis of the state, whose Islam will be followed and how?” Whose Islam? Are there many, diverse, Islams? Yes.

The report of the judicial commission (1954) headed by Pakistan’s Chief Justice Munir to inquire into the large-scale violence against the Ahmedia sect put the issue `whose Islam’ pithily thus:

– no two of the several Ulamas are `agreed on’ what is Islam;

– a person who is a Muslim under the definition given by one Ulama, will be kafir according to every other Ulama; and

– no new definition is possible as any definition that `differs from that given by all others’ will be `out of the fold of Islam’.

QED: Islam prescribes One God, but there is no One Islam.

In their blind anti-Hindu rage, Muslims of undivided India created Islamic Pakistan which, they now find they cannot keep up nor give up. After Partition, Pakistan’s diverse inhabitants had no `common identity that might bind them together’ and Pakistan has `struggled with this lack of a common identity and principle ever since’, says the Hudson study.

Hans Morgenthau, a leading 20th century scholar on international politics, said prophetically in 1956 itself:

“Pakistan is not a nation and hardly a state, with no justification in history, ethnic origin, language, civilisation, or the consciousness of its population…it is hard to see how anything but a miracle…will assure Pakistan’s future.”

The dilemma of Pakistan is brilliantly captured by a Pakistani scholar, Waheed-uz-Zaman, in 1973:

“If we let go the ideology of Islam, we cannot hold together as a nation by any other means…. If the Arabs, the Turks, the Iranians, god forbid, give up Islam, the Arabs yet remain Arabs, the Turks remain Turks, the Iranians remain Iranians, but what do we remain if we give up Islam?”

Authentic translations of Koran and Hadith, the Books of Islam, are available in English and other languages. The printing press, internet, and cell phones allow us to spread the messages of Koran or any other Book. No need to rely on mullahs to evaluate what Islam is.

Based o the quotes I have read and collected at https://skanda987.wordpress.com/category/islam/

I clearly see that Islam in almost any form or sect is not tolerant of any other faith in the world. Islam teaches follower to not rest till the whole world’s land and lives are under Islam and sharia. There is no ‘separation of church and state (SCS)’ (religion and politics or social lives) in Islam. The 1400 years of history of Islam supports this view strongly. The history shows that wherever Islam invades or enters, there is no peace.

Islam has spread mostly by invasions and forcible conversions, and by producing children with four wives like pigs and forcing Islam on the children. Islam does not approve a democratic government. For this reason all the non-Muslim countries need to declare Islam illegal.

The creation of Pakistan is in accordance of the agenda of Islam and the foolishness of the Hindu politicians of the time 1947 in Bhaarat. Since 1000 years the Hindus have been thinking that they can assimilate Muslims as they did Parsis or Jews in Bhaarat, the Vedic land. While Gandhi did not read Koran, and assumed Islam is a god religion, Jinnah clearly said in 1947 that Islam is not compatible with the Hindu dharma, and asked for a separate Muslim state. This (that the Islam is barbaric and not tolerant) becomes very clear when you read Koran and Bhagavad Gita that is well known as the Book of Hindu (Vedic) dharma.

The Vedic dharma is universal religion for mankind, and is tolerant of all the tolerant faiths. Forgetting that, the Hindus foolishly have kept tolerating the intolerant and forcibly invaded religion Islam. This is a cause of the creation of Pakistan.

So, if the Hindus do not wake up now and make Bhaarat a Vedic state (not a ‘secular” one), then the Vedic dharma and sanskriti are doomed. We the Vedics valued the Vedic heritage since millenniums, and have carried forward this precious heritage for mankind till now; and it can vanish from its cradle (Bhaarat) and the world just in 50-100 years if we do not make Bhaarat a Vedic state. It can vanhsi because the anti-Vedic forces are brutal, organized, and well funded and named. To counter, we need to unite, organize, and put our money and efforts to save dharma. It is called dharma because it is universal religion for mankind.

Jai sri Krishna! – Skanda987)

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strategic-geopolitical-issues/201538-pakistan-s-existential-crisis.html#ixzz25rcA4as2

 

From: balayogi venkataraman < >

OUTSTANDING U.S. HISTORIAN CALLS BRITISH RULE IN INDIA GREATEST CRIME IN ALL HISTORY

I was a school boy in Karachi when I first heard the name of Katherine Mayo, notorious author of a viciously anti-India book, titled Mother India. Mahatma Gandhi had condemned the book as a “gutter inspector’s report”!

Mayo was an American journalist who wrote this book around 1927, stoutly defending British Rule in India. She also vehemently attacked Hindu society, religion and culture.

About the same time, I heard of two other American authors who had written almost as passionately in favour of India and against the Britishers. The first of these, Will Durant, had the reputation of being one of the world’s greatest historians, and philosophers. The other was a Church leader, Rev. Jabez Thomas Sunderland.

Will Durant’s life time achievement is his eleven volume series “The Story of Civilisation” a monumental set of volumes written in collaboration with his wife Ariel. Will and Ariel were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-fiction in 1968.

Will Durant’s other largely popular work, The Story of Philosophy, brought philosophy to the lay person.

On his first visit to India in 1896, Sunderland met Justice Mahadev Govind Ranade and Bengali Nationalist Surendra Nath Bannerji. He was the first American to attend an annual session of the Indian National Congress.

I recall reading around 1945 a very powerful book of his, India in Bondage. Gandhiji and Rabindra Nath Tagore wrote to him letters of gratitude. The book was banned in India by the British Government.

Not many may be aware that when the British came to India in the eighteenth century this country was politically weak but economically very wealthy.

This wealth, wrote Sunderland in the above book, was created by the Hindus’ vast and varied industries.

“India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than any in Europe or than any other in Asia.  Her textile goods – the fine products of her looms, in cotton, wool, linen and silk – were famous over the civilized world; so were her exquisite jewelry and her precious stones cut in every lovely form; so were her pottery, porcelains, ceramics of every kind, quality, color and beautiful shape; so were her fine works in metal – iron, steel, silver and good.  She had great architecture – equal in beauty to any in the world. She had great engineering works. She had great merchants, great businessmen, great bankers and financiers. Not only was she the greatest ship-building nation, but she had great commerce and trade by land and sea which extended to all known civilized countries. Such was the India which the British found when they came.

 

**

 

I have, however, come upon lately a short book written by William Durant in 1930 titled “The Case for India”, but which had been out of print for many decades. Strand Book Stall of Mumbai and its Founder T.N. Shanbagh have done signal service to history by procuring a photo copy of Durant’s book from Mohandas Pai of Infosys and having it republished in 2007.

 

In his introductory note to his “The Case for India”, Durant writes:

 

“I went to India to help myself visualize a people whose cultural history I had been studying for The Story of Civilisation…

“But I saw such things in India as made me feel that study and writing were frivolous things in the presence of a people-one-fifth of the human race – suffering poverty and oppression bitterer than any to be found elsewhere on the earth. I was horrified. I had not thought it possible that any government could allow its subjects to sink to such misery.

“I came away resolved to study living India as well as the India with the brilliant past; to learn more of this unique Revolution that fought with suffering accepted but never returned; to read the Gandhi of today as well as the Buddha of long ago. And the more I read the more I was filled with astonishment and indignation at the apparently conscious and deliberate bleeding of India by England throughout a hundred and fifty years. I began to feel that I had come upon the greatest crime in all history.” (Emphasis added)

Durant refers extensively to Sunderland’s writings and says that “those who have seen the unspeakable poverty and physiological weakness of the Hindus today will hardly believe that it was the wealth of eighteenth century India which attracted the commercial pirates of England and France”.

 

It was this wealth that the East India Company proposed to appropriate, Durant says.  Already in 1686 the East India Company’s Directors declared their intention to “establish …a large, well-grounded, sure English dominion in India for all time to come”.

 

 

 

In 1757, Robert Clive defeated the Rajah of Bengal at Plassey and declared his Company the owner of the richest province in India. Durant adds: Clive added further territory by forging and violating treaties, by playing one native prince against another, and by generous bribes given and received. Four million dollars were sent down the river to Calcutta in one shipment. He accepted “presents” amounting to $ 1,170,000 from Hindu rulers dependent upon his favour and his guns; pocketed from them, in addition, an annual tribute of $ 140,000; took to opium, was investigated and exonerated by Parliament, and killed himself.  “When I think”, he said, “of the marvelous riches of that country, and the comparatively small part which I took away, I am astonished at my own moderation”. Such were the morals of the men who proposed to bring civilization to India.

 

India-analysts often talk very disparagingly about India’s caste-system. Will Durant, however, used the casteist metaphor to substantiate his condemnation of British dominion over India as the greatest crime in all history.

 

Under sub-heading “The Caste System in India” Durant writes :

 

“The present caste system in India consists of four classes: the real Brahmans i.e. the British bureaucracy; the real Kshatriyas i.e. the British army; the real Vaisyas i.e. the British traders; and the real Sudras and Untouchables i.e. the Hindu people.”

 

After dealing with the first three castes the author writes:

 

“The final element in the real caste system of India is the social treatment of the Hindus by the British. The latter may be genial Englishmen when they arrive, gentlemen famous as lovers of fair play; but they are soon turned, by the example of their leaders and the poison of irresponsible power, into the most arrogant and over-bearing bureaucracy on earth. “Nothing can be more striking,” said a report to Parliament, in 1830, “than the scorn with which the people have been practically treated at the hands of even those who were actuated by the most benevolent motives”. Sunderland reports that the British treat the Hindus as strangers and foreigners in India, in a manner “quite as unsympathetic, harsh and abusive as was ever seen among the Georgia and Louisiana planters in the old days of American slavery”.

 

Durant then quotes Gandhiji saying that the foreign system under which India was governed had reduced Indians to “pauperism and emasculation”.

 

Durant comments “As early as 1783 Edmund Burke predicted that the annual drain of Indian resources to England without equivalent return would eventually destroy India. From Plassey to Waterloo, fifty-seven years, the drain of India’s wealth to England is computed by Brooks Adams at two-and-a-half to five billion dollars. Macaulay suggested long ago, that it was this stolen wealth from India which supplied England with free capital for the development of mechanical inventions, and so made possible the Industrial Revolution.”

 

Will Durant wrote his book “The case for India” in 1930. When some time later the book was noticed by Rabindranath Tagore, he wrote an article in the Modern Review of March, 1931 warmly complimenting Will Durant, and Tagore observed: “I was surprised when I noticed in Will Durant’s book a poignant note of pain at the suffering and indignity of the people who are not his kindred. I know that the author will have a small chance of reward in popularity from his readers and his book may even run the risk of being proscribed to us, not having the indecency to deal with an unwholesome calumny against the people who are already humiliated by their own evil fortune. But he, I am sure, has his noble compensation in upholding the best tradition of the West in its championship of freedom and fair play.”

 

TAILPIECE

 

William Durant and Ariel Durant shared a love story as remarkable as their scholarship. In October, 1981, William fell ill, and was taken to the hospital. After he was hospitalized, Ariel stopped eating. On October 25, she died. When William learnt that Ariel had died, he passed away on November 7.

 

L.K. Advani

 

New Delhi

 

15 July, 2012