From: Deva samaroo < >

Saudi Arabia Hypocrisy at Its Best

CALL FOR RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE BUT FUND THE TALIBAN

DO NOT ALLOW ANY OTHER RELIGION TO EXIST IN SAUDI ARABIA

AND BANNED ANY OTHER RELIGION BOOKS TO ENTER THE COUNTRY

NO CITIZENSHIP FOR NON ARABIAN

by Raymond Ibrahim

Few things offer surreal experiences as when Islam and the West interact—when 7^th century primordialism encounters 21^st century relativism. Consider the issue of “interfaith dialogue.” In principle, it is a decent thing: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others trying to reach a common ground and professing mutual respect. But what does one make of the gross contradictions that emerge when a human-rights violating nation calls for “dialogue,” even as it enforces religious intolerance on its own turf?
Enter Saudi Arabia. Birthplace of Islam, the Arabian kingdom is also the one Muslim nation that regularly sponsors interfaith initiatives in the West—even as its official policy back home is to demonize and persecute the very faiths it claims to want to have an interfaith dialogue with.
Back in 2008, for example, in what was deemed an unprecedented move, Saudi King Abdullah “made an impassioned plea for dialogue among Muslims, Christians, and Jews” going so far as to refer to the latter two as “our brothers.” His stated goal was to develop “respect among religions.”
The Saudi monarch’s most recent initiative reached fruition on November 26 2012, when the King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz International Center for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue was launched in the Austrian capital, Vienna. According to its own website, the center “was founded to enable, empower and encourage dialogue among followers of different religions and cultures around the world.” Lending international legitimacy to this Saudi gesture of goodwill, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was among those who attended the opening.
While all this ostensibly sounds well and good, consider the many incongruities, the many absurdities—initially demonstrated by the simple fact that Saudi Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, who was quoted praising the Austrian-based center as proof that “Islam is a religion of dialogue and understanding and not a religion of enmity, fanaticism, and violence,” is also on record calling Jews “monkeys and pigs” and Christians “cross worshippers.”
Nor is he just a run-of-the-mill sheikh: he is the government-appointed imam of Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mosque in Mecca—Islam’s holiest site, where Christians, Jews, and others are routinely condemned and cursed during the prayers of the faithful.
But this is not surprising. Even the State Department’s most recent internal religious freedom report on Saudi Arabia notes that “Freedom of religion is neither recognized nor protected under the law and is severely restricted in practice. The public practice of any religion other than Islam is prohibited, and there is no separation between state and religion.”
And this is the key point: Saudi Arabia’s brand of religious intolerance is not a product of the “Arab street,” terrorists, or mob violence. It is institutionalized; it is enforced by the state itself. In other words, religious intolerance is being implemented by the very people who claim to want to have dialogue with Christians and Jews under the umbrella of “tolerance” and “mutual respect.”
In this context, what, exactly, do they wish to talk about?
Do they wish to talk about how the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia—yet another top ranked Saudi religious official—declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region,” basing his verdict on the commands of Muslim prophet Muhammad?
Do they wish to talk about how, despite promising to reform their school textbooks, the Saudi education system continues to indoctrinate Muslim children with hatred and incitement, teaching that “Christians are the enemies of the Believers” and that the “the Apes are the people of the Sabbath, the Jews; and the Swine are the infidels of the communion of Jesus, the Christians”? Little wonder the imam of Mecca’s Grand Mosque uses such monikers—even as he gushes about the Saudi-sponsored Vienna-based initiative for “dialogue.”
Maybe they wish to talk about the 28-year-old Saudi woman, Maryam, who, after converting to Christianity, had to flee the nation, and is reportedly currently hiding in Sweden, even as authorities try to extradite her back to Saudi Arabia to face the crime of apostasy, which calls for the death penalty? Earlier Maryam had said that, though she “was raised to hate Judaism and Christianity she has come to love those religions since finding peace in Christianity.”
Do they wish to talk about how 35 Christian Ethiopians were arrested and abused for almost a year, simply for holding a private house prayer? Upon release, one of the Christians observed that “The Saudi officials do not tolerate any religions other than Islam. They consider non-Muslims unbelievers. They are full of hatred towards non-Muslims.”
Or do they wish to talk about how just last December 2012, Saudi “religious police” stormed a house in the province of al-Jouf, detaining more than 41 guests for, in the words of the police statement, “plotting to celebrate Christmas“?
Of course, the Vienna-based King Abdullah International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue does not wish to talk about any of these instances of state-enforced religious intolerance. Instead, the purpose of the center’s existence is to deflect criticism from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries, and direct it onto the West. This was amply demonstrated during the center’s inaugural symposium, when Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the head of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, urged Western governments to enact laws countering “Islamophobia,” because it “leads to hate crimes and as such, it generates fear, feelings of stigmatization, marginalization, alienation and rejection.”
In other words, Saudi-sponsored “interfaith dialogue” is about one-way tolerance; that is, pressuring the West to show “tolerance” to Muslims by not criticizing them for persecuting others, which would be portrayed as “Islamophobia.”
It still remains to determine which is more surreal, more unbelievable: that Saudi Arabia, which tops the charts of state-enforced religious intolerance, is sponsoring “religious dialogue,” or that the West, including leaders of those religions whose adherents are daily persecuted by Saudi and Muslim intolerance, are going along with the gag—and all of them with a straight face.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum

India joined with Asia 10 million years later than previously thought
by Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office
Boston MA (SPX) Feb 14, 2013

The peaks of the Himalayas are a modern remnant of massive tectonic forces that fused India with Asia tens of millions of years ago. Previous estimates have suggested this collision occurred about 50 million years ago, as India, moving northward at a rapid pace, crushed up against Eurasia. The crumple zone between the two plates gave rise to the Himalayas, which today bear geologic traces of both India and Asia. Geologists have sought to characterize the rocks of the Himalayas in order to retrace one of the planet’s most dramatic tectonic collisions.

Now researchers at MIT have found that the collision between India and Asia occurred only 40 million years ago – 10 million years later than previously thought. The scientists analyzed the composition of rocks from two regions in the Himalayas, and discovered evidence of two separate collisional events: As India crept steadily northward, it first collided with a string of islands 50 million years ago, before plowing into the Eurasian continental plate 10 million years later.

Oliver Jagoutz, assistant professor of geology in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, says the results, which will be published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, change the timeline for a well-known tectonic story.

“India came running full speed at Asia and boom, they collided,” says Jagoutz, an author of the paper. “But we actually don’t think it was one collision … this changes dramatically the way we think India works.”

‘How great was Greater India?’
In particular, Jagoutz says, the group’s findings may change scientists’ ideas about the size of India before it collided with Asia. At the time of collision, part of the ancient Indian plate – known as “Greater India” – slid underneath the Eurasian plate.

What we see of India’s surface today is much smaller than it was 50 million years ago. It’s not clear how much of India lies beneath Asia, but scientists believe the answer may come partly from knowing how fast the Indian plate migrates, and exactly when the continent collided with Asia.

“The real question is, ‘How great was Greater India?'” Jagoutz says. “If you know when India hit, you know the size of Greater India.”

By dating the Indian-Eurasian collision to 10 million years later than previous estimates, Jagoutz and his colleagues conclude that Greater India must have been much smaller than scientists have thought.

“India moved more than 10 centimeters a year,” Jagoutz says. “Ten million years [later] is 1,000 kilometers less in convergence. That is a real difference.”

Leafing through the literature
To pinpoint exactly when the Indian-Eurasian collision occurred, the team first looked to a similar but more recent tectonic example. Over the last 2 million years, the Australian continental plate slowly collided with a string of islands known as the Sunda Arc. Geologists have studied the region as an example of an early-stage continental collision.

Jagoutz and his colleagues reviewed the geologic literature on Oceania’s rock composition. In particular, the team looked for telltale isotopes – chemical elements that morph depending on factors like time and tectonic deformation. The researchers identified two main isotopic systems in the region’s rocks: one in which the element lutetium decays to hafnium, and another in which samarium decays to neodymium. From their analysis of the literature, the researchers found that rocks high in neodymium and hafnium isotopes likely formed before Australia collided with the islands. Rocks high in neodymium and hafnium probably formed after the collision.

Heading to the Himalayas
Once the team identified the isotopic signatures for collision, it looked for similar signatures in rocks gathered from the Himalayas.

Since 2000, Jagoutz has trekked to the northwest corner of the Himalayas, a region of Pakistan and India called the Kohistan-Ladakh Arc. This block of mountains is thought to have been a string of islands that was sandwiched between the two continents as they collided. Jagoutz traversed the mountainous terrain with pack mules and sledgehammers, carving out rock samples from the region’s northern and southern borders. His team has brought back three tons of rocks, which he and his colleagues analyzed for signature isotopes.

The researchers split the rocks, and separated out more than 3,000 zircons – micron-long crystals containing isotopic ratios. Jagoutz and his colleagues first determined the age of each zircon using another isotopic system, in which uranium turns slowly to lead with time. The team then measured the ratios of strontium to neodymium, and lutetium to hafnium, to determine the presence of a collision, keeping track of where each zircon was originally found (along the region’s northern or southern border).

The team found a very clear signature: Rocks older than 50 million years contained exactly the same ratio of isotopes in both the northern and southern samples. However, Jagoutz found that rocks younger than 50 million years, along the southern boundary of the Kohistan-Ladakh Arc, suddenly exhibited a range of isotopic ratios, indicating a dramatic tectonic event. Along the arc’s northern boundary, the same sudden change in isotopes occurs, but only in rocks younger than 40 million years.

Taken together, the evidence supports a new timeline of collisional events: Fifty million years ago, India collided with a string of islands, pushing the island arc northward. Ten million years later, India collided with the Eurasian plate, sandwiching the string of islands, now known as the Kohistan-Ladakh Arc, between the massive continents.

“If you actually go back in the literature to the 1970s and ’80s, people thought this was the right way,” Jagoutz says. “Then somehow the literature went in another direction, and people largely forgot this possibility. Now this opens up a lot of new ideas.”

Source: http://www.terradaily.com/reports/India_joined_with_Asia_10_million_years_later_than_previously_thought_999.html

From: vavamenon < >

                                                  Dharma vs. Religion

Do Not Complain…

From: Harminder Kaur < >

One of my contacts sent this article,  I thought it’ll interest many of you.

Smash Those Statues

It was late 1947 when Pakistanis, in mad euphoria of Victory & Jehad, invaded Kashmir. Their advance was quick like the German “Blitzkrieg” in France, leaving a trail of death and destruction in their wake. They stabbed, burnt or beheaded every Infidel they came across and abducted and raped every female they could catch. Most could not hide or escape the Mohammedans. Harrowing tales of savagery and butchery reached the rest of India where people had already seen the predatory “beasts” in Western and Eastern Indian territories that had been deleted from the map of India and colored green earlier in August that year.

Prime Minister Nehru, a good friend of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, was forced to act by the Parliament to stop the raiders’ advance. He asked the ruler of the Princely State of Patiala, Yadavinder Singh to send his infantry to defend Srinagar.

In the post partition unimaginable chaos and bloodshed when millions of penniless grieving refugees were pouring into East Punjab and the rule of law had totally collapsed with the Muslims celebrating their historic victory over Hindusthan and with Lahore, the capital of Punjab and the sacred “Janmasthan” of Guru Nanak Dev surrendered by India in panic, the brave Sikh community was devastated. Sharing the misfortune of Hindus they, too, were going through bloodshed, uprooted in millions and forced to flee in all directions leaving homes and belongings behind. Hindus and Sikhs were facing HOLOCAUST.

A rumor started that the rulers of five Princely States in East Punjab were about to unite and save their people and territories by getting out of the “mutilated dying Akhand Bharat”, betrayed by its own treacherous and cowardly leaders.

Nehru, cleverly foreseeing that the separation of East Punjab would immediately lead to the establishment of “HINDU RASHTRA”, nipped the rumor in the bud by asking the ruler of the largest State, PATIALA, to send his troops to Kashmir in order to save Srinagar from falling into the hands of the Barbarians.

The regular Indian army, the veteran of the two World Wars now under orders to withdraw in disgrace from the surrendered territories, was in deep depression, confusion and disarray at that time. They were still busy counting their tanks, guns and the fighting units to go to Pakistan or remain in India but immediately rose to the occasion and joined the brave pioneering Sikh soldiers fighting in Kashmir.

However, seeing their rapid advance Jawaharlal Nehru got jitters and approached the United Nations to impose a cease fire in order to enable Pakistan to keep North Kashmir under her control. That is where the Indian soldiers are still stuck, trying to keep the enemy at bay while cursing both Nehru and Gandhi over the gruesome but futile loss of own lives.

Before starting on their journey to Kashmir the Jawans and officers of Patiala Light Infantry said prayers and then marched off, singing Guru Gobind Singhji’s soul stirring hymn, “Dih Shiva barr mohe ehai, Shubh Karmann te kabhoon na taroon.”

Along the way, they passed the statue of the “Sarkari Mahatma” *Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, erected on the island in Rajendra Lake that had replaced the statue of King Edward VII. (NB: *The clever British had three “pet dogs” in their Indian colony to do their bidding and serve their interests. They were Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah. When the time came to smash Akhand Bharat and set Muslims against Hindus and decimate the Sikhs, they all behaved as expected by our foreign masters and India lay in tatters.)

Ahimsa preaching Gandhi’s statue in that “mutilated” State of Warriors was in sheer contrast to the previous statue of the Imperial King, and seemed pathetic in the posture of a leaning frail old man, wearing only a loin cloth to cover his body and holding a long stick to stand upright.

The soldiers came back after saving Srinagar from the wild “beasts” of Islam and narrated to their friends and families about Gandhi, “We were marching in high spirits to the battlefields in Kashmir when we passed Gandhi’s statue. He seemed to be telling us, “You fools, you evil men of violence, drop your guns. Throw away your uniforms and the violent thoughts of fighting the invaders. Go and embrace them as brothers and move their conscience. They will be ashamed of their conduct and go away. Fools, go home and chant, Ishwar Allah tero Naam. Sab ko sanmati de Bhagwan.”

(Readers ought to be reminded that when the Japanese were advancing towards India (1944), Gandhi’s advice to the soldiers was to lie down in front of the Japanese tanks to “hurt their conscience” and compel them to turn back!)

People of Patiala, many grieving widows and crying orphans of Partition among them, who had earlier fought off Ahmed Shah Abdali and kept the marauding Afghans & Persians away, then hurled a foul (unprintable) abuse at the calamitous statue that seemed an uninspiring “mouse of a man” to the local warriors and stalwarts with the word “LION” (Singh) in their names.

In one voice they shouted, giving him an appropriate title, “O GOAT GANDHI, you have insulted the manhood and fighting traditions of our ancient land.”

They wanted the statue of Maharaja Ala Singh, the founder of Patiala State, instead. But Nehru smashed their aspirations and ordered the same to be kept.

Initially, Municipality cleaners appeared at least twice a day to remove the spit and the old torn shoes hurled at the statue by angry passers-by.

People of Patiala and every other city in Bharat are eagerly waiting for the advent of “HINDU RASHTRA” to sort out the dirty mess created by bogus Partition. The first good act will be the removal of the “Symbol of Slavery, Submission & Surrender”, i.e., the statues of MK Gandhi. There is no place for such a pathetic figure in our sovereign and strong Bharat.

Sixty-five years later all the NRI’s visiting their Motherland still see Gandhi statues all over Bharat, defiling the noble soil of Sri Krishna, Sri Rama and Guru Gobind Singhji. Under some strategic nefarious “Sarkari” design the statues of Gandhi have spread like mushrooms across Bharat. Elderly Indians can clearly recall the pictures of Hitler and the statues of Stalin in the same way in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union respectively.

The Supreme Commander of India, all the army generals, air marshals and the admirals, who drive past Gandhi’s statues- all of them, hear him speak to them silently, “You fools, I won my revolution, chasing out the Imperial British without firing a single shot. You fools, you men of violence, drop your guns, throw away your uniforms and rid your minds of the evil thoughts of fighting the enemy. Go home and chant, “Ishwar Allah tero Naam. Sab ko sanmati de Bhagwan.”

We are bound to think of all the Indian military attaches on earth. Can they not see as to what kind of national heroes the other countries have and honor? What kind of statues do they see every day in London, Paris, Berlin, Washington, even Prague, Warsaw, Vilnius, Tallin, Brussels and Madrid? Why don’t they tell their demoralized ignorant Supreme Commander back home to be brave and not look an IMBECILE?

If the defense of India is not a cheap joke then we need to seriously suggest some worthy names to the dishonest “Hindu bashing” rulers of India to consider while replacing this symbol of cowardice, defeat and surrender. Here are some:

Shivaji, Netaji, Gen Hari Singh Nalwa, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Banda Singh Bahadur, Rani of Jhansi, Maharana Pratap, Rana Sangha of Mewar, Ala Singh, the founder of Patiala State, the two little sons of Guru Gobind Singhji, brave boy called Hakikat Rai, Guru Tegh Bahadur, and so on.

Would the readers please suggest some more names that the present “Sarkar” has brushed under the carpet in Soniaji’s house? Surely our Bharat with its long history can come up with countless more names to replace the one of MK Gandhi who was called “semi naked faqir“ by Sir Winston Churchill and “GOAT” by each and every Hindu refugee from East and West Pakistan and from the State of Jammu & Kashmir.

Finally, a word about Gandhi’s courage and patriotism: He supported the cause of Caliphate in Baghdad but never noticed the ruins of our great historic Sri Rama Temple in Ayodhya. He never recalled what Churchill had said in the darkest hour of British history, i.e., “We will FIGHT the enemy in air, on land and water, till our final victory.”?

Gandhi’s morals, too, seemed dubious when he slept with two virgins, one on either side in bed. Some accuse him of being “gay” (homosexual). With regard to his moral courage, he did declare, “India will be cut on my dead body,” but how he DEFENDED his “Akhand Bharat” is known to the whole world. No wonder many call him the real “Father of Pakistan”!

To many Indians the sight of Gandhi’s statues brings vomit to the throat. Shame on those who call him “Father of Nation.”

“Is it a NATION of proud Hindus or the driven cattle,” is the question we need an answer to.

Gandhi himself, when alive, could not save Sindh, Balochistan, West Punjab, Pashtoon Khwa (NWFP) North Kashmir, Sylhet and East Bengal.

Is there anyone still foolish enough to think that his silent statues will save the Rest of India?

(No. The slogan of this time needs to be: “Gandhi bhuulo, Krishna suno.” – Skanda987)

Only ONE man in entire Hindusthan knew the answer. His name was Nathu Ram Godse.

-Rajput

1 Feb 13.