Excusing Muslim terrorists and blaming Hindus – David Frawley

Acharya David Frawley (Pandit Vamadeva Shastri)Muslim preachers like Zakir Naik are afforded respect even when teaching intolerance and excusing terrorism. Hindu gurus like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, on the contrary, are criticized and even sued for promoting world peace and the unity of humanity. And this is occurring in Bharat, which is not an Islamic country. – Dr David Frawley

Muslim preachers like Zakir Naik are afforded respect even when teaching intolerance and excusing terrorism. Hindu gurus like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, on the contrary, are criticized and even sued for promoting world peace and the unity of humanity. And this is occurring in Bharat, which is not an Islamic country.

Hindu gurus are kept in jail without bail, made the subject of long court cases, dragging out for years. The media presumes them guilty and does not ask for their release. When their names are eventually cleared, as in the case of Pujya Jayendra Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Kanchipuram, no apologies are offered for the derogatory stories published against them.

Hindu Sadhvi Pragya, accused of involvement in a terror attack, can be kept in jail for years without bail, drugged and tortured as a matter of investigation. This would not happen with a mullah or with a priest.

A Hindu politician like Kamlesh Tiwari can be held without bail for allegedly insulting Islam, while those insulting Hindu Dharma are excused or turned into media heroes, like the student protestors from JNU’s communist student union who denigrated Ma Durga—or for preachers like Naik who routinely demean Hindu deities, practices and theology on television shows.

A handout picture released by the King Faisal Foundation on March 1, 2015 shows Saudi King Salman bin Abdul Aziz (L) presenting Zakir Naik, president of the Islamic Research Foundation in India, with the 2015 King Faisal International Prize for Service to Islam in Riyadh. Naik was honoured for being one of the most renowned non-Arabic speaking promoters of Islam. He founded the Peace TV channel, billed as the world's only channel specialising in comparative religion. Inventing the Idea of Hindu Terror and Excusing Islamic Terrorism

Though there are numerous terrorist attacks by radical Islamists all over the world against various peoples and governments, including in Muslim majority states, Bharat’s media likes to blame Islamic terrorist acts in Bharat on Hindus for oppressing their Muslim minority. It attributes these horrific acts to poverty and discrimination, and will not associate them with Islam as a religion or speak of Islamic terror, in spite of such Muslim preachers as Naik for whom Islamic militancy is a matter of pride. On the contrary, Islam is taught as progressive or egalitarian, as if jihadist violence never had anything to do with it.

When very rare and questionable cases of terrorism are brought against Hindus, these are immediately labeled “saffron” or “Hindu terror”, as if the Hindu religion itself were the cause. The suggestion is that Hindu terrorism is on par with global jihad that has cost the world tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in wars and protective measures. This negative approach continues though there have been no convictions for so-called Hindu terrorism in Bharat, or in any other country in the world, only allegations, while Hindus have frequently suffered from terrorist acts against them.

Hindu Dharma is said to be backward and in need of reform, but not Islam or Christianity. Hindu Dharma is identified with caste, oppression and social injustice, and its progressive and spiritual sides are ignored or belittled. Bharat’s leftist media is hesitant to promote Yoga Day as if Yoga were regressive or communal. While pride in Islam or Christianity is respected, for Hindus to express pride in being Hindus is deemed as communal and intolerant.

Salman bin Abdulaziz al-SaudNeed to Recognize Danger of Global Jihad

Mainstream Islamic countries, especially Saudi Arabia, are among the most intolerant and oppressive nations in the world. While looking at Islamic violence in Bharat, the roots of radical Islam outside of Bharat are not considered, as if there were no connection or communication between them. When the role of Pakistan in Islamic terror is brought out, Bharat’s media likes to blame it on extremist factions in Pakistan, though such radical groups often have government and military support.

ISIS, though it calls itself the Islamic State, is described by the media as following policies that are not Islamic, as if Islam of any sort was not part of its agenda. Yet ISIS follows a similar type of Islam to Wahhabis, whose Saudi-funded madrasas are common in Bharat and seldom regulated. While Saudi has of its own accord destroyed most of the mosques in its own country, Bharat’s media will not report such actions. But if a mosque is damaged in Bharat, great outrage is expressed and Hindus blamed. Destruction and defacement of Hindu temples under Islamic rule was conveniently erased from Bharat’s history books by Marxist historians.

When the current BJP government seeks to address the issue of terrorism, it is criticized for being anti-Muslim and pro-Hindu, though jihadi terrorism is the main global danger today. Meanwhile, a Congress Party leader such as Digvijay Singh can praise intolerant preachers like Naik in public programs and attend a book release on the 26/11 terrorist attack in Bharat for a book that blames this well-documented Pakistan-based jihadi attack on the Hindu RSS!

Zakir Naik & Digvijaya SinghContinuation of Old Anti-Hindu Policies

Such policies of Bharat’s Congress-backed media are nothing new and have been occurring for decades, ever since Nehru and his Congress Party began to rely on an Islamic vote bank. Keeping Muslims afraid and Hindus divided insured an en bloc Muslim vote for Congress and a division of the Hindu vote. Since then many left-oriented political parties have adopted the same vote bank strategy.

Given the dangers posed by global jihad, one would think that these vote bank and appeasement policies would come to an end for the safety of the entire country. But this does not seem to be the case given the political alliances forming for upcoming elections. Fortunately, the Bharatiya electorate is no longer accepting the old anti-Hindu propaganda. – Hindu Post, 9 July 2016

» Dr David Frawley (Pandit Vamadeva Shastri) is a Vedacharya and includes in his wide scope of studies Ayurveda, Yoga, Vedanta and Vedic astrology, as well as the ancient teachings of the oldest Rigveda. Tweet him at @davidfrawleyved.


Exposing Zakir Naik might be a better idea than banning him – T. A. Bharadwaj

Zakir Naik Quote

T. A. BharadwajThe problem with having hate speech laws is that they aren’t designed to fight hate. They just make voicing a hateful opinion illegal. – T. A. Bharadwaj

As per recent revelations, at least two of the seven terrorists, who hacked 20 people to death in Dhaka, were followers of Dr Zakir Naik.

Naik, a controversial Indian Islamic preacher, is extremely popular among a section of middle class urban Muslims. Indian media and the political establishment at large have been clamouring to have him banned and to prosecute him on grounds of hate speech.

I believe this would be a terrible move.

First things first, let me make it clear that I consider myself a free speech fundamentalist, but I’m not enamoured by romantic notions of free speech.

I don’t underestimate the threat of radical Islamism and recognise the capacity of hate preachers to influence impressionable young men to commit heinous acts of violence in the name of religion.

The problem with banning someone like Naik is that it doesn’t really help in dealing with radicalisation.

Watch any of his lectures or debates on YouTube and you will see that not only does Naik draw in huge crowds at his events, but he also has a substantial online audience. His large fan base would seem to suggest that many of his abhorrent views are shared by huge swathes of people.

So, while we may be able to ban him from preaching, how would we deal with millions of his fans who hold similar beliefs? Do we ban them too?

We cannot because ideas cannot be made illegal.

The problem with having hate speech laws is that they aren’t designed to fight hate. They just make voicing a hateful opinion illegal.

Salman RushdieJust because people don’t say things out loud, doesn’t mean the idea doesn’t exist. Salman Rushdie once remarked: “If we give people the freedom to voice their hateful views, at least we can see where the hate is coming from and take it on directly.”

The best way to counter the influence of people like Naik is to expose their ideas, for the regressive, conservative and pre-medieval notions they are. Inviting him to debates on national television instead of banning him, would be a good place to start.

Even if you aren’t convinced by my idea and still think people who preach hate should be banned, Naik is hardly the guiltiest on this count.

In fact, if you look at his most controversial statements, as problematic as they are, they aren’t calls for violence. Zakir Naik is a hardcore fundamentalist and the only way to defeat religious fundamentalists is by critically scrutinising their ideology by pitting them against ideas based on reason.

We need to win over people’s hearts and minds instead of alienating them for their false sense of right and wrong.

The only reason Naik is even in the limelight right now is because two of the Dhaka terrorists were his fans. Banning him with that as the reason would set a dangerous precedent.

It was revealed soon after Osama Bin Laden’s death that he was a fan of Noam Chomsky, among others.

In fact, Chomsky’s critique of American foreign policy makes him a darling among Islamists. Would that be reason enough to ban Chomsky?

Naik’s views are regressive and extremely conservative.

However, Indian media has made him the sole scapegoat of a problem that nobody is willing to acknowledge the depth and severity of.

If we want to mitigate the problem of radicalism, we need to wage a battle of ideas.

Banning one preacher would hardly make a dent in the problem and is bound to create more ill will among the people we should be trying to win over. – Daily-O, 9 July 2016

» T. A. Bharadwaj is a student journalist and philosophy buff.

Zakir Naik : Flat Earth!

Zakir Naik Quote

See also

Taslima Nasrin: Stop saying Islam is a religion of peace – DT

Taslima Nasrin

Sword of Jihad & Mayhem“For humanity’s sake please do not say Islam is a religion of peace. Not anymore.” – Taslima Nasrin

A day after the devastating terror attack in Dhaka, exiled author Taslima Nasrin on Sunday said it was time people should stop saying Islam is a religion of peace.

Several news outlets including Indian Zee News brought out her reactions to the terror attack that came in a series of tweets by her.

She claimed that all the terrorists involved in the Dhaka attack were educated and belonged to rich families and rubbished the arguments that poverty makes somebody a terrorist.

Taslima quoted Saleem Samad that Bangladesh has been a major contributor to global terror. Bangladeshi men have joined terror outfits in 36 countries.

In another tweet, she said: “For humanity’s sake please do not say Islam is a religion of peace. Not anymore.”

On Friday, 20 people, mostly foreigners, including an Indian, were killed when militants stormed a bakery in Dhaka’s diplomatic enclave frequented by Westerners.

Bangladesh announced a two-day national mourning after the attack, which was condemned by the world leaders.

Taslima fled Bangladesh in 1994 in the uproar by radical Islamists and spent the next 10 years in exile in the West. The author recently received death threats from extremist groups linked to al-Qaeda. – Dhaka Tribune, 5 July 2016

Islam the Religion of Peace


Zakir Naik influenced Dhaka attackers – PTI

Zakir Naik

Sword of Jihad & MayhemSaudi King Salman bin Abdul Aziz presenting Zakir Naik, president of the Islamic Research Foundation in India, with the 2015 King Faisal International Prize for Service to Islam in Riyadh. Naik was honoured for being one of the most renowned non-Arabic speaking promoters of Wahhabi Islam and abusers of Hindus and Hinduism. He also received a large cheque from the king. See Saudi funded Rs 1,700 crore for Wahhabi influence in India – Editor

Two of the five Bangladeshi militants who hacked to death 20 people at a restaurant in Dhaka’s diplomatic zone used to follow three controversial Islamists, including Indian Islamic preacher Zakir Naik. Militant Rohan Imtiaz, son of an Awami League leader, propagated on Facebook last year quoting Peace TV’s controversial preacher Naik “urging all Muslims to be terrorists”, The Daily Star reported.

Naik, a popular but controversial Islamic orator and founder of Mumbai-based Islamic Research Foundation, is banned in UK and Canada for his hate speech aimed against other religions. He is among 16 banned Islamic scholars in Malaysia. He is wildly popular in Bangladesh through his Peace TV although his preaching often demeans other religions and even other Muslim sects, the report said.

Another Dhaka attacker Nibras Islam, 22, used to follow two alleged suspected recruiters of Islamic State—Anjem Choudary and Shami Witness—on Twitter in 2014. Shami Witness is the Twitter account of 24-year-old Mehdi Biswas, who is also facing trial in India for running propaganda for the Islamic State. He was arrested in December 2014 following an investigation into his Twitter account which was last active in August 2014.

Biswas was charged for operating the “single most influential pro-ISIS Twitter account”. 49-year-old Choudary, a Pakistan-origin British citizen is now facing trial in England for breaking the British anti-terrorism law. His twitter account became inactive from August 2015 after terror charges were brought against him.

Choudary allegedly told his supporters to travel to territory controlled by the “barbaric regime” in Syria and Iraq. “This means at least in the case Nibras and Rohan, they did not become radicalised overnight. They have been consuming radical materials for one to two years before finally disappearing in February-March and reappearing as ‘IS killers’ Friday night at the Holey Artisan Bakery in Gulshan,” the paper said.

From their pictures posted by the ISIS media and recirculated by the SITE Intelligence Group, it can be assumed that these young men received arms training after their disappearance specifically to carry out the mission on June 1.

“Their attire with IS logo in their backdrop, the automatic rifles held in their hands reveal they underwent an organised training which is far from anything amateurish. That the killers released some of the hostages 15 minutes before the army-led operation on Saturday morning also showed the depth of their brains being washed—that they were ready to die,” the paper added. – HuffPost, 6 July 2016


Why the war on terror won’t succeed – Balbir Punj

Jihadi Recruit Jihad

Balbir PunjThe international campaign led by America to eliminate terror will not succeed unless the mindset of the people in the Islamic world is sought to be changed. – Balbir Punj

The world has read about yet another massacre of the innocents by a foot soldier of the self-styled Islamic State—this time again in the United States in an Orlando club. In Bangladesh, jihadists have murdered yet another Hindu priest and also several leading Muslim liberals. Reports are that the IS is preparing many such killings across several countries.

Jihadi, Koran, GunEvery such event is followed by condemnation of the event-makers, assertions that it has nothing to do with religion, that Islam is a religion of peace, it does not mandate killing of innocents and so on—as if they are reading from a textbook of response. These textbook-like reactions make no dent or deter more such killings.

What inspires the unending flow of recruits to the massacring factories of the IS from Muslim families in non-Muslim countries including Europe, USA, India? Why is it that many of these recruits, well-educated, belonging often to affluent families, are so willing to lose life while themselves engaged in killing others, often as soon as they get converted into Islam or touched by the calls of the IS over the social media?

Several Muslim majority nations of West Asia, including the most influential, most wealthy of them all, Saudi Arabia, have combined with America and Europe to eradicate the IS. With America using its air power to take out the IS leaders one by one and the West Asian Islamic nations lending ground troops and intelligence inputs in the battle against the IS, a certain confidence is being created that the so-called Islamic State would be pulled out and eliminated sooner rather than later.

The much-publicised success of the US in tracking down and exterminating leaders of the Islamic State movement—the latest is the unconfirmed report that the caliph of the IS, Mr Baghdadi himself has been killed in a US air strike,—seems to be dwarfed by the widening of the appeal of the organisation itself to the common Muslims.

There is a basic contradiction in the official US stand against jihadi terrorism and the political alignment Washington has with countries like Saudi Arabia against the Islamists. Riyadh is the largest financier of madrasas—the Muslim religious educational institutions. Innumerable treatises have exposed the type of religious education that these institutions provide.

MadrasaThese are funded by Saudi money among the poor Muslim communities across the world. What is taught in these institutions, staffed largely by a priesthood that takes it as a command from God through their holy book, is that their religion is what God wants and that God has instructed their founder on how the society should be shaped and run to reflect his will. So, they believe that any change in the rules and practices that constitute a society is defiance of God and cannot be allowed. Attempts to make these changes will have to be fought and such a war is a holy war, the ‘jihad.’ To fight such a war is a Muslim’s duty.

When this is inculcated from the age of five in these madrasas as the unchanging, unchangeable truth, the common Muslim begins to see any deviation from the set of prescribed practices and rules as an evil to be fought against and those who do take up this task constitute God’s army.

What is happening in Pakistan is an object lesson. The constitution drafted by the military dictator Zia-ul-Haq had conceded to the clerics the right to veto government steps and had reintroduced capital penalty for deviation from a strict adherence to Islamic laws and whatever was defined as objectionable to God.

The conceding of civil power to the clerics enabled them to build a huge power base. The military and the state power nurtured the clerics to be used against perceived enemies among whom India stood at the Zia-ul-Haqtop. The lesson for the world is that Pakistan as a state will not cooperate with its neighbours to eliminate terror though it might pretend it wants to eliminate terror from its soil. The message from the Orlando massacre is loud and clear: terror as a creed has the support of ‘faithfuls’ cutting across nationalities and geographical boundaries through a mindset largely shaped by the system of exclusivity interpretation of everything from religion to all other aspects of human existence .

Madrasas play a pivotal role in creating this exclusive mindset which in turn transforms several ordinary persons into suicide bombers. Even without formal ties, structure, communication and organisational networking , the ‘faithfuls’ are wired together and programmed by their shared theological mindset, to carry their ‘holy war ‘ i.e. jihad, against Kafirs to its logical end.

The international campaign led by America to eliminate terror will not succeed unless the mindset of the people in the Islamic world is sought to be changed. All other approaches would only give a limited and partial result. Meanwhile, several analysts of the terror scene fear that the well-funded and well-armed terror outfits in Pakistan like JeM, LeT etc are planning to link up with the IS and truly create a worldwide “army of God.” Pakistan, it must be remembered, had always wanted to be at the head of an Islamic conquest of the world. – The New Indian Express, 28 June 2016

» Balbir Punj is a BJP Raja Sabha member and a Delhi-based commentator on social and political issues. Email: punjbalbir@gmail.com

“With this sword is civilization and humanity slaughtered.”

“With this sword is civilization and humanity slaughtered.”

Jihad in the cause of Allah – Maria Wirth

Mosques and madrasas are the centres for jihad indoctrination.

Maria WirthTerror and hatred for other human beings is inhumanity. How do we know? Because we have a conscience which tells us what is right and what is wrong. This conscience must be the holy book for us. … Anyone who demands that we ignore our conscience and instead believe blindly what he tells us, has an agenda. He wants sheep who don’t think for themselves and who he can use for his own purpose. – Maria Wirth

There is no doubt that we have a problem in today’s world. It’s a big problem. The strange thing is that apparently we don’t want to solve it, because we close our eyes to the problem and to its root cause. This closing of our eyes is officially endorsed by almost all governments in the world and is seen as politically correct. Naturally, there is no chance to improve things but it’s likely to get much worse.

The problem is a faulty, black and white mind-set of a huge chunk of the world population and the root cause is what these people were taught to believe as the truth. The founders and subsequent authorities of those belief systems claimed that the Highest himself has revealed it. This was an ingenious way to prevent any criticism of the whole belief system, including those aspects of it which were against common sense.

I have earlier written on how Christianity was the first to cleverly claim that God himself has given the full truth only to the Church and everyone must believe it at the cost of their lives. And Islam followed with a similar claim. Terrorism in the name of God started right then, by forcing “those who are wrong” into the “right” faith or killing them. Millions of people were killed—from America to India and beyond. In history lessons, Christianity and Islam were mentioned together with communism, fascism and Nazism in having caused the maximum number of human beings murdered.

In primary school I learnt that Islam expanded through “fire and sword”. I remember this because “Feuer und Schwert” was a meaningless phrase for me as a child. Only later, it dawned that it involved tremendous cruelty. This cruelty was not restricted to Islam. The Christian “expansion” and the Inquisition were equally brutal.

In the 1970s when I was in university, we debated why religion has caused so much bloodshed. The debate was only on ‘why’ not on ‘whether’.

In 2000, a change in this approach became apparent. When the Pope John Paul II finally acknowledged the cruelty of the Inquisition, and publicly asked forgiveness from God, he did not blame the Church but “sons and daughters of the Church” who committed “mistakes”. He tried to absolve the religion and laid the blame on “misguided” followers.

This same pattern is followed today regarding Islam. When jihadis attack innocent citizens shouting “Allahu Akbar“, politicians and media are quick to declare that those terror acts have nothing to do with Barack ObamaIslam but are the handiwork of misguided or deranged individuals.

The reaction is meanwhile so predictable. The standard version is:

The attack is shocking, repulsive, a cowardly act, but we stand united, won’t allow another attack, won’t be intimidated but continue with our lives, we won’t let them win, etc….

Then Muslim representatives come on air stressing that they also condemn the attack. It is the act of a disturbed person, has nothing to do with Islam, there are 1,5 billion peaceful Muslims, which is proof of the peaceful nature of their religions, etc….

Then in major cities (provided the attack happened in the West) a landmark building is lit up in the colours of the country where the attack happened, candles are lit….

We have gone through these motions far too often and there is something fake about it. The pain of those affected is real. Others may be grateful that it had not hit them—at least not this time. Yet those, who are supposed to protect us, are not honest.

True, the attacks are shocking and repulsive, but they are not cowardly acts. The jihadi kills because he is convinced that it is his duty to kill kafirs—and he is even ready to die in doing what he feels is right. This shows courage. All those terrorists are young. It is not normal, nor easy to risk one’s life by killing others, unless he is absolutely convinced that the benefit is greater than the cost.

And what does he expect as benefit?

Probably he was taught already as a kid or has read it later on the internet that killing kafirs pleases Allah. By doing so, he can make his life truly worthwhile, and he will be richly rewarded: he will have a better status in paradise than those who did not kill kafirs.

Now here is where we kafirs are cowards. We don’t dare to point to passages in the Quran, which support his expectation, for example Quran 4.95 and ask what it means if not what is written there.

Those believers who stay at home—having no physical disability—are not equal to those who make jihad in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their persons. Allah has granted a higher rank to those who make jihad with their wealth and their persons than to those who stay at home. Though Allah has promised a good reward for all, Allah has prepared a much richer reward for those who make jihad for Him than for those who stay at home. They have special higher ranks, forgiveness and mercy. Allah is forgiving, merciful (Q 4. 95-96).

Imagine a pious, young, hot-headed Muslim reads this—would he not be inspired to make his life worthwhile? Even more so, if he has fantasises of becoming a hero with a gun?  He probably considers dying as a small price for a greater glory. As Sultan Shahin pointed out, children in madrasas sing songs with the refrain “zindagi shuru hoti hai qubr mein” (life starts in the grave). See reference below.

Curiously, old, sick Muslims don’t seem to be interested in the “higher status in paradise” when it would make much more sense for them. Does it mean, they are more mature and know that the Quran must not be taken literally?

Is it not their and our duty, to save not only the potential victims of future terror attacks but also the young Muslims who are ready to throw away their lives for a promise which may not be kept? After all, Christianity also claims that only those who are baptized can enter heaven.

We need to ask probing questions.

Yes, it is difficult to believe that terror attacks have anything to do with religion. Religion is understood to be something good. It connects us with the Highest and is meant to make us better human beings. We want to believe that the cause for terror attacks is something else. “All religions worship the same one God. No religion can possibly condone killing others”, those of us who have not been brainwashed into a dogmatic religions, will naturally maintain. But is it true?

We need to find out. If we don’t dare to do this, we are cowards.

Let’s imagine we come to the conclusion that indeed there are passages in the Islamic texts that condone terror against infidels, what will be the next step?

Then we need to bring in common sense and reason and debate on the meaning of life and enquire into the absolute truth. India has the knowledge and must take the lead in this, because the Christian West is handicapped. Both, Islam and Christianity, divide humanity into “us versus the rest”, which results in a divisive mindset. Instead, another dividing line must be drawn which Prime Minister Narendra Modi mentioned it in one of his speeches: It is the line between humanity and inhumanity.

Terror and hatred for other human beings is inhumanity. How do we know? Because we have a conscience which tells us what is right and what is wrong. This conscience must be the holy book for us. It is the voice of the Divine which guides us through life. If we listen to it, we realize that the whole of humanity is one family. The life in all of us comes from the same, most powerful yet invisible, source.

Anyone who demands that we ignore our conscience and instead believe blindly what he tells us, has an agenda. He wants sheep who don’t think for themselves and who he can use for his own purpose.

Suicide bombers are not cowards, but they are not smart. They got the purpose of life wrong. – Maria Wirth Blog, 17 June 2016


Bobby Jindal

» Maria Wirth is a German psychologist and author who has lived in Uttarkhand for many years. Tweet her @mariawirth1.

VIDEO: Orlando terrorist attack and vibrant diversity – Black Pigeon


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,447 other followers

%d bloggers like this: