Terror’s near miss in Britain
Britain is once again in a state of high security following the failed car bombings in the West End and the attack on Glasgow Airport. Eight people have been arrested in the UK and Australia over the bomb plots so far. Seven are believed to have links with the NHS – as either doctors or medical students and two being arrested by police at the Royal Alexandra Hospital. Three of the suspects are thought to be from India…
July 11th, 2007 at 5:08 am
religion of peace strikes again.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
More uncomfortable tube journeys for us british hindus…. peace
July 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Indians are: Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Christian Indians & Jewish Indians.
It is the people of these five great faiths that makes India the secular country which it is today.
Yes Raj fully agree - More uncomfortable tube journeys for us british hindus…. peace (I would go a little further, and use the word “British Indians”)
July 13th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
These are medical doctors who have to take an oath to save lifes at any cost. Yet they go out to and attempt to commit mass murger in the name of their faith.
This is what brainwashing does to human beings.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:52 am
I fear that some of the commentators in the media are making a big mistake when they say that these muslim radicals are few in numbers and that the vast majority is law abiding and peaceful. They must realise that this religion as a whole is sympathetic towards the aims of the so-call-radicals, which is to bring about an Islamic World Government. Indeed, one of the muslims who supposedly has given up violence had said so. The tragedy for Hindus is that they are more favoured in religious matters as they come from the same book as it were.
July 14th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Concur with Nehru Lall however, I am not quite sure if I understand clearly your thoughts behind your comment - ” The tragedy for Hindus is that they are more favoured in religious matters as they come from the same book as it were ”
Readers here may also be interested in reading the debate going on at another site - here is the link:
http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/article/muslims/attacks/terror-unbound-14-years-old-hindu-child-burnt-alive.html
July 17th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Apparently, there were several surveys carried out in the middle east and it was discovered that the percentage which supports bin laden and his jihad, or jihad in general is said to be between 60-75%.
British left wingers and Indian p-seculars misunderstand the difference between moderate and fundamentalist muslims. Their opinion is that the vast majority of muslims are moderate and that there is a fraction within the religion which is fundamentalist. This is not true!
It would be more accurate to distinguish islam between orthodox and moderate muslims.
Orthodox muslims are the majority and Moderate muslims represent a smaller group which is based mainly in non muslim countries in Europe, Asia and the States.
To understand islam we only have to listen to what ex-muslims (apostates) say about it. A small example includes Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish and Ayaan Hirsi. (interviews available on youtube) against the non-believers.
July 17th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Rohid,
Agree with most of what you say, but would quiz your thoughts when you say:
Quote ” and Moderate muslims represent a smaller group which is based mainly in non muslim countries in Europe, Asia and the States… ” unquote
I see no signs of moderation in the mainstream of Muslims living in the UK & Europe.
Worryingly, the Muslims living in India are now openly moving towards extremist Islam. The Congress led Indian government, reliant on the Muslim vote to stay in power, is now turning against the Indian majority in favour of the Islamic agenda under the guise of “secularism”, and bowing to Islamic pressure in formulating legislation with total disregard, if not contempt, for the Hindu, Sikh & Buddhist expectancies in a Hindu land.
July 17th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
please read my article on in female gods ……… it may interest a few on this debate…….. mecca and Hinduism.
ravi
July 17th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Pravin, you made some very good points. I struggle to see signs of moderation amongst the muslim community here in Europe or in India. Both British and Indian muslims who class themselves as moderate, pledge loyalty to islam over their motherland. I’m afraid what you say about the Congress party is also true.
Rohid, I would rather distinguish muslims between fundamentalists and apologists. Wouldn’t you agree?
July 17th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Ravi, where is the article? I’d be quite intersted to read it.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Hi Sonya,
“Both British and Indian muslims who class themselves as moderate, pledge loyalty to islam over their motherland ”
Indian Muslims ???? Or Muslims who live in India, or UK or…?
Their loyalties lie with their Islamic motherland, and often wonder if they consider the land they choose to live in as their motherland just because they may hold a Passport of that country, but nonetheless prefer to live under Sharia in their adopted country? This is so in India, and the Congress Govt. continues giving them more rights towards this under sustained Islamic pressure.
I am of the opinion that Indians are: Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Christian/Catholic Indians & Jewish Indians.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Pravin, I see what you’re saying but what about the Indian muslims like President Abdul Kalam who is known as the father of Indian missile technology and also some of the Indian muslims soldiers that gave their lives for the Kargil war fighting against the enemy.And there’s many more.
July 18th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Pravin, I’m afraid a part of my post was edited and that particular paragraph is redundant as a result of it.
I agree with what you said.
I wanted to say that moderate muslims don’t understand their religion and the concept of jihad. They incorrectly interprit this as “inner struggle” to better themselves. This is understood and practiced more accurately by orthodox muslims. The result of it is what you read in the article and various news headlines around the globe.
July 18th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Dev what you say is touching however - the appointment of Abdul Kalam as President of India was politically motivated under severe Muslim pressure on the Islamic sustained Congress government.
The USA for eg. would recruit people with such skills from worldwide to work in NASA or missile centres. They get paid for the job they do – full stop. Why therefore the absurdity of a title like “father of the Indian missile teccnology”? It would have been more apt to call him “leader of the Indian missile technology” - if there was ever such a need for a “title”.
India too would have recruited such skills from the open market world skill-pool were it not available locally. It is the “beauty” of the “sentiment of Indian thinking” that gives names such as “father of Indian missile technology” to a particular scientists, which is unnecessary. This was perhaps a political PR “pre-appointment softener” spin by the government for electing a Muslim president.
Who knows of the inner thoughts of Kalams hidden agenda, except to say that Muslim influence increased dramatically over the past two years, and now dominates the Indian political scene in Parliament. I wonder how that came about?
There are soldiers in the Indian army of many faiths - all of whom have given their lives. Spare a thought here for those that the Islamic terrorists kill today.
July 18th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Sonya
Since Ravi has not responded, here is the link to his article.
http://thehinduvoice.com/blog/2007/07/08/women-in-ancient-hindu-society/
July 18th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
“Indian Muslims ???? Or Muslims who live in India, or UK or…? ”
This is true Pravin. But these groups are all Hindus who were converted into islam via the many invasions India had suffered. As Rohid said “this is what brainwashing does to people”
July 19th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Sonya,
I am aware that a lot of these people were Hindus converted to Islam by the sword, but nonetheless it is these very people who are now turning against us in India.
Do you think they would want to reflect within themsleves of their historical religious heritage? Inviting them to re-convert and return into the fold of their original Hindu faith could be an option - An impossible thought however …. and a wishfully flippant one too.
Call it brainwashing or not, they now have a single minded agenda of turning India into an Islamic state - and they now feel that this goal is achievable. I maintain that if they want to practise Islam, that it is best practised in the peace and tranquility of their Islamic homeland of Pakistan, and not in India in its current format.
What then is the solution, or the way forward? If they maintain their current reproductive birthrate in India, add to that the influx of illegal immigration from the neighbouring states, they will achieve their goal in about 60 years by simply outnumbering Hindus, and take over India at the ballot box.
Curtains - the end.
Bleak, isn’t it?
Do have a look at my comment above dated July 14th, 2007 at 12:39 pm.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Pravin and sonya link to goddess of armenia is -fire temples in Baku….
it is in Azerbaijan actually ..but the hindu godess had popular following throughout that area ….
This whole area was full of hindus at one point in history…
ravi
July 19th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Rohid,
Your comment on July 17th, 2007 at 8:45 am - where you say:
“(interviews available on youtube)”
Could you send me a link of this website please? I’d be interested to have a look.
Thanks
July 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Pravin, here’s the links you had requested:
Wafa Sultan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ
Walid Shoebat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w8nTcjDdzk
Ayaan Hirshi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6Wrhivp7eQ&mode=related&search=
Nonie Darwish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCNtKSLZNJY
July 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
1. Rohid - thanks.
2. Ravi - OK thanks. Found them. I had assumed you meant your article on this site which I have of course read.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Rohid & Pravin, there is a film director named Wayne Kopping who recently made a film called Obsession. This is a film about radical islam’s ambition to carry out jihad on non muslims in order to establish a muslim world. This is a powerful film which depicts radical islamic ideology in it’s purest form and the denial of the west which enables islam to thrive.
Here’s is the only link I found which shows the film almost in its entirety:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8744333560158018067&q=wayne+kopping+duration%3Along&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
The producers are struggling to find a distributor for this film because of the threat it poses.
This is scary stuff and confirms what Pravin said!
July 19th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
My God Sonya & Rohid,
I have looked at all your links.
I wonder if the British & the European Governemnts are capable of actually being able to absorb & understand the seriousness of this.
The cultural differences between the West & Islam is so wide that, in spite of all the attacks that have taken place already, the Western Governments could still make the mistake of ignoring this threat as that of “the lunatic Islamic minority” - and therefore make the biggest mistake imaginable.
I would so like to believe that this is not the case - but can we take that for granted?
The Human rights activists keep interfering too.
The Muslims living in India are now getting restless - Banglore terrorists prove that.
July 20th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Sonya, this is a powerful documentary!
It is frightening to see that several comentators, including an ex-Nazi party member, are warning that history is in the process of repeating iself.
Europe and the USA were in denial about the spread of Nazism and people who expressed their concerns (eg. Churchill amongst many others) were branded racists by their own people.
There are many similarities, although the spread of fundamentalist islam could be a lot more powerful since this is not hampered by geograpy. More importantly, the Hitler regime was secular and there was no “perfect prophet” who was always right could not be questioned.
I wonder how far history repeat itself before the world wakes up to this threat?
July 20th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
I too was interested by the film.
On the other hand we who seek truth must look deeper. The fallacy is not in being named muslim but in being trained in a tribal form of ideology that allows akarmic action: Us against them, and my killing is ok but yours is not. This theme runs through the documentary and many discussions here: if we don’t defend ourselves our way of life is doomed. The natural conclusion of this mindset is that the attacked group should attack back. This is the victory of evil - that both sides of the conflict are evil.
Indeed, if you look at American and European history, the model citizens of the modern world, these are based entirely on the oppression of the social “them.” In this historical construct, the attack by the “them” on the European races is quite rational.
But our tradition is deeper than this. We are not allowed the convenience of tribal thinking. It is not us against them, it is always us against us. It is the true form of working (karma) to improve the world around us and to confront evil. And in doing so being catutious not to do evil ourselves. The safeguard is the renunciation of fruits - no wealth, no power, no heaven just because you did this or that.
Framed this way the conflict can be solved without resorting to evil. That is not necessarily without war, but it must be without malice.
You’ll note this doc is very convenient to the powers of the west. It ignores the plight of arabs under Mohamed, that of hindus… It also ignores that though the key feature is indeed the ideology of Islam, it is the same ideology of the christian west - it does not want to inform the person of the source of evil, it wants to propagandize the west to they us v them mentality - they play into the hands of the radical muslims and christians that not so uncommon.
hariaum
July 21st, 2007 at 11:54 am
Rohid, Sonya,
I had posted a comment here which elaborated on Rohid’s point above. It was “typically frank” in expression of my thoughts, with specific references and thought provoking views.
This was censored - perhaps understandably.
July 21st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
I suppose I better sign up to BUPA then…
damn I am going to miss the good olde days when you could go to an Indian NHS doctor complain of various ailments and get the same heavily accented reply “take too asprin you will be okay”…
If you went now the receptionist would probably tell you… “sorry there is a long waiting time… the doctors just parking the car…”
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:31 am
I find it interesting that whilst the British government is too worried about appearing anti-Islamic to take any real action against Islamist fundamentalism, the Pakistani government is quite happy to storm the Red Mosque and kill 70 Islamist fanatics, including one senior cleric. Human Rights, multiculturalism and all those things are all well and good, but surely the security of the nation must come first.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm
A nation without human rights should be overthrown.
hariaum
July 23rd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Whose human rights?
Of those who preach and perpetrate terror, or their dead or maimed victims?
And that in a Christian land where they sought, and were given refuge, fleeing from their own Islamic state?
Human rights & Liberty have their place in society - but …..
July 24th, 2007 at 8:38 am
In this society that is so obsessed with rights and entitlements, it is worth pointing out that the concept of ‘human rights’ is primarily a relatively modern, and essentially Western, idea. Hindu tradition (as also most other what may be called ‘pagan’ faiths/cultures) has always emphasised the importance of duties and responsibilities over rights and entitlements, in the firm belief that if all people do their duty (’Dharma’), rights will look after themselves. Whilst I am not particularly a Gandhian and do not wish to sidetrack this discussion into yet another argument on the merits or otherwise of Gandhi and his ideas generally, he summarised this particular principle very well in a letter he wrote to the Director-General of UNESCO whilst the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was being drafted:
“I learned from my illiterate but wise mother that all rights to be deserved and preserved came from duty well done. Thus the very right to live accrues to us only when we do the duty of citizenship of the world. From this one fundamental statement, perhaps it is easy enough to define the duties of Man and Woman and correlate every right to some corresponding duty to be first performed. Every other right can be shown to be a usurpation hardly worth fighting for.”
The second sentence here is poignant in the current context of how to deal with international terrorism - by this standard, can the terrorists even be judged to have earned the right to live? In addition, whilst I appreciate Islamists’ “right to freedom of opinion and expression” [UDHR Article 19], as well as their “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” [UDHR Article 18], I fully expect them to equally respect my “right to life, liberty and security of person” [UDHR Article 3], which is, if nothing else by its higher position in the UDHR (I feel correctly), implied to take priority. Furthermore, as a basic principle, one may propose that “your right to swing your arms freely ends at the tip of my nose”.
July 24th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Most eloquently put, Satya.
July 24th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Navin,
Your depth of philosoply behind your article challenges our perception of the theoretical mindset of Muslims, its execution practically, and the subsequent menifestation of their acts of terror that they justify with preachings of Kuranic theology as they interprete it to be.
” You’ll note this doc is very convenient to the powers of the west. It ignores the plight of arabs under Mohamed …”
” It also ignores that though the key feature is indeed the ideology of Islam, it is the same ideology of the christian west …”
I am not so sure that the Christian ideology of the west remains the same today, although perhaps that could have been the case in history.
The western Christian states trying to win the hearts & minds of Muslims living in the west is an indication of their will to include rather then ignore the ideology of moderate Islam.
That onus must lie squarley on the shoulders of Muslims living Christain or Hindu lands, as it is for them to win over the hearts & minds of the people whose host country they choose to live in so as not to offend them, and not visa versa.
This “political correctness” by western governments is percieved as a sign of weakness by Muslims in the west, which they then further exploit to their advantage and take it as their right for others have an obligation to win over their heart & minds, without total disregard to, and of their unacceptable behaviour in their host country.
Rather then be seen to be “playing into the hands of Muslim radicals” the logical action by any government would perhaps be to reverse their earlier decision of having given such men a safe heaven in the UK for example.
I have deviated slightly, but purely to put forward a line of thought in relation to yours.
July 24th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Typing err. on para. 7 beginning with ” This political correctness..” line 4 last word “without” should read WITH
July 25th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Both excellent points, Pravin and Satya.
Pravin’s question is easier to address. The conflicts in Bosnia, Rawanda, Chad, Sudan are recent conflicts sustained by christian ideology. Rawanda was christian attack on christians of the wrong order (catholic v protestant). Certainly the christians learned that their ideology is not as great as they thought and this has been going on since the enlightenment age of Europe. Hitler pushed what the rest of the christian world was doing to the forefront only 60 years ago. Evangelist still are trying to destroy the remnants of Hinduism, Buddhism… from the world. - I think it is the secular force in the western world that has rejected christian ideology and this is trying to hold an open hand to the muslims, hindus, et al. Christian ideology has been one of dominance without karma since inception. It is not going to change because of history; those that want that worship of power will morph it into something else to keep it (Mormons, Scientology, Jews for Christians, Branch Dravidians, Waco…). It is the nature of Rakshasas to change name and form so as to attract and confuse others.
Satya’s point is, for me, more difficult. It is something I have also wondered about. My comment as to the need to overthrow governments was purposefully vague and intentionally over simple. I wrote it to remind the conversation that we can not set aside human rights in the common snese to simply survive. Such an action results in the downfall of civilization; it is the argument of evil, of one sided tribal thinking.
As to the question of the foundation of human rights, many have argued this and I have read most the major ones. If I give my will to Krishna, then where is my human rights? The source of rights in duties is also quite old going back in the west to Socrates. The source of rights in the nature of man, the source of rights as god given… But my solution is not simple.
First, rights reflect the ability to act. And in this we must be able to chose freely our actions. Also the actor must be a moral agent for this purpose and thus duties and responsibilities are clearly a major part. But freedom in the western sense is simply an animal’s right to act (I can do what ever I want) We do not consider these moral agents. Freedom in a Hindu sense means realization. For it is with perfect knowledge that we are perfectly free (and empowered). In the state of samsara how can we be responsible for our actions that are chosen out of ignorance - we are but animals.
Here, in the hindu sense, we realize that there is a prakrit/purusha interaction. And in this state of nature and soul we are compelled (not freely) to seek Brahman. (Yes this can be strongly or weekly depending on the diversity of that interaction.) But in order to seek brahman we must act (ahamkara). If this action is compelled we can not succeed on the task because it is a personal relationship with brahman (atman=Brahman) that is saught after. Thus to address the task of seeking enlightenment we are given certain inalienable rights: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These happen to be the samsaric manifestations of Sat, Cit, ananda.
In result, the presupposition to moral action is freedom of individual to do whatever they like. And it is in this extremely libertarian construct that hinduism then demands that a moral good is defined by those actions performed detached from ego and renouncing results. For again we are trying to move with both prakrit and purusha. Where prakrit is dynamic, purusha is state. Further, moral action is not defined by that which gets us to heaven but in fundamentally utilitarian form - Krishna asks why does he act? He acts to model goodness for mankind. The reason Arjuna must act is not because he can do whatever he wants but because it is his utilitarian duty to follow the commands of his older brother and defend the nation; and these actions are of his natural makeup (it is to use liberty and in doing so to surrender even life and the pursuit of happiness). (I’m sure you see that the west has been skirting around the Gita for thousands of years trying to figure this out on their own).
Perhaps I’ve confused the issue. I’ve certainly gone off topic and overspoken. I apologize and repeat, a state (or religion, or ideology,…) without human rights should be overthrown - this does agree with George W in that it means we need to take the fight to them rather than expect them to prove themselves friendly just because they say so (see Mars Attacks). Perhaps the Moderate Muslims will join us in regime change in the theocracies and fiefdoms of the middle east. Our own contribution to human rights begins with a need to educate people making them, thus, more free.
When I am free to act, I must choose to act well, not just act.
hariaum