[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

Mumbai – Islam's Reputation is at Stake
|Sheikh Salman al-Oadah|

Have no doubt about it. The terrorist attacks that have recently taken place in Mumbai India and which cost the lives of 143 civilians and injured 370 are an abomination.

I feel great pain and sorrow for the innocent victims of these attacks. I also feel great sorrow for the sake of my religion. Islam has been treated unjustly by these attacks. Islam's global reputation has been severely wounded.

My heart is pain stricken, and I cannot help but wonder: Those people who committed these atrocious deeds – can they really be Muslims? There is yet to be a final confirmation on the perpetrators' religious convictions, but most evidence points to their having some sort of Islamic orientation and calling themselves "jihadists". They were young – in some reports 24 or 25 years old – they needed guidance, perspective, and the experience of their elders. As for their perpetrating their crimes in the name of billions of Muslims worldwide – or even the hundreds of millions of Muslims in India – that is a grave injustice to the faith.

We need to fear Allah and not disgrace our religion. The Prophet Muhammad – whom Allah sent as a mercy to all humanity – refrained from causing any harm to the hypocrites who were plotting against the Muslims while living right in their midst and under his authority. He could have dealt with them easily in any manner he chose – and he chose to show them peace and mercy. He explained: "It will never be said that Muhammad killed his companions."

Now in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, the whole world – and especially the media – is speaking about Islam, and it has become the individual responsibility of every Muslim to have a mature, clear, and articulate stance about these kinds of atrocities.

What we have now witnessed in Mumbai is something that Allah hates. We believe from the depths of our hearts that Allah hates it. The murder of those people who were staying at those hotels – all sorts of people, saints and sinners alike – is murder plain and simple, and it is intolerable.

I say this even more emphatically to the Islamic scholars of India and the Islamic organizations of that country: Do not hesitate to condemn the Mumbai atrocities in the clearest and strongest of terms. This is no time for justifications and excuses.

The whole world must condemn what happened. If America, Britain, and Europe are grieved by what happened and can speak out, then we as Muslims should be at the forefront of expressing our grief and indignation. This is not simply because that is what our religion teaches us to feel, though we must feel horrified by such sin. It is also so that we will not be cast in with the lot of the perpetrators, or be seen as supporting those criminals in any way.

Allah commands us: "O you who believe: be upright for Allah, just witnesses." [Sûrah al-Mâ'idah: 8] He also commands: "O you who believe: be upright in justice, witnesses for Allah." [Sûrah al-Nisâ': 135]

These verses demand from us that we be clear and frank in our condemnation of the Mumbai atrocities. I call upon my children and my brothers in faith to fear Allah in their religion, and to fear for the reputation of their beliefs, and for their Prophet's reputation. We as Muslims have been sent to humanity to better their lives, not to end their lives.

Allah says: "Whoever kills any soul – save (in the dispensation of justice) against murder and those who spread violence throughout the earth – it shall be as if he had killed all of humanity, and whoso saves the life of a single soul, it shall be as if he had saved the lives of all humankind." [Sûrah al-Mâ'idah: 32]

When will we wake up and see reason? When will we face up to our responsibility towards our religion? When will we start acting like we realize there are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world who share with us this religious identity? Does it make any sense to wipe their faces with mud or disgrace them? How many Muslims in India are now going suffer on account of what happened? We must speak up.

http://islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=2034

 

[Amadeus85]

I would risk a statement that the reason of these Mumbai attacks and other attacks in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan are thousands of uncontrolled religious schools where millions of poor boys without any education learn whom they should hate and how they should fight them. Without taking care of this problem, such nice, emotional voices as above are nothing more than nice emotional voices.

 

[islamirama]

PAKISTAN'S RESPONSE TO INDIA'S ALLEGATIONS

Pak TV channel says 26/11 hatched by Hindu Zionists


NEW DELHI: Mumbai's 26/11 was actually a plan hatched by "Hindu Zionists" and "Western Zionists", including the Mossad, said a self-styled Pakistan
security expert on a Pakistan news television show, uploaded on www.hotklix.com.

" Inki shaklein Hinduonwali hain, jis zabaan mein guftagoo kar rahein hain, woh zabaan koi Pakistani istemaal nahin karta hai (They look like Hindus. No Pakistani speaks the language they chatted in)," said Zaid Hamid while referring to the terrorists on the show Mujhe Ikhtilaf Hai (I differ) on Pakistan's News One channel. The sensationalist channel was launched in November last year.

Hamid said that it was a "badly planned" operation that had gone horribly wrong. "9/11 jo Americans ne kiya tha usko bahut khoobsurat camouflage kiya tha. Unhone media mein perception management bahut acchha kiya . Indians ne wahi game repeat karne ki koshish ki, lekin akal to hai nahin . In ahmakon ne complete disaster kiya isko handle karne mein . (The Americans executed the 9/11 attack perfectly. They managed the media very well. The Indians tried to repeat the formula but goofed up. The idiots made a complete mess of it).

He said that the attackers wore saffron Hindu Zionist bands, which no Muslim would tie. Hamid also said that within the first 5 minutes of the attack, the three ATS policemen investigating the network of terror within India's security agencies and radical right were killed.

That ensured that those investigations reach a dead end. Anchor Qudsia Qadri added that with their killings, the investigations into the Samjhauta Express carnage would be halted. The killings also immediately shifted attention from India's domestic terrorists to Pakistan, said Hamid.

Marvi Memon, glamorous Pakistan Muslim League member, on the same programme, was appalled at the Pakistan government's expansion of the "India-appeasement package" by initially agreeing to send ISI chief to India. "I just don't get it," she exclaimed in exasperation.

She wondered how can you send the ISI chief to a " mulk jiske sath jang chal raha hai ...at a different level...," mentioning Kashmir and accusing India of blocking Pakistan's waters. Memon said, "They (Indians) are quite obsessed with anti-Pakistan speak and that unites them," she said. Memon also spoke about India's separatist movements and believed that India was only reaping the bitter harvest of the poisonous seeds it had sowed.

Blogger daily.pk writes in pakalert.wordpress.com, "India has been relapsing into religious extremism and numerous separatist movement have mushroomed due to official patronage ...I see the Mumbai bombings as the desperate move of separatists who want to blame everything on Muslims."

It's not only random voices railing against fingers pointing to Pakistan. Blogger and journalist Farrukh Khan Pitafi is miffed. "For years I have been advocating peace between India and Pakistan," he wrote. But he, too, says that India was out of its mind in naming Pakistan as the source of violence without identification of the perpetrators.

He wrote: "During such a long coverage of the mishap not a single outlet pointed out that Hemant Karkare... was the same man whose dismissal was Narendra Modi's biggest demand. Or that he was the man on the verge of uncovering the home-grown terror franchise of the Hindu extremists. No channel mentioned Colonel Purohit once during the live telecast, no not even CNN, BBC or CBS. It is sad."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Pak_TV_channel_says_2611_hatched_by_Hindu_Zionists /articleshow/3785654.cms

 

[LockOn]

Kashmir, India, Chechnya, Palestine, China etc Where are their condemnations for what the Muslims are going through over there?

 

[Amadeus85]

The Indians blame Pakistani Hafiz Saeed for preparing Mumbai attacks.

 

[The_Prince]

The Indians blame Pakistani Hafiz Saeed for preparing Mumbai attacks.

yes, based on what evidence? the supposed confession? are we supposed to just believe that now? i dont think so.

 

[Omar_Mukhtar]

I would risk a statement that the reason of these Mumbai attacks and other attacks in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan are thousands of uncontrolled religious schools where millions of poor boys without any education learn whom they should hate and how they should fight them. Without taking care of this problem, such nice, emotional voices as above are nothing more than nice emotional voices.

What has that got to do with the Mumbai attacks? It seems me like your pointing the finger and blame at the religous schools or madaras. I very much doubt that Madaras are teaching people to kill civilians, if that is what you are getting at. And, even if there is, there has been little evidence to show the case.

 

[Woodrow]

Let us keep this on topic, the topic being the first post. Mumbai – Islam's Reputation is at Stake - Sh. Salman al-Oadah



To begin it makes no difference if the attackers are or are not Muslim. The attack is a disgrace and whoever committed the act has disgraced not only themselves but also whatever religion or cause they committed for.

By our failure to not being sufficiently vocal in condemning such attacks by alleged Muslim we have left the door open for the appearance we condone such attacks.

The world has gotten the wrong image of what Islam is. We need to see we have failed the world by our failure to give true Da'wah.

We need to condemn this act and condemn all such acts that have occured in the past. No matter who the alleged perpetrators may be. We need to more openly protest and get the message out to all, even to some of our own misguided Brothers and Sisters. "ISLAM does not teach nor do we condone the killing of innocents."

These acts must be condemned, not only by Sheiks and Imams but also by you and me. Our actions and attitudes are the Da'wah the world sees. Let us all give Da'wah by openly show that as Muslim's we will not tolerate such acts and that we will not view the perpetrators as acting Islamaticaly, no matter what they appear to be.

The murderers and terrorists of the world need to know that these acts will not be seen as honorable by Muslims. A Muslim can not be a terrorist or an aggressor, no matter what faith his family follows or what he alleges to follow.

Inshallah, it may be it was not Muslims that committed this act. But if this comes to be proved. We must still condemn that act and not dwell on the fact we were accused. It does no good to rejoice at proof it was not us. It is more important we show disgust over the act, no matter who did it.

 

[Amadeus85]

Dont You think that condemns dont mean much without saying what were the sources of that evil that hapenned. Without honest and deep rethinking why and who, these cleris would have to condemn such acts every year and the image of Your religion would be hurt.

 

[Woodrow]

Dont You think that condemns dont mean much without saying what were the sources of that evil that hapenned. Without honest and deep rethinking why and who, these cleris would have to condemn such acts every year and the image of Your religion would be hurt.

Here there is difficulty. Non-Muslims do not comprehend the fact we have no ordained clergy and no central earthly "head" of Islam. There are good Imams and poor Imams. Anybody can call himself an Imam. The Mosques I go to have no assigned Imam, the person present who is most familiar with Islam, leads the prayers. Islam is a religion of personal responsibility, we can not claim innocence because we followed the teachings of somebody who taught wrong. We need to verify all we are taught and to question the credentials of all who teach.

I do not want that to be a cop out, I think we do need to speak out against those who teach the wrong teachings of Islam. But, we can only do it as individuals and perhaps as individuals we need to unite for the purpose of speaking out against those who lead our children astray.

 

[Qingu]

To begin it makes no difference if the attackers are or are not Muslim. The attack is a disgrace and whoever committed the act has disgraced not only themselves but also whatever religion or cause they committed for.

By our failure to not being sufficiently vocal in condemning such attacks by alleged Muslim we have left the door open for the appearance we condone such attacks.

The world has gotten the wrong image of what Islam is. We need to see we have failed the world by our failure to give true Da'wah.

We need to condemn this act and condemn all such acts that have occured in the past. No matter who the alleged perpetrators may be. We need to more openly protest and get the message out to all, even to some of our own misguided Brothers and Sisters. "ISLAM does not teach nor do we condone the killing of innocents."

These acts must be condemned, not only by Sheiks and Imams but also by you and me. Our actions and attitudes are the Da'wah the world sees. Let us all give Da'wah by openly show that as Muslim's we will not tolerate such acts and that we will not view the perpetrators as acting Islamaticaly, no matter what they appear to be.

The murderers and terrorists of the world need to know that these acts will not be seen as honorable by Muslims. A Muslim can not be a terrorist or an aggressor, no matter what faith his family follows or what he alleges to follow.

Inshallah, it may be it was not Muslims that committed this act. But if this comes to be proved. We must still condemn that act and not dwell on the fact we were accused. It does no good to rejoice at proof it was not us. It is more important we show disgust over the act, no matter who did it.

Woodrow, with all due respect, I think it makes a huge difference if the attackers are Muslims, because I don't see how Islam's reputation is going to improve until more Muslims recognize that there is a problem in the first place.

Many Muslims on this forum refuse to believe that the attackers were Muslims. They dismiss such reports as conspiracies to cast Muslims in a bad light and provoke war. In my time here, I've seen people claim similar things about the 9/11 attacks. In discussing Islamic history, many posters here seem incapable of admitting that Muslim civilization has ever done anything wrong, and that any attempts to characterize Muslims in a less than admirable light are the result of orientalism or malicious revisionism.

Calling for Muslims to condemn such barbaric acts seems strange to me. Who wouldn't condemn these acts? If more Muslims condemned the acts, it would merely address a lack of empathy among Muslims.

Maybe a lack of empathy is a significant problem in Islam; I don't know (a poster here named islamarama has said Palestinians were right to feel happy and dance in the streets in celebration of 9/11, certainly an unempathetic position). But I think the larger problem here is that there are certain strains of Islam that breed people such as these attackers, people like al-Qaeda, and other terrorist death cults. The biggest reason Islam has a bad reputation is because such people murder civilians in the name of Islam. How are you going to even begin to address this problem if your fellow Muslims think it's all a big conspiracy and that there isn't any problem at all?

 

[Woodrow]

Woodrow, with all due respect, I think it makes a huge difference if the attackers are Muslims, because I don't see how Islam's reputation is going to improve until more Muslims recognize that there is a problem in the first place.

It would not make much difference. As most Muslims would find it difficult to believe such violent people could be Muslim, even if they say they are Muslim. Such an act gives most of us an opinion that the person is either not Muslim or if they are Muslim the act is so unIslamic, it could raise question as to if the person has left Islam. We do not have anything that resembles excommunication, but some acts make us feel the person has left Islam.

Many Muslims on this forum refuse to believe that the attackers were Muslims. They dismiss such reports as conspiracies to cast Muslims in a bad light and provoke war. In my time here, I've seen people claim similar things about the 9/11 attacks. In discussing Islamic history, many posters here seem incapable of admitting that Muslim civilization has ever done anything wrong, and that any attempts to characterize Muslims in a less than admirable light are the result of orientalism or malicious revisionism.

It is impossible for us to believe a Muslim would commit such an UnIslamic act. If a perason calling themselves Muslim does so, it raises doubt as to if the person ever was or if they have apostated away from Islam.

Calling for Muslims to condemn such barbaric acts seems strange to me. Who wouldn't condemn these acts? If more Muslims condemned the acts, it would merely address a lack of empathy among Muslims.

It is not so much a call for us to openly condemn such acts, it is a call for us to be more vocal. We need to understand that our condemnations recieve little publicity and often fall on deaf ears. So we need to condemn louder and more often.

Maybe a lack of empathy is a significant problem in Islam; I don't know (a poster here named islamarama has said Palestinians were right to feel happy and dance in the streets in celebration of 9/11, certainly an unempathetic position). But I think the larger problem here is that there are certain strains of Islam that breed people such as these attackers, people like al-Qaeda, and other terrorist death cults. The biggest reason Islam has a bad reputation is because such people murder civilians in the name of Islam. How are you going to even begin to address this problem if your fellow Muslims think it's all a big conspiracy and that there isn't any problem at all?

I can not deny, that is a problem. It is necessary that we become more vocal and demonstrate that such actions bring no honor, do not serve Allaah(swt) and hurt the Ummah. They need to be called what they are, "UnIslamic acts" and cast doubt that the doers follow Islam. A Muslim should be incapable of such atrocities.

 

[Qingu]

It would not make much difference. As most Muslims would find it difficult to believe such violent people could be Muslim, even if they say they are Muslim. Such an act gives most of us an opinion that the person is either not Muslim or if they are Muslim the act is so unIslamic, it could raise question as to if the person has left Islam. We do not have anything that resembles excommunication, but some acts make us feel the person has left Islam.

I understand this line of thinking. The problem is that the Mumbai attackers, as well as groups like al-Qaeda, firmly believe that they are righteous Muslims and that people like you are Western stooges.

The reason Islam has an image problem is primarily because these groups are committing atrocities in the name of Islam. You are apparently arguing that by committing such atrocities they are so evil that they should be regarded as apostates—a theological argument against their interpretation of Islam. But my point here is that it doesn't do your argument any good if your fellow Muslims, like many on this forum, don't actually believe that these groups committed atrocities in the first place. Many people believe it's all a conspiracy, and the "real" attackers had no affiliation with Islam to begin with. If someone believes this (like islamarama on this forum), where does that leave your argument for them?

It is not so much a call for us to openly condemn such acts, it is a call for us to be more vocal. We need to understand that our condemnations recieve little publicity and often fall on deaf ears. So we need to condemn louder and more often.

To be fair to Muslims, I do think a lot of such condemnations are under-reported in the media.

But again, condemning these acts as un-Islamic is one thing, but that is very different from saying "Since no Muslim would ever do this, obviously it's all an Indian/American/Jewish conspiracy to make Muslims look bad!" Do you agree that the conspiracy-theory line of thinking is completely counterproductive to what you're trying to do here?

I can not deny, that is a problem. It is necessary that we become more vocal and demonstrate that such actions bring no honor, do not serve Allaah(swt) and hurt the Ummah. They need to be called what they are, "UnIslamic acts" and cast doubt that the doers follow Islam. A Muslim should be incapable of such atrocities.

I am glad you feel this way, and I wish more Muslims felt this way too.

But I think you need to be clearer: what exactly are you saying here? Are you saying:

"No Muslim could ever do these acts, and while groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and al-Qaeda may think they are Muslim, they are actually disgraces against Islam and should surrender to authorities."

Or are you saying:

"No Muslim could ever do these acts, so therefore Muslim groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and al-Qaeda could not be responsible and it must be a BJP/American/Zionist conspiracy."

I think you're saying the former. But I think a lot of people on this forum, and Muslims in general, are saying the latter. And I wish more Muslims like you would address them.

 

[Woodrow]

I understand this line of thinking. The problem is that the Mumbai attackers, as well as groups like al-Qaeda, firmly believe that they are righteous Muslims and that people like you are Western stooges.

I also agree. Many who are caught up in terrorism sincerely desire to be good Muslims and firmly do believe they are right. In many ways they could have become our finest examples of Islam if they had not been mislead. Their courage and sincerity in doing right is very admirable.

I most likely am seen as a Western Stooge. But, I assure you I have no special love or allegiance for the West or any government for that matter. My interest is Islam and Allaah(swt).

I am sick of seeing Muslims killing Muslims.
I am sick of Muslims being seen as untrustworthy.
I am sick of seeing our finest young people dieing.
I am sick of seeing fine people duped into committing unIslamic acts.

Terrorism is a greater threat to Islam than it is to any other group, even when the terroristic attacks are directed against non-Muslims.

The reason Islam has an image problem is primarily because these groups are committing atrocities in the name of Islam. You are apparently arguing that by committing such atrocities they are so evil that they should be regarded as apostates—a theological argument against their interpretation of Islam.

Yes, the name Muslim and the action of Islam have been violated and are being used in demeaning Islam. I can not fathom the idea of a Muslim doing such things. I can only assume that if they are Muslim, they must have failed in learning what it means to be Muslim.

But my point here is that it doesn't do your argument any good if your fellow Muslims, like many on this forum, don't actually believe that these groups committed atrocities in the first place. Many people believe it's all a conspiracy, and the "real" attackers had no affiliation with Islam to begin with. If someone believes this (like islamarama on this forum), where does that leave your argument for them?

Conspiracy theories abound. It takes solid replicable facts to prove the truth. Until such proof is found, we must accept the possibility the suspicions may be true. In doing so we must speak as if Muslims were involved and we must speak against the action. We should not speak against the person, but we must speak with the acceptance that Muslims could be guilty. This makes the act even more horrifying.

Sorry I do not discuss other members. On a personal note I believe Brother Islamarama is very sincere and has great love for Islam.

To be fair to Muslims, I do think a lot of such condemnations are under-reported in the media.

Thank you. Recently I did a video and part of the video was pointing out the number of unreported condemnations. In my research for the video I was surprised at the number of fatwas against terrorism that have been made by eminent Sheiks and never mentioned in the media.

But again, condemning these acts as un-Islamic is one thing, but that is very different from saying "Since no Muslim would ever do this, obviously it's all an Indian/American/Jewish conspiracy to make Muslims look bad!" Do you agree that the conspiracy-theory line of thinking is completely counterproductive to what you're trying to do here?

Conspiracy theories are always counter productive, they lead the image of trying to hide things with a smoke screen. It is best to speak with provable facts or remain silent until you find the facts.

I am glad you feel this way, and I wish more Muslims felt this way too.

But I think you need to be clearer: what exactly are you saying here? Are you saying:

"No Muslim could ever do these acts, and while groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and al-Qaeda may think they are Muslim, they are actually disgraces against Islam and should surrender to authorities."

Or are you saying:

"No Muslim could ever do these acts, so therefore Muslim groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and al-Qaeda could not be responsible and it must be a BJP/American/Zionist conspiracy."

Actually I am saying:

"No Muslim could ever do these acts, and while groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and al-Qaeda may think they are Muslim, they are actually disgraces against Islam and should be blatantly told by all Muslims they are not following Islam and unless they change they should be prosecuted under Sharia Law as traitors to Islam. "

I think you're saying the former. But I think a lot of people on this forum, and Muslims in general, are saying the latter. And I wish more Muslims like you would address them.

Actually I think I speak along the sentiments of the majority. I have had very little contact with reverts, nearly all Muslims I personally know are born Muslims coming from Pakistan, Palestine, Iran, Iraq. Morocco,Saudi and Egypt. One of my dearest friends in Austin was a Palestinian who helped me see that most Palestinians are not terrorists and abhor terrorism.

 

[Keltoi]

I think it is worth noting that terrorism is primarily a political tool. Yes, it is about murder, death, and carnage, but it is normally meant to serve a political ideology. Of course it can't be ignored that the religion of Islam has been hijacked by many as a justification for their terrorism, but I think that relationship is one of convenience by and large. What better propoganda tool to find new recruits than to wrap your political ideology with a blanket of religion?

I do believe there is a problem within Islam when it comes to terrorism, but I also have sympathy for the average everyday Muslim who watches his or her religion being connected with acts of unspeakable barbarity.

 

[nocturnal]

I think it is worth noting that terrorism is primarily a political tool. Yes, it is about murder, death, and carnage, but it is normally meant to serve a political ideology. Of course it can't be ignored that the religion of Islam has been hijacked by many as a justification for their terrorism, but I think that relationship is one of convenience by and large. What better propoganda tool to find new recruits than to wrap your political ideology with a blanket of religion?

I do believe there is a problem within Islam when it comes to terrorism, but I also have sympathy for the average everyday Muslim who watches his or her religion being connected with acts of unspeakable barbarity.

We have absolutely no reason to be on the defensive. Islam is a religion of peace. These people who carry out horrendous attacks against innocent people do so out of an erroneous interpretation of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Their actions notwithstanding the fact that they are carried out in the name of Islam, should not be conflated with the religion to somehow attempt to provide a broader perspective of the war on terrorism.

 

[Woodrow]

We have absolutely no reason to be on the defensive. Islam is a religion of peace. These people who carry out horrendous attacks against innocent people do so out of an erroneous interpretation of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Their actions notwithstanding the fact that they are carried out in the name of Islam, should not be conflated with the religion to somehow attempt to provide a broader perspective of the war on terrorism.

Far from being on the defensive. We need to up our offensive position on the war against terrorists and swing it from being seen as a war on Islam. A terrorist is a terrorist and it make no difference what name they try to hide under.

 

[justahumane]

PAKISTAN'S RESPONSE TO INDIA'S ALLEGATIONS

Pak TV channel says 26/11 hatched by Hindu Zionists


NEW DELHI: Mumbai's 26/11 was actually a plan hatched by "Hindu Zionists" and "Western Zionists", including the Mossad, said a self-styled Pakistan
security expert on a Pakistan news television show, uploaded on www.hotklix.com.

" Inki shaklein Hinduonwali hain, jis zabaan mein guftagoo kar rahein hain, woh zabaan koi Pakistani istemaal nahin karta hai (They look like Hindus. No Pakistani speaks the language they chatted in)," said Zaid Hamid while referring to the terrorists on the show Mujhe Ikhtilaf Hai (I differ) on Pakistan's News One channel. The sensationalist channel was launched in November last year.

Hamid said that it was a "badly planned" operation that had gone horribly wrong. "9/11 jo Americans ne kiya tha usko bahut khoobsurat camouflage kiya tha. Unhone media mein perception management bahut acchha kiya . Indians ne wahi game repeat karne ki koshish ki, lekin akal to hai nahin . In ahmakon ne complete disaster kiya isko handle karne mein . (The Americans executed the 9/11 attack perfectly. They managed the media very well. The Indians tried to repeat the formula but goofed up. The idiots made a complete mess of it).

He said that the attackers wore saffron Hindu Zionist bands, which no Muslim would tie. Hamid also said that within the first 5 minutes of the attack, the three ATS policemen investigating the network of terror within India's security agencies and radical right were killed.

That ensured that those investigations reach a dead end. Anchor Qudsia Qadri added that with their killings, the investigations into the Samjhauta Express carnage would be halted. The killings also immediately shifted attention from India's domestic terrorists to Pakistan, said Hamid.

Marvi Memon, glamorous Pakistan Muslim League member, on the same programme, was appalled at the Pakistan government's expansion of the "India-appeasement package" by initially agreeing to send ISI chief to India. "I just don't get it," she exclaimed in exasperation.

She wondered how can you send the ISI chief to a " mulk jiske sath jang chal raha hai ...at a different level...," mentioning Kashmir and accusing India of blocking Pakistan's waters. Memon said, "They (Indians) are quite obsessed with anti-Pakistan speak and that unites them," she said. Memon also spoke about India's separatist movements and believed that India was only reaping the bitter harvest of the poisonous seeds it had sowed.

Blogger daily.pk writes in pakalert.wordpress.com, "India has been relapsing into religious extremism and numerous separatist movement have mushroomed due to official patronage ...I see the Mumbai bombings as the desperate move of separatists who want to blame everything on Muslims."

It's not only random voices railing against fingers pointing to Pakistan. Blogger and journalist Farrukh Khan Pitafi is miffed. "For years I have been advocating peace between India and Pakistan," he wrote. But he, too, says that India was out of its mind in naming Pakistan as the source of violence without identification of the perpetrators.

He wrote: "During such a long coverage of the mishap not a single outlet pointed out that Hemant Karkare... was the same man whose dismissal was Narendra Modi's biggest demand. Or that he was the man on the verge of uncovering the home-grown terror franchise of the Hindu extremists. No channel mentioned Colonel Purohit once during the live telecast, no not even CNN, BBC or CBS. It is sad."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Pak_TV_channel_says_2611_hatched_by_Hindu_Zionists /articleshow/3785654.cms

PAKISTAN'S ANOTHER RESPONSE TO INDIA'S ALLEGATIONS

Pakistan arrests suspected Mumbai planner - Mon, Dec 8 02:11 PM

One of the suspected planners of last month's attack by gunmen on Mumbai was arrested by Pakistani security forces in a raid on a militant camp, an official with a charity linked to the militant group said on Monday.

The Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) official, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi was taken into custody following Sunday's raid on a camp used by Lashkar-e-Taiba fighters outside Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistani Kashmir.

"Yes, Lakhvi is among four or five people arrested in a raid yesterday," said the official, whose JuD charity is regarded as front for the feared militant group.

Pakistani intelligence officers said six men have been arrested, but gave no names, and there has been no official confirmation of the raid.

Lakhvi, one of Lashkar's operations chiefs, was named as a ringleader in the Mumbai plot by the lone surviving gunman captured in India, according to Indian officials.

He and Yusuf Muzammil, the head of Lashkar's anti-India operations, gave orders by telephone to the 10 militants who killed at least 171 people in the attack on Mumbai, Indian officials say.

Pakistan has asked for proof that attackers came from Pakistan, while saying it will cooperate with India in the investigation, but tensions between the two nuclear-armed rivals have risen.

The United States has exerted diplomatic pressure on Pakistan to match words with deeds swiftly to stop the crisis worsening, while asking India to exercise restraint.

"I think there's no doubt that Pakistani territory was used, by probably non-state actors," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday.



WHAT NEXT?

If Lakhvi's arrest is officially confirmed, it will raise the question of what the Pakistani authorities will do with him, and whether it will satisfy India.

President Asif Ali Zardari has said that anyone arrested in Pakistan will be tried there too.

The Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency had ties in the past with Lashkar and other jihadi organisations fighting Indian rule in Kashmir, according to analysts, which could reduce the Pakistani authorities' readiness to be transparent in its handling of the situation.

Laskhar was officially banned by Pakistan in 2001, after it was blamed along with Jaish-e-Mohammad, for a raid on the Indian parliament that almost sparked a fourth war between the two countries.

The militants say Lashkar relocated its base to Indian Kashmir, while its founder Hafiz Saeed quit the organisation, but remained head of the charity.

Analysts say there is evidence of Lashkar fighters cooperating with al Qaeda, and fears that these jihadi organisations have become uncontrollable.

The JuD charity, which has thousands of followers, was also designated a militant organisation by the United States, but Pakistan has only put it on a watchlist.


SOURCE:http://in.news.yahoo.com/137/20081208/738/tnl-pakistan-arrests-suspected-mumbai-pl_2.html

 

[K.Venugopal]

Far from being on the defensive. We need to up our offensive position on the war against terrorists and swing it from being seen as a war on Islam. A terrorist is a terrorist and it make no difference what name they try to hide under.

Yes, just like a thief is a thief. Moreover, I have till today not heard of any thief anywhere, when caught, saying that he stole for the sake of Islam or any other religion. Unfortunately, this is not the case with terrorism. While there are terrorists of all hues, there are a large number of terrorists who proclaim that they are waging terror in the name of Islam. Recently, a fatwa was issued in India (said to be the most authoritative fatwa ever – because issued by the largest number of authorized men of Islamic jurisprudence) against terrorism. This is a good start. The Muslim society, particularly in Islamic nations like Pakistan, must penalize Muslim terrorists with the death sentence. When this is begun to be done, the world will accept that Islam is against terrorism.

 

[north_malaysian]

must penalize Muslim terrorists with the death sentence. When this is begun to be done, the world will accept that Islam is against terrorism.

Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombing) and Malaysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma'unah) had done that... and I wonder if the world had accepted that Islam is against terrorism...