Paris Shooting

[Kung Fu]

In no way was the murders justified. Our beloved prophets were always ridiculed and ridiculed badly but yet they stayed patient and strong in front of such rude behaviour. We must also stay patient and strong and fight back with intellect. We have God and that's all we need for He is the best of Planners. Let them bring their evidences and critiques for it shall amount to nothing if we act like real Muslims.

If the Muslims today weren't so weak minded and instead directed their anger towards dialectical discussions and the gathering of knowledge, we wouldn't be such easy targets for the unbelievers. Cartoons and words cannot hurt our beloved prophets but yet Muslims go crazy foaming from the mouth with no clear knowledge of what Islam really is all about.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another Opinion piece.

CHARLIE HEBDO: SEEING THE BIGGER PICTURE

Following the shooting at French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo's offices last week, the magazine have today released their first issue since the attack; opting to depict a caricature of Prophet Muhammad yet again as front page. Karen Jayes, South African author and member of CAGE Africa, explores the tragic killings in Paris as a window on how the War on Terror works, looking at this attack in the wider context and how moderation and accountability can make it stop.

The 10 satirists, security guard and janitor who worked at the offices of Charlie Hebdo did not deserve to die. It is natural human nature to be repelled by these acts – and we are. But we know that Cherif and Said Kouachi do not represent the world’s over 1.6 billion or more Muslims. And we also know from a cursory glance at the magazine’s previous covers – one of which depicts the kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls as pregnant, wailing yard girls – that Charlie Hebdo does not qualify as mainstream media, as mainstream media want us to believe.

So framing this as an attack on our freedom of expression, as the politicians and media have spun it to be, is problematic for many reasons.

Insulting the world’s largest religious group given the current global crisis that is a Western-led War on Terror with its hallmarks of drone strikes, rendition, interventions, torture and detention-without-trial of Muslims, which all fuel extremism, is not deserving of death, no - but given the dynamics of the war, it is a particularly cruel, and some might say unwise, thing to do. More on this later.

But after considering deeply what is happening in the world, Charlie Hebdo’s consistent denigrating of the Quran and the Prophet Mohammed (peace and blessings be upon him), is similar in some ways to the anti-Semitic cartoons of Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer between 1927-1932, which drummed up fear and hatred of Jews in the run up to the Holocaust.

Secondly, good satire ridicules the powerful, those who by their very position must be held accountable – simply because, by accepting responsibility, they’ve agreed to it. Satire that ridicules religious icons – not even a month ago, Charlie Hebdo ran a cartoon of the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus (peace be upon him), who was depicted with a pig nose – or ‘humour’ that denigrates those who are already marginalised, is just poor taste. More than that, this kind of no-holds-barred ridicule paves way for a society that lacks respect for divinity and empathy, where everything and anything is fair game. Nothing is sacred – and cruel insults take on the machismo of back slaps between friends.

Moreover, the freedom of expression argument has an iffy barometer, especially in France. As part of its ‘internal security’ enactments passed in 2003, it is against the law in France to ridicule the national flag and anthem. French rapper Monsieur R faced prison charges in 2006 for insulting Napoleon and Charles de Gaulle, while in the same year rapper Joestarr had his rap song against then President Nicolas Sarkozy banned. Sarkozy, president until 2012, ordered the firing of the director of Paris Match because he published photos of his wife with another man in New York.

While laws protecting the republic are heavy, laws protecting France’s Muslim population (which make up less than 20% of the total) are not. In a law banning religious symbols in public, it is illegal for Muslim girls to express their religious beliefs by wearing the hijab (headscarf) to school. In 2005, a French court ruled in favour of the French Catholic Church and banned an ad demeaning the Last Supper, stating that the display was "a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs". But two years later a French court rejected a case brought by two French Muslim associations against Charlie Hebdo, for reprinting cartoons originally published by a Danish magazine that denigrated the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

This is not even mentioning the duplicitous nature of France’s allies, the United States and Britain when it comes to freedom of expression. Two examples: in 2003, three journalists - Taras Protsyuk, 35, Jose Couso, 37, and Tarek Ayyoub, 35- were killed in Iraq when US forces targeted the Palestine Hotel where many journalists were staying. And more recently in the United Kingdom, events in Paris have facilitated the acceleration of the Communications Data Bill which will strengthen the government’s surveillance powers by mandating internet service providers to collect and retain data about their users, including emails and other communications, at any time and without a warrant.

There is nothing to prevent this draconian piece of counter-terrorism legislation from being used, not only against Muslims broadly, but further down the line and given a couple of years, against human rights activists or environmentalists that are particularly irksome to governments. This dovetailing of global counter-terrorism legislation with the political agendas of power-hungry governments is already alive and well, according to numerous reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, in countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt, Kenya, and Ethiopia amongst others. As Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has said: “What happens to the Muslim community, sure enough, sooner or later, happens to the rest of us."

Make no mistake: I am not defending the killers. Their acts are criminal. But they have taken place within a global context that cannot be ignored – and ‘othering’ those who have been alleged to be responsible without more closely examining the complicity of the powerful in producing men like these – as we know from our very own history – only further polarizes society and leads us down a path blinded by moral passion and conflict, where only worse decisions are made. Violence begets violence and so it goes on.

Who knows where this will lead us. As we mourn and feel the aftershocks of Paris, France arms its streets with 10 000 soldiers and Britain rushes through anti-terrorism laws that will strengthen airport stop-and-search and passport confiscation powers that harken back to the worst days of South African apartheid.

But we must not take our eyes off the Middle East: the continued US drones strikes in Pakistan and the Yemen, which between them have killed almost 4000 people, nearly a half of them children, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism; the bombardment of Iraq under false evidence extracted through torture that there were weapons of mass destruction has left a country stunned and paralysed with over one million dead and nobody accountable; the continued crippling occupation of Gaza and the West Bank by Israeli forces, a bombardment last year ironically named Operation Protective Edge, which left 2100 Palestinians, among them 495 children, dead; and the continued bombing of Iraq and Syria and lack of access for international human rights organisations as winter approaches and people starve.

Now is the time for critical thinking, moderation and calm heads. The cyclical violence that feeds the War on Terror and the security and media establishments that benefit from it, needs to be broken. At its source is the prison camp of Guantanamo Bay – still not closed 13 years after opening in violation of international law and still not having brought any admissible court evidence as to what exactly happened on 9/11. Replicating Gitmo are the over 100 black sites around the world where Muslims have been rendered, tortured, and accused of being enemy combatants with no legal rights and in violation of the Geneva Convention. In the War on Terror, extremists are the products of Western foreign policy, while the detention centres are its factories.

The CIA Torture Report, radically redacted and shortened to a paltry 525 pages out of 6000 and then smothered by events in Paris, detailed how men were humiliated, subjected to positional torture, blinding light, simulated burials, waterboarding, wall-slamming, rape, - the list goes on… in order to provide inadmissible data to be used as fuel for the War on Terror. It has left out crucial facts like names and places, and the details of women and children detainees. This Report and its hidden contents cannot, and - thanks to a new crowd-funded investigation by the Bureau for Investigative Journalism and The Rendition Project - will not, be allowed to disappear.

It is crucial to understand the nuanced context in which events like the tragedy in Paris have unfolded. Nothing happens in isolation, and nothing is ever what it seems.

The Quran exhorts believers to battle evil with something better, and the pen is recommended over the sword. Nothing captures this better than the example of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) who constantly repelled insults with gentleness and forgiveness. There is the account of a woman who used to throw garbage at him every time he walked passed her house. Instead of walking another way, he would continue to walk past her house and she would continue to throw trash at him. One day, she was not there. The Prophet (pbuh) was concerned and enquired about her. He found out she was ill. So the Prophet (pbuh) went to her house, fed her and cleaned her house until she was well again. She was so overwhelmed by this that she embraced Islam. Muhammed (pbuh) was, and always will be, untouched by insult.

This is because gentleness and goodness will always win over evil. Take the example of Lassana Bathily, the Muslim employee at the Kosher grocery store Hyper Cacher who saved several people in the aftermath of the shootings by hiding them in a meat freezer. He was held on the floor for 1.5 hours by police simply because he seemed to fit the police’s racial profile of a suspect and because he was Muslim (even as white people were allowed to flee, though they could have been suspects too). Despite this, Bathily told French TV: “We are brothers. It's not a question of Jews, of Christians or of Muslims. We're all in the same boat, we have to help each other to get out of this crisis."

http://www.cageuk.org/article/charlie-hebdo-seeing-bigger-picture

 

[ardianto]

Did the Muslims have adab when they invaded Iran? Or tore the land of the Indians into 'theirs' and 'others' (Pakistan and India)? When I see leaders in the Muslims world - not one of them supports a progressive thinking. You say Anjem doesn't have adab. Does the head of Iran have adab? Which Muslim leader according to you has this value of adab?

Islam spreaded in my country, Indonesia, through unarmed civilians. First by traders from Gujarat, and later by immigrants from Yemen. There was no bloodshed, there was no destruction. Now you can visit ancient Hindu and Buddhist temples that still maintained well as heritage from period before Islam. Muslims in my place have no problem with it.

So, it's not true if Islam always spread through sword although indeed, in some other areas Islam spreaded by military expedition.

Anjem is lucky. He lives in country where native Christians are tolerant enough toward Muslims, more than Muslims toward non-Muslims in Muslim countries. I've seen a video that show Anjem gave 'Islamic' speech in front of a Cathedral, and nothing happen. I can't imagine what would happen if a Christian gave Christian speech in front of a mosque.

Indeed, Anjem and some Muslim leader are bad in adab. But it doesn't mean all Muslim leaders are intolerant and provocative. There are many Muslim leader who tolerant. If you don't know, it's because you just focus to the extremist

Thank you. Please point this out in the Quran to all the glorious Muslim leaders who run terror organizations, killing people around them and hindering education which would actually be beneficial to their children.

You're welcome. Those leaders will not listen to me. So I choose to talk to ordinary Muslims people. I hope it can make the people realize that those leaders have taught the wrong things, and later they will leave those leaders alone.

What is "Islamic thought"? And which country, leader or person emulates it today?

During the Golden Age Muslims were advanced not only in science and technology but also in "thought". There were many books about relationship between human and Allah, about Islamic philosophy, that had written in that time although later many books were destroyed by Mongol invader.

Nowadays "Islamic thought" is more than about how Muslims can live in the modern world. Sharia banking and finance, rediscovery of prophetic medicine, are the product of this thought.

But the most important leaders are extremists - and they might blow my house tomorrow. I would fear sending my kids to school because the extremist Muslims would blow it up!

Extremist might blow my house too. They kill not only non-Muslims, but also Muslims who do not stand with them.

When I was young in late of 80's me and my friends found a bag. We opened the bag to know who was the owner, and then we gave back that bag to the owner. Nowadays, if people found a bag, they would not dare to open it. They would call police, then police call bomb squad, because they worry about bomb.

They don't support any speak or act against their version of Islam. Do you see how UNCOMFORTABLE you are making the native people of every country that is not Muslim? Name one prominent leader of the Muslim world whose voice goes above the extremists? Zakir Naik, Anjem Chaudary, the head of Iran - all support evil acts, it wouldn't be so well funded otherwise.

I always smile and greet my Christian neighbor when we meet. I have good relationship with my non-Muslims friends and relatives (some people in my mother family are Christians). So what you mean with I make those non-Muslim people feel uncomfortable?.

Okay, okay, I understand what you mean. I know that there are non-Muslim people who feel threatened by Muslims. But actually it's because they too generalize Muslims. They see Muslims only from the worst Muslims, and do not look at the other Muslims who are tolerant.

Extremism, radicalism, terrorism, have become big problem in the Muslim world too. Many Muslim leaders have spoken out against it, and they try to eradicate this problem. But again, you don't know it.

Brother, let me tell you the reason why non-Muslims should not generalize all Muslims are extremist. The method that used by the extremist to brainwash Muslim people is telling them that the non-Muslims are enemies of Muslims. Contrary what the tolerant Muslim leaders say that Muslims and non-Muslims can co-exist peacefully. If non-Muslims always generalize all Muslims are terrorists, then the ordinary Muslim people would think that the extremist leaders were right, and then they would join extremist group.

So, if we want to build peace, we should cooperate.

Muslims are the ones giving this image to Islam. Not the French, not the Americans, not Charlie Hebdo. The American and NATO involvement in the Muslim heartland is caused by irresponsibility on the part of MUSLIMS of different factions warring against each other and hoping the Americans will save them. Of course if they don't, hell be to the Americans! Right?

Yes, the bad image of Islam is caused by Muslims themselves. But non-Muslims should be wise too through not generalizing that all Muslims hate non-Muslims, all Muslims want to take over the world, etc.

If Muslims protested the coming of American and NATO troops how could ANYONE blame them for air strikes, or ground action? This is Muslims inviting them, and then getting upset. The Muslim world has irresponsible, myopic leaders whose thought and lifestyle is contrary to the wish of the Creator.

Regarding to Iraq invasion on Kuwait, Muslim world actually wanted that problem resolved by Muslims themselves. But Saudi Arabia already invited US to lead the war.

Why many people in the Muslim world feel suspicious toward US government?. It because US has image as "Global Police" that build by US govt themselves. They are known as government that often force other countries (not only Muslim countries) to follow what they want.

But I know, not every American agree with this US govt habit. I know, there are many American people who can respect other nations.

 

[LearnIslam]

I'm not exactly sure what you were alluding to with the last comment but would like to clarify that Muslims did protest it and that they were vilified as terrorists and killed in drone strikes, anwar's 16 year old son was also murdered later and they claimed he was 21 and planning attacks.
He had put aside his degree in engineering and earning a big buck just to warn you.

Too many RAND zombies are getting their facts all wrong.

My Creator has one faith with has been hijacked countless times by people of different ethnicity. Someone told me to look at 'moderate' Muslims, but all the clerics are extremists who gain popularity? Why? Because when someone converts to Islam you all are happy, when someone converts from Islam? The Creator's faith is one don't forget, and don't hijack it! For the regimes religion is a game of numbers.

What debate is required? My point is right before you - the wars in the Muslim world. Muslims killing Muslims. What he said of the Iraq war reiterates what I just said - irresponsibility from part of leaders in the Muslim heartland giving the opportunity to evil to do what they want.

Who cares about his talk of battle with the Romans or the Persians? Neither you, nor your enemies represent the Truth of my Creator.

You all talk like you know my Creator, but you have hijacked his message on Earth so far and create war over this. And if the Truth did concern you actually, you wouldn't concerned about Islam spreading in the West or East! You wouldn't revel in hearing the victories of war against the Persians or the Romans, for they will read in their scriptures and revel in destroying you all too.

I ask you again: Which leader or people in the Muslim world represent Islamic value? If there is clarity of this, there will be no multiple leaders, no wars between Shias and Sunnis. Blame no one but the "Muslims" - they have evil and useless leaders, who don't care about the prosperity of their people, intellectual pursuits, education and the true glory of civilization. The leaders of the Muslim heartland have hijacked the Creator's message on Earth.

Dunno if you refer to the people or the tin pot democratic dictator puppets, when we do speak out and stand against them, you shouldn't call us takfiri militants.

I refer to the people. From the first few sentences - he says a Muslim isn't a blind follower. Now is the questioning method is used to learn the Quran? If I learn the Quran soundly and felt it was different from the cleric of my state, would I be able to object the demonic policies? Each and every state leader of a Muslim country has hijacked the faith of the Creator to make a society of their own.

Don't damage the faith of my Creator into Sunni, Shia, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Ashkenazi, Ahmediyya, Sufi, Sephardic, Calvinist, Mormon etc. And don't you claim to even KNOW the truth, for if you do, you speak in vain.

By what method are you to verify the events that happened or which is the word of the Creator? Whether you are Sunni or Shia or Jew or Christian or something else?

The sword is not His symbol, Arabic is not His language, His symbol is not the Roman cross, His symbol is not the Gun. If you represent the faith of the Creator, you are not "Muslim" to feel happy to speak of victory against the Persians or the Romans. The Persians followed Zoroastrianism, and you killed them.

Allow others to practice in peace. Those who have given the Devil children (Imams who preach hate and use the name of my Creator in vain), positions of power in this Earth are their MANY followers. True?

The brilliance of my Creator can dim the radiance of a thousand suns. The dimensions of Creation which we know not of still exist and run.

The Arabs have hijacked it claiming they know the truth and they have created a Hell on Earth by making everyone uncomfortable by spreading every where with wars. This Muslim region has now turned against itself because it doesn't represent a set of values conducive to growth - opinions are hated, and people are easily killed for it, there is no forgiveness in their hearts. Tell me, with all things the same, how you reasons this (what you understand as Islam) and nothing else is the truth?

I would say the Americans are better. They may have evil, vested interests, but they don't use the name of my Creator in vain. Now stop troubling the people of other lands and trying to defend 'your type' (Muslims), because to my Creator you are all not these (Muslims, Christians) - these are imaginations of the specific people through whom the message was sent at one point in time.

 

[LearnIslam]

Islam spreaded in my country, Indonesia, through unarmed civilians. First by traders from Gujarat, and later by immigrants from Yemen. There was no bloodshed, there was no destruction. Now you can visit ancient Hindu and Buddhist temples that still maintained well as heritage from period before Islam. Muslims in my place have no problem with it.

Please treat them well. The Hindus have parted with their land for the "Muslims" giving them Pakistan. And see what a Hell on Earth, terror base it has become.

So, it's not true if Islam always spread through sword although indeed, in some other areas Islam spreaded by military expedition.

I know of where and where not.

Anjem is lucky. He lives in country where native Christians are tolerant enough toward Muslims, more than Muslims toward non-Muslims in Muslim countries. I've seen a video that show Anjem gave 'Islamic' speech in front of a Cathedral, and nothing happen. I can't imagine what would happen if a Christian gave Christian speech in front of a mosque.

Indeed, Anjem and some Muslim leader are bad in adab. But it doesn't mean all Muslim leaders are intolerant and provocative. There are many Muslim leader who tolerant. If you don't know, it's because you just focus to the extremist

You're welcome. Those leaders will not listen to me. So I choose to talk to ordinary Muslims people. I hope it can make the people realize that those leaders have taught the wrong things, and later they will leave those leaders alone.

During the Golden Age Muslims were advanced not only in science and technology but also in "thought". There were many books about relationship between human and Allah, about Islamic philosophy, that had written in that time although later many books were destroyed by Mongol invader.

And why do these clerics get so many followers? Don't make the British uncomfortable. They didn't come on this Earth to bear with the perverted ideas of the Truth to listen from people like Anjem. Ask yourself this : what has made leaders like Anjem popular as opposed to what you say happened in the Golden Age?

Nowadays "Islamic thought" is more than about how Muslims can live in the modern world. Sharia banking and finance, rediscovery of prophetic medicine, are the product of this thought.


Extremist might blow my house too. They kill not only non-Muslims, but also Muslims who do not stand with them.

When I was young in late of 80's me and my friends found a bag. We opened the bag to know who was the owner, and then we gave back that bag to the owner. Nowadays, if people found a bag, they would not dare to open it. They would call police, then police call bomb squad, because they worry about bomb.

I always smile and greet my Christian neighbor when we meet. I have good relationship with my non-Muslims friends and relatives (some people in my mother family are Christians). So what you mean with I make those non-Muslim people feel uncomfortable?

It is the leaders and clerics who represent your faith who indoctrinated youths to lay such plots like exploding bags, and thus create this tension on Earth. As regards your non-Muslim neighbors do not badger them to join your faith. For none of you know the glory of the Creator. And if you find anyone else doing this, tell them the truth. But I am here knowing that I don't know.

Okay, okay, I understand what you mean. I know that there are non-Muslim people who feel threatened by Muslims. But actually it's because they too generalize Muslims. They see Muslims only from the worst Muslims, and do not look at the other Muslims who are tolerant.

Its not about seeing the worst, its about not knowing which common person Muslim could be associated with the worst. You take offense at the terrorists who follow the religion of the Devil in your name. I have Muslim friends too, I am not generalizing, I am explaining why there is discomfort and fear amongst others towards Muslims.

..Many Muslim leaders have spoken out against it, and they try to eradicate this problem. But again, you don't know it.

Name them. Why is their popularity or voice dimmed? If they did have voice Muslim nations wouldn't be either puppets of the West or run by evil Imams.

Yes, the bad image of Islam is caused by Muslims themselves. But non-Muslims should be wise too through not generalizing that all Muslims hate non-Muslims, all Muslims want to take over the world, etc.


Regarding to Iraq invasion on Kuwait, Muslim world actually wanted that problem resolved by Muslims themselves. But Saudi Arabia already invited US to lead the war.

Saudi Arabia is inside the Muslim world. Once again what I was saying - irresponsible leadership, lack of equipped trained army because the growth of science and education is not given priority as it is considered contrary to the Creator's will. So the Muslim leadership did invite the wolf children.

Muslims should rightly feel suspicious of the American government, they would be fools if they didn't. They shouldn't allow America to arm them against each other, they are fools for letting this happen. The Arabs are the same as the Jews, know this too. But for years they were oppressed under Muslim rule. Now they are allies of the wolf. If you and your brother fight for many years, and you create bitterness. Certainly he will go to the weapon trader below your house to buy weapons and kill you.

 

[Abz2000]

You blame the Muslims for this?
They were planning it from before the first world war, destruction of khilafah al uthmaaniyyah and occupying rebranding Al Quds as "mandate palestine" in the process of the creation and placement of a Godless "zionist" state,
The main name to research would be "house of rothschild".

“There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources.
They dominate the intersections of world routes.
Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions.
These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations.
No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another …
if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world.
*Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars.
It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.”

From the Campbell-Bannerman Report, 1907——

“Imperialist Britain called for forming a higher committee of seven European countries.
The report submitted in 1907 to British Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman emphasized that the Arab countries and the Muslim-Arab people living in the Ottoman Empire presented a very real threat to European countries, and it recommended the following actions:
1. To promote disintegration, division, and separation in the region.
2. To establish artificial political entities that would be under the authority of the imperialist countries.
3. To fight any kind of unity—whether intellectual, religious or historical —and taking practical measures to divide the region’s inhabitants.
4. To achieve this, it was proposed that a “buffer state” be established in Palestine, populated by a strong, foreign presence that would be hostile to its neighbours and friendly to European countries and their interests.”Dan Bar-On & Sami Adwan, THE PRIME SHARED HISTORY PROJECT, in Educating Toward a Culture of Peace, pages 309–323, Information Age Publishing, 2006


And to learn how the holocaust and U.N were engineered,
Recommended search terms would be

holocaust+nazi+
(The following):
Rothschild
Rockefeller
Bush
Windsor
IG FARBEN
IBM
GENERAL ELECTRIC
Juden Raus.

Then it might shed a light on why India was being partitioned into Pakistan at such a convenient time by the colonialists who were leaving anyway and when enough political capital had been created in the form of sympathy and clout, and who actually donated and built the U.N. Which made the partition in the middle east under the false guise of "ending all wars".

 

[Futuwwa]

Please treat them well. The Hindus have parted with their land for the "Muslims" giving them Pakistan.

No, they didn't. The Hindus in question became Muslims by choice, and continued to live where they had lived as Hindus. The way you put it implies that Hindus are the rightful owners of the land and for the Muslims to have it is a gift of generosity, not a right.

 

[Abz2000]

The Muslims (the real ones) saw through the colonial plan to divide and rule and were well established in the khilafat movement which was supported by the majority of indians, the Muslim voice in india was powerful, the partition seems to have been a ruse to create a split and justify what happened in the middle east a few months later.
Islam doesn't recognise racist borders.

Initially, Maududi opposed the creation of a separate Muslim state in the subcontinent. As JI*Ameer*(leader) he opposed the leaders of the*Muslim League*who sought an independent Muslim-majority state—to be named Pakistan—but did not have an Islamic outlook. He believed that

"An Islamic state is a Muslim state, but a Muslim state may not be an Islamic state unless and until the Constitution of the state is based on The Holy Qur'an and Sunnah."

After founding of Pakistan

With the*Partition of India*in 1947, the JI was split to follow the political boundaries of new countries carved out of British India.

The organisation headed by Maududi became known as*Jamaat-i-Islami*Pakistan, and the remnant of JI in India as the*Jamaat-e-Islami Hind.

Later JI parties were the*Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, and autonomous groups in*Indian Kashmir.[31]
With the founding of Pakistan, Maududi's career underwent a "fundamental change", being drawn more and more into politics, and spending less time on ideological and scholarly pursuits.[32]*
Although his Jamaat-i Islami party never developed a mass following, it and Maududi did develop significant political influence. It played a "prominent part" in the agitation which brought down President*Ayub Khan*in 1969 and in the overthrow of Prime Minister*Zulfikar Ali Bhutto*in 1977.[33]*Maududi and the JI were especially influential in the early years of General*Zia ul-Haq's rule.

His political activity, particularly in support of the creation of an Islamic state clashed with the government, (dominated for many years by a secular political class), and resulted in several arrests and periods of incarceration.

The first was in 1948 when he and several other JI leaders were jailed after Maududi objected to the government's clandestine sponsorship of*jihad in Kashmir*while professing to observe a ceasefire with India.[34]

Then "pakistan" was split again into eastern secular pro indian "people's republic and western secular "islamic" republic.

It seems to have been the plan since there was no corridor provided for travelling between east and west pakistan without going through india.
And hostility was high.
Suffice it to be stated that the Muslims got a raw deal, from having a powerful voice in the parliament in hind , they became a split dhimmi nation under british east india company secularists.

Mothilal nehru was a prominent freemason whose family became the oligarchs of "independent" india, and anyone who cares to research will find that fremasonry was brought to india via the colonial occupiers - the "honourable" east india company.

They never left india, just used british public money to occupy it, split it and those who weilded influence in royal circles let their shills run the separate privatised franchises.

The controversial former leader of Bangladesh's largest Islamist party, Ghulam Azam, has died at the age of 91.
The former head of Jamaat-e-Islami died from a heart attack on Thursday, a hospital spokesman in Dhaka said.
Last year Azam was sentenced to 90 years in jail after being found guilty of charges relating to Bangladesh's 1971 war of independence with Pakistan.
There were violent clashes between supporters of Jamaat-e-Islami and police after the verdict in July 2013.

Last year, a court in Dhaka found Azam guilty on five charges including conspiracy, incitement, planning, abetting and failing to prevent murder.
He faced more than 60 counts of crimes against humanity for his role in setting up militia groups that carried out atrocities during the 1971 war.

He had denied the charges, which his supporters argued were politically motivated.

They were always pro-Islam,
But the secularist pakistani franchise accused them of being pro indian, and the secularist bangladeshi franchise accused them of being pro pakustani government, and now the secularist indian franchise accuses them of being pro pakistani government.


The Pharaoh dominated the land and divided its inhabitants into different groups, suppressing one group by killing their sons and keeping their women alive. He was certainly an evil-doer.

 

[syed_z]

I don't think Charlie Hebdo did those cartoons in order to provoke anyone. There were cartoons about Virgin Mary, and Rabbis. Its understandable that Muslims got offended by it. But nobody protested, no Muslim voice came forward and said they found it offensive for so and so reasons.

Charlie Hebdo Founder Says Slain Editor 'Dragged' Staff To Their Deaths

Henri Roussel, who helped to conceive the inaugural issue of Charlie Hebdo in 1970, penned an editorial for the French magazine L'Obs about slain editor Stephane Charbonnier and his "stubborn" management style. Roussel wonders why Charbonnier, also known as Charb, continued to push his staff despite multiple threats and attacks, suggesting that his "block head" behavior led the rest of the team to their deaths.

“I really hold it against you," he wrote to Charbonnier, under the pen name Delfeil de Ton, the Telegraph reported Wednesday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...ch-newspaper-editor-drag-death_n_6480034.html


...see this was a clear provocation on the part of the magazine for such a long time that even their staff admits that the editor kept provoking sentiments of not only the Muslims but Jews and Christians and continued to act in an authoritative manner. How can someone who supports democracy and freedom of speech continue to do something like this when the staff themselves are not united in their decision to continue with such ridiculing of religions.

Christian values were also ridiculed, Pope Francis shared his views which are the same as what a Muslim who does not support the killing would say so:

“One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith,” Francis said, adding that every religion “has its dignity.”
The Pope said that one can react violently when being offended. He offered an example, referring to his trip planner saying that if his “great friend says a swear word against my mother, then he is going to get a punch. But it’s normal, it’s normal.”
However he added that “one cannot offend, make war, kill in the name of one’s own religion, that is, in the name of God.”

http://rt.com/news/222935-pope-religion-freedom-insulted/

So, that is exactly why I am asking this question for the third time : In what way does Islam say people should make an objection?

In the Western World where secular law exists then obviously Muslims are supposed to protest by however the Law allows them to and they have done it, in Toronto where I used to live myself I joined the protest in Downtown when the 1st Danish Cartoons were published followed by French publishing of Charlie Hebdo. Likewise Muslims protested and kept protesting peacefully since year 2005.

 

[Abz2000]

Try to connect the dots:

At the time of partition in 1947,

as many as 10 million Muslim refugees fled their homes in India and sought refuge in Pakistan—about 8 million in West Pakistan.
Virtually an equal number of Hindus and Sikhs were uprooted from their land and familiar surroundings in what became Pakistan, and they fled to India.

Unlike the earlier migrations, which took centuries to unfold, these chaotic population transfers took hardly one year.

The resulting impact on the life of the subcontinent has reverberated ever since in the rivalries between the two countries, and each has continued to seek a lasting modus vivendi with the other. Pakistan and India have fought four wars, three of which (1948–49, 1965, and 1999) were over*Kashmir.*

The*United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine*was a proposal developed by the*United Nations, which recommended a*partition*with Economic Union of*Mandatory Palestineto follow the termination of the*British Mandate.

On 29 November 1947,

the U.N.*General Assembly*adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).[2]
The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.

The United Nations Headquarters complex was constructed in stages with the core complex completed between 1948 and 1952.
The Headquarters occupies a site beside the East River, on 17 acres (69,000*m2) - or 18 acres depending on sources*[6]- of land purchased from the foremost New York real estate developer of the time,*William Zeckendorf, Sr.

*Nelson Rockefeller*arranged this purchase, after an initial offer to locate it on the*Rockefeller family*estate of*Kykuit*was rejected as being too isolated from Manhattan.

The US$8.5 million (adjusted by inflation US$83.4*million) purchase
was then funded by his father,John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who donated it to the city.[7]*

Wallace Harrison, the personal architectural adviser for the Rockefeller family, and a prominent corporate architect, served as the Director of Planning for the United Nations Headquarters.
His firm, Harrison and Abramovitz, oversaw the execution of the design.

The Rockefeller Foundation funded Nazi racial studies even after it was clear that this research was being used to rationalize the demonizing of Jews and other groups.
Up until 1939 the Rockefeller Foundation was funding research used to support Nazi racial science studies at the*Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics*(KWIA.)
Reports submitted to Rockefeller did not hide what these studies were being used to justify, but Rockefeller continued the funding and refrained from criticizing this research so closely derived from Nazi ideology.
The Rockefeller Foundation did not alert "the world to the nature of German science and the racist folly" that German anthropology promulgated and Rockefeller funded for years after the passage of the 1935 Nuremberg racial laws.[40]

Juden Raus!*(1936)

Juden Raus*(“Jews out") is a*Cross and Circle-style game published in*Germanyby Günther & Co. in 1936, just one year after the*Nuremberg Laws*were put into effect.

The game was advertised as "entertaining, instructive and solidly constructed."[2]*

The game's equipment includes a pair of dice, a game board, and several game piece figurines with large*pointed hats*meant to represent*Jews.[3]

Players take turns rolling the dice and moving their "Jews" across the map toward "collection points" outside the city walls for deportation to*Mandate Palestine
.[4]*

Written on the game board, it says “If you manage to see off 6 Jews, you’ve won a clear victory!”

Nazi Germany*used violence and economic pressure to encourage Jews to leave Germany of their own volition;[28]*around 250,000 of the country's 437,000 Jews emigrated between 1933 and 1939.[29][30]

Adolf Eichmann travelled to British*Mandatory Palestine*with his superior*Herbert Hagen*in 1937 to assess the possibility of Germany's Jews voluntarily emigrating to that country, disembarking with forged press credentials at*Haifa, whence they travelled to*Cairo*in Egypt.*

Adolf Eichmann was a crypto-Jewish Zionist Nazi, who, together with other such Jews, attempted to force European Jewry to emigrate to Palestine against their will.

According to Hennecke Kardel in his book*Adolf Hitler: Begruender Israels, Eichmann was a full-blooded Jew.
According to Eichmann himself, he was a radical Zionist.

Adolf Eichmann identified himself as a Zionist in 1939 in a conversation with Anny Stern,"'Are you a Zionist?' Adolph Eichmann, Hitler's specialist on Jewish affairs, asker her. 'Jawohl,' she replied. 'Good,' he said, 'I am a Zionist, too. I want every Jew to leave for Palestine.'"

—L. Dickstein, "Hell's Own Cookbook",*The New York Times, Book Review Section, (17 November 1996), p. 7.

..... Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars.It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.”

British Prime Minister.
From the Campbell-Bannerman Report, 1907——

1950–1951 Baghdad bombings*refers to the bombing of Jewish targets in*Baghdad, Iraq, between April 1950 and June 1951.

Two confirmed activists in the Iraqi Zionist underground were found guilty by an Iraqi court for the bombing, and were sentenced to death. Another was sentenced to life imprisonment and seventeen more were given long prison sentences.[2]*

The allegations against Israeli agents had "wide consensus" amongst Iraqi Jews in*Israel.[3][4][5][6][7]

Many of the Iraqi Jews in*Israel*who lived in poor conditions blamed their ills and misfortunes on the Israeli Zionist emissaries or Iraqi Zionist underground movement.[8]

*The allegations against the Zionist agents were viewed as "more plausible than most" by the British Foreign Office.[9][10][11][7][4][5]
Israeli involvement has been consistently denied by the Israeli government, including by a Mossad-led internal inquiry,[12]*even following the 2005 admission of the*Lavon affair.[13][14][15][16][17]

Historians who assign responsibility for the bombings to an Israeli or Iraqi Zionist underground movement suggest the motive was to encourage*Iraqi Jewsto*immigrate*to*Israel,[18][19][14][20]*as part of the ongoing*Operation Ezra and Nehemiah.*

In 1949, Zionist emissary Yudka Rabinowitz complained that the complacency of the Iraqi Jews was "hampering our existence" and proposed to the*Mossad*"throwing several hand-grenades for intimidation into cafes with a largely Jewish clientele, as well as leaflets threatening the Jews and demanding their expulsion from Berman", using the code name for Iraq.[56]*
The Mossad forbade him to conduct negotiations about or carry out any acts of terror, an order which he reported that he had "confirmed and accepted".

Shimon Mendes wrote in*Ha'aretz*that:
"Someone had to act, and he took the appropriate action at the right time. For only an act like the explosions would have brought them to Israel. Anyone who understood politics and developments in Israel was long aware of that."[64]

 

[Abz2000]

Here's a little video i put together a few years back to shed some light on the topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eF9DCTv3XE

Why are we bickering over the falsely engineered talking points when the facts are obvious?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-to...olice-engaged-in-purposeful-provocation/19928

The bottom line is, this reeks of a false flag.
But confusing us with multi-layered deceptions shouldn't make us deny that in the absence of sincere repentance, the punishment for mocking or abusing the Messengers of God is capital punishment.
Both of these men are "suspected attackers" who have been conveniently murdered, and one's wife has disappeared. We shouldn't be slandering them.

It is not you that they hate (O Prophet), it is the signs of Allah which the wicked deny.

They are trying to achieve a much more sinister purpose by character assasinating the Messengers of God, and also with these provocations and false flags.

How does Allah deal with such a situation ?

He (swt) clarifies the punishment of actual punishment according to the Highest Law.

And clarifies that it is an obvious slander in this situation.

The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse - lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.....


Indeed, those who came with falsehood are a group among you. Do not think it bad for you; rather it is good for you. For every person among them is what [punishment] he has earned from the sin, and he who took upon himself the greater portion thereof - for him is a great punishment.24:12to topSahih International

Why, when you heard it, did not the believing men and believing women think good of one another and say, "This is an obvious falsehood"?


24:13to topSahih InternationalWhy did they [who slandered] not produce for it four witnesses? And when they do not produce the witnesses, then it is they, in the sight of Allah , who are the liars.24:14to topSahih InternationalAnd if it had not been for the favor of Allah upon you and His mercy in this world and the Hereafter, you would have been touched for that [lie] in which you were involved by a great punishment24:15to topSahih InternationalWhen you received it with your tongues and said with your mouths that of which you had no knowledge and thought it was insignificant while it was, in the sight of Allah , tremendous.24:16to topSahih InternationalAnd why, when you heard it, did you not say, "It is not for us to speak of this. Exalted are You, [O Allah ]; this is a great slander"?24:17to topSahih InternationalAllah warns you against returning to the likes of this [conduct], ever, if you should be believers.24:18to topSahih InternationalAnd Allah makes clear to you the verses, and Allah is Knowing and Wise.
Chapter 24

The french government are perjurers, you can't accept their evidence at face value according to their own false law.

And you also know that they are trying to justify their future crimes with this falehood.

O you who have believed, if there comes to you a transgresor with news, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful

Quran 49:7

these are the type of people who would have said it's ok to commit adultery,
yet would have accused Aisha (ra) of it due to their hate of God, His message, and the Messenger.
Just so they can spread corruption and fahishah and continue to be corrupt.

A double crime.

Like posting the cartoons abusing and mocking God's Mesengers and then staging the false flag falsehoods. Just so they can spread fear and hate and kufr, and then bomb innocent people out of injustice.

 

[LearnIslam]

No, they didn't. The Hindus in question became Muslims by choice, and continued to live where they had lived as Hindus. The way you put it implies that Hindus are the rightful owners of the land and for the Muslims to have it is a gift of generosity, not a right.

Please don't lie in a forum like this. I earnestly request that. No population can dwindle to such small numbers out of choice in a hostile territory.

I neither believe the Zoroastrians of Persia gave up their faith out of choice, nor the Hindus who lived in Pakistan. India doesn't belong to the Hindus, but its their homeland and it was split for the Muslims. This is history, not what I am saying.

 

[LearnIslam]

Abz2000

I have read all things from objective sources before commenting here. Look at Pakistan today and look at India - there is a huge difference in the way they are progressing. I myself desire a stable Muslim heartland, it is beneficial to all. But where does it exist? In Iraq? In Pakistan? Terrorists attacked India and Pakistan is housing them. Pakistan was housing Osama Bin Laden and he gets the sympathies of many Muslims - I have seen. But I say under no circumstances is it right to kill in the style of 9/11.

These countries have only harbored terrorists and the reason they can do that is because the prominent voices of Islam are clerics who are myopic and militant.

I didn't come here to show the Muslims down. I will leave this internet forum and have you win this debate if that is what you wish. But what is happening in the name of the Creator is undeniable.

What Charlie Hebdo did was in very bad taste, but what terrorist organization have been doing is worse - spreading fear and hate in the name of the Creator. And its not like I am looking at the extremists, the problem is the biggest leaders of Islam are militant which is the issue.

Who would you say is the most responsible leader of the Muslim world, who has qualities of Imaan, or Adab? If you all are serious about representing the faith of my Creator (yours too), you will look at these objectively. This discussion is not for discussion sake.

 

[Hulk]

problem is the biggest leaders of Islam are militant which is the issue.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

 

[Abz2000]

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

Assalamu'alaikum wr wb,
LearntodissIslam's intentions seem quite transparent, but i would tend to agree with him/her/it???'s statement that the biggest leaders of Islam were militant though it was a virtue, not an "issue".
They upheld faith, truth, and valour with honour and held loyalty to God, sacrifice and bravery as manly virtues.

I can give some examples:
Abu Bakr Al Siddique was involved with his revered and trusted leader who was none other than the Final Messenger of God (pbuh) in several campaigns such as the*Battle of Uhud, the*Battle of the Trench, the*Invasion of Banu Qurayza,*Battle of Khaybar, the*Conquest of Mecca, the*Battle of Hunayn, the*Siege of Ta'if, and the*Battle of Tabuk*where he was reported to have given all of his wealth for the preparation of this expedition.

Abu Bakr's Caliphate lasted for 27 months, during which he crushed the rebellion of the Arab tribes throughout the*Arabian Peninsula*in the successful*Ridda Wars.
In the last months of his rule, he launched campaigns against the*Sassanid Empire*and the*Eastern Roman Empire*(Byzantine Empire) and thus set in motion a historical trajectory[61]*(continued later on by*Umar*and*Uthman ibn Affan) that in just a few short decades would lead to one of the*largest empires in history.

These were real men.
They weren't the limp wristed batty type, or the evil tyrant type.

And they weren't the type to sell out their citizens' futures to international usurers via massive iou's that they had no intention of honouring.

They had short inauguration speeches of substance, not long lists of lies to be read off of teleprompters, which is why they earned respect.

I have been given the authority over you, and I am not the best of you.
If I do well, help me; and if I do wrong, set me right.
Sincere regard for truth is loyalty and disregard for truth is treachery.
The weak amongst you shall be strong with me until I have secured his rights, if God wills;
and the strong amongst you shall be weak with me until I have wrested from him the rights of others, if God wills.
Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger.
But if I disobey God and His Messenger, you owe me no obedience.
Arise for your prayer, God have mercy upon you.

Many of the muhajireen ( the Muslims who emigrated from Mecca to Medinah) spoke up, using the most eloquent of words to describe their dedication.
But there was one of the sahabah whom all the others envied for his statement to Rasoolullah (saws).
He, Miqdad ibn al Aswad, rose up in front of the crowd and said, 'O Messenger of God! We will not say to you as Bani Israel said to Musa, 'Go you and your Lord and fight, we are here sitting (waiting).' (surat al maa'idah).
Go by Allah's blessing and we are with you!"
And so the Messenger of God (saws) was very pleased, but in his greeat wisdom, he waited silently, and some among the Muslims knew what he intended.
So far only the muhajiroon had given their consent, but it was the Ansar (the Muslims who lived in Medinah and welcomed the Muslims into their city) who had the most to loose in this stake and it was not a part of the pledge (that Rasoolullah had taken from the Ansar at ‘Aqabah) for the Ansar to fight with the Muslims in foreign territory.
So, the great leader of the Ansar, Sa'd ibn Mu'adh spoke up,
O Messenger of GodMaybe you mean us."
The Messenger of God (saws) responded in the affirmative. Sa'd proceeded to give a beautiful speech in which he said, among many things:
"O Messenger of Allah, we have believed in you and we believe that you are saying the truth.
We give you, based on that, our covenant to listen to and obey you.....By Allah, the One Who sent you with the truth, if you were to enter the sea, we would rush into it with you and not one of us would stay behind...May Allah show you in our actions what will satisfy your eyes. So march with us, putting our trust in Allah's blessings." The Messenger of God (saws) was very pleased by this and said, “Forward and be of cheer, for Allah has promised me one of the two (the caravan or the battle), and by Allah, it is as if I now saw the enemy lying prostrate.”
The Muslims marched forward and encamped at the nearest spring of Badr (closest to Medinah, which is north of Mecca).*

 

[Hulk]

Wa alaykumsalam wrwb

Sayyidina Abu Bakr r.a is the best after Rasulullah s.a.w, I wouldn't say he was militant. His concern was always for Rasulullah s.a.w, the interest of the Ummah, and inviting people to Islam. The battles were always either in defence, or when Rulers did not give it's people the right to hear the message of Tauhid. That said, I suppose one would first have to define what is meant by militant. Also, I would hope that there is no one today who sees themselves fit to liken themselves to Sayyidina Abu Bakr r.a.

 

[Abz2000]

A*militant*is someone who is engaged in a war or who acts aggressively for their cause. If you are*militant*in your beliefs, you do not question them anymore than a soldier questions his orders.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/militant

 

[Futuwwa]

Please don't lie in a forum like this. I earnestly request that. No population can dwindle to such small numbers out of choice in a hostile territory.

I neither believe the Zoroastrians of Persia gave up their faith out of choice, nor the Hindus who lived in Pakistan. India doesn't belong to the Hindus, but its their homeland and it was split for the Muslims. This is history, not what I am saying.

It is what you are saying, and nothing more. You are inferring that they must have been forcibly converted because you can't imagine anyone choosing to be a Muslim. There was very little forced conversion in Persia. The Hindus who lived in the area which today is Pakistan did suffer a significant amount of forced conversion when Timur invaded, but after that, many generations have passed during which they have been Muslims by choice. No authority compelled them to remain Muslims after the downfall of the Mughals.

 

[Scimitar]

to add to that, Shaikhh ul Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah spoke openly against the Mongol ignorance of Shariah and the spread of Mongol law instead, which saw the non Muslims forcibly converted - Ibn Taymiyyah was jailed for openly speaking against the Mongols and even identified them ad Yajouj wa Majouj - the mongols decided to jail him and he died in Jail.

Even wiki has the scoop:

Taqî ad-Dîn Aḥmad ibn Taymiyyah (born in Harran, January 22, 1263 – died in Damascus, September 20, 1328 at the age of 65), full name: Taqī ad-Dīn Abu 'l-`Abbās Aḥmad ibn `Abd al-Ḥalīm ibn `Abd as-Salām Ibn Taymiyyah al-Ḥarrānī (Arabic: تقي الدين أبو العباس أحمد بن عبد الحليم بن عبد السلام بن عبد الله ابن تيمية الحراني‎), was a Sunni Islamic scholar (alim), Sunni Islamic philosopher, Sunni theologianand logician. He lived during the troubled times of the Mongol invasions. He was a member of the school founded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and is considered by his followers, along with Ibn Qudamah, as one of the two most significant proponents of Hanbalism; in the modern era, his adherents often refer to the two as "the two sheikhs" and Ibn Taymiyyah in particular as "Sheikh ul-Islam".[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP]Ibn Taymiyyah was notable for having sought the return of Sunni Islam to what he viewed as earlier interpretations of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and is considered to have had considerable influence in contemporary Wahhabism, Salafism, and Jihadism.[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP] He is renowned for his fatwa (takfir) issued against the Mongol rulers declaring jihad by Muslims against them compulsory, on the grounds that they did not follow Sharia and as such were not Muslim, their claims to have converted to Islam notwithstanding.[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP] His teachings had a profound influence on the Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and other later Sunni scholars.[SUP][4]

[/SUP]Scimi

 

[LearnIslam]

I just want to you all to know my intentions - it is to learn Islam and see if what you understand by Islam is indeed the faith of the Creator.

Regarding 'being militant', what I meant is there is no dialogue or protest, there is a direct attack - by means of arms and terror. And if this was against the American soldiers is can be even considered righteous, but for it to be targeted at populations is wrong.

If someone does wrong (like Americans bomb places that destroys civilians in Iraq), is it right from your side? If someone came and hurt your child, would you get their child? Is it right?

I don't know many Muslim clerics, I am not a Muslim but the message of Jihad and 'Embrace Islam or die' is stronger than the moderate voice in the Muslim world, which is why the world stands to clarify in the face of such attacks.

Learning of science and technology to benefit mankind is a very holy thing, but its other issues that are taken as the main focus. A place of free thinking blossoms great ideas and a flourishing civilization. The West was there at one point even if all the freedoms to exchange ideas are, in great part, used badly. But unless the method of free dialogue and thinking comes into the Islamic world again, its not good for stability in the Muslim world. What I say is not contrary to the will of the Creator.

There is no documentation on the Zoroastrians, but we do know a small group migrated to India when the Muslims invaded - so it was an invasion.

I can't imagine a people giving up their faith as quickly either. Would any of you give up Islam? No. Because you think that is the faith of the Creator. In the same way the Zoroastrians thought theirs was the faith of the Creator.

Now in this regard, ISIS hopes to convert all places to Islam by force, its in their agenda. We either see their supporters, or passive bystanders, but not a Muslim voice that says the contrary and is as strong. So Islam gets a bad name.

Who would say that so and so country (given Muslim country) is fine having all faiths and believers? None.

Would you accept or praise someone who converted to Christianity? With the same conviction that Christians think, so do you about Islam. What does it matter? None of you know the Creator or his actual glory. Does Anjem? This whole thing about converting is like a number game.

Anjem hopes to convert all of UK into Islam, would it be acceptable for him if even any sizable group in Pakistan became non-Muslim? Not so, right?

Because the conviction is that others are false and you are following the faith of the Creator. Arabs have hijacked the faith of the Creator and that is not correct. Because none of us have actually realized Him.