BAMCEF UNIFICATION CONFERENCE 7

Published on 10 Mar 2013 ALL INDIA BAMCEF UNIFICATION CONFERENCE HELD AT Dr.B. R. AMBEDKAR BHAVAN,DADAR,MUMBAI ON 2ND AND 3RD MARCH 2013. Mr.PALASH BISWAS (JOURNALIST -KOLKATA) DELIVERING HER SPEECH. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLL-n6MrcoM http://youtu.be/oLL-n6MrcoM

Welcome

Website counter
website hit counter
website hit counters

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Call to Action for 2015: Serve a Nation Without Borders

Call to Action for 2015: Serve a Nation Without Borders

Dear Supporter,

I have been a UNITED SIKHS volunteer for 12 years and counting. I am writing to you on behalf of all UNITED SIKHS relentless volunteers, many of who are members of the Sikh Nation - a nation without borders.

Sikhs are settled across the globe from Assam to Zanzibar and they collectively constitute the Sikh Nation. Like all other nations, the Sikh Nation has its rights and responsibilities to uphold its Constitution and to protect, inter alia, its heritage and civil and human rights. So who then takes care of a Sikh Nation's collective rights and responsibilities?

You!

Today we are making a CALL TO ACTION to you because the Sikh Nation needs your help for three pressing campaigns that affect Sikhs globally. We need you to volunteer and to donate so we may serve the Sikh Nation. The three campaigns that require your actions are:

ACTION 1

Bhai Gurbaksh Singh

Bhai Gurbakash Singh has been on a hunger strike since 14th Nov 2014 to secure the release of long serving Sikh prisoners. He has declared that he is ready to die and will not quit his hunger strike until the Sikh prisoners are released. He will stop drinking water form 3rd January 2015, which will place his life at a great risk. His appeal to you is that you show solidarity and join him on 1st Jan 2015 at Lakhnaur Gurdwara, near Ambala, Haryana, India or request your friends and family to do so. You may watch his latest appeal here.

The long serving Sikh prisoners can only be released on the orders of a court or with the intervention of the Indian Prime Minister and the Union Home Minister. We can confirm to you that of the seven prisoners for whom Bhai Sahib is campaigning, only two have made an application to the High Court for an early release and their hearing is in February 2015. Bhai Gurbakash Singh may not have until Feb 2015. Therefore, the only way that the said prisoners could be released is if the Indian Prime Minister and the Union Home Minister orders their release.

You are requested to write to the Indian Prime Minister TODAY by registering an account and writing to him at http://pmindia.gov.in/en/interact-with-honble-pm/.

A template of the letter to the Indian Prime Minister can be found here.

ACTION 2

Sikh Reference Library


The Sikh Reference Library at Darbar Sahib Amritsar (also known as the Golden Temple) was burnt after its invaluable contents were removed by the Indian Army.

In June 2014, UNITED SIKHS discovered, during the making of a documentary series 'Unheard Voices', that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had ordered in 2004 for the return of the contents of the Sikh Reference Library that had been taken by the Indian Army during the attack on Sri Darbar Sahib Amritsar (also known as the Golden Temple). This Library housed some of the oldest saroops of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (the eternal Sikh Guru, one of which was handwritten and dated 1604) and antiquarian books that constitute the invaluable heritage of Sikh. Ten years later, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), the largest representative body of Sikhs in India, which was ordered by the Court to take possession of the contents of the library, has failed to do so. Will you help us secure its return? You may watch our documentary, 'Smoking Gun Recovered', on what happened in June 1984 to the Sikh Reference Library at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6AFP1NiFU

If you are a lawyer and wish to be involved in the advocacy, please email us at law@unitedsikhs.org. You are also requested to donate towards advocacy costs for the return of the contents of the Library.

ACTION 3

History of Sikhs


Book cover of the reprint of JD Cunningham's 164 yr old book, which is readily available in libraries and bookshops

In 1999, to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the revelation of the Khalsa, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) published a Hindi translation of a book titled 'History of the Sikhs'. In 2007, one Baldev Singh Sirsa took legal action against the SGPC after it was brought to his attention that the said translated book had derogatory comments and references on most Sikh Gurus that depicted them as cowards and of low moral character. In June 2014, Baldev Singh sought assistance from UNITED SIKHS regarding this book. On reviewing the case papers we found that SGPC had recalled the book and had admitted that only 5 books were returned following the recall. SGPC had also admitted in its court pleadings that the book was a translation of a book titled 'History of the Sikhs' by renowned English writer, Joseph Davey Cunningham. Cunningham's book was first published in 1849 and is widely available in most good libraries and book shops and hitherto regarded as an authoritative book on Sikh History. The UNITED SIKHS legal team is studying the legal options for Sikhs to ensure that the harm done by the book is ended. You may watch a Canadian TV interview in Panjabi between the UNITED SIKHS team and Baldev Singh from 43.50 mins at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQdYldxXY1U

If you are a lawyer or Sikh historian and wish to be involved in the advocacy, please email us at law@unitedsikhs.org. You are also requested to donate to our legal campaign so that we may rectify the gross misrepresentations in Cunningham's book.

UNITED SIKHS, whose mission is to protect and provide for the rights and needs of minorities, needs funds to carry on our work. Kindly donate for us to continue our action at www.unitedsikhs.org/donate.

Yours truly, 
Mejindarpal Kaur
International Legal Director 
contact@unitedsikhs.org


यूंन सचमुच माँ नरेंद्र मोदीक लुटिया डुबाण। यूँ हिन्दू धर्म का ठेकेदारों का कर्म देखिक मि तैं नरेंद्र मोदी पर दया आणि च कि जब समर्थक ही इन ह्वावन तो दुश्मनों की क्या जरूरत ?

बगैर दिख्यां मीन बि PK कु विरोध करण !

                              बगैर बातौ विरोधी ::: भीष्म कुकरेती 


घरवळि -तुम से त वी ठीक छौ जु बगैर बातौ विरोध करदु छौ। 
मि -हैं बगैर बातौ विरोधी ? कु छौ ?
नौनु - पापा ममी देहरादून वाले उन पागल अंकल की बात कर रहे हैं जो हर समय किसी फिल्म , आर्ट , किताबों या लेखों का विरोध करते रहते हैं। 
मि -ओ अच्छा ! अच्छा ! जिसने एक दिन अपनी छै वर्ष विटिया की बनाई पेंटिंग का ही विरोध कर दिया कि इस पेंटिंग से मुसलमानो के धर्म पर ठेस पंहुचती है। 
नौनु - अर हाँ जिन अंकल ने अपने दस साल के पुत्र  के डांस का भी विरोध किया था कि उसके डांस से क्रिश्चियनो के धर्म पर खचांग लगती है !
मि -हाँ पर  तेरी ब्वै तैं 
वै पागलक  याद आज अचाणचक किलै आई ?  
घरवळि -किलै नि आण ? सरा मुहल्ला मा कतनौक इख विरोध हूणु च अर हमर इख कूँ बि नि हूणु च। 
मि -ह्यां पर विरोध क्यांक करण , कैक करण , किलै करण अर कख करण ?
घरवळि -बस विरोध करो। 
मि -ह्यां मनमोहन सिंग जी तो सांसद ह्वेक बि वानप्रस्थी ह्वे गेन अर नरेंद्र मोदी जी तैं द्वी चार साल बि नि ह्वेन ।  तो फिर विरोध क्यांक करण ?
घरवळि -विरोध करणो कुण वजै नि ढूंढे जांद।  बगैर  बातौ बि बतंगड़ बणये जांद कि ना ? 
मि - हाँ कॉंग्रेस अर सेक्युलर पार्टयूं बगैर बातौ बतंगड़ राज्य सभा मा द्याख त च।  तो ?
घरवळि -तो क्या हौर विरोध बि त द्याख च कि ना ?
मि -किलै ना महान विप्लवकारी क्रांतिकारी ममता बनर्जी कु विरोध बि हम दिखणा  छंवां।  शारदा चिट फंड का चीटरों तैं बचाणो ममता बनर्जी का ढोंगी विरोध बि हम दिखणा इ छंवां।  
घरवळि -वी त मि बुलणु छौं कि तुम बि विरोध कारो , प्रतिरोध कारो , तोड़ फोड़ कारो , अग्यो कारो।   
मि -अरे पर तोड़ फोड़ या अग्यौ वास्ता क्वी विषय बि त हूण चयेंद। 
घरवळि -तुम बि ना ! दकियानूसी , पराम्परिक , स्पेंट फ़ोर्स जन  वुद्धिजीवी छंवां।  विरोध का वास्ता अपॉरचुनिटी , अवसर खुजाये जांदन अर अवसर त तुमर समिण खड़ो च।  अवसर से फैदा उठाओ अर अपण अहमियत बथावो , अपण तागत दिखावो अर अपण छवि चमकावो ! 
मि -ह्यां पर दंगा फिसाद करणो कु अवसर अयुं च ? विरोध क्यांक करण ?
घरवळि - अरे अवसर समिण इ च। 
मि -क्या ?
घरवळि -हाँ ! PK फिलम समिण च।  यीं फिलमो विरोध कारो। 
मि -PK फिलम कु विरोध ?
घरवळि -हाँ ब्वालो कि 
PK फिलम से हिन्दू धरम पर खचांग लग गे। PK फिलम से हिन्दू भावना आहत ह्वे गे। PK फिलम से हिन्दुस्तान की अवमानना ह्वे गे। 
मि - PK फिलम से हिन्दुस्तान की अवमानना ह्वे गे ?
घरवळि -हाँ पैल त PK फिलम का पोस्टर जलावो।  
मि -PK फिलम का पोस्टर जलावो?
घरवळि -फिर कोशिस कारो कि सिनेमा हाल की कुर्सी जळ जावन। 
मि -सिनेमा हाल की कुर्सी जळ जावन?
घरवळि -हाँ अर फिर टीवी कैमरा का समिण आवो अर पागल जन जोर जोर से चिल्लावो कि हिन्दू धर्म खत्म करणो साजिस हूणि च। 
मि -अरे हिन्दू धरम तब खत्म नि ह्वे जब राजा बुद्धिस्ट ह्वेन , मुसलमान बादशाह ह्वेन या अंग्रेजुं राज ह्वे तो एक फिल्म क्या हिन्दू धर्म नष्ट कारली। 
घरवळि -नै नै ! तुम तैं PK फिलमक विरोध करण इ पोड़ल। 
मि -पर विरोध क्यांक करण ?
घरवळि -PK फिलम कु विरोध कारो। 
मि -पर जब मीन फिलम इ नि देखि तो मि विरोध कनकै कौर सकुद ?
घरवळि -विरोध करण मा ले क्या जांद ? जब क्वी शंकराचार्य  या अन्य हिन्दू धर्म का ठेकेदार बगैर फिलम दिख्यां PK फिलम का विरोध कर सकदन तो तुम सामन्य वुद्धिजीवी PK फिलम का विरोध नि कर सकदां क्या ?
मि -यूंन सचमुच माँ नरेंद्र मोदीक लुटिया डुबाण।  यूँ हिन्दू धर्म का ठेकेदारों का कर्म देखिक मि तैं नरेंद्र मोदी पर दया आणि च कि जब समर्थक ही इन ह्वावन तो दुश्मनों  की क्या जरूरत ?



1/1/15,  Bhishma Kukreti , Mumbai India 

   *लेख की   घटनाएँ ,  स्थान व नाम काल्पनिक हैं । लेख में  कथाएँ चरित्र , स्थान केवल व्यंग्य रचने  हेतु उपयोग किये गए हैं।

For the Occupied Palestinians UN means Useless Nations by Alan Hart

For the Occupied Palestinians UN means Useless Nations


The Citizen

Palestinians and the UN

I must begin by making it clear that the UN of my headline is the Security Council not other component parts of the world body such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) which provides education, health care and social services for more than five million Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip prison camp, the occupied West Bank, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

As a new year dawns I believe that those who are entertaining hope that the cause of justice for the Palestinians will be advanced by another Security Council resolution are guilty of wishful thinking. They may also be unaware of the history of Zionism's success in corrupting and subverting the decision making process of the General Assembly as well as the Security Council. (This history, complete and unexpurgated, flows through the three volumes of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews).

The corruption and subversion started in the countdown to the vote on the General Assembly's Partition Plan resolution of 29 November 1947. The vote was postponed twice because Zionism calculated that there was not a majority in favour of partition. Then, assisted by its assets in President Truman's White House and 26 of its collaborators in the Senate, Zionism bullied and bribed a number of vulnerable nations to change their "No" votes to "Yes" or abstain. The result was a minimum necessary majority in favour of partition but… When President Truman refused to use force to impose it, the resolution was vitiated (became invalid); and the option Truman approved was sending the question of what to do about Palestine back to the General Assembly for another debate. It was while this debate was underway that Israel, in defiance of the will of the organized international community as it then was, unilaterally declared itself to be in existence.

When Truman learned how Zionism and its collaborators had rigged the partition vote, he wrote the following in an angry memorandum to Undersecretary of State Robert Lovett. "It is perfectly clear that pressure groups will succeed in putting the United Nations out of business if this sort of thing is continued."

Many years later a long serving, very senior and universally respected UN official said the following to me in his office on the 38th (top) floor of the UN's headquarters in New York. "Zionism has corrupted everything it touched, including this organization in its infancy." I knew, really knew, that he was reflecting the deeply held but private view of all the top international civil servants who were responsible for trying to make the world body work in accordance with the ideals and principles enshrined in its Charter and international law.

The Security Council's complete surrender to Zionism happened during the protracted and at times angry behind-closed-doors discussions about the text of Resolution 242 – what it should and should not say. (The full story of this surrender is told in Goodbye To The Security Council's Integrity, Chapter 3 of Volume Three of my book).

The Johnson administration and all others responsible for drafting and then finalizing the resolution's text were completely aware that the Six Days War of June 1967 was a war of Israeli aggression, not, as Zionism asserted at the time and still asserts today, a war of self-defence.

That being so Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967 ought to have demanded an unconditional Israeli withdrawal and indicated that Israel would be isolated and sanctioned if it refused to comply. And for complete clarity of meaning a binding resolution ought to have stated that Israel should not seek to settle or colonise the newly occupied territories, and that if it did the Security Council would enforce international law and take whatever action was necessary to stop the illegal developments.

But President Johnson refused to have Israel branded as the aggressor.

(This was despite the fact that he was privately furious with the Israelis. He had given them the green light to attack only Egypt and their attack on Syria to take the Golan Heights for keeping provoked the Soviet Union to the brink of military confrontation with the U.S. Johnson was also fully aware that when Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Dayan gave the order for his forces to attack the U.S.S. Liberty his intention was to sink the American spy ship and send all on board to a watery grave. As it happened on 8 June the Israeli attack on the Liberty with bombs, napalm, torpedoes and machine gun fire killed 34 members of the vessel's crew and wounded 171, 75 of them seriously. The Liberty was attacked to prevent it sending an early warning to the Johnson administration that elements of the IDF's ground forces in Sinai were being turned around to reinforce an attack on Jordan and Syria. The full story is told in The Liberty Affair – "Pure Murder" on a "Great Day", Chapter 2 of Volume Three of my book. Who described the attack on the Liberty as "pure murder"? Israel's chief of staff at the time, Yitzhak Rabin. The "great day" comment was made by Dayan in a note to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol.).

Though it did pay lip service to "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war", the final text of Resolution 242 (less than 300 words in all) gave the Israelis the scope to interpret it as they wished. It did so by stating that the establishment of a just and lasting peace should include the application of two principles

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

This wording enabled Zionism to assert that withdrawal was conditional on the Arab states recognising and legitimising Israel.

In addition Resolution 242 gave Israel the freedom to determine the extent of any withdrawals it might make. This freedom was secured by immense pressure from Israel and the Zionist lobby in all its manifestations which caused those responsible for the final wording of the resolution to drop the definite article "the" in (i) above. The wording of the draft text was (my emphasis added) "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from the territories occupied in the recent conflict." The meaning of that draft text was clear. Israel had to withdraw from ALL the Arab territory it grabbed in the Six Days War. But when Israel's leaders and the Zionist lobby said that was unacceptable, those responsible for the final version of 242 replied in effect: "Okay. We'll do it your way."

So the question without an answer in the final text of 242 was – WHICH Israel were the Arab states required to recognise? An Israel withdrawn to its borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war or a Greater Israel – an Israel in permanent occupation of at least some Arab territory grabbed in that war?

Incredible though it may seem today, Resolution 242 did not mention the Palestinians by name. It affirmed only the necessity for "achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem." Mentioning the Palestinians by name was unacceptable to Israel's leaders and the Zionist lobby because it would have implied that they, the occupied and oppressed Palestinians, were a people with rights – rights far greater than what might be called the begging bowl rights normally associated in the public mind with refugees.

But there was more to it than that. At the time the Security Council was agonising over the text of 242, the three major Western powers, the U.S., Britain and France, were united on one thing – the view that the Palestine file was not to be re-opened because, if it was, they might one day have to confront Zionism.

Put another way, in November 1967 the major Western powers were hoping that re-emerging Palestinian nationalism could be snuffed out by a combination of Arab-and-Israeli military action (it was the security forces of Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon which made the first attempt to liquidate the authentic Palestine liberation movement led by Arafat) and compensation for refugees as necessary.

Security Council Resolution 242 was a disaster for all who were seriously committed to working for a just and lasting peace because, effectively, it put Zionism into the diplomatic driving seat.

Some years after 242 was passed I had a private conversation with a very senior British diplomat who participated in the drafting and finalising of it. At the end of our conversation I summarised my understanding of what he told me. He said my summary as follows was correct.

Those responsible for framing Resolution 242 were very much aware that Israel's hawks were going to proceed with their colonial venture come what may – in determined defiance of international law and no matter what the organised international community said or wanted. So some if not all of those responsible for framing 242 were resigned to the fact that, because of the history of the Jews (persecution on and off down the centuries) and Zionism's use of the Nazi holocaust as a brainwashing tool, Israel was not and never could be a normal state. As a consequence, there was no point in the Security Council seeking to oblige it to behave like a normal state – i.e. in accordance with international law and its obligations as a member of the UN. Like it or not, and whatever it might mean for the fate of mankind, the world was going to have to live with the fact that there are two sets of rules for the behaviour of nations – one rule for Israel and one for all other nations. In that light Resolution 242 was confirmation that the Security Council had a double standard built into it, and because the political will to confront Zionism did not exist, there was nothing anybody could do to change that reality.

At the time of writing an effort by the Palestine Authority is underway to get a new Security Council resolution calling on Israel to end its occupation within two or three years. But even if such a resolution was introduced and passed (not vetoed by President Obama) it would be meaningless unless it contained a commitment to Security Council enforcement action if Israel refused to comply.

What are the chances in the foreseeable future of a new Security Council resolution containing such a commitment?

In my view there is not a snowball's chance in hell.

What President Truman feared could happen did happen. On dealing with the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel the Security Council was put out of business by Zionism.

Kashmiri PhD student in Gujarat labeled ‘spy’ #WTFnews

Kashmiri PhD student in Gujarat labeled 'spy' #WTFnews

Posted by :kamayani On : January 1, 2015
0

Smear campaign launched at behest of varsity officials to strike at scholar's guide

  • Monday, 29 December 2014
Shabir Ahmad

Anantnag: A Gujarati newspaper has labeled a Kashmiri PhD scholar as a spy only because he had visited mountainous regions in J&K in connection with field work for the doctoral thesis, the student told Kashmir Reader
Adil Hussain, hailing from Shamsipora in Shopian and pursuing PhD in Geology at Kutch University said the newspaper had published the slanderous report at the behest of university officials who wanted to malign the image of his research guide Prof Mahesh G Thakar, one of the probable candidates for the post of next vice chancellor.
Adil said the serious allegation has not only put his career but also his life at risk.
"Since my research is topic is 'Great Himalayas', I had come to the Valley for some field work with proper authorisation from the university," Adil said.
"But I was shocked to know that a local daily in Kutch has reported that a Kashmiri Muslim student who had visited the border under the garb of research for his PhD thesis has gone missing."
The student said that he had visited the mountainous areas along with an international delegation of geologists.
"But this local daily has tried to label me as a spy," he said.
The newspaper, according to Adil, also insinuatingly asked why a Kashmiri Muslim student, hailing from the most sensitive Shopian district, chose Kutch University for his research.
"The newspaper has also reported that choosing Kutch University for research and visiting some mountainous areas as a part of my project is a matter of investigation by the security agencies," he said.
"Though my guide has assured me full support, I have apprehensions that security agencies may harass me there," Adil said.
He said he will return to the university only after obtaining a character certificate from the Jammu and Kashmir police.
When contacted, Prof Thakar said a clutch of university officials who wanted to defame him started the smear campaign against Adil.
"He is a genuine and brilliant guy. His visits to any place have been in connection with his research with a proper authority letter from the university. As long as I am here nobody can spoil his career or touch him," Prof Thakar said.

http://kashmirreader.com/kashmiri-phd-student-in-gujarat-labeled-spy-29598


Press Release – Not enough evidence to prosecute Amit Shah?

Press Release – Not enough evidence to prosecute Amit Shah?


A JTSA Release

Even by the plummeting standards set in the last few months, the decision of the special CBI court in discharging Amit Shah, (accused no. 16 in the second chargesheet; accused no. 1 in the third chargesheet) in the Sohrabuddin encounter case, seems outrageous.

Amit-Shah-cartoonThe Special CBI court without waiting for even the trial to commence, without weighing the evidence at length, seems to have suddenly concurred with the defence and the ruling party's view that Amit Shah was caught in a political trap. Why this impatience with the process of the trial? And Shah is no ordinary accused, or accessory with a side role: he is accused of being the "king pin" or the mastermind of the triple murder.

"The entire record considered in totality", says the court does not indicate to Shah's role, and hence discharged him. However, what is the entire record? Even a simple, cursory looks suggest that in fact it is not hearsay but solid evidence of call details records, witness statements recorded under 161 and 164 CrPC, as well evidence of systematic and direct interference by Shah in the state CID probe into the encounter.

If the call details records were totally insignificant and proved nothing, why was there such a concerted effort to suppress all such information that pointed to Shah's role?

The state CID investigations, which first led to the arrests of the senior police offcers, had taken on record phone call details between Shah and accused police officers. However, once the Supreme Court directed the transfer of investigation to the CBI, the CID failed to hand over the CD containing these phone conversations. A total of 331 conversations had been deleted from the record.

("Another top cop under scanner for 'erasing' Amit Shah reference in CD" by Neeraj Chauhan and Ujjwala Nayudu, Indian Express, 27 July 2010.

Link here: http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/another-top-cop-under-scanner-for–erasing–amit-shah-reference-in-cd/652299)

Shah attempted to sabotage CID enquiry

IGP Gita Johri, who was made in charge of the state CID investigation, recorded in Part B of her first report, how Shah attempted to sabotage the enquiry. She has recorded that though she and the Investigating Officer Solanki did not face any "hurdle" initially, "However, as soon as the statements of witnesses pertaining to confinement of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi in the Farm House of Shri Girish Patel at Ahmedabad came to be recorded, it came to the knowledge of Shri Vanzara and Shri Rajkumar Pandian [two of the accused officers]. It is further learnt that these officers brought the above facts to the notice of Respondent No. 2, Shri Amit Shah, Minister of State for Home, Government of Gujarat."

It further states that Shah "brought to bear pressure" on the enquiry process, resulting in the enquiry papers being taken away from her "under the guise of scrutiny". He "directed Shri G.C. Raigar, Additional Director General of Police, CID (Crime & Railways) to provide him with the list of witnesses, both police and private, who are yet to be contacted by CID (Crime) for recording their statement in the said enquiry. Such direction of Minister of State for Home goes beyond the scope of his office, was patently illegal and apparently designed to provide the same list to accused police officers … so as to enable them to take measures in their defence."

(See "Geetha Johri report speaks of 'collusion of State government'", By Neena Vyas, 5 May 2007, The Hindu. Link here: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article1838149.ece)

Creative Reading by the CBI Court:

The CBI court did not entertain a note written by Gita Johri, in which the sentence "systematic efforts on the part of the state government" was struck out. The CBI's case had been that this sentence had been omitted under Shah's political pressure, whereas the court interpreted it to mean that Johri was not happy with the investigation done by the investigating officer. This is a flight of fancy, if there can be one. In fact, it is a matter of record that Johri's initial investigation, before she was removed, proved to be path breaking. However, when she was reinstated, she took a complete U-turn. So chaffed was the apex court with her that he chastised her, while praising the investigation of the IO Solanki. The Supreme Court observed the following:

"69. We have observed that from the record, it was found that Mr VL Solanki, an investigating officer, was proceeding in the right direction, but Ms Johri had not been carrying out the investigation in the right manner, in view of our discussions made here in above. It appears that Ms Johri had not made any reference to the second report of Solanki, and that though his first report was attached with one of her reports, the same was not forwarded to this Court.

amit-shah-may-replace-narendra-modi-in-vadodara81. In the present circumstances and in view of the involvement of the police officials the State in this crime, we cannot shut our eyes and direct the State police authorities to continue with the investigation and the charge-sheet and for a proper and fair investigation, we also feel that CBI should be requested to take up the investigation and submit a report in this Court within six months from the date of handing over a copy of this judgment and the records relating to this crime to them."

(Rubabuddin Sheikh v State of Gujarat reported in (2010) 2 SCC 200, p. 217.)

The Special CBI Court cannot act as though none of this happened. The "entire record" in fact points to Shah's involvement. The conspiracy is that of three cold-blooded murders. By terming Shah's implication in the triple murder fake encounter case as a political conspiracy carried out by CBI under directions from a rival political party, the special CBI court has cast aspersions on the Supreme Court which was monitoring the investigations closely at all stages.

Disregarding the statements of key witnesses:

The special CBI court also disregarded the statements of key witnesses: namely, the Patel brothers, Dashrath and Raman, proprietors of the successful Popular builders. Their statements to the CBI details how money was extorted from them and how they were being forced by Vanzara and cohorts to give a statement against Sohrabuddin. The statement describes a meeting as well telephonic conversation with Shah. This has been recorded under 164 CrPC, and yet this is not deemed evidence but hearsay?

One can only say that the pusillanimity of the CBI in first, not contesting Shah's application of exemption from appearing before the court in encounter cases, then not challenging the bail to senior police officer N.K. Amin in the Supreme Court, then responding to Shah's voluminous discharge application and marathon three day arguments with a perfunctory 15-20 minutes argument by a junior lawyer, had already made matters clear. The die had been cast on 16th May itself, when Amit Shah delivered the rich harvest of seats for the BJP.

But what it has exposed is the rot in our institutions: the u-turn of the CBI, the reinstatement of the accused cops on duty, some of them, such as Abhay Chudasma, being given coveted posting in the Vigilance squad. Worst of all, what it has shown is the abdication of even a modicum of judicial independence.

Released by Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Association (31st December 2014)

 

Terror In The Name Of God: Fighting Religious Extremism In 2015

Terror In The Name Of God: Fighting Religious Extremism In 2015
 
 
 
By D C Pathak
04:26 31 Dec 2014
When it comes to security, India as a nation faces a basket of threats.
From Maoist insurgencies and inter-tribal violence in the North-East, to Chinese aggression on the border, to vulnerability on the marine front and the escalating danger of cyber attacks on strategic assets, the dangers are manifold.
But nothing can be as destabilising as faith-based militancy.
The rise of religious militancy that now confronts India can be traced to three main sources — the unsuccessful jihad by the followers of Abdul Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, against the British during the colonial era, dubbed as the first jihad in modern history; the Independence-cum-Partition phase that saw one of the worst communal violence's ever in modern history; and, the use of Islamic fundamentalists by the US-led West against communist regimes during the Cold War era, especially the anti-soviet armed campaign in Afghanistan.
The 'Wahhabi revolt' — as the British called it — was part of a global attempt by the Ulema Al- Tijani in Algeria, Abdul Wahhab in Arabia and Wahhab's follower Shah Waliullah in South Asia to use jihad as a weapon to throw out the Western occupation of Muslim lands.
These radicals attributed the political decline of Muslims to its deviation from puritan faith since the days of the 'pious caliphs' and called for a return to the roots.
Rise of Radicals
In India the epicentre of jihad was in Swat, now in the Pakhtoon frontier of Pakistan. The adventure failed, but its protagonists retreated to seminaries that would later produce the Taliban.
Jihad today has radicalised the entire NWFP-Afghanistan belt. The 'war on terror' was essentially a combat between the US-led West and the Islamic radicals led by the Al Qaeda-Taliban combine.
But India is now caught in the cross-fire of this ongoing conflict. The radical's have — after the elimination of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden — revived themselves under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria) and Al Zawahiri of Al Qaeda in the regions around Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively.
The strand of radical Islam that endorses beheadings and suicide bombings has caught on in places like Yemen, Nigeria and Somalia as well.
It is ironic that though India was a part of the US-led world coalition against terror even before Pakistan joined in, it is India that has suffered the most through Pakistan's proxy war and cross-border terrorism, inflicted with the help of militant outfits such as Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and Hizb-ul Mujahideen, nurtured by ISI, Pakistan's spy agency.
These were the same elements that led the jihad for the US in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.
Emboldened by its success, the Pakistan army lost no time in replicating the Afghan jihad in Jammu & Kashmir by diverting Mujahideen onto this new front. This offensive was broadened into a full-scale 'proxy war' in which terrorists infiltrated through the porous India-Nepal and India-Bangladesh borders attacking targets even in other parts of the country.
Even the US was quite willing to look the other way when the Pakistan army was letting loose these India-specific militants.
Many US analysts even made a spurious distinction between the likes of Jamaat-e-Islami — the parent organisation of HuM — and the Saudi-funded Markaz Da'wah ul Irshad — the breeding centre of LeT — by labelling them as practitioners of "political" Islam as different from "radical" Islam that was the US's enemy in the 'war on terror'.
Emboldened by this collusive attitude of the West, Pakistan's ISI carried out 26/11 that was rightly regarded as India's 9/11 but the US went along with Islamabad's deniability of any responsibility for it — possibly because Osama bin Laden was still keeping up the threat to Americans.
It is a pity that the then government in India meekly accepted the Pakistani alibi that 26/11 was the doing of some non-State actors.
Proxy War
The Sino-Pakistani axis at the recent SAARC conference has further boosted Islamabad's resolve to keep up the proxy war against Delhi. The US attitude on Pak-sponsored cross-border terrorism connects with the geo-political history of how the US-led West during the Cold War favoured Islamists who were invoking religion to oppose pro-Left regimes in the Arab and Asian world.
The West was delighted to see Hasan Al Banna's Muslim Brotherhood taking on Nasser in Egypt and Jamaat-e-Islami founded by Maududi — an admirer of Banna — confronting Sukarno in Indonesia.
India's primary concern is that once the Americans are out of the frame in Afghanistan, the Pakistan army will find a way of reaching out to the radicals who are a part of the socio-political milieu of Pakistan and whose mentor, the Taliban, had been put in power in Afghanistan by the army.
The ISI will not find it difficult to connect with Maulana Asim Omar, the Pakistan-based militant of Indian origin who is now the Al Qaeda chief of South Asia chapter.
The vulnerability of India to faith-based militancy is also enhanced by a combination of factors that are operating internally as well. It is the Muslim elite represented by the Muslim League and not average Muslims who had demanded a religion-based entity called Pakistan and injected extreme militancy in India through Direct Action Day.
When the inevitable Partition came, widespread communal violence of the most brutal kind followed in its wake.
Communal riots rooted in the memory of Partition tapered off by the 1980s because of the advance of democratic process in India. But the rise of communal politics now took centre stage and as the polity became more and more fractured with the temptation to get the support of a large minority against a divided majority.
This was typically symbolised by the not-so subtle statement of the outgoing prime minister that the Muslim minority had the first claim on nation's resources.
The domestic polity of communal divide is casting a shadow on national security as inimical forces outside are exploiting it to generate militancy. There is a compelling need for India to review the strategy of dealing with the widening arc of faith-based militancy affecting the external and internal situation of the country.
D C Pathak is former Director Intelligence Bureau

__._,_.___

Facing massive appeal of Radical Islam, Moderate Muslims must refute Jihadist theology of violence with a coherent narrative of Islamic moderation, says Sultan Shahin at UNHRC in Geneva

Facing massive appeal of Radical Islam, Moderate Muslims must refute Jihadist theology of violence with a coherent narrative of Islamic moderation, says Sultan Shahin at UNHRC in Geneva
 
 
Can Moderate Muslims Who Cherish Democracy, Peace, And Pluralism Have A Say In World Affairs, Or Will Only A Tiny Fraction Of Muslims, The Terrorists, Speak For Us?
 
Oral Statement at United Nations Human Rights Council, Geneva, 27th regular session 8-26 September 2014
General Debate on Agenda item 4: Subjects of particular concern for the UN Human Rights Council
On behalf of World Environment and Resource Council
 
<
 
By Sultan Shahin, Editor, New Age Islam
17 September 2014
Mr. President,
We, the silent majority of moderate Muslims are disoriented. Can those Muslims who cherish democracy, peace, and pluralism still have a say in world affairs? Only a tiny fraction of one and a half billion Muslims see in the Quran and Hadees a permission to kill innocents from other sects and communities. But Islam or Islamism is being equated with terrorism because the vast majority of Muslims are still passive and silent.
Thirteen years after 9/11, the Islamist terrorist threat has become more diverse, more complex, and more dangerous. It seems that while the world has focused on fighting the terrorists militarily, it has not faced the challenge of the ideological narrative that Jihadism offers. It is this Islamist extremist narrative that has gained momentum now, animating not only groups like al-Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Haram, al Nusra, ISIS, etc but also independent actors who may prove even more dangerous.
Since the chief terrorist of the world declared himself a Khalifa and his group an Islamic State, Muslims have been bewildered. OIC and Jamia Azhar have condemned it, but many religious organisations and even governments are showing ambivalence.  Meanwhile thousands of Arab, European and American Muslims have joined this Jihadist group. This has made Islamism virtually a synonym for terrorism now. Moderate Muslims must know that this has to change.
What are we, the Muslim moderates, doing wrong? Why are our youth joining the radicals?
What has happened is that Jihadists have worked out a radical narrative of Islam, a complete theology of violence, xenophobia, hate and Islam-supremacism based on common Muslim beliefs which they are using to brainwash Muslim youth, while we moderates have no coherent narrative or theology of peace, pluralism, co-existence and gender justice to counter that.
So what is the way forward? In my view, this situation calls for a clear refutation of the Jihadist ideology and working out a coherent narrative and a consistent theology of Islamic moderation, peace and gender justice. If not now, when?
Clearly moderate Muslim governments as well as Muslim peoples must show more courage of their convictions and commitment in refuting the radical ideology of terrorists.
Looking for a way forward, first we have to study why Jihadis are succeeding in attracting our youth. Why is their extremist Islamist narrative so appealing that Muslims around the world are falling in their trap? Well-educated, professional Muslim youth from Europe and America are leaving their comfortable lives to become suicide bombers. Even Muslim girls are running away from private schools and European, American, not to speak of Arab homes to become Jihadi brides.
Jihadism is an offshoot of Wahhabi-Salafi ideology, which is the state religion of Saudi Arabia. Muslim radicalisation started growing since the Arabs were able to quadruple their oil prices in March 1974. The funding for the export of this hard-line Islamic sectarian ideology has grown exponentially since the rise in oil prices and is said to have been in the range of tens of billions of petrodollars for years now.
This ideology was further refined and propagated massively to create Jihadis during the Cold War. But while the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, the Salafi-Wahhabi ideology that had spawned Jihadism continued to be exported and Jihadis left free to practice their trade. As the US had no more interest in the Af-Pak region, the Pakistani State and its military intelligence, the ISI, used it to export terrorism to India and strengthen their stronghold in Afghanistan. Most surprisingly, the export of this ideology did not stop even after 9/11, in which 16 out of 19 terrorists were Saudi nationals, and, of course, all were products of the same Islamist ideology. To this day, this scenario has not changed. 
Moderate Muslims have been trying to disassociate Islam with terrorism for decades now. Millions of words have been written showing that Islam is a peaceful religion. The multilingual Islamic website I started for this purpose, NewAgeIslam.com, has itself been doing a lot of work in this direction. We have been refuting Jihadis' ideological justifications of terrorism point by point. For our efforts, we have even got ourselves banned in Pakistan.
But nothing is working. Jihadis and Islamophobes have joined hands to turn the idea of Islam as a religion of peace into a veritable joke.
One would think that Muslims would look within and think why this is so. Why so few are prepared to buy the idea that Islam means peace. Why our denials and rebuttals and refutations are not believed?  But instead of introspecting and finding answers, Muslims are happily blaming it all on the "enemies of Islam." This is a convenient excuse. It shifts both the blame and the responsibility. But what we, the moderate Muslims, should be able to see is that even shifting the blame on the "enemies of Islam" is not helping.
Everyone can see that it is Muslims who are killing Muslims. No "enemies of Islam" are involved. Thousands of non-Wahhabi Muslims are being killed in different parts of the world. Religious minorities are under attack.  An army of Muslim suicide bombers is available wherever somebody needs them, even though suicide is strictly prohibited in Islam. Under normal circumstances, persuading someone to commit suicide should be the most difficult task in the world. But for Muslim terror ideologues, it is proving the easiest. Those who recruit suicide bombers in Lahore and Karachi, for instance, have to cope with long queues of applicants. Sometimes even happily married couples turn up and ask to be sent to Heaven quickly, jumping the queue if possible. For many Muslims, in any case, "life begins in the grave," as the refrain of a song taught to madrasa students goes. No wonder, Muslims are being associated more and more with terrorism, extremism, xenophobia, intolerance, gender injustice and other evils.
In some form the extremist ideology has always been a part of Islam. Starting from the time of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) himself a group that was later called Khawarij (rebels, those who went out of the fold of Islam) has been active throughout Islamic history. At times they have grown in power but mostly moderate Muslims have been able to confront and defeat them.
Neo-Khawarij of today have, however, gained enormous influence and prestige in the Muslim world. The Kharjiite ideology got a big boost with the enormous scholarly work of Ibn-e-Taimiyya in the 13th-14th century. Carried out in the backdrop of the Mongol invasion and the destruction of Baghdad in the 13th century, Taimiya's Arab nationalist work promoted xenophobia and intolerance by misinterpreting and misrepresenting Islamic scriptures. Eighteenth century scholar of Najd Mohammad Ibn-e-Abdul Wahhab adopted and refined Ibn-e-Taimiya's extremist Arab nationalist thoughts that demanded complete intolerance of any other interpretation of Islam. But Wahhab's theology could not start its dance of destruction until he cut a deal in 1744 with Muhammad ibn Saud, head of the Al Saud tribal family, to acquire military strength.  The first targets, of course, were the peaceful, simple, Arabs of Najd who had a mystical bent of mind and then the more sophisticated, cosmopolitan people of Hejaz. After much bloodshed and almost complete destruction of Islam's precious heritage buildings, tombs of the companions of the Prophet and Sufi shrines, the Wahhab-Saud alliance eventually captured the whole of what Sauds later called Saudi Arabia. The Sauds, along with descendants of Wahhab, forced ulema and then common Muslims to convert to Wahhabism on pain of death. They are now making a determined and spectacularly successful effort to colonise and radicalise the Muslim mind throughout the world.
On the other hand, moderate, spiritually-inclined Muslims have not worked out a coherent theology of peace. They have to fall back on the teachings of Sufi saints. The Sufis had spread Islam in South and South East Asia. Their methodology was simple. They presented Islam as a spiritual path to salvation rather than a politics of domination. They presented Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) as an embodiment of compassion, mercy and blessing for humanity. They focussed on Qur'anic verses and purported sayings of the Prophet which gave the message of peace, human equality, pluralism, co-existence, gender justice, equality of all prophets and their holy books before God. They simply ignored inconvenient questions and references to militant verses in the Quran and intolerant and violent narrations in Hadees.
 When Sufis were spreading the message of Islam, there was no need to discuss these verses and ahadees either. But the situation has changed since. Brainwashed in the intolerant political ideology of Ibn-e-Taimiya, Abdul Wahhab, and later Maulana Maududi and Syed Qutb, etc, Jihadis are employing these violent, exclusivist verses and ahadees as weapons of war. They have worked out answers to all questions that may arise in the minds of potential recruits in their war for world domination. With the free availability of Islamist, Jihadist literature on the internet, it has become possible even for lone wolfs to radicalize themselves.
As reported by ex-Jihadists, whom God saved at the last moment, hateful, supremacist, exclusivist, supremacist fatwas like the following from Jihadi thinkers are on the lips of everyone in the Jihadist group:
"Even if the Muslims abstain from Shirk (polytheism) and are Muwahhid (firm believers in oneness of God), their Faith cannot be perfect unless they have enmity and hatred in their action and speech against non-Muslims. 
------ Shaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab, Majmua Al-RasaelWal-Masael Al-Najdiah 4/291
"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam, regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. 
"Islam requires the earth — not just a portion, but the whole planet.... because the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme [of Islam] ... Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is 'Jihad'. .... The objective of the Islamic 'jihad' is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule." 
----- Abul A'la Maududi in Jihad fil Islam
Clearly, if moderate Muslims want to reverse the process, they will have to carefully study the sources of radical, Jihadi strength.
In my view, Salafism-Wahhabism's enormous success lies in mainstream Muslims' unquestioning belief in the Quran as an uncreated book, with all its verses including the contextual having universal validity, Hadees being authentic sayings of the prophet, and the indisputable divinity of Sharia. 
Why is the ancient controversy of Quran being created or uncreated relevant for us today? If Quran is created, that is, if it  is a compilation of verses that came from time to time to guide the prophet as the need arose, the context of the verses become important. In this situation only those verses that do not require a context assume universal significance. This is as it should be. This is the commonsensical position.
 If , however, the Quran is uncreated, as all the madrasas apparently teach, just a copy of the eternal book lying safe in "Lauh-e-Mahfooz" (the divine vaults in Heaven), from eternity, then each and every verse assumes universal significance and has to be followed without reference to the context and without any question being asked about their suitability today.
 That is why all our madrasas which teach that Quran is un-created and divine by itself are potentially creating radical literalists who will see no reason why they should apply their mind. Hypothetically speaking, If Quran says somewhere,"kill the kafir," they may go out and kill those who they regard as Kafir. No reference to context is needed. Every word is thought of as of eternal significance. Quran is thought of as just a copy of the book safe in Lauh-e-Mahfooz in Heaven. But if it is a created work of God, then Muslims will have to study the context and think if a particular exhortation applies to them today.
Imagine the impact of the following verse on a literalist Salafi-Wahhabi radical. Incidentally this is one of the verses used for terrorist indoctrination in which Allah commands:
        "Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger Muhammad, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians, etc.), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." --- (Holy Qur'an Chapter 9, Verse)
This verse and several like it can only be understood in a historical context and merely remind us today of the almost insurmountable difficulties the Prophet (pbuh) had to face in establishing Islam. It can no longer be said to be applicable to Muslims today. We are no longer fighting battles of Badr and Uhad and the Trench of the seventh century AD.
But if Quran is an uncreated book, divine by itself, with all its verses, separately, individually, of eternal value as commands of God, without any need for referring it to context, you can imagine how such verses taken as a command of God would be practiced today -- the same way, of course, as these are being practiced by a handful of terrorists who are unfortunately growing in numbers.
There can be no doubt that Quran indeed is a created book. We know that its creation progressed with the march of events in the infancy of Islam. It was not revealed overnight or in a few continuous sittings, as it would have been if it were just a copy of the one in Lauh-e-Mahfooz. How else would we find a progression of ideas in Quran? Qur'anic verses were revealed over a period of 23 years of Mohammad saw's prophethood. The Prophet was first given in Mecca a set of directions about the universal values of religion and then guided throughout his remaining life, as and when the situation demanded. The tragedy is that even Sufi-oriented scholars today, products of the madrasa system, use the same age-old arguments, as do Wahhabi scholars, in order to try to prove what is essentially a Salafi-Wahhabi thesis that Quran is uncreated, divine like God, eternal, and so all its verses, including the contextual and militant, are universal in nature. 
 Another source of Salafi-Wahhabi-Jihadi influence is the Muslims' blind faith in ahadees as the authentic sayings of Prophet Mohammad. Jihadi literature quotes ahadees profusely to prove that killings of civilians is justified, that Prophet himself had condoned and justified what is known today as collateral damage. The very idea that purported quotes from the Prophet written down and collected up to three hundred years after the demise of the prophet can have any sanctity would be laughable to any thinking individual. But Muslims put these ahadees on a pedestal next or equal to, if not even superior to the Quran. A Wahhabi sect most patronised by Saudi Arabia even calls itself Ahl-e-Hadees (people of Hadees). Moderate Muslims are doing nothing much to counter this blind faith. 
The Muslim attitude to what are called Sharia laws is similar. While all the caliphs used rudimentary Shariah laws based on the Quran, its codification has gone on throughout Islamic history. In its present form, it came into being in Abbasid era, over a century after the demise of the prophet. Like all laws, what are called  Sharia laws have not been static. Their interpretations and applications have kept changing from society to society and from one era to the next. Different Muslim communities around the world practice what is thought of as Sharia differently. And yet Muslim scholars give it divine status. Though everyone knows that over decades several scholars toiled to codify Sharia laws, even moderate Muslim ulema will not say clearly that what is conventionally called Sharia is largely man-made, not divine. 
Herein lies the strength of Salafism-Wahhabism and its violent offshoot Jihadism. If all Muslims believe in the uncreatedness of Quran, universality of every verse, impeccable sanctity of Hadees and unquestionable divinity of Sharia, then what is there to distinguish one from the other. Who is a moderate and who is an extremist.
As Saudi Arabia`s Assistant Minister of the Interior Prince Mohammed Bin Nayef told US Special Advisor Holbrooke's on May 16, 2009, al Qaeda hijacked Islam. He said; "Terrorists stole the most valuable things we have…They took our faith and our children and used them to attack us".(1) Telling him about the extent of Islamist penetration in the Kingdom, he said that in 2003 the Saudis discovered Islamist radicals in "90 percent" of the mosques. Then on May 24, 2009, Ambassador Holbrooke was given a counter-terrorism briefing by the Saudi Ministry of the Interior about the ancient Islamic roots of Salafi ideology: "The counterterrorism briefing began with history and geography:  Briefer Captain Bandar Al-Subaie said the Takfiri ideology behind extremist groups dated back to the earliest days of Islam, and had figured in the killings of two early Caliphs.  Its tenets were reflected in the beliefs of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and had spread from there to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and then to the Arabian Peninsula where it had been taken up by modern day terrorists including Al-Qaeda." (2) Of course, Saudi Ministry did not tell him that the Kingdom itself has been the main exporter of Salafi-Wahhabi ideology for over a century, and more particularly, in the last three decades, and has not stopped even after 9/11.
As I said before, we, the Muslim moderates, will need to develop a coherent narrative and a consistent theology of moderation in Islam. How can we counter the theology of violence, xenophobia, hate, intolerance, Islam-supremacism, and gender injustice, except with the help of a theology of peace, pluralism, co-existence and gender justice? If not now, when?
The conclusion is: although the majority of Muslims are still looking for words to speak out their position, their heart deeply rejects the Jihadist killings. However difficult the task is to cast these feelings in a coherent ideology of peace and brotherhood of mankind, there is no time left for delay, excuses, hypocrisy or compromises. We are confronted with a new fascism; we must find our voice, end the silence.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...