How to respond to Islamic terrorism

by Dr Showan Khurshid
19 January, 2006
In a previous article, 'Knowledge processing, Creativity and Politics' (henceforth KPCP), I suggested that political power results from agreement on a unified set of moral rules. Morality is possible because people with capacities for creative lifestyles can also afford cooperating with each other to confront predatory and parasitic lifestyles. [i] Therefore, it has been said that the best of moralities must be the ones that support the best conditions for creativity. However, because of the importance of political power and its potential for interchangeability with other resources, power struggles ensue. These may take the form of disagreements over moral values which can lead to the disintegration of political power. This underlines the necessity of having institutions that are capable of providing and maintaining a unified set of moral rules for a group of people to agree upon so that they form and maintain political power. There are only two methods of obtaining agreements on the unified set of moral rules, either through liberal democracy or ideologies.
Ideologies are able to bring about agreement because, once they have provided a unified set of moral rules, they prohibit ideational challenges. However, to carry out this function ideologies use varieties of subjugation methods including threats and violence against those who do not submit or compromise by other means. (Here, I should remind the reader that about my definition of ideology outlined in the aforementioned article: I define 'ideologies' as "the systems of beliefs which facilitate the production of unified sets of moral rules, necessary for underpinning and sustaining political power, without the need for liberal democracy". This definition is original and differs from all the classical definitions). Ideologies, within the context I suggested, may be regarded as terroristic by nature, if we define terrorism as an act of violence in response to ideational challenges.
However, terrorism is usually defined as a resort to opportunistic actions or threats of violence, used to achieve political aims. Of course, this definition is less specific, and suffers from the problem of lumping together freedom fighters with terrorists. My definition assists in distinguishing a terrorist from a freedom fighter. As soon as individuals, organisations or even States resort to violence in response to ideational challenges, we could label them as terrorists. A freedom fighter, on the other hand, is someone who opposes in response to the suppression of ideational challenge. These separate definitions are outlined in the previous article, and implies that freedom of expression concerning moral and political opinion is the most fundamental condition for participating in politics. Another essential manifestation of political participation is allowing the adjustment of the set of moral rules according to an individual's moral opinion, in the instance that it gained the approval of the majority eg through a vote.
However, it can be said that the definition of terrorism, I suggest, pays less attention to local and opportunistic characteristics of terrorism, but then these are not its essential characteristics. Iraqi Baath as a government party was using both large scale confrontation and local and opportunistic operations. Currently, being deposed, it uses only small scale opportunistic attacks. In general, it could be said that terrorism is one of the characteristics of ideological movements alongside other qualities, such as tyranny and totalitarianism. Someone who is prepared to use violence to suppress ideas is unlikely to be squeamish about performing small scale operations, or terrorism. Most ideological groups that have not submitted to liberal l democracy have also been involved in acts of terrorism, tyranny and totalitarianism. Another important implication of the essay mentioned is that ideologies, including religions, are contradictory in nature to liberal democracy. This view disputes today's prevalent conception of liberal democracy, which advocates religious beliefs as a right, without recognising that at least some religions are not compatible with liberal democracy itself. This explains simply the absence of liberal Democracy where ideologies, including religions, dominate. It is no wonder therefore, that liberal democracy evolved precisely where religions were subjugated. In the West the subjugation of Christianity happened in the evolutionary course of nation states, and usually at the hand of tyrannical rulers, who saw that their authorities were challenged by religious authorities. On the other hand, by reducing the power of the organised Church, these rulers also undermined the claim of legitimacy which they were deriving from religions. No longer able to call upon the religious authorities for intellectual backing for concentration and the monopoly of political power (indeed, in the case of England, it was important religious figures who played significant role in imposing Magna Carta which signalled the transition to liberalism), these rulers had to accept rights, or in other words, submission to constraints on their political actions. It is because of this history that the dominant conceptions of liberal democracy do not see conflict between religions and Liberal democracies. In any case the subjugation of Christianity manifested in the separation of religions and State and that most Christians accept that their belief is purely a faith and so does not bear objective examination. Accordingly, many people declaring themselves Christian decline the claim that Bible is literally true. There are exceptions: consider, David Koresh's Branch Davidian. However, it is this exceptionality that led eventually to the Branch destruction.
Islam, unfortunately for Muslim individuals themselves, and everyone else in world, escaped this kind of subjugation. The currently dominant Western conception of religions does not tag religions as ideologies. Consequently, it seems there is no systematic pressure, similar to that experienced by communists and Fascists, being applied to Islam. Islam also escaped the neutralisation that Christianity was put through in the course of the formation of nation states, bearing in mind that most of the nation states of the Islamic world were concocted and brought into existence by the West. The reasons for the Western passivity towards Islam may have had to do with the conception of religion that was based on the model of Christianity. Or perhaps, because these foreign powers could easily find local Islamic power centres willing to cooperate and thus did not want take on the more difficult tasks involved in forcing people to accept secularism.
There are other reasons that helped Islam escape the necessary subjugation. For instance, in current Iraq, and this might surprise some people, communism was a very prominent political party with massive following during the sixties. (The strength of the party made many commentators think it was capable of taking power- Western powers must have thought so and this explains why they support Arab nationalists despite their atrocious nature.) This is despite the fact that the followers of communist party were aware of the materialistic and atheistic nature of communism. Nonetheless, communists never tried systematically to undermine the religious worldview. They held the mistaken assumption that religion is a part of ideologies (according to their own definition) characteristic of societies divided into conflicting social classes, and that, once the conflict amongst social classes disappeared, as a result of the dictatorship of proletariat, religions would also disappear. This mistake meant that, once the masses were disillusioned with communism and nationalism they relapsed back to Islam. Moreover, Arab Nationalists, in their efforts to build up the pride necessary for their aggressive jingoism, extolled Islam, concentrating only on "achievements". These "achievements" involved denying the contribution of non-Arab Muslims and non-Muslims. They also included taking great pride in the invasion of what were formerly non-Muslim and non-Arab lands, ignoring what must have been atrocious acts and avoiding the fact that the world would expect celebrating these "victories" should undermine their objection to others doing the same. This highlighting of "achievements" also involved overlooking all the unattractive aspects of current Arab-Islamic culture.
Regardless, the point to make here is that the job is left undone. Every society aspiring to be peaceful, fair and prosperous must be able to force its ideological groups to denounce the use of violence in response to ideational challenges. Liberal democracy comes about and flourishes because, a peaceful ideational interaction brings about an objective ground for the evolution of arbitration institutions that could ensure the provisions of the unified set of moral rule - these institutions are represented in laws of human rights and the institution of election (see KPCP). Ideologies spread and dominate when using violence in response to ideational challenges is not suppressed. That is why, where ideologies are prevented to an effective extent from using force, as it is the case in the West, they disintegrate-consider the division and the massive abandonment of Christianity. Where political violence is not controlled and religions, like other ideologies, are able to carry out acts of violence they can become formidable and energetic forces, consider Islam. Indeed, the prediction of this theory is that Islam, like other ideologies, will not survive without using violence. So, this is a challenge to Muslims to prove that their religion is not dependent on violence.
Some Practical Measures
Terrorism in Islam arises from the fact that Islam is an ideology and for an ideology to rule it needs violence. It might be true that hundreds of millions of Muslims would not contemplate terrorism. Although, it is undeniable that there is an oppressive tradition among Islamic masses which expects individual Muslims to suppress what they deem as atheism, sacrilege, blasphemy or un-Islamic behaviour, which might spill over into areas if dress code or your personal relationships, especially when the person in question is a female Muslim. However, there has not been and there will not be a single Islamic state, or an organisation, that is trying to bring about or uphold an Islamic regime, without having submitted to liberal democracy, and it is not terroristic.
The point to make here is that as soon as an Islamic organisation tries to impose Islamic rules without prior submission to liberal principles, respecting the right of dissent, it becomes terroristic. From this perspective any attempt to rule according to Islam, without prior submission to liberal democracy, can be seen as a step that is leading to terrorism. Accordingly, we should not absolve the passive masses of Islam of responsibility, because these passive masses still believe that Islam is the source of goodness and the ultimate good system is the Islamic system. If the greatest proportion of the passive Islamic masses have ever had bad conscience, it would not be because of the concern with the atrocious disposition of Islam but because they were better Muslims and carrying out their Islamic duties that may also include the Jihad. By making Muslims aware of the violent and terroristic propensity of Islam, we should expect them to assume their moral obligations that they join with other to demand human rights for themselves and non-Muslims. It is every Muslim individual's duty to hinder or prevent the functioning of organisations which operate without respecting liberal rights, as long as that individual share the world with the others and as long as he or she benefits from the rights that non-Muslims offered. The idea here is not to demand to form Islamic vigilante groups fighting other Muslims. It is a call for participating in efforts to declare the interpretations of all Suras and Ayas or Hadiths as null and void, insofar that these verses encourage or enjoin the prohibition of intellectual dissent and apostasy.
All people, including Muslims, should have no illusion about the available choices. It would be possible to give Muslims the free reign to decide their own policies and attitudes towards the world without challenging their beliefs and assumptions. But the price for this will be great, the consequences dreadful. The price would consist not only of terrorist attacks on some non-Muslims and Islamic dissidents now and then. Allowing Islamic organisations to dominate will promote Afghan style civil wars, as before its liberation from the Taliban. The history of Islam confirms this assumption. Even the so-called four Rightly Guided Khalifs and the Ten Heavenly-Promised Companions of Mohammed went to war against each other. Ali was accused of being behind the killing of Othman, the third Khalif and twice son-in-law of Mohammed. Ali led a battle against a rebel army that featured prominent figures like Aisha, Mohammed's wife and Abu Bakir's daughter and two of the Ten Heavenly Promised, Talha bn Zubair and Zubair bn Awam, who were also in line of succession to Khalifdom. We know Ali and his sons were also eventually killed by Muslims. The wars between Muslims, among themselves and also against non-Muslim never ended, which eventually brought the whole civilisation and culture of the Middle East to a miserably stagnant and impoverished state economically and and culturally, and must have been a major factor in the desertification of the land.
It is necessary to draw the attention of Muslims to contemplate their own history. While it is currently possible to blame the Zionists and the imperialists for all the difficulties that Muslims suffer, which is currently the first prefabricated justification, it would be far less credible to blame their early civil wars on external agents. The reason for Islam being prone to fragmentation and internal warring is quite obvious. Islam has no theoretical provision for establishing liberal democracy, which is the only peaceful arbitration method in the struggle for political power. To hold a polity without liberal democracy needs extremely concentrated power, which eventually strangles the society. Islam, like all other non-liberal democratic political belief systems, lacks the political culture to allow peaceful power struggles. anyone with concern for peace should decline a political belief system which fails to offer a culture of peaceful arbitration in power struggles.
One would have expected that being disadvantaged and vulnerable to the overwhelming Western power, Muslims would have revised their attitudes towards the West and appreciated the moral considerations found in the West, this being an important factor in the refrainment of the West from employing their superior military power. Unfortunately, not so - being in the weaker position, they chose to blame the strong world-players for their problems. In fact most of non-Muslims are accused of conspiracy against Islam even the overwhelming majority of Islamic leaders have not escaped this same accusation. This adds an alarming complication. What if a militant Islamic group or state laid its hand on nuclear weapons? Perhaps, they might not use it. However, considering that the prospect for Islamic economies can only be bleak as long as Islam rules, regardless of the massive oil wealth, and considering that many an Islamic organisation has no ethical compunction against using drug trafficking, the taking of hostages for ransom and displaying extreme cruelty, we should only expect large scale, protracted and nerve-racking blackmailing of the world, so Muslims can get piecemeal what they fail to get in one single strike.
What is needed is mainly working on the intellectual level, nothing physical. The details of the project will depend on whether this theory of politics is accepted or not. The task, no doubt, will be much easier if we could enlist the help of Muslim scholars and authorities. The project revolves around an awareness campaign regarding the context of the role and evolution of ideologies and religions. The aim is to allow conveying a message that a religion like Islam is dangerous and that, like all religions, Islam will also vanish eventually, that is, if humanity survived Islam. Of course, we cannot expect everyone to agree with this assumption, but we should hope for all Islamic authorities to declare violence against intellectual disagreement as unlawful.
We should also expect that the consequence of forfeiting the right to use violence, as a means to prevent challenging Islam intellectually, will alarm many Muslims. It is important therefore, not to give false reassurances. The Islamic public should know that accepting the premises of liberal democracy will not leave Islam unscathed. The current forceful Islam will lose a lot. They will not have power to coerce others to comply with codes of Islamic practices. They will not be able to persecute others who challenge their beliefs. They will not be allowed to outlaw apostasy or be free to kill the apostates. They will see massive desertion from their ranks and massive fragmentation-similar to what is happening to Christianity. They will see Western values and lifestyle spreading into their countries, changing their world beyond their recognition. Still they will need to anticipate and accept these changes as a natural process simply because there is no future with Islam. Being open about this will pre-empt future junior clerics, the likes of Bin-Laden, from crying foul and undermining the more cooperative Islamic authorities.
Some would argue against shocking the Islamic public with such a task, gradual and imperceptible co-opting of Islamic leaders is not impossible. After all, Jaafari and tens or hundreds of other Islamic leaders are cooperating with the West. The cooperation of these leaders, however, is out of pragmatism and this is partly due to their awareness of the limited power they have, and also partly due to their own self-interests. This background undermines their reliability. Consider Turkey and the anti-American sentiments that have been rising steadily since the coming of the Islamic government. Neither, in fact are Saudi Arabia and Egypt predictable partners. This unpredictability is not surprising considering that they need to be seen as independent from the West, and representative of their own people, which implies they should assert the Islamic and Arab nationalist sentiment. In order to enjoy the massive economic aid and political backing of the West, Mubarak has for years perpetuated a situation which leaves him looking as a moderate in the face of Islamic militancy. Yet had Mubarak protected the liberals and upheld intellectual freedom, Egypt would not have continued to be a land that produces terrorists for domestic and overseas attacks. Had he supported the liberals, Mubarak would not have needed to shoot those people who become terrorists. However, he would not have been able to hold power for the decades he did in a more liberal society.
In short, the practical steps suggested here are no more than requesting what any person living in any society should comply with. Considering that some militants will not respect this request, all concerned authorities in the world need to provide protection to individuals who wish to speak out but are currently intimidated. Also, we will also need to consolidate liberal democratic institutions where possible; we should realize that there is no alternative to it. Muslims and non-Muslims alike need to realize that there is no way other than liberal democracy that provides a stable and peaceful political power.
[i] 'Creativity' is defined broadly to include all activities that result in producing resources and to exclude the predatory and parasitic methods which take advantage of what others' have produced. 'Resources' is also defined very broadly to include all the goods and services that are needed for human survival. Accordingly, sex, love, sympathy, friendship, arts and protection all become resources along with other goods and services that are conventionally termed as resources,just like food and accommodation.
Showan Khurshid is the author of : "Knowledge Processing, Creativity and Politics: A Political Theory based on the Evolutionary Theory" which can be purchased here

I Have Lost Count! And You?

by Peace Forever
22 October, 2006

When ever a Muslim extremist does what he is best at, rolling the heads of infidels, of course. The Islamic clerics at infidel nations will swing into action to do what they are best at! That's right, Taqyyia! They quote verses from Quran for instance "No compulsion..." (Q 2:256) and few other verses. They emphatically deny that Islam permits what the jihadi had just done. And one of their favorites is "Whoever kills a person …it is as though he has killed all mankind." (Q 5:32) So how could a religion that teaches this can instigate its followers to kill infidels? After all may be we got it wrong in our accusation of Islam or did we? Lets get to the bottom of this verse. Here is the verse in full:
For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land. Q 5:32, Shakir
There are two issues at hand.
Firstly, this was a ruling to the children of Israel! Setting that aside
Secondly, the verse says that this doesn't apply to those involved in "manslaughter or for mischief in the land"
The mischief makers the Quran points out to are none other than the infidels. The Quran here clearly describes the mischief makers here, it says "and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land."
Allah says even after sending many apostles with clear proofs, many people still disbelieved there by ended up as transgressors. Given this, Q 5:32 verse is only applicable to Muslims. Let us get some scholarly view on this, renowned Quranic scholar Ibn kathir writes on this verse and its background:
Allah says, because the son of Adam killed his brother in transgression and aggression,
﴿كَتَبْنَا عَلَى بَنِى إِسْرَءِيلَ﴾
(We ordained for the Children of Israel...) meaning, We legislated for them and informed them,
﴿أَنَّهُ مَن قَتَلَ نَفْساً بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍفِى الاٌّرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً وَمَنْ أَحْيَـهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً﴾
(that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) The Ayah states, whoever kills a soul without justification -- such as in retaliation for murder or for causing mischief on earth -- will be as if he has killed all mankind, because there is no difference between one life and another.
﴿وَمَنْ أَحْيَـهَا﴾
(and if anyone saved a life...) by preventing its blood from being shed and believing in its sanctity, then all people will have been saved from him, so,
﴿فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً﴾
(it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) Al-A`mash and others said that Abu Salih said that Abu Hurayrah said, "I entered on `Uthman when he was under siege in his house and said, `I came to give you my support. Now, it is good to fight (defending you) O Leader of the Faithful!' He said, `O Abu Hurayrah! Does it please you that you kill all people, including me' I said, `No.' He said, `If you kill one man, it is as if you killed all people. Therefore, go back with my permission for you to leave. May you receive your reward and be saved from burden.' So I went back and did not fight.''' `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "It is as Allah has stated,
﴿مَن قَتَلَ نَفْساً بِغَيْرِ نَفْسٍ أَوْ فَسَادٍ فِى الاٌّرْضِ فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً وَمَنْ أَحْيَـهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً﴾
(if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) Saving life in this case occurs by not killing a soul that Allah has forbidden. So this is the meaning of saving the life of all mankind, for whoever forbids killing a soul without justification, the lives of all people will be saved from him.'' Similar was said by Mujahid;
﴿وَمَنْ أَحْيَـهَا﴾
(And if anyone saved a life...) means, he refrains from killing a soul. Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said that Allah's statement,
﴿فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاس ( ًجَمِيعا
(it would be as if he killed all mankind. .) means, "Whoever kills one soul that Allah has forbidden killing, is just like he who kills all mankind.'' Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people.'' In addition, Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A`raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah,
﴿فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً﴾
(it would be as if he killed all mankind,) "He who kills a believing soul intentionally, Allah makes the Fire of Hell his abode, He will become angry with him, and curse him, and has prepared a tremendous punishment for him, equal to if he had killed all people, his punishment will still be the same.'' Ibn Jurayj said that Mujahid said that the Ayah,
﴿وَمَنْ أَحْيَـهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً﴾
(and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) means, "He who does not kill anyone, then the lives of people are safe from him.'' (Abridged Tafsir Ibn Kathir Volume 1 - 10)
The verse applies to Muslims only, and is irrelevant in the case of unbelievers, if you kill a Muslim it is as you kill the entire of mankind, and if you save one then you have saved the entire of mankind. Other revered tafsirs agree on this, Tafsir al-Jalalayn writes on Q 5:32,
Because of that, which Cain did, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul, slain, or for, other than, corruption, committed, in the land, in the way of unbelief, fornication or waylaying and the like, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoever saves the life of one, by refraining from slaying, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind - Ibn 'Abbās said [that the above is meant] in the sense of violating and protecting its [a soul's] sanctity [respectively]. Our messengers have already come to them, that is, to the Children of Israel, with clear proofs, miracles, but after that many of them still commit excesses in the land, overstepping the bounds through disbelief, killing and the like. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, online source)
And Ibn Abbas says in his tafsir,
(For that) because Cain wrongfully killed Abel (cause We decreed for the Children of Israel) in the Torah (that whosoever killeth a human being for other than man slaughter) i.e. premeditatedly (or corruption in the earth) or because of idolatry, (it shall be as if be had killed all mankind) Hell will be decreed for him for premeditatedly and wrongfully killing a human being, as though he killed all mankind, (and whoso saveth the life of one) whoever abstains from killing a person, (it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind) Paradise will be decreed for him for sparing one soul, as though he spared the lives of all mankind. (Our messengers came unto them) i.e. the Children of Israel (of old with clear proofs) with commands, prohibitions and signs, (but afterwards lo! many of them) the Children of Israel (became) after the messengers (prodigals in the earth) ascribing partners to Allah. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, online source)
The verses primarily forbade killing of Muslims and doesn't have any sort of relevance in relation towards infidels, in fact the same verse gives them a go ahead signal to slay infidels.
Well, What about Muhammad?
Just assuming that this verse does include the entire of mankind, then what about Muhammad? He killed a 120 year old man, Abu Afak, just for criticizing him, and he kills a mother of five, `Asma' Bint Marwan, for similar reason. Splitting a old woman prisoner, Umm Qirfa, into two![1] and killing a singing girl[2] for mocking him. of course, he didn't kill them without any reason, they all the criticized him, mocked him, wasn't that enough a reason? well, I will let the readers decide! wasn't he killing mankind at each instance? (of course, thats only if you think mocking was not a big crime) and at one instance, Muhammad, had 600 - 900 Jewish prisoners of war who surrendered to him brutally murdered. Well, that implies the so called prophet had mankind killed 600 - 900 times in a single day! And there are many more and some one can begin to count actually how many times the so called prophet hand mankind killed! I have lost the count! and you?

Kafirs Must Be Thankful to Jihadists for Murdering, Enslaving and Raping Them

by Abu Taleb
23 Apr, 2008

For many years, I have been saving articles about Islam from websites, including websites belong to the moslems. Now I want to share two of the most outrageous statements from the moslems on the websites, although the links to the articles may no longer exist.

The first, taken from website www.islam-qa.com on the article “Question #21961: The wisdom behind jihad” which belongs to the Saudi ulamas as follows:
The kuffaar whom we fight will themselves benefit from jihad. We strive against them and fight them so that they will enter the religion of Allaah which is acceptable to Him, which will lead to their salvation in this world and in the Hereafter. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“You (true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad and his Sunnah) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma‘roof (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam has ordained) and forbid Al‑Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islam has forbidden), and you believe in Allaah” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:110]
So, when the jihadists are fighting the kafirs, killing, looting and enslaving the kafirs, the jihadist are doing a favor to the kafirs, because the kafirs are receiving benefit from the moslem jihadists. We, the kafirs, should be thankful to the jihadists for being murdered and robbed.
The second statement, taken from an article “The Attributes of the Believers as Defined in Surah Al-Mu'minun,” which says “This article was published in the 19th issue of Nida'ul Islam magazine, July - August 1997” is as follows:
Hence, when captives in war fall as bondswomen, it was permissible for Muslims to have sexual relations with those who they possessed. This sexual relation is to satisfy the natural need of the captured women, so that they do not involve in filthy sexual relations like what is happening today with the prisoners of war all over the world under the New World Order, even though policies have forbidden them.
The above statements was given to explain Al Mu’minun 6 “Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that the right hand possess, for then, they are free from blame”.
Not only the jihadists are giving favors to the kafir laknatullah when they are butchering, looting and enslaving the kafirs, but also they are giving favors to the kafir women by raping them by avoiding those women from committing zina (adultery).
Here we have opinions from experts on Islam, the Saudi ulamas are certainly know what they are saying, while the second quotation was published on a magazine, certainly the author must have known Islamic teaching quite well.
We (unfortunately) have plenty of criminals who commit murders, robberies or rapes, but I don’t think they will share the same view as these ulamas, the criminals know they are not giving any favor to their victims, they are doing the crimes for own benefit, not for the victims’. Only sick minded people may think like these ulamas, but these ulamas are certainly not sick minded people nor idiot people. Or, are they?
During my frequent encounters with the moslems on the cybernet, I also found on a few occasions, not often though, some moslems who say that killing kafirs are in fact giving a favor to the kafirs by stopping the sins committed by the kafir in the future, therefore reducing the punishment the kafirs will have in the hell.
So let me use this opportunity to humbly ask the moslems how come Islam religion produces people who think that raping captured women (after killing the women’s family) is considered as giving a favor to the raped victims or think that killing kafirs are actually helping the kafirs. If any of you can find an answer, you can share it with me and other people.

Muslims Are Responsible For Their Plight

By Mohammad Asghar

I lived for a time in Calcutta, India. When I was going to school there, I heard from my mentors that Muslims were the victims of the Zionist, Hindu and Christian conspiracies. I believed in their conspiracy theories. I, therefore, saw no wrong when my school hoisted the Pakistani flag every morning and we sang the Pakistani national anthem before the commencement of our classes.Unaware of its implications, I sang the Pakistani national anthem with great enthusiasm in my school in Calcutta. I gave my approval to everything Pakistan did. I blindly supported Pakistan's fight with India over Kashmir. I lauded Ayub Khan for what he did in the name of Islam. Inspired by what I heard from the Islamic preachers, I even tried to memorize the whole Quran.I moved to the then East Pakistan in the later part of 1950s. Here, too, I heard people talking about the Muslims being killed by the Hindus; they also narrated in details how the Jews and the Christians had been conspiring to eliminate the Muslims from the face of the earth. I was convinced by what I heard in my formative years and hoped that Pakistan would one day liberate Muslims from their plight. I also had developed a strong faith in the concept of Muslim Umma.I stepped into the real world in 1960. Working for a bank, I realized how individuals, communities, societies and nations functioned. My association with various people convinced me that every human being has an agenda. He does nothing without a motive. The saint-like appearance as well as the exhibition of good conduct is one of the components of his agenda. Lying, cheating, forgery and murder also have links to human motives and greed.Then came the year 1965. Pakistan and India went to war over Kashmir. India had the support of Soviet Union, which helped it with most of its essential sinews of war. United States and China were on Pakistan's side. Under a treaty signed by Pakistan and Turkey with the United States, the latter was under an obligation to defend Pakistan, but no concrete help came from the other side when Pakistan was in need of it. China stood by its friendship with Pakistan and tried to help it with whatever help it could afford at that time.The Muslim Umma remained incoherent and inconsistent in its utterances and support of Pakistan. Even though Pakistan was fighting a war purportedly to defend the rights of a section of the Muslim Umma, no Muslim country provided material help to Pakistan. Those Muslim countries, which faced pressure from their citizenry to help Pakistan, discharged their obligation by pleading with God to make Pakistan the victor. While still Pakistan was counting on God's help, Soviet Union came forward in an effort to disengage the two warring nations.The Soviet Union assembled Pakistan's Ayub Khan and India's Lal Bahadur Shastri in Tashkent and mediated a ceasefire. Non-Muslim countries praised the Soviet Union for its efforts, while most of the Muslim nations thanked God for saving the Muslims from being defeated by the Indian kafirs.Following the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965, I developed an interest in the observation of human conducts. Over a period of time, I realized that while many humans bind themselves in various relationships purely for the sake of love and affection, the great majority of them base their social intercourse purely on their expediencies. To them a relationship that does not yield tangible benefits has no value and, as such, they avoid it at all cost.In my ten years of service with two commercial banks of Pakistan, I learned another lesson: Powerful men always rule over the meek and the week. I saw how my powerful bosses from West Pakistan exploited our conditions; I witnessed how they trampled the rules on seniority and promoted juniors over their seniors; how they forced me to approve loans for those who had abundant wealth at their disposal, and also how they restrained me from helping those who were struggling to stand on their own feet.During 1970-71, I heard how leaders incited their followers to rape women and commit murders. I saw the bodies of their victims strewn over the Railway tracts. In their frenzy, they raped their female victims and then sliced away their breasts from their chests. Many male corpses did not have their genitals attached to their bodies. I also saw the bodies of infants floating in ponds and rivers.Later days' events opened up my eyes. I realized that I was wrong in believing what I was told by my peers as well as by the Islamic preachers. I also realized that my support of Pakistan was not only wrong, it was immoral too.Apocryphal scriptures also tell us how the powerful invoked God for manipulating the hapless among them. Citation of an example may be appropriate here.According to a theological description, God had created the earth for the purpose of having it inhabited by mankind. For this purpose, he is believed to have prepared a plan that covered all aspects of human, faunal, floral and celestial lives. His plan required women to conceive and then to give birth to children.On giving a second thought to his plan, God realized that it had a major flaw. If he proceeded with his plan and created a woman first, it would bestow on her the honor of being the first human that he ever created. Even if he overlooked his egoistic urges and went ahead with her creation, this action of his was going to create another problem of a gigantic proportion: It was the thought of having to create the first man in a woman's womb.In God's reckoning, it was a detestable plan. From his perspective, it would have been a demeaning act on his part to have a woman give birth to the first man of our world. It would also have a serious repercussion on men's' mental health: They would always have felt not only inferior to their female counterpart, their complex would also have deprived them of the hegemonistic power that God wanted them to exercise over the women's mind and bodies.To solve the problem, God changed his plan and adopted an unnatural process: First, he created the man, and from his rib, he created the first woman. This made women second to men - - - a privilege that enables them to subjugate women and also to use them in any manner or for any purpose that satisfies not only their sexual ecstasies, but also assuages their manly egos.The first hurdle thus overcome, God prepared to plant the first human couple on earth. But here again, he encountered another problem: How could he let humans take up residence on earth without obtaining from them the confession of his slavery. He found his solution in the game of blaming. As this game required proof before convicting a person of a wrongdoing, the Muslim scripture alleges that God felt no qualm in transforming a gentle and docile jinni into a devil. It narrates how angels opposed the creation of the first man and how God punished them for their insolence. It is also replete with various calumnies, which the narrator of the primeval stories added to God's character in order to make them lucid for his listeners.In my opinion, the calumnies and insults that the Quran heaves upon God have backfired; angered by them, he simply abandoned the Muslims. His displeasure is evident from their conditions; they have been suffering from hunger, deprivations as well as from all kinds of conceivable ignominies and punishments, yet God does not feel it to be necessary for him to come to their rescue, despite being beseeched by them for zillions of times.The Quran speaks of a dubious methodology that God allegedly used to control the mind of the first man and his succeeding generations. Let us explore his alleged modus operandi:God lived in a vacuum from the time of his inception. After suffering from inactivity and loneliness for a long time, he came up with the idea of having the earth populated by humans, faunas and floras. To make sure what he planned to do was going to be good, he consulted the angels. To them, the creation of animals, plants, trees and mountains etc. appeared to be alright, but they did not like the idea of having the earth populated by humans who, they knew, were going to "make mischief and shed blood" (2:30).The tone of the Quranic language makes it clear that the God that Muhammad referred to bore all the characters of a man. I recommend the discerning readers to read "God's Phallus" written by Rabbi Howard Eilberg-Schwartz. He proved with forceful arguments that the God of the Jews, Christians and the Muslims bears all characteristics of a man.Also, a deep reading into Muhammad's statements that appear in the Quran makes it clear that he and God was one and the same person. Separating him from God is an impossible task.The angels have no free will nor do they have the ability to say anything without God's permission. Therefore, the angels' forecast into futurity amounted to defying God's authority and power. He was upset. Calling them ignorant, God rejected their opposition and created, out of clay, the first human he called Adam.In fashioning Adam, God used his legs, hands, eyes, ears and mouth (cf. 7:195). He used his hands for molding the clay into a human figure. When he saw it looked fine, he needed sun's rays to make it dry. When he located a suitable spot, he walked and placed the statue there for drying up. When it dried up, he raised the statue to his mouth's level and then passed his breath into its lungs. In no time, Adam began acting like a normal human being.The Quran does not tell us how his wife (it has not given her a name) came into being. For her story, I need to refer to the Torah, which tells us that God had created her from one of Adam's ribs. Mindful of the pain that the surgery was going to cause, God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and when he was fast asleep, he extracted one of his ribs. He made a woman out of the rib and then presented her to Adam. Adam lost no time in recognizing her; he also remembered it was he who had contributed his bone for her making (Gen. 2:21-23). Knowing that she was going to be the mother of all living, Adam called her Eve (Gen. 3:20).In the long history of mankind, Adam and Eve were the only humans who did not have to suffer the pains of birth, unstable stages of infancy and childhood. They also did not have to struggle for anything in their life, for God made sure that they had everything to make their lives comfortable and pleasant.After creating Adam and his mate, God drew a plan for tackling the insolent angels. The plan envisioned a learned Adam to prove that what they had told God about the humans' conduct on earth was based on falsehood. To implement his plan, God needed to prepare Adam in all respects.He taught Adam the nature of all things. The angels were not at all involved in the teaching process. When Adam became fully prepared, God placed all things before the angels and demanded that they tell him the nature of those things, if they were truthful (2:31). Realizing how angry God was at them, the angels adopted a diplomatic posture that they believed was gong to sooth his injured ego. They told him: Glory to thee. Of knowledge we have none, save what Thou hast taught us: in truth it is Thou who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom (2:32).Hearing the angels admit their ignorance, God asked Adam to narrate the nature of the things. Since God had prepared him for the occasion, Adam had no difficulty in describing what God wanted him to describe. Pleased by his disciple's performance, God thundered to the angels: Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of heavens and earth, and I know what ye reveal and what ye conceal? (2:33).The fact that the angels conceal things from God infuriated him immensely. In a rage, he ordered the angels to bow down before Adam, his protégé (2:34). This order was to humiliate the angels. Sensing risk to their existence, all angels bowed down. A jinni who, it seems, was, at the time, in the angels' company did not bow down before Adam. Since God had ordered only the angels to bow down before Adam, the jinn rightfully believed that the order did not apply to him (read 18:50 to know who Iblis was) and as such, he was not required to do what the angels did before his eyes. God felt insulted by the jinni's sense of righteousness, honor and dignity.It was God's plan to have mankind bow down before his authority. This ritual should have begun with the first humans he created in heaven. But instead of having them bow down before him, he made the angels bow down before the humans. If he did not want the humans to bow down before him until after Muhammad had arrived, the only conclusion one can draw from his action is this: he forced the angels to bow down before Adam not only to humiliate them, but also to press them into mankind's service.The ways in which God is said to have been conducting himself appears to defy common sense. Strictly speaking from the viewpoint of a master, it is inconceivable that he would ever let his servant ride on his shoulders. God does not appear to have understood the difficult relationship that a servant is required to maintain with his master. Had he understood the difference between a servant and a master, he would not have posted two angels on each of their master's shoulders to record their acts and deeds. The issue of the servants watching over their masters becomes more demeaning for the latter; it emanates from the fact that their guards have the habit of distorting facts through lying and concealment.Realizing that the jinni was right, God controlled himself and passed off the event by calling him haughty. He dared not punish the jinni for a crime he did not commit. God was also afraid of the jinni's retaliatory nature hence his retrained reaction toward his alleged disobedience of his command.Regrettably, ordinary Muslims as well as their scholars have failed to accept the fact that God had not required the jinni to bow down before Adam. Their failure stems from the fact that accepting the truth will nullify the Quranic story on Adam and Eve's expulsion from heaven. To defend their position, Muslim scholars overlook the contents of the relevant verses of the Quran and insist that God's order equally applied to the lone jinni who, as I have said earlier, was in the company of the angels. God's alleged order was specific; he used the specific Arabic word "malaikati" in his order (2:34 et al), which means angels, and not the jinni.Denying the truth, one reputed Muslim scholar took issue with Iblis's accusation against God (7:16, 15:39). Trying to explain the Arabic word "agwaitani" that appears in verse 15:39, he stated: � Satan as the Power of Evil cannot be straight or truthful even before God. By his own arrogance and rebellion he {Iblis} fell; he attributes this to God. � (Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Quran, Vol. 1, p. 644).The learned scholar is malicious, to say the least, for there is no statement in the Quran that supports his allegations against the so-called devil.His score with the angels thus settled, God turned to Adam and his wife. He told them to dwell in the Garden (i.e. heaven) and to eat of the bountiful things therein. He, however, prohibited them from eating the fruit of a particular tree, lest they get harmed and become transgressors (2:35, 7:22 et al).At the time God directed their attention to the forbidden tree, both Adam and his wife were blind. Their inability to see afforded him the opportunity to entangle them in his net of treachery.Impersonating Iblis, God led the blind couple to the forbidden tree and induced them to eat its fruit. While they were eating the fruit, God disappeared from their midst. Eating over, their eyes opened up and Adam and his wife found themselves naked. Seeing their discomfort, God called unto them and asked: Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was an avowed enemy unto you? (7:22). (The Quran does not say that Adam and Eve had ever seen Iblis with their own eyes, nor does it say that they had seen him in their midst after their eyes opened up).Having already experienced God's deceptive and fearsome nature, Adam was quick in admitting his mistake. God, being inclined to pardon him, taught him how to seek his forgiveness. Once Adam approached him appropriately, God forgave his sin (2:38).It appears from the Quran that Adam's wife also had sought his forgiveness (7:23), but instead of forgiving her, God expelled her from heaven (7:24). Consequently, she lived her entire life with the guilt of sin; her female descendants still remain accursed in the sight of God.After destroying Adam and his wife's self-confidence and moral, God ordered the trio (Adam, his wife and Iblis) to get out of heaven. Both the humans complied, but the jinni refused. He knew that he had committed no sin nor was he responsible for the act of Adam and his wife. He also knew that it was God who had used his name not only to malign him but also to expel him from heaven.Being familiar with God's power and his ability to manipulate, Iblis protested mildly to him for having "put him in the wrong" (15:39). God did not rebut his allegation, rather he granted him the wish that was intended to compensate him for the injuries he suffered at God's hand (15:41, 42).I have delved into the story of Adam and Eve to make a point and it is this: Not only men, even God used his power (provided what the Quran says is true) to subdue, control and rule over the meeker and the weaker humans. This has been going on from the time immemorial and it would continue to affect the humanity for so long as it would live on the planet earth.Now, let us look at the role that Muslims have played in the affairs of the world; how they treated their subjects and what the non-Muslims of the present time think about them. In my endeavor to keep the narrative short, I will skip the non-essential elements of the Muslim behavior.Muhammad, through Islam, united his people under a single banner. He also installed them at the helm of the Muslim religious rites. Hajj stands at the top of the list. In fact, by appointing his kindred the Custodian of the Ka'aba, he bestowed on them the perpetual leadership of the entire Muslim community, a privilege that the Saudis are still enjoying without ever facing forceful opposition from other Muslims of the world.The destructive impacts of hajj on the poor nations
Not knowing that his motherland possessed a great wealth, Muhammad made the pagan rituals of hajj the most important part of Islam. This he did with a specific purpose in his mind; as it provided sustenance to the pagans in the past, its retention in Islam was also intended to support the lives of the Muslims of his native land. The Saudis depended on this income until the middle of 1960s. Its importance diminished a little after they began exporting the crude oil. Even though the crude has been bringing immense income to the Saudis, revenues from hajj still remain an important component of Saudi Arabia's yearly budget. Forecast of a declining income from hajj causes headaches to the Saudi financial planners. Having the commercial viability of the Ka'aba in their mind, the Saudis added attractive features to its precincts with the aim to increase the number of its visitors. The Saudis appear to have succeeded in their mission; they now have more hajj pilgrims than what they used to have some years ago. As planned by Muhammad, Muslims would never stop their support of the Saudis, for doing so would amount to committing an unpardonable sin.It is a fact that Muhammad did everything to ensure a better life for his fellow countrymen. It is, therefore, in order for them to hold him in high esteem as well as to live by the doctrines he propounded for them. But why should we hold him at par with God, when he has done nothing for us?Had he made provisions for the poor non-Saudi Muslims to have a share in the revenues that the hajj generates, I would have said that that was the best he could have done in the time he lived. But instead of providing succor to the unaccountable number of the poor Muslims, he made performance of hajj compulsory even for those Muslims who live in the distant parts of the world just to satisfy the needs of his brethren. While passing the decree, he paid no attention to the well being of a vast number of his unfortunate followers.Animal sacrifice is the essential element of the Muslim hajj. Muhammad required each pilgrim to sacrifice at least one animal on Id day in the valley of Mina (2:196). The inclusion of the rite of sacrifice in the hajj proceedings proved to be a boon for a people for whom animal husbandry was the backbone of their economic life. So long as the hajj rituals remained a domestic affair, the Saudis had a hard time in selling their cattle heads. Internationalization of the event solved their problem; each year millions of pilgrims buy from them and slaughter millions of animals. This not only brings them wealth, it also encourages them to raise more animals for meeting the demands of their ever-increasing customers.On the flip side, hajj has been destroying the economies of other nations of the world. To substantiate my claim, I will highlight the case of Bangladesh.It is one of the world's poorest countries. The World Fact Book, updated on March 19, 2003, says the following about Bangladesh:"Despite sustained domestic and international efforts to improve economic and demographic prospects, Bangladesh remains a poor, overpopulated, and ill-governed nation. Although more than half of GDP is generated through the service sector, nearly two-thirds of Bangladeshis are employed in the agriculture sector, with rice as the single most important product. Major impediments to growth include frequent cyclones and floods, inefficient state-owned enterprises, inadequate port facilities, a rapidly growing labor force that cannot be absorbed by agriculture, delays in exploiting energy resources (natural gas), insufficient power supplies, and slow implementation of economic reforms. Economic reform is stalled in many instances by political infighting and corruption at all levels of government. Progress also has been blocked by opposition from the bureaucracy, public sector unions, and other vested interest groups. The BNP government, led by Prime Minister Khaleda ZIA, has the parliamentary strength to push through needed reforms, but the party's level of political will to do so has been lacking."The following additional information may help readers in understanding my viewpoint:1. Bangladesh has a population of over 130 million people.2. Over 45 million of its people are unemployed.3. Only about 275,000 people pay tax to the government. Over 30% of the taxpayers aregovernment employees.4. The per capita income of its people (GNP per head of population) in 1998 was 350 USDollars. In the last five years time, it might have reached 450 US Dollars.5. About 75% of Bangladesh's annual budget depends on foreign loans and aid.The above is a dismal picture of a desperate nation. This is a nation that looks for foreign loans and aid to meet its needs. As a result, this nation owed a total loan of 17 Billion US Dollars in the year 2000. This is a nation that cannot afford to buy even a seismic equipment to monitor the intensity of earthquakes that have been hitting it for the last few years.Yet, over ten thousand of its people took pride in performing their hajj last year. To determine the harm that hajj and its related rituals cause to the economic health of Bangladesh, let us note the following facts:1. Each pilgrim spent over 3,000 American Dollars on his hajj last year. This means that Bangladesh lost over 30 Million American Dollars in 2002 alone on a purpose that did not help its economy, nor it brought any good to its common people.2. In the same year, at least 500,000 Bangladeshis, who could not travel to Mecca, sacrificed equal number of animals in their homes, even though the Quran does not require them to do so. Because Bangladeshi Muslims believe that eating beef is better for their health, they prefer sacrifice of cows to other animals. Those who cannot afford cows discharge their religious obligation by sacrificing goats and sheep. For the past many years, Bangladesh has been experiencing shortage of cows and oxen. There are many farmers who cannot plough their land for the want for a pair of cows or oxen. Instead of trying to meet the farmers' needs, smugglers bring into Bangladesh "retired" cows and oxen from India in order to meet the Bangladeshi Muslims' eating habit. On the eve of hajj, the smuggled animals become handy for meeting their religious fervor. On average, a Bangladeshi Muslim spends about 100 US Dollars on a sacrificial animal. Which means that the Bangladeshi Muslims squander away 5 million US Dollars every year on a single rite of their religion.3. Total amount that Bangladeshi Muslims spent on their hajj and sacrificial animals last year must have exceeded a staggering 35 Million US Dollars. For a poor and debt-ridden country, what this amount could do for its people is not a difficult question for anyone to answer. Had the Bangladeshi Muslims honestly invested all the money that they have spent, during the last 30 years, on hajj and sacrificial animals in projects like building roads and bridges, Bangladesh would have, by this time, joined the club of other "developing countries" of the world. But, alas! National pride does not have any value for the Muslims; for them fulfillment of their religious obligations, at any cost, takes precedence over all other things of their individual and national lives.
Nationalism Vs. Umma
Muhammad had introduced the concept of Umma for a special reason: It was a tool that he used to compel the Medinese Muslims to come to the help of the Meccan refugees. He never intended it to become an international phenomenon.The ghost of Muslim Umma came to fore when Muslim rulers realized that they were going to lose their power and dominance over their occupied lands. Knowing that the Islam-related issues easily incite the Muslims, their leaders often used the perceived fidelity of Muslim brotherhood either to propel them to power or to prevent their fall from power. Apart from the Muslim leaders, Islamic scholars and preachers also have used, at the cost of national interests, the ghost of Muslim brotherhood to promote the interests of Islam. To make themselves effective in their propaganda, Muslim scholars and preachers relied on a statement of the Quran, which tells the faithful that the entire earth belongs to them and that they should strive hard to take over its full ownership from its infidel inhabitants.Muhammad Ali Jinnah had India divided on the basis of Muslim majority. Creation of Pakistan was intended to be the first step towards Islamizing the entire Indian sub-continent. Muslims' revolt in the Philippines is a link of the chain that Muslims intend to use for enslaving the infidels of the land. Jemmah Islamiya of Indonesia has a grandiose plan of its own; it has a vision to turn northern Australia into a pan-Islamic state (Canberra Times, October 29, 2002).In the matter of patriotic infidelity, the Indian Muslims do not seem to have competitors. Living in India, most of them sing the song of Pakistan. In matters in which India and Pakistan jockey for the first place, most of the Indian Muslims pray to God for making Pakistan the winner. I have seen many Indian Muslims beating their chests when India defeated Pakistan in the sport of Cricket; I have seen the same people distributing sweetmeats when Pakistan won over India.Apart from dividing the entire humanity into Muslims and infidels, the doctrine of Muslim Brotherhood (Umma) has done nothing to salvage the Muslims from their sufferings. The Saudi Arabian government's attitude towards the displaced Muslim Palestinians is a pertinent example. Despite the fact that many Palestinians took birth on the Saudi Arabian soil, its government refused to help them by granting them citizenship. Despite the fact that many Islamic governments have been begging the entire world to make investments in their countries, not too many rich Muslim countries have come forward to help them out. Despite the fact that many Muslims have been living in grinding poverty, their "brothers in Islam" hardly feel it to be their obligation to come to their rescue. Instead, rich Muslims prefer to invest their surplus funds in the Christian dominated West where they find more avenues not only to make more money but also to lead a life, filled with all sorts of thrills.In view of what the Muslims had been planning for the entire world, it is no wonder that non-Muslims nations took to looking at them suspiciously. Other acts that some of the Muslims undertook recently to demonstrate their hatred of the non-Muslim nations boomeranged against themselves, for most of the non-Muslim nations of the world now feel insecured in the presence of the Muslims. I will have more to say about this situation later.
Muslim and Corruption
There are 191 countries, which are members of the United Nations. Each of them has to deal with the problems of corruption. Some countries have tried to get rid of this scourge, but I do not believe, any one of them has succeeded fully in their efforts. Singapore, under Lee Kwan Yu, achieved a commendable success in eradicating the evil that plagued its economy for a long time, yet it cannot claim that it does not have corrupt people among its populace.In fact, corruption is a worldwide phenomenon. It is like termite that eats into the vital aspects of the effected nation's economic life. Almost all people of the world recognize the baneful effect of corruption, but in the face of its rampant prevalence, all efforts have so far failed in putting this jinni into the bottle.Corruption appears to have a special place among the Muslims. According to a report of Transparency International, published in 2003, Bangladesh topped the list of the corrupt nations of the world. Of course, the Bangladesh government dismissed the report, citing partiality on the part of Transparency International.I lived in Bangladesh for over forty years. During my service life, which spanned from 1960 to 1971, I saw a lot of people participating in various corruptions. I began my business career in the first quarter of 1972. I moved to the United States in 1998.In the period beginning from 1971 and ending in 1998, I noticed a marked increase in the level of corruption in Bangladesh. My stepmother died in 1995; I had to bribe the custodian of the graveyard for a place to bury her. I could not pay my real estate tax without bribing the Tax Collector. I could not get my Driver's License without making the clerk happy. I could not get the "Fitness Certificate" for my brand new car without greasing the palms of the Inspector.I saw how judges took bribes before acquitting the accused persons. I read in the newspapers how professors changed the answer scripts of the students to declare them successful in their exams. I witnessed how police changed their charge sheets to help murderers escape punishment. I regularly gave donations to student leaders for not disturbing me at home and at my office. The amount of "gratuities and bribes" I paid in twenty-six years will appear mind boggling to many, who are not fully acquainted with the level of corruption in Bangladesh.Islam approves bribery. In connection with the words "(funds) for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled" that appear in verse 9:60, Maulana Abul Ala Modudi wrote:"Reconciliation of hearts means to charm or captivate. The order means that those opponents who remain active against Islam, or those people who are in the camps of the infidels or those people who have embraced Islam but are likely to return to their previous religion due to their financial constrains, those people should be given money to earn their support for Islam, or to neutralize their harmful activities against Islam or to prevent them from returning to their previous religion. For these purposes, money procured through booty or other sources can be used. If need be, zakat money can also be used. It is not necessary that the recipients have to be beggars, poor or travelers to receive the zakat money. Even those who are wealthy and rich also qualify to receive payment from the Zakat Fund" (Tafhimul Quran, Vol. 2, p. 206; above is a loose rendering of the comments made in Urdu).Since Muhammad himself used bribery to achieve his objectives, it is not surprising that his followers have been keeping his tradition alive by giving and receiving bribes. I have not come across too many Muslims who frowned upon bribery. Nor have I heard or read any Muslim cleric who opposed the practice or issued fatwa (religious edict) against it. To me, verse 9:60 appears to be the culprit; it prevents even the conscientious Muslims from chastising the practitioners of this heinous crime.I noticed a unique pattern that various corrupt people of Bangladesh use to expiate their sins, or should I say their crimes. Corrupt people make it a point to say their Juma Prayer in grand mosques. Before closing their weekly prayer, all participants seek God's forgiveness for the sins they committed during their life. Many can be seen crying and shedding tears from their eyes. By the time they return to their powerful seats the next day, they forget what they had promised God the previous day. They feel no guilt in violating the promise they made to him earlier in the belief that they would have another opportunity to seek his forgiveness for the sins they committed in the days preceding the upcoming Friday.Other Bangladeshi Muslims use more ostentatious means to get rid of their sins. Knowing that hajj cleanses all sins of the sinners, they rush to Saudi Arabia every time they get the chance to perform the rites of hajj. I have seen many hajjis, some among them being my close friends, reverting more aggressively to their previous activities in order to compensate for what they missed during their sojourn in Mecca. To many Muslims, commission of sins and washing them off occasionally is a way of life. What God thinks about it is a matter that should not be difficult for a reader to fathom.
Muslim psychology
In addition to uniting the former pagans under the banner of Islam, Muhammad also had changed their ways of life. The wealth seized from the Jews and distributed among his hungry followers was an impetus for them to crave for more of it. They were willing to go to any length to sustain the lifestyle they were introduced to by Muhammad through plunder and loot.The conquest by the Muslims of Syria, Iraq, Persia and Egypt etc. brought about additional changes to their thinking process. It dawned on them that the people of their newly acquired territories had great wealth, which enabled them to live easy and comfortable lives. Promptly, the conquerors took over their possessions and then embarked upon a journey of conquests that was intended to afford them all the comfort and luxuries of life.All the victims of Muslim aggressions were not prepared to face a marauding force that had originated from the harsh and rugged soil of Arabia. Consequently, all of its victims crumbled in the face of its onslaughts. Having categorically barred the Muslims from establishing peaceful and affable contacts with the unbelievers (see Ali Dashti, Twenty-three Years, p. 82,83), Muhammad further urged them "not to be weak and call for peace when they were uppermost (47:35). Inspired by the above statements as well as by the commandment of verse 47:4, the invaders showed no mercy towards their victims at the time of exacting ransoms from them. Those who could not pay ransoms, converted to Islam to avoid death or the harshness of the Islamic rule, thus helping the victorious Arabs to lay the foundation of their empire. Founded in 638 A. D., the Muslim empire over a vast area of the world lasted until 1683 A. D.The Arabs' hold on their possessions emboldened them to impose various restrictions on their non-Muslim subjects. Where the humane side of the Muslim rulers became a hurdle, the Quran overrode their concerns, for it stipulated:Fight those who believe notIn God nor the Last DayNor hold that forbiddenWhich hath been forbiddenBy God and His Apostle,Nor acknowledge the ReligionOf Truth, (even if they are)Of the People of the Book,Until they pay the JizyaWith willing submission,And feel themselves subdued (9:29).In making the harsh Muslim rule harsher, the above Quranic statement became handy. Deriving guidance from it, Muslims divided their non-Muslim subjects into three categories. And those were:1.Dhimmis were non-Muslims subjects who lived in Muslim countries and agreed to pay the Jizya (tribute) in exchange for protection and safety, and to be subject to Islamic law.2. People of the Hudna (truce) were those who signed a peace of treaty with Muslims after being defeated in war. They agreed to reside in their own land, yet to be subject to the legal jurisprudence of Islam like the Dhimmis, provided they did not wage war against the Muslims.3. Musta'min (protected one) were the persons who came to an Islamic country as messengers, merchants, visitors, or students wanting to learn about Islam. A Musta'min was not supposed to take part in war against the Muslims and was not required to pay the Jizya, but was urged to embrace Islam. If he did not become a Muslim, he was required to return to his homeland.For the benefit of the readers, I will briefly discuss the concept and implications of the Jizya Tax.Jizya literally means penalty. Its payment protected the non-Muslims who lived under Islamic regimes. It also confirmed their legal status. Those who could not pay this tax were required to convert to Islam. Refusal to convert meant certain death.Apart from penalizing the Dhimmis for living in a Muslim state, Muslims used the Jizya tax system not only to humiliate them, but also to force them to submit themselves to their superior authority. The Dhimmis tolerated the Muslims and lived under their atrocious rule due to their own weaknesses and shortcomings.Believing that the Dhimmis were destined to suffer at the hands of their foreign masters, the later day Muslim rulers took other steps to humiliate them more effectively. In 853, Caliph al-Mutawakkil forbade Dhimmis from riding horses; they were to stick to donkeys and mules. Jews living in the 14th century Egypt had to wear a yellow turban and the Christians a blue one to publicly demonstrate their religious preferences (see The Encyclopedia of the Orient for additional information).I believe that the Christian were forced to launch their crusades to free their brethren from the Muslim excesses. Their efforts galvanized the Christians' resistance against the Muslims, who, eventually, lost all they had captured through brute force. After losing their dominance over their non-Muslim subjects, Muslims began to disappear from the world scene. Taking their fate into their own hands, the Christians took all those steps that were necessary for them to build a powerful position of their own.In bettering the Christians' fortunes, science played an important role. It brought them wealth, power and prestige. Using their newly acquired muscle, the Christians became a dominant force of the world. While the influence of the Christian British was waning, the powerful Christian America stepped up to fill the vacuum that the British retreat was creating across the globe.Apart from fighting and defeating the Nazi Germany, the Fascist Italy and the Imperialistic Japan, America, along with its war allies, helped create a Jewish State in the Middle East. Unable to resist the ever-increasing Christian and Jewish power, a large number of Palestinians left their ancestral homes and took shelter in refugee camps that had sprung up in various parts of the Middle East.To the Christian world, the establishment of the Jewish State redeemed the excesses that the Jews had suffered at the hands of the Christians and the Muslims; to the Muslims it was the usurpation of their land by a religious group of people whom they hated from the bottom of their hearts. Consequently, the Muslim world not only refused to recognize the State of Israel; it also declared a perpetual war against the Jewish State.Knowing the precarious conditions of the Israelis, the United States supported Israel with money and the sinews of war. Knowing well that economic well being brings success, the Jews of their own concentrated on improving their economic conditions. Muslims, on the other hand, proceeded with their war preparations with the belief that their faith was enough to make them successful against the Jews. To them, belief in God and in his partisan support for Muslims were good reasons to plunge their nations into war with a nation that they believed consisted of people whom God cursed (4:46), despised (2:65) and who were destined to face disgrace on earth and the world hereafter (5:41).Thus influenced by their beliefs but otherwise unprepared for the task, a coalition of Muslim nations attacked the tiny Israel twice. Both the time, the Jews won, proving that what decides a nation's fate and success is not the blind faith of its people; they have to have nationalism, unity, economic strength and preparedness along with technological edge to come out successful in their endeavors.Unable to believe that Israel could defeat and annex a chunk of the attackers' territory, Muslims the world over blamed America for the ignominious defeat of their Middle Eastern brothers. The notion that America was behind the coalition's defeat coupled with the fact they lost their empire and power, made Muslims bitter not at themselves but at the Americans. Calling America the "Great Satan," Muslims began preparing themselves to settle their score with the American people. To achieve their objective, they instilled hatred of the America infidels into their children's mind; they also told them that killing infidels was an act that God approved and that he would open up the gates of heaven for those Muslims who became martyrs while trying to kill his infidel enemies.One crop of the brainwashed Muslims attacked the World Trade Center in New York in 1993. It was inspired by an ungrateful Muslim cleric whose life America saved from being taken away by the government of his native country. Having failed to achieve the desired result, another crop attacked the same target along with some others in Washington, D. C., and Pennsylvania. This time, God's soldiers used American plans to destroy innocent humans lives and American properties. In my opinion, the attacks of 2001 on American soil was unprecedented in human history; humans fought many dangerous battles and wars but what the 19 Muslims did on that fateful day of September would continue to haunt mankind for an indefinite period of time.America had to react in its self-defense. It attacked the nerve center of the Muslim terrorists. In the process of eliminating the Muslim terrorists, American attacks also killed some innocent people. Muslims did not like what America did to defend its citizens and their interests, for they believed America would continue to live with their terrorism without reacting with an iron fist.What followed the attack on Afghanistan is known to all of us. Also, I do not think it is necessary for me to mention here what has happened so far in Iraq. It, however, needs to be stated here that in the conflict that the Muslims have initiated, Muslims stand to lose whatever they have achieved thus far.After the events of September 11, the world has changed. Most non-Muslims do not trust the Muslims in the way they used to trust them before. For the Muslims, the world has become a "constricting boa." They are being denied entry to many non-Muslim countries. Immediately after the aftermath of September 11, many non-Muslim businessmen were afraid to visit the Muslim countries. How far they have been able to overcome their fear by this time remains a question for the observers to answer.Many poor Muslims who dreamed of making their living in the non-Muslim countries would face tremendous difficulties in fulfilling their dream. Consequently, poor Muslim countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan would see a drastic fall in their Foreign Exchange Reserves. This would curtail their ability not only to meet their import and developmental needs; it would also diminish their ability in meeting their loan and interest payment obligations.Lack of their acceptability in non-Muslim countries would deny employment to many Muslims. Tightening of immigration laws by the United States has already forced many Muslims to go back to the countries of their origin. This trend is likely to continue in the foreseeable future.Muslim countries are also likely to face internal discontentment due to some of the circumstances I have mentioned above. Internal difficulties in countries like Bangladesh and Indonesia are likely to effect the social environments of their neighbors. This might create tension in the respective regions of the effected countries. How much sympathy or support Muslim countries might receive from the Christian World to resolve their problems is difficult for anyone to forecast at this time.Are not Muslims responsible for what is happening to them now? Or should they not take responsiblity for what is likely to happen to them in future?-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammad Asghar writes from USA. He can be reached at MSA40@aol.com

What Islam Wants: Let's Hear From Pakistan Jamat-e-Islami Leader

What Islam Wants: Let's Hear From Pakistan Jamat-e-Islami Leader, Maulana Nabiullah Khan
04 May, 2007

"Jamhooria Islamia", a monthly Baluchi magazine published from Panj-gar, published an interview with Maulana Nawabzadaa Nabiullah Khan, a confidant of and adviser to the Amir of leading Pakistani Islamic party, Jamaat-e-Islami, Maulana Qazi Ahmed, which was conducted by Jalil Amir. The following constitutes are excerpts from that conversation which reveals the fundamentalist ideology and designs of the organisation and its leader .


EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN IS STUPIDITY
Q: The women issue is very controversial nowadays. Taliban and some fundamentalist organizations restrict the freedom of women while some progressive Muslim intellectuals are insisting that the women are equal to men in all spheres. What are Qazi's views on women?
A: As I said earlier, the Prophet Mohammad's (PBUH) views on women are the exact views of Qazi Ahmed and the Jamat. Equality of men and women is stupidity. What men can do, women cannot do. Women are weak physically and mentally compared to men. Men have to take care of women all the time.

WOMEN MUST STAY HOME
Women should not have a life outside the family. Education can be provided to them, but not to compete with men in public.

NO VOTING RIGHTS FOR WOMEN UNDER SHARIA
Qazi had said once that when JI comes to power in Pakistan, he will abolish the voting rights of women and minorities. Only the Muslim men can participate in voting or standing for elections. When I asked the proof from Hadiths, he had quoted many Hadiths in support of that. I asked him why is it that it is never talked about openly in the public by the Jamaat? Qazi had said that the hints are all over the place. But JI did not make it a big issue since the women who currently have the voting rights may vote against JI in the elections if such a thing is said openly.

NON MUSLIMS IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES MUST PAY JIZYA
Q: That brings us to the question of minorities. Will they have to pay Jizya tax?
A: Yes. They have to pay the tax. As explained by Qazi Ahmed , the idea of Jizya is not protection money. But it is a monetary force on the non-Muslim to convert to Islam. Once the Jamaat comes to power, the minorities will be induced (forced) to become Muslims either by monetary or psychological factors.


ALL INDIAN HINDUS WILL BE CONVERTED INTO ISLAM
JI is already equating India with Hindus so that the Hindus of Pakistan will be forced to become Muslims. This was a very successful strategy during the Babri Masjid riots. JI was actively involved in destroying the Hindu temples in Punjab and Sindh. We ordered the destruction of the Hindu family property too. But our main aim was to destroy the Hindu temples. We wrote in the JI pamphlets that destroying each pagan temple makes a Muslim move closer to the heaven of Allah. We used the Hadiths in all the pamphlets. Babar destroyed the Ram temple in Ayodhya because he was a true believer. The same way, every Muslim should take it upon himself to destroy the Hindu temples in Pakistan. O! ur idea was to encourage the Muslims of India also to destroy the Hindu temples in India. But this was not met with much success since the Hindu police in India started attacking the Muslims who were doing Allah's duty.
Q: What kind of government does JI envisage for Pakistan?
A: It will be the Sharia government. Sharia will be made our constitution so that the eminent Muslim scholars who had completed the schooling in Madrasas will be appointed as the Judges in every court. Qazi wanted to make the presidium on the same model as the Khalifa. Presently our idea is that the entire top leadership of JI as well as all three military Generals will be part of the presidium for which the Qazi will be the Khalifa.


OUR MOTTO IS CONSTANT JIHAD
Our motto is "Constant Jihad". The idea is to keep Pakistan in a constant state of Jihad all the time. Qazi's vision is that Pakistan will be! the centre of the new Islamic Empire that stretches from Burma to Afghanistan and from Srilanka to Tajikistan including Kashmir
Towards that end, the Jamaat will use all tactics from terrorism in the kafir-controlled areas to negotiations in the Muslim controlled areas. Already the Jamaat leaders of Bangladesh and Jamaat leaders of India have accepted the primacy of Pakistani leadership in this regard.


SRI LANKA AND BURMA WILL BE PRESSURIZED TO CONVERT TO ISLAM
Q: What about Srilanka and Burma?
A: Both are Buddhist nations. For that matter even Baluchistan and Afghanistan were Buddhist once while Sindh and Punjab were Hindu earlier. Buddhists are generally weaker in matters of faith. Hence we hope they will become Muslim with a little pressure. But that will happen only after Jamaat conquers first Pakistan and then India.
Q: What are the plans for India? It looks like the entire India policy of the Jamaat revolves around Kashmir.
A: Yes that is true. But that is for a very good reason. See Kashmir is like a keystone that sits on top of the arch. It is true that the arch holds the entire weight of the keystone. But if you remove the keystone, then the whole arch falls down. That is why it is called the keystone. Kashmir is the keystone for India. Once you remove that, then India can no longer be secular and it will not be a united country either. Once Kashmir is taken out, these militancy movements will break India by asking the similar freedom for Nagaland, Kerala, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Manipur, Assam, Jharkand, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Khalistan.


INDIA WILL BE MADE A 100% MUSLIM NATION
Q: Coming back to the same point, if India was to become many countries, how do you deal with the individual Hindu States? They may even become big enemies of Pakistan. Or they may again re-group to challenge Pakistan.
A: Given the differences between the nationalities in India, the options for Pakistan are endless. Qazi's vision is to make the entire India a 100% Muslim Nation. A United India, where Hindus are majority is an impediment to that. Like Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) made Muslims out of pagans of Arabia, Qazi also wants to make Muslims out of the pagans of India.
Q: This is a great vision since this was not even possible for the Muslim dynasties and Moguls who ruled India for the last 700 years.
A: True. That is because they had never really established the Muslim Empire. Though the Kings were Muslims, they had entertained the Hindus in positions of power. When you make an unequivocal statement that only Muslims are voters and declare that India is an Islamic Republic, then automatically the people will become Muslims. Little bit of terror had to be applied to the heart of Hindus and Christians. I will give you a best example. The portions which now constitute Pakistan had 25% Hindu population before Independence.


TERRORIZATION IS THE BEST CONVERSION TOOL
After Independence, a lot of Hindus migrated to India. Yet after the migration, the Pakistani Hindu population was 15%. Do you know what is the percentage now? It is less than 1%. How was this made possible? How did the Hindus convert to Islam in a short span of 20 years whereas for 700 years they had never converted to Islam? That is purely because of the terror of the Partition.
That terror forced the Hindus who remained in Pakistan to become Muslims. Pure and simple. JI used similar techniques in Punjab and Sindh. Each time a riot breaks out in India, we had used that pretext to strike terror among the Hindus, Christians and Ahmaddiahs. The similar terror will be at the heart of every non-Muslim, both Hindu as well as Christian, in the coming years in the entire of India. PRPOHET SUCCEEDED WITH TERROR SO CAN WE Qazi is an analytical genius who knows every strategy that was used by Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and which will be and should be used in India to achieve the total submission to Allah.
Q: Do you envision a possibility that when Kashmir becomes part of Pakistan, there could be large-scale riots in India against Indian Muslims? Hence unwittingly Kashmir could lead to more deaths of Indian Muslims and damage Islamic Ummah.

ANY MUSLIM ASSOCIATING WITH A POLYTHEIST BECOMES A POLYTHEIST
A: Yes that is a possibility. But our ideology is based on Quran and Hadiths. Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) in numerous Hadiths and Allah in Quran had said that any Muslim who associates with a polytheist is a polytheist. Muslims cannot be friendly with a non-Muslim. This includes the Christians, Jews and Hindus. Also Mohammad (PBUH) says that even if the Muslim ruler is not good, the Muslims stay with the ruler rather than go out to a non-Muslim country. Hadiths and Quran are very explicit regarding this. All the Muslims who did not migrate to Pakistan during Partition are in essence Hindus. They may think that they are Muslims. But not before Allah.
They are as self-deluded as the Ahmaddiahs who think they are Muslims when everyone knows that they are not Muslims. Hence the Muslims of India who had decided to stay in India during Partition are not Muslims and their progeny are not Muslim (since they did not migrate to Muslim lands).
Another thing that I noticed in my journeys in India is that the Hindu farmers generally offer their entire harvest to their gods at the end of their harvesting season. This makes the entire crop as haram for Muslims. Yet these so-called Muslims of India are forced to eat this food which was already offered to some other God other than Allah. This is explicitly forbidden in Quran.

MUSLIMS GOING TO NON MUSLIM COUNTRIES TO SETTLE DOWN ARE KAFIRS
And this is one of the serious problems of living in non-Muslim countries. Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) knew such things; that is why he ordered Muslims not to live in non-Muslim areas. Yet knowingly these so-called Muslims live in India. AGAIN ALL THE MUSLIMS WHO MIGRATE TO OTHER NON MUSLIM COUNTRIES AND US ARE NON MUSLIMS . Only the Muslims who intend to come back are Muslims not the ones who decide to stay in such countries. Hence we do not care if such Indian Muslims die in the riots.
But due to strategy reasons we do have excellent relations with these Muslims. All the Muslims who work for Pakistan and for the glory of Ummah are real Muslims. They are our front line troops in non-Muslim countries. Hence we have to distribute the arms and ammunitions to these real Muslims in case riots come to their door.
The Kashmiri Muslims are pure Muslims who are toiling under the yoke of Hindu rule. They are victimized by the international conspiracy to keep them under the Hindu rule. That issue is part of the incomplete Partition, whereas the Indian Muslims have accepted Partition and stayed on in India knowingly.
JAMAT WILL BRING SLAVERY BACK TO PAKISTAN Arabians own slaves. Though Allah says that the slaves should be treated in a nice manner, he did not advocate the abolition of slavery. If slavery is bad as considered in today's world, Allah certainly would have said that slavery is wrong. Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) also said that the slaves should be treated in a good manner and the slaves should be released often. But if there is no slavery, how can anyone release slaves? Hence the re-introduction of slavery in Pakistan is one of the future plans of the Jamaat.


ALL CAPTURED HINDUS WILL BE MADE SLAVES
All the captured Hindu Indians and Srilankans will be made slaves to work for Pakistani Muslims. Every God-abiding Pakistani Muslim will get slaves once we conquer India. All the slaves who embrace Islam will be set free. Slavery is Islamic. Jamaat is the only political party, which does not voice any opposition to the slavery in Pakistan. We went around all over Arabia. We were surprised to know that there are some Hindus in Yemen. These ancient Yemeni Hindus are not Indians. In my opinion, these Hindus are traders from India in the ancient times. I was also surprised to know that they have a Shiva temple in Yemen. Qazi was very unhappy over this. When he talked to the Yemen leaders, he broached this subject. But the Yemeni leaders refused Qazi's suggestion of forced conversion of these people to Islam. I don't know why they refused. I think it may be due to the large population of Hindus from India who work in Yemen and Arabia. He disliked the current leadership of Arabia for this reason.
In his opinion, Arabia should not allow any non-Muslim into the holy lands of Arabia. Arabia should be 100% pure. A large number of Hindus in Arabia is corrupting the Arabians. Though they live as contractors, they have the potential to corrupt the minds of the Arabians.


HINDU TEMPLES POLLUTE MUSLIM LANDS
One such thing is the presence of Arabians in the Qatar Hindu temple. First the king allowed the Hindus to build a temple and church in the holy lands, thereby polluting the Holy Land. Second is that even a member of the Royal family visited that temple to inaugurate that temple. To the horror of Qazi, he had learnt that one of the powerful members of the Qatar Royal family is a devotee of a god called Aayappan. This news resolved Qazi to fight the force of the devil thousand fold.
Q: Such things happen in Pakistan today. I mean a friend of mine goes to a Hindu temple. Another friend goes to church meetings.
A: Yes. One of Qazi's relatives wanted to become a Hindu. He did not have a child for many years and it seems he had prayed to a Hindu God and got the child. Hence he felt thankful to that god and wanted to become a Hindu. Qazi got to know of this and called him and threatened him with dire consequences. That relative did not become a Hindu. But that incident made Qazi read more about apostasy.


PUNISHMENT FOR APOSTASY IS DEATH
Quran and Hadith clearly say the punishment for abandonment of Islam is death. Since Sharia is not the law in Pakistan, and the current Pakistani Constitution grants the right to change religion, it is legally correct to declare oneself as Hindu or Christian. But once the JI takes over the government, it will make Sharia as the Constitution. Then Pakistan will also legally execute any person who leaves Islam and joins Ahmaddiah, Christianity or Hinduism the same way Iran and Taliban treats its apostates. He also opined that the presence of the Hindu temples in Pakistan is the root cause of the problem and hence we want to destroy all the Hindu temples and Churches in Pakistan.
Q: This brings us into another area. Right now the Internet is becoming widespread. Even Saudi Arabia is connected with the outside world. Destroying the temples may be good, but how can we insulate the Pakistani and Muslim people against the corrupting knowledge totally?
A: JI had taken a principled stand on the matter of science and religion. Religion is far superior to science.

ALL THE WORLD�S KNOWLEDGE IS IN QURAN AND HADITHS
Whatever man needs to know is in the Quran and Hadiths. Knowing more will create problems like the Atom bomb and Television.

MUSIC TV AND PHOTOGRAPHY ARE SATANIC AND HARAM Quran and Hadiths are explicit in denouncing pictures. Yet the lure of Satan in the form of photography and television is eating our lives.
Music previously was confined only to the vocal singing. Now science and technology made the music widespread at a cheaper price. These are the lures of Satan. We have to be on guard against these harami things.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ARE BAD FOR CIVILIZATION
Hence, more science and technology is bad for the civilization. I had completed civil engineering. Hence I am privy to scientific knowledge. I can tell you how corrupting that is. It even makes you question the glorious Quran.
EARTH IS FLAT There are many Hadiths, which say that the earth is flat. But any science will tell you the earth is a sphere. But you can use the same science like the relativity theory to prove that the earth is flat. It is the same case with evolution. But the point being that doubt is sown in the minds of the people on the validity of the Quran as the word of God. More and more we work hard to prove the Quran's scientific correctness, more and more people will get apprehensive of the truth of the Quran. This is an abomination.


WHEN ISLAM TALKS OF GET EDUCATED IT MEANS QURANIC EDUCATION
This is why when we talk of education, we talk of religious education and not scientific education.
It is true that science grew after the Prophet's revolution in Arabia. That was the start of science. Now each and every science is filled with anti-god stuff. If you want to become a doctor, you have to read evolution. If you have to read any engineering, you have to believe in the billions of years old universe theory which effectively says that human beings came to the world only just one or two million years back.
Q: But we still need the arms and knowledge of the Western world, which believes in science. And again you had referred to television as evil. If we abolish photography how can we have passports or identification cards?
A: Yes. That is strategic. With the help of Allah, we will be given oil for them to run their cars and we will have arms in that place. We will use their arms to destroy them in the course of time.
PHOTOGRAPHY WILL BE BANNED UNDER JI
As far as photos are concerned, they will be banned as it was done in Afghanistan under Taliban. If there is no need for people to go out of Pakistan, where is the need for the passports? For those who have to travel to other countries like the leaders of the revolution, they only will be given the passport with photos. For that, we will allow limited photography licensed only to the government. And the biggest corruption in today's Pakistan is Indian satellite TV and Indian cinemas and Indian songs. We have to abolish these too.

ARABIC WILL BE MADE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF PAKISTAN
Q: Currently we have a lot of opposition from Mohajirs regarding reservations. What kind of reservation policy will the JI will have in Pakistan?
A: We approach that problem as the problem of language. Urdu-speaking Muslims and Sindhi-speaking Muslims are fighting now. We plan to abolish all the regional languages like Pashto, Sindhi, Baluchi, Urdu, Punjabi and Brahvi. We want all the people of Pakistan to speak Arabic which is our divine language. This will make everyone equal before everyone else and there would not be any need for language or region based reservations. We also hope that this will make the Quran and Hadiths easier to understand and will make the people follow the Quran and Hadiths to the letter.
Q: There could be language riots. One such language riot resulted in Bangladesh.
A: Bangladesh was not a result of language riot. The very idea that they are Muslims will bring the Bangladeshis to Arabic. We already fund heavily the Arabic language courses all over India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. From Morocco to Iraq speaks in Arabic, I don't see any reason why from Morocco to Burma we will not bring Arabic to the people. Even Bangladesh will start speaking in Arabic. That time there won't be any Bangladesh where the country name itself has the name of the language. Yes. Right now our aim is just for reunification without touching on the language issue of Bengali. JI of Bangladesh is working towards this aim.
Q: The secular journalists of Pakistan oppose the JI. For example the Dawn and News are very critical of the JI. How do you see their role in the future?
A: Ardheshir Cowasjee is able to work only because of the present Constitution of Pakistan. When Sharia becomes the Constitution, he cannot even approach the court, as he is a kafir. We see secular journalists as our main enemy in the current struggle to reach power. These secular journalists are digging our statements we made during the pre-Independence days and trying to beat us. Of course we opposed the creation of Pakistan during the British times. But that was a different Jamaat. Our history starts with Independence.

SECULARS ARE KAFIRS
Secular journalists are not Muslims even though some of them are carrying Muslim names. Let them come to us and let us ask questions on the Quran and Hadiths. We will prove each and every thing we say is from Quran and Hadiths. Let them prove what we say as wrong from the Quranic angle. Then we will accept them. But they cannot. They cannot match us in any debate concerning the Quran and Hadiths. We can comprehensively prove that they are indeed non-Muslims.! They are like Quadianis who say that the Muslim need not take up Jihad as an obligation. That is pure nonsense.
Q: Thanks for your time.
A: May Allah's blessings be with you.



http://www.islam-watch.org/JihadiUmmah/What-Islam-Wants-Nabiullah-Khan.htm