There once was a little boy who had a bad temper. His Father gave him a bag of nails and told him that every time he lost his temper, he must hammer a nail into the back of the fence.
The first day the boy had driven 37 nails into the fence. Over the next few weeks, as he learned to control his anger, the number of nails hammered daily gradually dwindled down.
He discovered it was easier to hold his temper than to drive those nails into the fence.
Finally the ! day came when the boy didn't ose his temper at all. He told his father about it and the father suggested that the boy now pull out one nail for each day that he was able to hold his temper.
The days passed and the young boy was finally able to tell his father that all the nails are gone. The father took his son by the hand and led him to the fence He said, "You have done well, my son, but look at the holes in the fence. The fence will never be the same.
When you say things in anger, they leave a scar just like this one. You can put a knife in a man and draw it out.
It won't matter how many times you say "I'm sorry", the wound is still there. A verbal wound is as bad as a physical one.
Please forgive me if I have ever left a hole.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "No one has swallowed back anything more excellent in the sight of Allah, Who is Great and Glorious, than anger he restrains, seeking to please Allah, The Most High." Al-Tirmidhi Hadith 5116 Narrated by Abdullah ibn Umar
Anger
Rabbi calls for hanging Arab children from trees
NAZARETH, (PIC)-- The chief Rabbi of Safad, Shmuel Eliyahu, urged the Zionist state to exact "a horrible revenge" on Palestinians in retaliation for their attacks to serve as a deterrent.
In an article published in the newsletter "Eretz Yisrael Shelanu", which will be distributed to Synagogues this weekend, Eliyahu criticises the leaders of the Zionist state for not taking or allowing revenge against the family Alaa Abu Dheim who carried out the Merkaz Harav attack in Jerusalem.
"A state that really respects the lives of its citizens would have hanged the 10 sons of the terrorist on a tree 50 amot [25 meters] tall, so that others would see it and be afraid," wrote Eliahu, according to the Jerusalem Post.
Eliahu called on the Zionist state to take "horrible revenge" for the attack at the Yeshiva in Jerusalem.
"We have to exact a revenge that is so painful, it will burn into the souls of all our enemies the message that Jewish blood is more valuable than gold and platinum."
On Wednesday, Mossawa Center, an Arab human rights group, called on the Attorney General to take legal action against the rabbi for inciting racism and violence.
US and the world economy
A speech by M. R. Venkat.
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=4343898391323537541&hl=en
What is the RSS? Madhu Limaye
May 1 marks the 31st anniversary of the united Janata Party and also the 86th birth anniversary of senior socialist leader, the late Madhu Limaye. This article, penned by Limaye soon after the split in the Janata Party, was published by the Hindi weekly, Ravivar, in 1979. Though dated, many of the issues he raises in the article are relevant even today. I have highlighted some points about the RSS that are rarely pointed out these days.
A veteran socialist on an 'age-old enemy' by Madhu Limaye
I entered political life in 1937. I was quite young then but as I had passed my matriculation examination at a relatively early age, I also entered college quite early. Quite active in Pune in those days were the RSS and the Savarkarites (followers of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar) on the one hand and nationalist, socialist and leftist political organisations on the other. On May 1, 1937 we took out a march to observe May Day. The marchers were attacked by the RSS and Savarkarites when, among others, the well-known revolutionary Senapati Bapat and our socialist leader, SM Joshi, were injured. We have had serious differences with these Hindutva organisations ever since.
Our first difference with the RSS was over the issue of nationalism.
We believed that every citizen had equal rights in the Indian nation. But the RSS and the Savarkarites came up with their notion of Hindu Rashtra. Mohammad Ali Jinnah too was a victim of a similar world view. He believed that India was made up of two nations, the Muslim nation and the Hindu nation. Savarkar too said the same thing.
The other major difference between us was that we dreamt of the birth of a democratic republic while the RSS claimed that democracy was a western concept that was not appropriate for India. In those days members of the RSS were full of praise for Adolf Hitler. Guruji (Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar) was not only the sarsanghchalak (head) of the RSS; he was its ideological guru as well.
There is amazing similarity between the thoughts of Guruji and the Nazis. One of Guruji's books, We or Our Nationhood Defined, ran into several editions, its fourth edition having been published in 1947.
At one point in the book, Guruji says, "The non-Hindu people in Hindustan must adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no ideas but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture i. e. they must not only give up their attitude of intolerance and ungratefulness towards this land and its age-old traditions but must also cultivate the positive attitude of love and devotion instead - in a word, they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment - not even citizen's rights."
In other words, Guruji wanted to see millions of Indians treated as non-citizens. He wanted all their citizenship rights taken away.
Incidentally, these ideas of his were not newly formulated. From the time we were in college (in the mid-1930s), members of the RSS were inclined to follow Hitlerian ideals. In their view, Muslims and Christians in India deserved to be treated the same way that Hitler treated Jews in Germany.
The extent of Guruji's sympathies for the views of the Nazi Party is evident from the following passage from We or Our Nationhood Defined: "To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races - the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well- nigh impossible it is for races and cultures having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by" (We or Our Nationhood Defined, 1947, p. 42).
You might say that this is an old book, of a time when India was in the throes of the struggle for independence. But then there is his second book, Bunch of Thoughts. I cite below an example from this "popular publication" which was brought out in November 1966.
In this book, while discussing India's internal security problem, Guruji identifies three internal dangers. One is Muslims, the second Christians and the third Communists. In Guruji's view, every Indian Muslim, every Christian and every Communist is a danger to the nation's security. Such is his ideology.
Our second major difference with Guruji and the RSS has to do with the caste question. They are supporters of the caste system while a socialist like me is its greatest enemy. I consider myself to be the biggest enemy of brahminism and the caste system. I am of the firm view that there can be no economic and social equality in India until the caste system and the inequalities based on it are demolished.
But Guruji says, "Another unique feature of our society was the varna vyavastha (caste system, the former occupation-based classification of society) which is today vilified as jati pratha (a rigid caste system)." He adds, "Society was conceived of in the image of an all- powerful god, of four aspects, who was to be worshipped by different people in their own ways as determined by their different capabilities. The Brahmin was considered great because he was the purveyor of knowledge. The Kshatriya was considered equally great because he destroyed the enemies. The Vaishya was no less important than others because through agriculture and commerce he fulfilled a social need. The Sudra too was important for he served society through his workmanship." Here it is very shrewdly being asserted that through his workmanship the Sudra is fulfilling an important social need. But Chanakya's Arthashastra, from which Guruji takes his inspiration, clearly states that it is the religious duty of the Sudras to serve the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas. In a clever subterfuge, Guruji replaces service of the upper castes with "service of society".
The fourth issue on which we differ is that of language. We are in favour of promoting the languages of the people. All regional languages, after all, are indigenous. But what does Guruji have to say on this? Guruji says that for now Hindi should be made the common language for all while the ultimate objective should be to make Sanskrit the national language. He says in his Bunch of Thoughts, "For convenience, Hindi should be given primacy as our link language until such time as Sanskrit is adopted as our national language." Thus Hindi is merely for convenience, the ultimate link language is to be Sanskrit.
We have had differences over this right from the start. Like Mahatma Gandhi and Lokmanya Tilak, we too have always been in favour of the regional languages. We do not wish to impose Hindi on anyone. We would like to see Tamil as the prevalent language in Tamil Nadu, Telugu in Andhra Pradesh, Marathi in Maharashtra and Bengali in West Bengal. If the non-Hindi speaking states wish to adopt English, it should be up to them. We have no differences with them on this. But Sanskrit is the language of a handful of people, the language of a particular caste. Making Sanskrit the national language means the supremacy of a handful of people over others, something we definitely do not want.
Fifth, the national movement for independence had accepted the idea of a federal state. In a confederation, the centre would definitely have certain powers on specific matters but all others would be a subject matter for the states. But following partition, in a bid to strengthen the centre, the Constitution stipulated a concurrent list. As per this list, several subjects were made concurrent, subjects over which both the centre and the states have equal jurisdiction. What was originally meant to be under the domain of different states was included in the concurrent list only to strengthen the centre. Thus the federal state came into existence.
But the RSS and its chief ideologue, Guru Golwalkar, have been consistently opposed to this basic constitutional provision. These people ridicule the very concept of 'a union of states' and maintain that this Constitution, which envisages a confederation of states, should be abolished. Guruji says in his Bunch of Thoughts, "The Constitution must be reviewed and the idea of a unitary state should be written into the new Constitution." Guruji wants a unitary or, in other words, a centralised state. He says that this system of states should be done away with. What he wants is one nation, one state, one legislature and one executive. In other words, he wants to abolish state legislatures and state ministries. That means they wish to see the rule of the stick. If they were to capture power, they would doubtless bring into existence a centralised state.
Another issue was the tricolour, the flag chosen by the national movement. Hundreds of Indians sacrificed their lives, thousands bore the brunt of lathis for the honour and glory of our chosen national flag. But surprisingly, the RSS has never accepted the tricolour as the national flag. It always swore by the saffron flag, asserting that the saffron flag has been the flag of Hindu Rashtra since time immemorial.
Just as Guruji rejected the concept of a federal state, similarly, he had no faith in a democratic system. He was of the firm view that democracy is a concept imported from the West and the system of parliamentary democracy did not jell with Indian thought and Indian civilisation. As for socialism, that for him was a totally alien idea. He repeatedly said that all isms, including socialism and democracy, were alien ideas which should be rejected, that Indian society should be founded on Indian culture. Speaking for ourselves, we believe in parliamentary democracy, in socialism, and we aspire to establish socialism consistent with Gandhian principles in India through peaceful means.
While we were engaged in a struggle against the Congress party's autocratic rule, our leader, Dr Ram Manohar Lohia, was of the opinion that we should join hands with all opposition forces to save the nation and dislodge from power the Congress party which was responsible for our humiliation at the hands of the Chinese. I had lengthy discussions with Doctor saheb on the issue. This debate went on for two years. I kept insisting throughout that we cannot have any alliance with the RSS and the Jan Sangh. Ultimately, Doctor saheb asked me, "Do you accept my leadership or not?" I replied, "Yes, I do." He said it wasn't necessary for us to agree on every issue or for him to have to convince me on every issue. Let there be an issue or two on which we disagreed. And since he was only thinking of a political alliance to defeat a major enemy, I should cooperate with him, let his idea be given a "trial". Perhaps he would be proven right, he said, perhaps I would. I remained convinced however that a clash between the RSS and the Lohiaite ideologies was inevitable.
It is a fact that we formed an alliance with these people (RSS and Jan Sangh) when Mrs Indira Gandhi imposed the emergency, increasingly resorted to dictatorial methods, started promoting Sanjay Gandhi and the Maruti scandal surfaced. Lok Nayak Jaiprakashji believed that if the opposition did not unite under the banner of a single party it would be impossible to defeat Mrs Gandhi and dictatorship. Choudhary Charan Singh was also of the view that we should come together and form a united party. While we were in jail, we were all asked to give our opinions on the need to form such a party and contest elections. I recall sending a message that in my view we must contest elections. Millions of people would participate in elections. Elections are a dynamic process. As the electoral tempo builds up, the shackles of emergency are bound to snap and people are bound to exercise their democratic right.
Therefore, I stressed, we must participate in elections. Since Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Narain and other leaders were of the view that without coming together under the banner of one party we could not succeed, we (socialists) too gave it our consent. But I would like to stress that the understanding that was arrived at was between political parties - the Jan Sangh, the Socialist Party, the Congress (O), the Bharatiya Loktantrik Dal (BLD) and some dissident Congress factions. We did not come to any arrangement with the RSS, nor did we accept any of its demands. What is more, through a letter by Manubhai Patel that was circulated among all of us in jail we learnt that on July 7, 1976 Choudhary Charan Singh had raised the issue of a possible clash of interests because of dual membership when members of the RSS also became members of the new party. In response, the then acting general secretary of the Jan Sangh, Om Prakash Tyagi had said that the proposed party should feel free to formulate whatever membership criteria it wanted. He even said that since the RSS, having faced many constraints, had been dissolved anyway, the question of RSS membership did not arise.
Later, when the constitution of the proposed Janata Party was being drawn up, the subcommittee appointed to draft the constitution proposed that members of any organisation whose aims, policies and programmes were in conflict with the aims, policies and programmes of the Janata Party should not be given membership to the new party.
Given the self-evident meaning of such a membership criterion, there was no question of anyone opposing it. However, it is significant that the sole opposition to this came from Sunder Singh Bhandari (Jan Sangh). At a meeting convened in December 1976 to thrash out issues, reference was made to a letter written by Atal Bihari Vajpayee on behalf of the Jan Sangh and the RSS, stating that a section of leaders of the proposed party had agreed that the RSS issue could not be raised in connection with membership of the Janata Party. But several leaders told me that no such assurances were given because the RSS was nowhere in the picture at the time when the idea of a merger of opposition political parties was mooted. I want to clarify that I was in prison at the time and even if there was some secret understanding, I had no part in it.
I can categorically assert that the election manifesto of the Janata Party did not in any way reflect the concerns of the RSS. In fact, each point in the manifesto was clearly spelt out. Is it not a fact that the manifesto of the Janata Party spoke of a socialist society based on secular, democratic and Gandhian principles and in which there was no mention of Hindu Rashtra? The manifesto also assured the minorities equal citizenship rights and vowed to safeguard their rights. In contrast, Guruji wanted to deny equal citizenship rights to the minorities and wanted them to be subservient subjects in a Hindu Rashtra. The Janata Party was committed to decentralisation while Guruji was a hardcore proponent of centralisation. He wanted to abolish separate states, abolish state legislatures and ministries while the Janata Party emphasised the need for greater decentralisation. In other words, the Janata Party had no desire to snatch away the autonomy of states. The manifesto spoke of socialism, social justice and equality. Did the manifesto state that it upholds the caste system? Did it maintain that the Sudras' duty was to devote their life in the service of others? On the contrary, the manifesto not only promised that the backward castes would have full opportunity to progress, it pledged special policies for them: 25-33 per cent reservation for them in government jobs.
Yes, it is true that members of the RSS did not genuinely accept the provisions of the party's election manifesto. It was my contention and I had once even complained in writing to Kushabhau Thakre that during discussions you people (RSS, Jan Sangh) very readily agree on matters that you at heart totally disagree with. That is why your motives are suspect. I wrote this letter to him a long time ago and I have always had doubts about the RSS. I have had these doubts since Doctor saheb's time (Dr Ram Manohar Lohia died in 1967). But despite this, the fact remains that to fight dictatorship we entered into a political alliance with them.
Since it was Lok Nayak Jaiprakashji's desire that all parties should merge for a united opposition to dictatorship and since the party manifesto did not make any compromises, I consented to our coming together. At the same time, I would like to say that from the beginning I was very clear in my mind that to emerge as a unified and a credible body the Janata Party would have to do two things.
One, the RSS would have to change its ideology and accept the ideal of a secular democratic state. Two, the various organisations that are part of the sangh parivar, such as the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh and the Vidyarthi Parishad, would have to dissolve themselves and merge with the secular-minded trade union and student wings of the Janata Party. I was very clear about this from the beginning and as the Janata Party had given me the responsibility to manage the affairs of its trade union and student wings, it was my consistent attempt throughout to ensure that the Vidyarthi Parishad and the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh ended their separate existence.
But these people started insisting on their autonomy. In fact, these organisations always function on the dictates of Nagpur (RSS headquarters), they believe in the one leader principle. Take, for example, Guruji himself. Guruji maintained that they create a mind- set which is totally disciplined and where people accept whatever they tell them. This organisation operates on a single principle: one leader. They do not believe in democracy, they have no faith in discussions and debate. They have no economic policy. For example, in his Bunch of Thoughts, Guruji expressed unhappiness over the abolition of the zamindari system in India. Guruji was deeply saddened, deeply disturbed by the abolition of the zamindari system.
But he felt no compassion for the poor.
I told members of the RSS that you must abandon your ideal of organising Hindus alone and find a place for people of all religions within your organisation, that you must merge your different class- based organisations with those of the Janata Party. They responded by saying that this could not be done so soon, that there were very many difficulties involved but they did want to change, bit by bit.
They continued to give such evasive replies.
From their behaviour I concluded that they had no intention of changing. Especially after the assembly elections of June 1977, when they managed to gain power in four states and one union territory, after which they began to think that with this newly acquired clout they had no need to change. Now that they had already captured four states, they would gradually also gain control of other states and finally even the centre. The leaders of other political parties in the Janata Party were older leaders who would not live long; and they would ensure that no younger (non-RSS, non-Jan Sangh) leader emerged at the top.
As is evident from the pages of the Organiser and Panchjanya (RSS mouthpieces in English and Hindi), they have not spared a single Janata Party leader who is not from their parivar. I, of course, was their special favourite, the target of special attention. They probably devoted more column space to abusing me than they did even for Mrs Indira Gandhi.
For a protracted period I persisted in dialogue with these people. I recall an occasion when Balasaheb Deoras (later RSS sarsanghchalak) visited me at my residence in Mumbai. Subsequently, I met him once again after the 1971 polls. I also had discussions with Madhavrao Mule once before the emergency. On the fourth occasion, I met Balasaheb Deoras and Madhavrao Mule together in May 1977. So no one can claim that I made no attempt to talk to them. But I finally reached the conclusion that they have closed minds in which no new idea can germinate.
On the contrary, the RSS specialises in casting young minds in a particular mould from a very young age. The first thing they do is 'freeze' the minds of children and of youth, making them impervious.
After this they are rendered incapable of responding to other ideas.
Still, I tried. On one occasion I convened a meeting of all trade union leaders. The representatives of all constituents of the Janata Party attended but the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh boycotted the meeting. Not just that, they hurled abuses at me for no apparent reason. Similar efforts were made with the Vidyarthi Parishad and the Yuva Morcha but despite all attempts at a merger, they held aloof. This is only because of the RSS' desire to function as a "super party".
Their aim is not only to enter into every aspect of people's life but also to control it. In an article written for The Indian Express around that time, George Fernandes used the example of Dattopant Thengdi to make the same point. Thengdi responded by saying that the RSS intended to have all of society under its sway, it would leave no aspect of a person's life untouched, it would establish its hegemony in every department of life. Thengdi, of course, was saying nothing new. Similar views have been repeatedly asserted by Guruji in his We or Our Nationhood Defined, as also in Bunch of Thoughts.
No totalitarian organisation allows any space for freedom, its tentacles reach everywhere: art, music, economy, culture. This is the essence of any fascist organisation.
The fact is that the RSS wanted to capture the Janata Party and through it to take control of the state apparatus. For this they simultaneously dangled the carrot of the prime minister's chair before several Janata Party leaders. On the one hand, they went on assuring Morarji Desai to the end that he was their choice for prime minister. Every now and then they would promise Choudhary Charan Singh that they would support his claim to be prime minister.
Concurrently, they kept giving similar assurances to Chandra Shekhar, Jagjivan Ram and George Fernandes. Not once did they dare to make me a similar offer. When I once jokingly mentioned this to Vajpayee, he quipped, "Why you, Nanaji (Deshmukh) has never made me such a promise either. They want neither you nor me as prime minister." Anyway, they never made any such suggestion to me, knowing only too well that I would not deny others their due nor would I allow others to deny mine. Perhaps they think, you can't fool this man so what's the point of promising him anything - it will only make him (Limaye) even more cautious.
What these people (the RSS) do on the odd occasion is however of little importance. Has the RSS ever said that they have abandoned Guruji's way of thinking? Only Atalji says that we should all accept the principles of composite nationalism, democracy, socialism, social justice, etc because we cannot move forward without them in today's world. But Atalji is the only one who says this. I do not trust the other sanghis. These people pleaded for pardon while in prison, Balasaheb Deoras congratulated Indira Gandhi when the Supreme Court ruled in her favour in the Raj Narain case. So I have no faith in the utterances of these people. I am of the firm belief that I could only have trusted these people (erstwhile Jan Sangh leaders in the Janata Party) if they had ousted RSS leaders from the party, expelled them from the working committee, placed restrictions on RSS activities and, in particular, expelled people like Nanaji Deshmukh, Sunder Singh Bhandari and company from the party.
Translated by Javed Anand.
Muslims More Peaceful Than Their Neighbors?
78% Muslims Oppose Killing Civilians as Compared to 46% of Americans.
-Abdul Malik Mujahid
It seems the preachers of peace have fallen short. Although both the Quran and the Bible contain God's commandment that killing one innocent human being is like killing the whole of humanity, a large number of Americans believe it is justifiable to intentionally attack civilians. A World Public Opinion (WPO) survey done in collaboration with the University of Maryland published in January 2007 reported that 51% of Americans believed bombings and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified.
According to a May 22 2007 PEW survey, only 13% of American Muslims hold a similar sentiment when asked about suicide bombings against civilian targets. The survey findings, however, did not provide any relief for American Muslims from Islamophobia. While some media presented a positive side of the PEW survey, most others have used it as an opportunity to fan hatred against American Muslims.Michelle Malkin went to National Review to proclaim that the poll "should be a wake-up call." Mark Steyn said it demonstrates the existence in America of "a huge comfort zone for the jihad to operate in," and on CNN, Anderson Cooper was horrified -- just horrified -- that "so many" American Muslims would support such violence.
Considering that the PEW poll contains many problems, we decided to put together some comparison of these polls about Muslim Americans with the general American population. Here are some interesting finding.
Are You Christian First, Muslim First or American First
47 percent American Muslims said they think of themselves mainly as Muslims, rather than mainly as Americans. (PEW) [1]
Contrast this with another PEW Survey about all Americans...
42 percent of all Christian Americans soaring to 62 percent of evangelical white Protestants similarly say they are Christians first. (PEW)
Conspiracy Theories and Skepticism About 9/11
Question: Did Muslims/Arab carry out the attacks on 9/11?
28 percent of U.S. Muslims said no. (PEW)[2]
Contrast this with...
36 percent of all Americans consider the accusation that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to United States to go to war in the Middle East. (Ohio University). [3]
Also 22 percent of Canadians believe the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans.[4]
Is It Ok to Kill Civilians: Can suicide bombings of civilian targets to defend Islam be justified?
13 percent American Muslims surveyed responded it is often/sometimes/rarely justified (PEW)
78 percent said it is never justified
Contrast this with general American public...
According to World Public Opinion/University of Maryland survey done in December 2006. [5]:
51 percent of Americans surveyed said killing civilians can be often/sometimes/rarely justified
46 percent stated it can never be justified
Also note...
ABC News and the Washington Post asked about the acceptability of violence in a 1995 survey, after the Oklahoma City bombing, examining distrust of the federal government. "Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the United States government, or not?" asked that equally hypothetical question. Nine percent of Americans said yes.[6]
About Church and State
49% Muslim Americans believed in the separation of mosque and state (PEW 2007)
43% believed that mosques should express their views on social and political questions.
Contrast this with...
43% Christian Americans believe in the separation of church and state, (PEW 2006)
54% Christian Americans believe that church and other houses of worship should be open and forceful about their political and social views.
[1] http://pewresearch.org/pubs/483/muslim-americans
[2] 32% Muslims declined to answer this question.
[3] It was part of a survey posted on newsPolls.org on J uly 6, 2006 – source link - http://www.newspolls.org/question.php?question_id=716
[4] The source is a September 11, 2006 Ipsos Reid Poll. Subscription is needed to access the poll but a brief description can be found here: http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/11/112040.shtml?s=ic
[5] http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jan07/Iran_Jan07_rpt.pdf
[6] http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3204116
Young Muslims UK
The Five Principles of YM UK
* Open and dynamic organisation (in Arabic, Jama'ah)
* Personal development of members- in outlook, Understanding, skills and character (Tarbiyah)
* Facilitating spiritual progress of members (Tazkiyah) And externally:
* Promoting a deep awareness of Islam (Da'wah)
* Social concern and engagement (Ri'ayah)
They are also written as:
Inviting - "...invites all youth to the message of Islam."
Teamwork - "...organises all those who respond to its call into a committed, loving and disciplined brotherhood."
Educating - "...develops the talents, knowledge and understanding of individuals and applies them for the benefit of all."
Developing - "...promotes personal, spiritual and moral development and building a relationship with God."
Action - "...initiates various programmes to involve individuals to help society around them."
The Islamic Society of Britain is the parent organisation of YM UK.
In the UK, Muslims from the Sub-continent are best represented by the UK Islamic Mission, the Islamic Foundation, the Markfield Institute of Higher Education, Dawatul Islam, the Islamic Society of Britain (ISB), Young Muslims UK (YMUK), Young Muslim Organization UK (YMO), Muslim Educational Trust, Islamic Forum Europe (IFE), London Muslim Centre / East London Mosque, Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Muslim Aid, several mosques, madrassah and various other projects and organizations. The Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) is the most important Middle Eastern influenced organization along with Islamic Relief.
Beautiful Sayings
Narrated Anas bin Malik from the Messenger of Allah, sal Allahu alaihi wasallam:
يَسِّرُوا وَلاَ تُعَسِّرُوا ، وَبَشِّرُوا وَلاَ تُنَفِّرُوا
"Make things easy for people, and do not put them into difficulty. Give them good news, and do not repel them." [Sahih al-Bukhari: The Book of Knowledge, Hadeeth 69]
"Be firm with yourself, and lenient with others." - Imam Shaafi'i
Islam vs Izlam
Islam (peace and submission to God) is a way of life, which is full of love, mercy and kindness1, for everyone2, opposes terror and oppressors3, ensures justice4, strongly forbids unjust killing and suicide5, self defensive as well as tolerant6, gives equal status and rights to women7, offers absolute freedom of faith and freedom of religion8, against priesthood and religious peddlers9, preaches secularism and pluralism10, gives rights to orphans, poor and widows11, strongly encourages people to free their slaves that they already possess12, promises eternal peace and salvation in the hereafter13, and so on.
Moreover, unlike some other religions, there is no racism, nationalism, caste system, concept of untouchables, slave trade, witch burning, widow burning, female infanticide, honor killing, stoning to death for mere apostasy and blasphemy, genocide, superstitions, etc. in the Quran. And above all, Quran is the most positive, progressive, logical and rational book in the world.
Yet some people like Abul Kasem and Ali Sina are trying their best to ridicule Muslims' beliefs using all sorts of lies and deceptions. Many gullible non-Muslims have also been fooled by their lies and deceptions.On the other hand, Izlam (a derogatory term) is a religion portrayed by anti-Muslim media, which is full of terrorism, extremism, fanaticism, suicide bombing, intolerance, hatred, bigotry, misogynist, etc.Now, the question is which religion have the so called "former Muslims" left? Is it Islam or Izlam? If it's Izlam, then let there be congratulations to them. Because Muslims do not believe in such a hateful, misogynist and terror cult call Izlam either.
Thus, it's crystal clear that the "former Muslims" like Ali Sina (fake name), Ibn Warraq (fake name), Abul Kasem (fake name), Syed Kamran Mirza (fake name), Mohammad Asghar (?), Wafa Sultan (never a Muslim), Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasreen et al have been fooled and deceived by anti Muslim media. And at the same time many gullible non-Muslims have also been fooled and deceived! These "former Muslims" are now being used as pawns to create terror, hatred and enmity between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. These mental slaves are telling to the anti-Muslim media that the terrorists, suicide bombers and all sorts of criminals are true followers of Quran and Prophet Muhammad. Surprisingly, these mental slaves are also trying to defend their masters' religions, directly or indirectly. You will never find this kind of abnormal apostates from other religious backgrounds. Instead, it is seen exactly the opposite. So, it's obvious that a bunch of unfortunate and foolhardy bandits from poor Muslim backgrounds have fallen into a dirty trap. Shouldn't we feel pity for them?
Below footnotes are only some examples of the verses from the Quran to support the above claims regarding Islam:
1 1:1-3, 85:14, 21:107, 60:7
2 2:62, 5:69, 22:17, 34:28, 103:1-3
3 4:75, 22:39-40, 2:190-193
4 4:135, 5:8, 4:58, 57:25, 39:69-70, 40:17, 41:46
5 5:32, 2:195, 4:29, 4:92, 17:33
6 6:107-8, 60:7-9, 2:190
7 4:1, 4:4, 4:7-8, 4:19, 4:32, 4:124, 2:187, 2:240-41, 3:195, 9:71, 16:97, 30:21, 33:35, 49:13, 16:58-59, 81:8-9
8 109:6, 2:256, 6:104, 10:108, 11:108, 18:29, 17:15, 10:99, 76:3, 42:48, 12:104, 39:41, 11:121, 34:25, 6:107-8, 10:41, 2:139, 42:6, 73:19, 43:88-89
9 9:31, 9:34, 2:41, 2:174
10 109:6, 49:13, 2:213, 2:62, 5:65-66, 5:69, 22:17
11 2:177, 2:115, 2:220, 2:240, 4:2, 4:8, 4:10, 4:36, 93:9-10, 89:17-18
12 90:12-13, 9:60, 2:177
13 85:11, 4:122, 19:61, 32:19, 2:112.
- This is a response by Raihan to an email about anti-Islamic Muslims.
Blind Men and the Elephant: Media Outlets, Political pundits and the Pew Study on Muslim Americans
Jun-4-07 02:15 pm
Dr. Zahid Bukhari
The Pew Research Center has issued an interesting study of Muslim Americans on May 22 and it was reported widely in the American media. The thrust of the Pew study, “Muslim American: Middle Class and mostly Mainstream” is that Muslim Americans are “decidedly American in their outlook, values and attitudes.” It is, however, shocking that several media outlets and political pundits projected Pew’s overall positive picture of the American Muslim community in a very negative and biased way.
Three issues from the Pew study have become the focus of media reporting and discussion: support of suicidal bombing and al-Qaida among youth under 30 and African American Muslims; Muslim’s belief that the Arabs were not responsible for the 9/11 attack; and the low count of Muslim Americans (2.35 million). The wildly different interpretations of some of the Pew study results remind me of the classical story of the ‘blind men and the elephant’ when the blind men tried to explain the elephant by touching one part and then describing it with their own perspectives or prejudices.
Let me emphasize at the outset that the Pew study confirmed many of the similar findings of previous nationwide surveys of the American Muslim community conducted by the Project MAPS at Georgetown University’s Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (1999-2004). (The Center was renamed the Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding in 2005.) The Project MAPS: Muslims in American Public Square, funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, conducted the first ever nationwide survey, American Muslim Poll, through Zogby International in 2001. The second American Muslim Poll was conducted before the presidential election of 2004.
Both of the MAPS nationwide surveys covered the American Muslims’ demographics, religious practices, opinion about and behavior in the areas of social and political issues, September 11 and its aftermath, foreign policy, and media and financial habits. More than 100 questions were asked in each of these surveys to a representative sample population of 1781 and 1840 American Muslims respectively. Project MAPS has established that the American Muslims, certainly a new kid on the block, constitute a diverse, affluent and professional, activist, religious and politically savvy community. The results of the two surveys are available at www.projectmaps.com.
It is significant that the Pew study once again presented the middle class stature and mainstream nature of the Muslim Americans, who are here from 70 different countries of the world (MAPS counted 80 countries). In fact, a small replica of the Muslim World is living in the United States. However, the ratio of professionals to population among the American Muslim community is much higher than it is in any Muslim country. The tragedy, however, is that the Muslim community is not a partner in any policy debating forum.
The American Muslim community is the 'New Hampshire' of the public diplomacy efforts with the Muslim world. If the policy makers are not able to win this ‘primary’ they will not succeed in the larger battle of winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim population all over the globe. Unfortunately, the present administration has failed miserably in this regard. Only one reality has been registered during the last six years: Muslim Americans are different than the Muslims in Europe.
At least three major media outlets competed with each other portraying in a provocative style the support of young Muslims under 30 for suicide bombing to defend Islam. The New York Post, for example, put the heading “TIME BOMBS IN OUR MIDST: 26% OF YOUNG U.S. MUSLIMS BACK KILLINGS.” The USA Today’s headline was, POLL: 1 IN 4 YOUNGER U.S. MUSLIMS SUPPORT SUICIDE BOMBINGS. The headline on CBS News online stated that 26% OF YOUNG U.S. MUSLIMS OK BOMBS. According to Pew study, among Muslims younger than 30, 15% say that suicide bombing can often or sometimes be justified (2% often, 13% sometimes), 11% say, rarely justified and 69% say it can never be justified.
Contributing to this frenzy of creating a culture of fear, CNN ran a caption of “Supporting Terror?” at the bottom of the screen when the moderator was interviewing three young Muslims about the poll. It is worth mentioning that according to a WorldPublicOpinion.org poll, conducted in December 2006, more than half of the American public (51 percent) justified “bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” (5 percent often, 19 percent sometimes and 27 percent rarely). Less than half of the American public (46 percent) was of the view that it can never be justified.
However, the American public support for ‘bombing intentionally at civilians’ never made headlines in our media but the Muslim youth’s opinion did. With this type of contrast coverage, it is much easier to understand why the majority (57 percent) of Muslim Americans in the Pew study consider the coverage of Muslims and Islam in the mainstream American media as unfair. (MAPS survey has 76 percent saying the portrayal is not fair).
The estimate of Muslim Americans has always been a source of anxiety among certain organizations and commentators. Project MAPS did not try to make a population estimate through the national sample survey. It has set its goal to analyze the internal dynamics of the Muslim community. Prof. Ilyas Ba-Yunus and Prof. Kassim Kone wrote a chapter in the MAPS volume on the demographics of American Muslims. After making a critical analysis of various estimates of the Muslim population in the United States, they offered their projected numbers as 5.74 million Muslim Americans. The Pew study, on the other hand, estimated the total Muslim American population as 2.35 million. The Pew study also mentioned, however, that the estimate “is an approximation, subject to the limitations of the methodology used to derive it”, and because it is based upon only landline phone survey, “it is possible that the number of Muslim Americans is higher.”
The Jerusalem Post online published a blog, by the executive director of the American Jewish Committee, New York, with the title “In the Trenches: US Muslim Population Figures: Fact and Fiction.” The author declared all other estimates of the American Muslim population as “exaggerated and politically motivated.”
In the absence of any census data on religious affiliation, the estimate of religious communities’ population is always a problematic venture. One can find various estimates of the evangelical Christian, Catholic and Jewish population that are available in the survey literature. What are the numbers of evangelical Christians in the population? A recent Baylor University study put the percentage at 33.6 percent, roughly 100 million people. At the same time, a study by the Bliss Institute of University of Akron put the percentage at 26.3 percent, roughly 79 million people – a difference of almost 21 million followers. The same is the case with the Catholic population. The range of the estimates is between 22 percent and 26 percent, a difference of about 12 million people. The Latino population has surpassed the African-American population in the United States. How many of them are Catholics or Evangelical is again a matter of speculation and religious aspirations. The controversy about the extent of declining Jewish population in the USA has not been settled yet.
The debate over the number of American Muslims is interesting. On February 21, 1989, the New York Times published a story in which they put the number of American Muslims at 6 million. After almost twelve years, Tom Smith of NORC, in a sponsored study for the American Jewish Committee, estimated that the total Muslim population in the USA was 1.9 million in 2001. Other scholars, however, strongly disagreed with his estimate and put the numbers in the range of 5 – 7 million. Even Hollywood took part in the debate when, in 2005, one of the characters of Syriana movie claimed that there were 10 million Muslims in America.
Take into account the dispute over the Iranian Muslim population. According to the Pew study, Iranian Muslims are 8 percent of the total Muslim American population of 2.35 million. The Iranian population in Census 2000 was 338,266, and, again, according to Pew, only 26 percent of them were Muslims which means that there are 87,949 Iranian Muslims living in the United States. But the problem with this number is that it constitutes less than 4 percent of Pew’s total Muslim Americans estimate of 2.35 million compared to the 8 percent mentioned earlier.
According to the Pew estimate Pakistani Americans are another 8 percent of the total 2.35 million Muslims. Based on a study, conducted by a former official of the Pakistani embassy in Washington DC, there were an estimated half a million Pakistani Americans living in the US. If we consider these half million Pakistani Americans as 8 percent, then the total population of Muslim Americans would be 6.25 million, not 2.35 million.
The case of Indian and Bangladeshi Muslims raises further questions. According to the Pew study, they are 4 percent and 3 percent, respectfully, of the total Muslim American population. The Census 2000 tells us that there were 1.9 million Indians in the United States. However, 4 percent of Pew’s 2.35 million is 94,000. These numbers, I am afraid, will certainly be challenged by the scholars of this field. Bangladeshi Muslims are becoming an energetic and emerging group among Muslim Americans. However, any claim that their numbers are almost at par with the Indian Muslims in the United States needs more research and facts.
Scholars and activists may have different estimates of the American Muslim population. However, there is a consensus among all circles that the Muslim population has been growing in the United States by three means: immigration, conversion and relatively higher birth rate. There was a slight dip in immigration from the Muslim majority countries after 9/11. The recent data from Homeland Security, however, showed that the immigration has been generally on increase from these countries.
Instead of criticizing scholars and studies in the pages of Jerusalem Post for their “brazen manipulation” and “exaggeration” by quoting different estimates of the Muslim population in America, I would like to invite the American Jewish Committee, along with other national religious groups, to support a call to the Bureau of Census to include a question on religious affiliation in the coming census of 2010. The census question will at least present a real picture of the religious landscape of the United States. The religion question is being asked in Canada, England, Australia and other industrial countries who also maintain the separation of church and state.
Meanwhile, the debate about the various estimates of Muslim Americans continues. It makes more sense to use a range of 5-7 million, instead of any definite number, as a reasonable educated estimate of the Muslim American population. Hopefully, the polling firms would also make necessary weighting adjustments to reflect the same range of the Muslim American population in presenting their nationwide survey results.
Dr. Zahid Bukhari is Project Director the American Muslims Studies Program at the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.
Muslim Population: Southern California vs New York
I wrote this in 03/2003:
There are 550,000 Iranians in Southern California, 75% i.e.. 412,000 of these are Muslims, according to the Iranian Christians International. This is most unbiased statistic available.
This means there are about 88,000 Sunni Muslims in Southern California including proportionately 21,000 in Orange County and 40,000 in Los Angeles County.
Estimates vary, but the most accepted number of Muslims in the State of New York is 800,000. Accounting for an estimated 60,000 Muslim Iranians and Muslims belonging to other sects there are at least 700,000 Sunni Muslims in New York State.
http://www.islam101.com/history/population2_usa.html
Imitation is the best form of flattery
I am a Canadian! - Original
I am a Canadian! -William Shatner - Parody
I am an Albertan - Parody
I am a Muslim - Copy
The largest urban region in the world - the Los Angeles Megalopolis
Our home in Orange County is referred to by people outside of Southern California as "L.A." or "Greater L.A.". Our Airport is listed as Orange County or Irvine or Santa Ana. When we say we are from Orange County, people look at us as someone who comes from a city that is so unknown, that we need to use the county name.
So what is the reality? Where are we from? Here are some quotes that I collected:
"the largest (areawise) urban regions in the world - the Los Angeles megalopolis"
Applied Information Science Branch of NASA
"Greater Los Angeles (also referred to locally as Southern California or The Southland) is such a sprawling area that residents refer to broad general sub-regions. It is not always meaningful to refer to Los Angeles as a distinct city, but people outside of Southern California commonly refer to the entire region as "L.A.," even though there are five counties, over 100 distinct municipalities, hundreds of neighborhoods and districts, and more people than any individual state except for Texas, New York, and Florida.
...Southern California refers to the southern portion of the state of California, roughly covering the following eight counties (in descending order of population): Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Imperial."
Encyclopedia, NationMaster.com
"What are the spatial boundaries of “Los Angeles”? Do we mean the city of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, the contiguous built-up area that constitutes “greater Los Angeles,” or a definition based on the proportion of the local population that is employed in “Los Angeles”? Does “Los Angeles” include San Diego? Nighttime satellite photos of city lights reveal a single unbroken gigalopolis from Santa Barbara to Tijuana: So where is Los Angeles? We want to use the contiguous built-up area as our main way of spatially defining cities."
-Urbanization and Empire Formation Project
Institute for Research on World-Systems, UC Riverside.
"The southern California megalopolis, extending from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border, and centered around the city of Los Angeles, is the largest population and industrial center in the western United States, and the second largest in the nation."
U.S. Geological Survey, Western Marine and Coastal Surveys
The Los Angeles metropolitan area (consists of) Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Orange Counties...
Encyclopedia Wikipedia
The Greater Los Angeles region, we’ve all been told, is not a City, at least not in the European or East Coast sense of the word. LA is a collection of suburbs in search of a City, the detractors say.
Southern California Association of Governments
By writing significantly about development issues around yet outside of Los Angeles city proper (in Orange County, Riverside County, Ventura County, Santa Monica), Fulton succeeds in demonstrating the profound interconnectedness of Southern California as a region.
Los Angeles Studies, Torin Monahan
So as you can see our geographical definition is not unique to just America but to the entire human history. We are one entity functioning as a "city" so big that it can contain several American States. We cannot limit ourselves to saying that we are from a the city of Irvine or Santa Ana or Anaheim. That would not express the geography of our residence. We are not Angelinos. We are not from L.A.
We are simply Southern Californians. All ten of California's southern most counties.
When Islam Almost Vanished
By Jawad Jafry (some comments by Waqas)
The genocide lasted decades. Historians said that the world had never seen murder and destruction on such a massive scale. Millions died and those left alive often longed for death. People openly wondered whether the light of Islam would be forever extinguished. But the course of history changed through some of God’s most unassuming servants.
In the thirteenth century a tidal wave of devastation swept over the Muslim world. City after city, region after region disintegrated amidst a storm of iron and fire. The death toll was incredible. The figures in parenthesis represnt the equivalent population in today's terms.
Nishapur 1,747,000 dead (30 Million)
Baghdad 1,600,000 dead (27 Million)
Herat 1,600,000 dead (27 Million)
Samarkand 950,000 dead (16 Million)
Merv 700,000 dead (12 Million)
Aleppo 50,000 dead (850,000)
Balkh completely destroyed
Khiva completely destroyed
Harran completely destroyed
(That's more than the people killed in World War II, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq wars put together in today's terms.)
Baghdad was often described as the jewel of the world. For six long weeks this jewel cracked and shattered under the ferocious might of the Tartar hordes. The rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates ran red with blood. Women who had observed modest and chaste lives were savagely assaulted and raped. Five centuries of knowledge accumulated from every literate civilization and contained in the world’s largest libraries was reduced to ashes. Many of humanity’s greatest centers of education, commerce and culture became nothing more than killing fields.
The architect of this colossal avalanche of death was Genghis Khan. His barbaric legions were triggered into a forty year blood lust through the folly of the Muslim ruler, Muhammad Khwarizm Shah. Once a powerful and mighty monarch, Khwarizm Shah ordered the execution of Mongol caravans that came to trade within his kingdom. When Genghis Khan sent a delegation of envoys to lodge a formal protest, Khwarizm Shah executed most of them. These two inhuman acts were avenged at the cost of millions of innocent lives.
The Tartar Holocaust began in 1218 CE six centuries after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. It moved westward from Mongolia across Central Asia and the Persian Gulf, southward toward Delhi and northwest to Budapest and Moscow. People as far away as Sweden shuddered at the thought of a Mongol invasion. Muslims were so overawed by their power that one Mongol could kill over a hundred Muslims and none would dare defend himself. In Arabic a proverb sprang up which meant that if someone tells you the Mongols have suffered a defeat don’t believe him.
On the eve of the Mongol invasion, the spiritual state of the Muslim world was pathetic. Corruption, disunity, and materialism were rampant. Khwarizm Shah was not the only example of insufferable leadership. The Abbasid Caliph, Al-Mustasim, was reportedly pleased to hear of the collapse of Khwarizm Shah’s empire because of his personal dislike for the monarch. Before the Mongols reached Baghdad, the Caliph's advisers had convinced him to seriously scale back the army. The city was in no way prepared to withstand what lay in store for it.
And yet Islam did not die. Genghis Khan who proclaimed himself as the Scourge of God, who delighted in the rape of conquered women could not exterminate the Muslim ummah. Within a generation the tide had begun to turn in Islam’s favour. Baghdad was destroyed by Genghis’ grandson Halaku but his great grandson Berek became a Muslim. In fact, Berek withdrew his forces from Halaku’s army after the fall of Baghdad which contributed to the first defeat the Mongols suffered against the Muslims during the battle of Ayn Jalut in 1260. The aura of the Mongols’ terrifying invincibility was broken. Three years later Berek himself would defeat Halaku’s forces in the Caucus region. Those who tried to destroy Islam became its protectors.
The role that ordinary Muslims played in this miraculous recovery cannot be ignored. The entire ummah owes a debt of gratitude to those men and women who never forgot the centrality of their faith or the importance of sharing it with others. Berek or Baraka Khan was introduced to Islam by two unknown merchants. Their efforts eventually led Islam to reach Russia and Eastern Europe.
If the Tartars are regarded as part of Islam’s universal brotherhood today, one can thank the efforts of unsung heroes like Jamal Uddeen. The vast Mongol empire was divided amongst the various descendants of Genghis. In certain parts of the empire, the Mongols regarded Muslims as no better than animals while Christianity or Buddhism were expected to become the official state religion. But the sincerity of ordinary believers like Jamal was to outshine all else.
Jamal was a Persian who was travelling through the Middle Kingdom or Chaghatay Khanate known for its animosity toward Muslims. With his small band of travellers he mistakenly travelled through the game preserves of the Mongol Prince Tuqluq. Jamal was arrested and brought before Tuqluq. In his anger the prince told Jamal that a dog was worth more than a Persian. Jamal replied, “Yes. If we did not have the true faith, we would indeed be worse than dogs.” Tuqluq was struck by the reply. He inquired what Jamal meant by the true faith. When Jamal explained the message of Islam Tuqluq was convinced. He asked Jamal for some time to unite the fractured Middle Kingdom and then he would proclaim his faith. Jamal returned home and later fell ill. As he was dying, he instructed his son Rasheed to remind the prince of his promise when he became king. When Tuqluq ascended the throne Rasheed set out to meet him. An ordinary person had little access to royalty and after many efforts Rasheed risked his life to enact a plan. He called out the adhan at fajr nearby the royal compound. He was brought before the king and there he invited him to fulfill his promise. On that very morning Tuqluq Timur Khan, king of the unified Middle Kingdom, became a Muslim.
Death and destruction are ravaging Baghdad once more. The innocent victims of this injustice must not be forgotten. We owe it to them to follow in the footsteps of the Last Prophet, in the footsteps of ordinary believers like Jamal and Rasheed Uddeen and share Islam with each and every human being. The beauty of our character and our sincere conduct need to be the beacons that attract those around us to this Divinely prescribed system of life. True it is Allah alone who guides; it is also true that Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change what is within themselves. For us to do anything less would be to disgrace those who are dying before our very eyes.
Historical Sources:
Saviours of the Islamic Spirit, Volume 1, by Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi
History of Islam, Volume 2, by Masudul Hasan
A Short History of the Saracens, by Amir Ali
Muslim Population World Wide
U.S. Census Bureau
Muslim Condemnation of Violence
Here is my response to a statement that Muslims have not condemned violence and are not honest in their condemnation. This was on a Catholic discussion forum:
It is wrong to say that if 1.5 billion people in almost 60 countries, their governments, organizations, leaders and scholars cannot organize or coordinate among themselves to present a unified display (in action, not words) of condemnation of violence that satisfies every person in the world, then they are engaging in "Lying, treachery and deceit". Furthermore Muslims do not have a central religious authority like the Catholics that can act on behalf of all Muslims.
Nevertheless here are some examples of what the mainstream and majority Muslims have done:
A summary of Worldwide Muslim Condemnation of Terrorism
Not Just Words: Various American Muslim campaigns against terrorism
A 68 page comprehensive collection of press releases, statements and resolutions.
Keep in mind that there are Muslim communists, Muslim dictators, Muslim capitalists, Muslim Free Masons, Muslim Kings and Queens etc with their own ideologies and thinking just like any group. No one can expect a group that could be larger than the Catholics to be in unison on all issues.
Apocalypto: Defending Catholic colonialism
The movie Apocalypto masquerades as a historically accurate description of the Mayan civilization before colonization by the Catholic Spaniards.
-"American Holocaust" by David Stannard
-Xeni Jardin
http://www.xeni.net/trek/2006/12/is-apocalypto-racist.html
-Annalee Newitz
http://blog.wired.com/tableofmalcontents/2006/12/apocalypto_myth.html
-U.S. President Bill Clinton, March 10, 1999
In those centuries that Gibson’s Apocalypto takes place Europeans never bathed and were mostly illiterate, while our people were bathing daily in cities that had public toilets and free hospitals. We had mandatory and free education for males and females in all ranks of society. We had great universities and libraries, poets and philosophers, courts with fair laws, and more democracy than any place in Europe.http://www.mexica-movement.org/APOCALYPTO.htm
