It's a start. Hopefully it will start a trend. But blaming the impreialist media makes me less optimistic.

Posted by: walterc at February 21, 2008 12:51 PM

It is not "start" at all, if one were to read between the lines!

Actually, jihad in India is intensifying. In fact, India is under an Islamic siege -- an essential step toward destroying it and capture it for Islam. In my recent book I have discussed jihad in India.

This is a very sophisticated form of jihad.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0979470404

Almost invariably, Indian Muslim political/religious leaders are jihad oriented.

These people believe that they are destined to "rule" India again -- and are passionately taking steps (called jihad) to achieve that goal.

Posted by: MoorthyM at February 21, 2008 1:06 PM

Islamic religious leaders could easily put an end to suicide bombing if they really wanted to. All they have to do is preach in their Madrassas and Mosque that anyone who dies in a suicide attack is committing a mortal sin against Allah, and will go straight to hell. Without Paradise and 72 virgins, there's no incentive for young Muslims to commit these crimes.

As it is, Islamic leaders allow for Muslims to continue honoring these killers as "Martyrs", which provides all the incentive a young, frustrated, sexually repressed, Muslim Male needs to strap a bomb on himself and kill a couple dozen people on a busy street.

It's not enough to condemn terrorism. It's got to be much more substantial than that. When young Muslims believe their're going to blow themselves into hell when they pull that cord, they won't be pulling cords.

If suicide bombing is against Islam, why won't they say it outright, instead of allowing the question to linger in the minds of the young.

I think this is all window dressing.

Posted by: rational at February 21, 2008 1:22 PM

&otAs confusing as Muslims often are when discussing "terrorism", they are a hidebound people when it comes to terminology and Islamic "legalisms". It is important for infidels to understand that when Muslims speak of "terrorism", a little probing almost always reveals the devil in the details in the small print buried within their binding contract with Islam.

One example of this is the "but" clauses which we all have heard. A variation of this goes as follows:

•An Islamic terror "suicide" bombing occurs, and the family, the local Imam, and Muslim friends will all say "But he was such a good Muslim!", as if terror bombing and being a good Muslim are somehow magically exclusive of each other. By now we know the two are not exclusive.

Another variation of the "but" clause goes like this:

•An Islamic terror "suicide" bombing occurs, and a prominent "moderate" Muslim is speaking on TV. The interviewer asks whether Islam has anything to do with the atrocity. After venomously denying that there's a link between Islam and terrorism, and appearing to ;condemn" the atrocity, the "moderate" Muslim will then reveal that he understands the motivation of the bomber, while "condemning" his [her] actions: "But I understand the kind of frustration {with Jews, Christians, Zionists, Americans, Buddhists, crusader armies, oppressors, Islamophobes, etc.} which leads to this kind of thing."

Muslims rarely, if ever, mean what we mean when we refer to "terrorism". Muslims rarely, if ever, mean what we mean when we refer to "innocent", and "victim". This partially derives from the fact that Muslims cannot consider violence against the hated "infidel" to be "terrorism". To Muslims, such hatred and violence is justice.

Muslims, even the most "moderate" among them, consider those who flout or reject Allah's will can never be thought of as "innocent" or "victims" when Muslims attack them. Such Muslims, in harming, maiming, and killing"infidels" cannot ever be terrorists -- they are heroic Muslims visiting Allah's justice on the unbelievers.

Who knows what the Muslims above are referring to by citing "Islamic terror groups?" We cannot know what they are thinking. But we can make some reasoned inferences based on what we have learned so far. It is most likely that these Muslims are simply bothered by the implications of Islamic fervor spilling over and harming Muslims in the process. This does not mean they give a tinker's dam about we "infidels", or that they intend to challenge those aspects of Islam designed to harm, terrorize, and slaughter those who resist their Jihad.

Further, given the endless excuses we have seen from Muslims, given their endless deflections, thsir denial of links between Islam and terror, and the congenital incapacity of Muslims to self-reflect, ws will not see efforts to challsnge the aspscts of Jihad which lay at the heart of Islam. To the extent that these "Islamic terror groups" harm fellow Muslims, they will probably be condemned as apostate or "un-Islamic". This effectively short circuits any challenge to the underlying terror foundations of Islam itself -- Islam's heart of terror remains intact. It is increasingly evident that it's impossible to believe what Muslims say. There's always some loophole for them to worm their way out of implicating Islam or fellow Muslims for all the slaughter and mayhem which Islam and Muslims continue to perpetrate.

Posted by: jsla at February 21, 2008 1:47 PM

What, exactly, is the "peaceful jihad against such terrorist groups"?

Are Muslims merely supposed to look at the large number of "terrorist organisations sprouting in the name of Islam" and PRAY for them?

See how quickly the prayers end and the fights begin once Muslims find themselves the targets of these "terrorist organisations sprouting in the name of Islam".

They did it in other places. Terrorist groups were tolerated, if not welcomed, as long as they were attacking someone else.

Posted by: PMK at February 21, 2008 2:07 PM

Have pigs learned to fly?!

Posted by: R_not at February 21, 2008 2:10 PM

> What, exactly, is the "peaceful jihad against such terrorist groups"?

It's a form of "fighting without fighting"!

-- Now all you have to do is get them all to stand in the boat, and let go of the rope*

(*To get the inside-joke, you'll need to be familiar with an early scene from "Enter the Dragon")

Posted by: Mike Schneider at February 21, 2008 5:17 PM

Keep up the great work, Moorthy.

While this is a step in the right direction, I doubt this will be widespread or stop shortly and then pick up arms IN FAVOR OF jihad when the media has their attention.

Blue

Posted by: Blue at February 21, 2008 6:19 PM

I whole heartily agree with the post stating that everything uttered by a muslim even if it is 'good day' should be considered a lie without thinking otherwise.

Who knew Big Brother was a muslim? Remember all of the double speak words. Or, and I don't think Orwell did this, the misdirecting 'but' clause. I have heard that deception is like a finely woven fabric with just one knot uncompleted on the bolt.

So as we learn to talk to these pervayors of wisdom the first thing to ask or say back is, 'Why should I believe anything you just said?" Or if you are quick point out the exact lie you caught them in. And if they are unwilling to acknowledge it there is no need to continue. The goal may not be winning or convincing them of there error. More important is any other who don't understand and hear the conversation. If they admit to the lie so much the better, but I would not hold my breath.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at February 21, 2008 6:59 PM

MoorthyM -

hang in there mate! Don't give up. Keep fighting. Keep telling the truth.

I'm an Aussie. Is there anything that ordinary Australian citizens can do to help? What sorts of things could or should our government do, to help India defeat the jihad that is attacking her both from within and without?

Many Australians have positive feelings toward India and Indians (we play cricket with you all the time, after all!); two of my personal friends are Anglo-Indian, and Sikhs and Hindu Indians have lived in Australia since the 19th century; we also got a lot of Fijian Indians (both Muslim and Hindu) after the coup in Fiji in the 1980s.

Australians need a LOT more educating about the very important difference between Muslim Indians [from India itself or from anywhere else], and every other kind of Indian: that the former are potentially very *dangerous*, whereas the others (be they nonreligious, Hindu, Jain, Sikh, Parsi, Buddhist or Christian) may be cheerfully welcomed as immigrants (the odd 'bad apple' such as Jayant Patel, being the exception rather than the rule).

At present all I can think of doing is to help spread awareness, through referencing Naipaul and K S Lal, of the horrendous toll taken on India by the Muslim invasions and occupations.

I don't suppose it would be possible sometime soon for Hindu, Sikh, Christian and nonreligious Indians in Australia, to hold a counter-jihad awareness-raising conference right here in Australia, the focus being specifically on the genocidal history of Islam in the region, but relating it to contemporary Islamic aggression and infiltration, sharia creep, and persecution of non-Muslims, in South and South-East Asia and the Pacific? The speakers could be people like yourself, V S Naipaul, and others (I am sure you know who all the non-dhimmi Indians are, both in India and in the Indian diaspora); perhaps even Taslima Nasreen, to be sure of plenty of free publicity.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at February 21, 2008 8:30 PM

"The convention, in a resolution, maintained that such allegations were false, and expressed anxiety over the large number of terrorist organisations sprouting in the name of Islam."

Yes, it is a mystery, isn't it? I wonder what the connection might be?

Let's give these guys a break for a while and see where they take it. At least it's a public acknowledgment, no matter how tentative it might be, that something might possibly be wrong here. We'll know soon enough if this effort has a future by whether and how many of its leaders are assassinated.

Posted by: Eastview at February 21, 2008 11:20 PM

"I'm an Aussie. Is there anything that ordinary Australian citizens can do to help? What sorts of things could or should our government do, to help India defeat the jihad that is attacking her both from within and without?"

Thank you.

Other than few of us, most do not understand the enemy. This has limited our options.

We will see.

Posted by: MoorthyM at February 21, 2008 11:51 PM