Well, what will happen next??--A love-in and a hootnanny?

I wouldnt be surprised if the vice-rector has a visit from a murder-vester coming to 'correct' his doctrine.

Wonder what caused a "malicious campaign against these seminaries" in the first place?

"Communal forces"?--A community saying--Get rid of these hate preachers!

Posted by: guide inside at February 26, 2008 1:53 AM

Rabta Madaris Islamiah Arabia (Islamic Madarasas Association)

How does the word 'Arabia' from the Arabic/Urdu term here disappear in the translation?

Reciting verses from the Quran, Maulana Rahman said Islam preaches equality and compassion among all human beings

Which verses? Please, not 5:32 again.

Anti-terror probes were preceded ''by a malicious campaign against these seminaries unleashed by communal forces''.

In Indian dhimmi-speak, 'communal forces' is the equivalent of 'Islamophobic' here in the US, and generally denotes pro-Hindu parties, such as the BJP. Only problem here - the Indian government is currently run by a Left wing coalition led by the Congress party, while in the state where Deoband is located, the state government there is run by another Islamophilic party. Although as I noted in the thread on Assaud the bunny, logic has rarely stopped Mohammedans from coming up with their bizzare theories.

Maulana Rahman requested the custodians of madarasas to usher in more transparency in their financial dealings and ensure a pure Islamic environment in their schools.

So what environment have they been having in those schools until now? Hindu? Note that this is the school of Islam from which the Taliban originated.

Maybe the good Maulana could send a memo to Mullah Omar? Only problem - it's at least 12 years too late.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 26, 2008 1:54 AM

Terrorism completely negates the teachings of Islam, which is the faith of love and peace,''

Tell that to the 600+ men from the Banu Qurayzah tribe who were personally beheaded by Muhammad. Tell that to the poet, Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, who was murdered on Muhammad's order for writing critical poems. Tell that to the adulteror who is being stoned to death, or the man receiving 100 lashes for drinking a beer, or the Afghani woman beaten for exposing her ankle in public. Tell that to the Iranian woman arrested yesterday by the religious police for wearing a scarf that was too colorful.

Feel the love and peace, peace and love. Isn't Islam wonderful?

Posted by: Xero G at February 26, 2008 3:18 AM

We're expected to supply our own cultural definition of innocents and non-combatants, and assume that their definition does not differ.

Great definition of the workings of islamic fogspeak

Posted by: FreeSpeech at February 26, 2008 3:21 AM

The "Peace! Peace! We are for peace!" schtick, concurrent with repeated violent thrusts and the intimidation of smaller states, worked very well for Hitler. Why, the Muslims must be thinking, shouldn't it work equally well for us?

And they're correct. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict alone provides more than enough evidence that this technique is as potent today as yesterday. Men of good will must study how to defuse it.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at February 26, 2008 4:16 AM

He's obviously been taking some very powerful hallucinogenics.
I think I'll save this one...

I remember a few years ago the poet laureat describing my home town as "a wonderous place full of teeming spires and domes"
Had to chuckle to myself about that...

Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at February 26, 2008 5:02 AM

They're gonna be in deep yogurt when bin laden hears about this.

Posted by: joeblough at February 26, 2008 5:14 AM

So when an Islamic terrorist screams "Allahu Akbar!" before:

- blowing himself up
- flying a plane into a skyscraper
- chopping an infidel's head off; or
- slaughtering school children

are we to assume that this has nothing to do with Islam? Ok, that makes heaps of sense.

Osama bin Ladena and suicide bombers would be disagreeing with this guy of course. He is in the minority. He's also a liar.

Posted by: S Perry at February 26, 2008 6:20 AM

Then this group should have no objection when jihadists are found and arrested. It certainly shouldn't be seen as "targeting Islam". After all, these people are acting in a manner that goes against everything Islam stands for.

Furthermore, this group should be expected to stand up and be counted when its own imams and sheikhs preach death to the Jews or to anyone who doesn't accept Islam. But that is Islamic behavior isn't it? It's in full agreement with the words and actions of Muhammad.

It's pretty hard to square this circle but our dhimmis and apologists will do their best.

Posted by: PMK at February 26, 2008 7:38 AM

"[B]it two missing links render such condemnations of "terrorism" hollow: One is the matter of armed jihadist activity: The question of when and whether it is legitimate to use violence to further Islamic causes is left untouched. The other is the definition of innocents. We're expected to supply our own cultural definition of innocents and non-combatants, and assume that their definition does not differ."
-- from Robert Spencer's introductory remarks, explaining exactly what is going on in this, and in all similar "denunciations" of "terrorism"

To the Deobandis, to Al-Qaradawi, to the Sheik al-Azhar, to hundreds of milliions of Muslims, "qitaal" or combat against non-Muslims, in furtherance of the struggle or Jihad to spread Islam by removing all obstacles (legal, political, social, mental) to the spread of Islam, until it everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere, is perfectly legitimate, is indeed the Ur-instrument of Islam.

For in the time of Muhammad, violence was the readiest way, virtually the only conceivable way, to spread Islam. Long before the Money Weapon became available because of an accident of geology, Muslims were engaged in Jihad through qitaal. Long before before Muslims were freely admitted, by the millions, into the Lands of the Infidels, settling deep behind what they are taught to regard as enemy lines, Muslims were engaged in qitaal. Long before Muslims in the Bilad al-kufr, or Lands of the Infidels, were outbreeding the locals, and doing so not heedlessly, but in a spirit of acute consciousness of their numbers, as so many Muslim spokesmen, from Boumedienne (at the U.N. in 1974 predicting the conquest of Europe not through warfare but through the swollen bellies of gravid Muslimahs producing baby after baby) to the anonymous Muslims confidently predicting their own numerical superiority through non-stop overbreeding, an overbreeding that continues today.

But how do Muslims define "terrorism"? What we have no problem calling "terrorism" -- a bomb in a restaurant, a schoolbus, at a religious ceremony -- is what they have shown themselves ready, when the victims are Infidels (when the victims are fellow Muslims, and especially symbols of, say, a Muslim regime, then there can be outrage, then a strong stand can be taken, as the Saudis do in deploring attacks on the Al-Saud kleptocracy), to see as "qitaal" or combat? And all kinds of arguments are given. For examle, it "isn't fair" that Israel has modern weaponry that it uses in its defense, so what the West calls "terrorism" is merely an "equalizer" on the part of the militarily deprived "Palestinians." It's the West-Side-Story argument told to Officer Krupke, updated and applied by whole groups and states: "we are depraved on acouunt of we are deprived."

These Deobandis have not defined "terrorism." As Robert Spencer notes, by not defining it clearly, they allow Infidels to endow that word with the meaning that Infidels give it, without having to supply it themselves. And that is done all over the world, every time a Muslim group, particularly at some Interfaith Healing meeting, deplores "terrorism" (and how many of those who have noisily denounced "terrorism" have been found, later on, to be connected to, or defending for Muslim audiences, exactly what we call "terrorism"?) and the beaming non-Muslims present are well-satisfied with this, find this exactly what is called for, and are angrily defensive when others raise a skeptical eyebrow, asking those skeptics "what else do you want from them?" or "doesn't anything satisfy you?"

And they have not, Spencer also noted, defined "civilian." They know what we, the unwary Infidels, mean by the word "civilians." But as the Sheik Al-Azhar has noted, there is no such thing, for examle, as an Israeli "civilian" for even a babe-in-arms grows up, and has to serve in the army, and therefore, in posse every civilian is a warrior. And further extending the definition, as many Muslims did after the attacks of 9/11/2001, when there was such jubilation, in Cairo (listen to Frank Gardner's BBC reports, delivered almost reluctantly), in Ramallah and elsewhere in the "West Bank," all over Saudi Arabia, where horns were gaily tooted, and goats slaughtered for celebratory feasts, even in supposedly westernized Beirut (see the report in the Wall Street Journal during that period), there was much mafficking at the deed of derring-do, the mass slaughter of those in those office towers whom we call "civlians" and whose mass-murder many Muslims, even as some of them deplore publicly "the killing of civilians," have had no trouble in re-defining as "non-civilians" suitable for such slaughter.

Close reading -- the kind of thing that was once taught in literature courses by the likes of Theodore Baird and Reuben Brower -- is no longer the thing. It's so much more fun, apparently, for students and teachers alike to give their attention to the race, or religion, or sexual preference or history, of the author of a literary artifact, rather than to words on the page. But close reading, that careful attention to words, turns out to be possibly the best preparation for understanding, and remaining immune to, Islamic propaganda and apologetics today. The mental exercise that comes from that kind of close textual analysis needs to be brought back, possibly by new tribes of vendlerites or crisrixians. What's under the lamp in this case is not a thing of beauty, but a text that needs to be dissected, if the environment in which things of mental beauty may continue to be produced, is to have the possiblity of survival.

Posted by: Hugh at February 26, 2008 8:05 AM

''Any terrorist activity which targets innocent people directly, contradicts Islam's concept of peace,''
--Maulana Abdul Khaliq Madrasi--

There is ALWAYS a qualifier, whose vagueness and amorphic ability renders declarations like these, completely valueless.

Posted by: awake at February 26, 2008 8:35 AM

I agree with Marisol on the hollowness of the so-called "condemnation".

''Madarasas spread in every nook and cranny of the country teach humanity, peace, reconciliation and love,'' said Maulana Rahman.

This is part of he buildup of jihad in India, toward escalating terrorism and to lay siege to the country.

Posted by: MoorthyM at February 26, 2008 9:30 AM

Islam: it'll love you to death.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 26, 2008 10:14 AM

from Robert Spencer's introductory remarks, explaining exactly what is going on in this, and in all similar "denunciations" of "terrorism" - Hugh

This one was mine, Hugh. Not that I'm not flattered to have my writing mistaken for Robert's. I figure it means I must be doing something right.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 26, 2008 10:49 AM

Hugh,
Pardon,I consider my self fairly knowledgeable,especially my vocabulary....but what is/are

vendlerites or crisrixians.

thanks in advance,
KittyBootz

Posted by: KittyBootz at February 26, 2008 10:56 AM

innocents - translation from Islam-speak - only Muslims are innocent, the rest of the world's population are "guilty". Guilty of not heeding the word of Allah, spoken by Mohammed.

Posted by: tanstaafl at February 26, 2008 11:25 AM

Someone's not buying the bridge. Maybe the Maulanas should start trying to sell oceanfront property in Deoband - the ruling parties both in Lucknow and New Delhi would go for it

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 26, 2008 11:29 AM

This is the typical fog machine, meant to numb the infidels' critical faculties. Predictably, the MSM in India is deliriously happy over the "islam is all about peace and against terrorism" part of the declaration,while the muslim press is headlining "This conference strongly demands the Indian Government to curb those maligning the madrasas and Muslims."

Here's a link to the official declaration:
http://darululoom-deoband.com/english/index.htm

It would be interesting to know what the Arab and Urdu versions say.

Wonder what all these powerful muslim mafiosi really discussed behind closed doors, esp since they are calling for similar State level conferences next.

Are they planning something sinister? Very possible, given what we know about the Deobandis:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-deobandi.htm

Posted by: Dunk at February 26, 2008 12:08 PM

''Any terrorist activity which targets innocent people directly, contradicts Islam's concept of peace,'' said Maulana Abdul Khaliq Madrasi, vice-rector of Darul Uloom.

"Innocent people" ?

Same old sh-t.

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at February 26, 2008 1:23 PM

"Hundreds of Islamic scholars gathered at the country's top Islamic seminary on Monday and passed an edict declaring all acts of terrorism as 'un-Islamic'".

Pah! Too slow, guys - Britain's Home Secretary beat you to it.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019622.php

Posted by: Matamoros at February 26, 2008 1:52 PM

"but what is/are
vendlerites or crisrixians."
-- from a posting above

Names of wandering tribes of close readers, holding out in a Vendee of their own making hard by the Charles River (both banks). Often to be seen at meetings of the Assocation of Literary Scholars and Critics. They can be distinguished from each other by the rank, in their respective pantheons, accorded to William Butler Yeats and to Bob Dylan.

See Helen Hennessey Vendler.
See Christopher Ricks.

Posted by: Hugh at February 26, 2008 4:51 PM

Here is the basic tenant of Deobands from their own nutshell:

The Deobandi interpretation holds that a Muslim's first loyalty is to his religion and only then to the country of which he is a citizen or a resident; secondly, that Muslims recognise only the religious frontiers of their Ummah and not the national frontiers; thirdly,that they have a sacred right and obligation to go to any country to wage jihad to protect the Muslims of that country.

So what is so different from these and the scum who have traversed to Iraq or to Palestine? Wherever Muslims are there is always whining that they are victims or objects of resentment. Thus, wherever they go, there is always an obligation to defend, blow up things, persecute the so called offenders under a sacred (may I say "religious") banner.

Posted by: Briars at February 26, 2008 5:20 PM

The Indian MSM is bending over backwards to hail this empty declaration from the Deoband conference as a fatwa against terrorism. I have read and reread the declaration published at the Deoband website (link via Offstumped). Half of it is a tirade against the West's "state sponsored terrorism" perpetrated on Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, in particular, by the U.S., and the other half is a crude attempt to intimidate the counter-terrorism officials of India into inaction.

Posted by: therationalfool at February 26, 2008 5:22 PM

"It's so much more fun, apparently, for students and teachers alike to give their attention to the race, or religion, or sexual preference or history, of the author of a literary artifact, rather than to words on the page. But close reading, that careful attention to words, turns out to be possibly the best preparation for understanding, and remaining immune to, Islamic propaganda and apologetics today."

From personal experience, I have found the activity of trying to spot the loopholes in various texts of Islamic apologetics to be like a fun puzzle, sort of like trying to find Waldo.

Posted by: cantor at February 26, 2008 5:41 PM

cantor

Given that it's okay for them to blatantly lie, and that their definition of truth is belief in the Allah-Mohammed joint venture (Q16:106), this is a somewhat futile exercise. Parsing the statement of one who is commited to being truthful, albeit in a very misleading way, is a useful exercise; however, it's pretty worthless for congenital liars.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 26, 2008 8:13 PM

cantor

wrong verse - make that 16:105.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 26, 2008 8:14 PM

Beware of Taqiya.

The Deoband school mentored the Taliban.

The Deoband school uttered not a squeak when 90/11 occurred.

The Deobank school hasn't shown any solidarity with the Indian Govt.

The Deoband school still hasn't spoken against Kashmiri militants.

The Deoband school demonstrated against the Pope's remarks against islam.

The Deoband school protested vigorously against the Denish cartoons.

Of course, it is still terrorism, if calls are given to kill novelists (a la Rushdie affair) or to kill cartoonists (a la Danish cartoons affair).

Such hoodwinking can go on (sigh...sadly) in India. Hope the West, still the bastion of freedom and democracy, sees through the trick.

Posted by: proud-hindu at February 27, 2008 12:14 AM

From the main story.....

"......''Any terrorist activity which targets *innocent people* directly, contradicts Islam's concept of peace,'' said Maulana Abdul Khaliq Madrasi, vice-rector of Darul Uloom. "

Sounds great, until non-muslims discover the definition of "innocent people".....

All of this 'peace making', and muslim *sincerity*, its such a blessing to mankind.
/SARC OFF

Below, 'INNOCENT PEOPLE', defined.....

"......In *public* interviews Bakri condemned the killing of all innocent civilians.
Later when he addressed *his own followers* he explained that he had in fact been referring only to Muslims as only they were innocent:
“Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar.” "
Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad
Speaking publicly, and then privately, regarding the London 7/7 bombing victims.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article552594.ece

"...when we say innocent people, we mean muslims."
"...if you are a muslim, then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are a non-muslim, then you are guilty of not believing in God."
"...as a muslim....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM."
Anjem Choudary
UK muslim *community leader*, talks of the London 7/7 bombing victims
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 12:53 AM

Story title...

Bridge for sale: Deobandis say "terrorism" is un-Islamic

What about muslim deceit?
Is that un-ISLAMIC too?

What falsehood, what lies, pass the lips of these devout muslims.

Muslim clerics......

Liars, liars, liars!!!

Thursday 13th September, 2007
Live in peace till strong enough to wage jihad, says UK **Deoband** scholar to Muslims [in the UK]

London, Sept.8 : A Deobandi scholar believes Muslims should preach peace till they are strong enough to undertake a jihad, or a holy war.
Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani was quoted by the BBC as saying that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.
A former Sharia judge in Pakistan's Supreme Court, 64-year-old Usmani, is now an adviser to several global financial institutions and a regular visitor to Britain.
Polite and softly spoken, he revealed a detailed knowledge of world events and his words, for the most part, were balanced and considered.

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=280465
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece

Posted by: Ezekiel2012 at February 27, 2008 1:04 AM