Every Western leader with the possible exception of Donald Trump will say “No, you’re not. You’re doing it for socioeconomic factors that you’re cloaking in the guise of your religion. If we shower you with money and instruct you in the true, peaceful teachings of your religion, you will drop this pretense.
“Imran Khan says ‘it’s jihad’; asks Pakistanis not to lose heart over Kashmir,” PTI, September 30, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
Islamabad: Prime Minister Imran Khan on his return from the US on Sunday said that those standing by Kashmiris were doing “jihad” and Pakistan will support Kashmiris even if the world does not.
Prime Minister Khan, who focused on the Kashmir issue in his maiden address to the UN General Assembly, told his party workers at the airport here that whether the world is with the Kashmiris or not, we are standing with them.
It (standing by Kashmiris) is jihad. We are doing it because we want Allah to be happy with us, he said. It is a struggle and do not lose heart when the time is not good. Do not be disappointed as the Kashmiris are looking towards you, he said….
mortimer says
JIHAD IS THE MOTIVE OF PAKISTAN’S GOVERNMENT … and what is the official definition of that?
Here is the closest to an official definition of jihad according to Saudi Arabia:
“Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.” – footnotes on p.39, ‘The Noble Koran’, published by King Fahd Complex for Publication of the Quran, Madinah, KSA.
Official Definition of Jihad from Sharia law:
– RoT – O9.0: Jihad : (O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.
– RoT – O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad : The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…
– RoT – O9.9 : The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book …
-The caliph (RoT – o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians
◦Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given (Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians) such as believe not in Allah. (K.9:29)
………………………………………………
The government of Pakistan has just declared war against non-Muslims. (RoT O9.0)
william carr says
I hated cricket at school and I have never credited professional Cricketers with having any brains. It is amazing how he can be president of a country just because he is a famous cricketer
gravenimage says
I think the main problem with Khan is Islam, not Cricket.
Westman says
What was the name of the nation that was hiding Bin Laden while claiming to be an ally? They must have wanted Allah to be happy, happy, happy!
Two nations, one by handicapped by Islam and the other by the caste system, fighting over Kashmir since the creation of Pakistan. It’s obvious which one has a road to reform and which is forever stuck in the 7th century. India, like the US south after the civil war, has removed discrimination from its laws but it still lives on, yet fading, in the hearts of the people. When it is gone we will see the results of a great unplanned experiment; the fruits of two incompatible ideologies within the same genetic stock.
Venkat says
I beg to differ u here. Govt is doing what it can to correct it’s mistakes for lower castes giving quota system to lower castes to flourish but of course caste discrimination exists even today in villages especially in relation to marriages .But u can’t blame govt for that Indians as a whole have to change and that includes people living in places like USA too. One of the reasons I do envy USA they definitely have moved on with times.
Venkat says
Now there is a quota for Muslim women in govt jobs which modi has initiated. You s we have a problem but we do acknowledge that
Infidel says
Venkat, Modi seems to think that he can split the ummah in India along gender lines. Unlikely, but we’ll see
gravenimage says
India is *much* more civilized than is Pakistan–and is generally getting better. Not so Pakistan.
mortimer says
Imran Khan is a loose cannon on deck. Pakistan’s leading citizens need to cool this man down and replace. him.
Infidel says
He is a legend in Pakistan, being their most successful cricket all-rounder and captain. There is no way Paki support for him would drop. Ethnically, he’s a Pathan, territoriality, he’s from Lahore and his party – unlike the parties of Bhutto or Sharief – have grassroots support – something that he patiently built up since his retirement from cricket in 1992. Every other leader they’ve had has been a kleptocrat, whereas Imran Khan has been careful to shed any ostentatious displays, thereby cementing his image as an uncorrupt leader.
Of course, the Taliban too was un-corrupt. Just b’cos he’s good on the ethics doesn’t mean he’s okay anywhere else. He was not called Taliban Khan for nothing. He’s happy to take up the voice of Jihad, but somehow, can’t bring himself to condemn the Chinese crackdown on Uighurs in Xinxiang. He’s talked about reconciling Saudi Arabia and Iran into a single great Muslim bloc, but the Saudis were so underwhelmed by the idea that they chose to pick India’s side on the Kashmir dispute, as did the Emirates. And there have been his snafus – like his meeting w/ the Saudi king Salman, where he walked away after the translator had translated his statement for the king, and w/o waiting to hear the king’s response. Maybe he should learn Arabic, given his longing to be the champion of the world’s Muslims
mortimer says
Thanks, infidel, for the first-hand knowledge.
gravenimage says
Why would they want to do that, Mortimer? All of Pakistan’s “leading citizens” are also Muslim.
mortimer says
Because it will cost those who have lots to lose. Khan has no apparent interest in or knowledge of economics or industry. He should have stuck to sports commentary on which he would be an expert.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, most of the time Islam trumps financial concerns. If this were not the case, then so much of Dar-al-Islam would not be the economic basket case that it is.
mortimer says
GI, I truly believe that the wealthy 1% in Pakistan is *not* going to risk their wealth, including Imran Khan. I think he’s playing to the lowest common denominator. A lot of Pakistanis have been raised to think Jammu and Kashmir are part of Pakistan, even though they never were. They are dreaming.
Infidel says
Mortimer, It’s true that he has no knowledge of economics or industry, and he seems to be under the impression that Pakistan can panhandle its way out of its crisis from Beijing and Riyadh. Except that the Arab countries, who are watching their oil revenues decline, ain’t that much interested in browbeating their big customers like India or China on the basis of their persecution of Muslims. And Beijing would like nothing better than to buy up Pakistan under their predatory loans schemes.
I do think that some of his recent statements, like Pakistan would likely lose a war to India, or his despondence at his failure to sway world opinion in favor of Pakistan, could cost him support in the Pakistani military as well as bolster bureaucratic opposition to him. Yeah, honesty is great, but when one is so openly pessimistic about his own country when he himself is running it, that reeks too much of Jimmy Carter’s ‘malaise’ statement. But the alternatives to him are proven corrupt governments, so he does have a lifeline
gravenimage says
Mortimer, as I’ve said before, this is likely all saber rattling from Pakistan. They have a long and ugly history of these kinds of threats–as do so many Muslim countries. I wouldn’t really chalk this up to any kind of pragmatism.
Jaladhi says
Same reason you Muslims give when you murder nob-Muslims!! >”We are doing it because we want Allah to be happy with us.”. Your allah is bloodthirsty and can only be happy with you when you offer blood of non-Muslims – in your own words!
Jaladhi says
This what Muslim terrorists also say, Imran – truly you said it right – “there is no radical Islam”, it is regular mainstream Islam – murderous, bloodthirsty and jihadi!
James Lincoln says
You are correct. Regular, plain-vanilla Islam is, as you say:
“murderous, bloodthirsty, and jihadi…”
But not “radical” as perceived by Islamic fundamentalists.
mortimer says
‘Islamism’ or ‘political Islam’ is merely Islam taken to its ultimate conclusions … It is thus not ‘extreme’ Islam, but ‘thorough-going’ Islam. ‘Radical’ Islam is just another term for this process … namely, to apply everything that Mohammed said or did found in the primary texts of Islam as the ‘ROOTS’ of Islamic teachings. This is the meaning of ‘radical’ or ‘foundational’ or ‘original’ or ‘primitive’ Islam.
If Mohammed did not say it or do it or approve it, it is not ‘Islam’, but man-made ‘innovation’ or ‘bida’.
Now, Muslims have been arguing and fighting for 1400 years over what is foundational and what is not.
The unexpected voice says
I can’t believe the Pakistani the former Hindus forgot about Islamic invasion the Hundu kush genocide so easily and accept Islam. Even worse, they carry their invader’s will.
FYI says
al lah{“The BEST of deceivers” k3:54}{AKA hu baal or shaitan},islam’s pagan Arab god of hate and war,will of course always be delighted with the murder and mayhem of the devout hypocritical devotees of his false cult with its false prophet and false scripture.
khan’s demonic god will of course be happy with such evil:why,he might even be clapping his TWO RIGHT HANDS and stamping his ONE leg.
Surely al lah will richly reward his immoral commandment-of-God violating muslims,the “best of people” k3:110 ,in his islamic bordello paradise{or as the Actual God calls it,hell}
Khan is too stupid to figure it out…he has invested in the false creed and would have too much to lose..
gravenimage says
I think Khan figures that Infidels will let him get away with this saber rattling–it is very popular in Pakistan.
DHazard says
All kinds of people have claimed the backing of God to justify the immoral and often barbaric practices they engage in and call religion. Almost always they are putting up a front and really put their faith in guns and propaganda instead of God. Alternatively some people find Islam appealing because it gives them a sufficient degree of self reconciliation after they beat up their wife, which they wanted to do with or without Islam. Same thing applies to people who already want to murder happy white people because they are miserable, self absorbed, guilt ridden and powerless. Islam not only gives these people personal absolution but also a sense of belonging to a larger group that is defending Allah’s final solution.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Gee, that’s not the way Pak PM Imran Khan sounded when he was interviewed by FNN’s Chris Wallace (son of the egregious Mike Wallace). But the interview consisted of Chris tossing up marshmallows, so the interview never got to Khan’s true feelings.
Infidel says
Wallace interviewed him as well? I saw Wallace’s interview of Rouhani, and it was nothing remotely as hostile, as, say, his interview of Ted Cruz in 2016. And there he is, getting awards for his ‘tough’ interview of Vladimir Putin, who made a fool of him during the Helsinki summit
gravenimage says
And this month he’s in Vanity Fair. What fools these dhimmis be!
Infidel says
But that’s so last millennium! In the 80s, he was celebrated in the Indian and British celebrity media, since he was at that time an elite celebrity, who previously played cricket for Oxford and later for Sussex. And when he spoke, he’d go out of his way to sound British, which endeared him to the celebrity media. Particularly when compared to the rest of his cricket teammates, who were typically Urdu-only speakers
But since he retired from cricket and went into politics, he’s flipped completely, and done everything to shed that image of a western elitist, and embrace that of an Islamic leader. And even for a country like Pakistan, it took him a while: much as their people loved him as a cricketer, they didn’t think he was up to the job (something he’s demonstrated since coming to power). It took 25 years – from 1992 to 2017 – for them to finally turn to him after serial kleptocratic governments by the Bhuttos and Shariefs, interrupted occasionally by military rulers like Musharraf
Vanity Fair is way behind the woke curve at least as far as he goes
gravenimage says
Oh, I know what Khan is doing in Pakistan–but I think he still likes to keep up the show of being a sophisticated cosmopolitan “moderate” in the West.
Ray Jarman says
Khan is upset because PM Modi has had enough. The PM is tired of his citizens, local law enforcement and national military being harassed and even killed on a regular basis. He is also tired of the Paki military firing cover for murdering infiltrators to cause misery for the people of India. I would also suggest that Khan return and study a little history, especially the 1947 agreement that Jinnah and Nehru jointly signed where both countries agreed to the boarders and simply because the muslims out bred the Indians in Kashmir, they do not have the right to secede from India. If they wish to live (and that applies to muslims in other Indian states) in a mullim nation, simply pack-up and depart for Pakistan or Bangladesh and I am sure that most Indians would add that they should not let the gate hit them in the rear as they exit.
gravenimage says
+1
mortimer says
Jammu and Kashmir were not part of the Union of India according to the partition of 1947. That is the start of this problem.
Infidel says
There were other places that weren’t. Like Hyderabad state, which while ruled by a Muslim Nizam, had a majority Hindu population. India responded to threats by the Nizam by sending in police commandos and annexing Hyderabad. In Kashmir, though, India was willing to wait for a decision by the ruler of Kashmir, but Pakistani Jihadists made repeated terror attacks, followed by an invasion by Pakistan causing the Maharaja to ask India for support. While he was at it, he announced that his state would accede to India
The real problem here was India’s past secular Congress government, which believed that they had to respect Kashmir’s Islamic identity and allow them to have their own constitution – one where Indians weren’t allowed to buy property in Kashmir. As a result, in the 80s, the vast majority of Kashmiri HIndus fled the state after terror attacks by Muslims. Now that that’s been abolished, Pakistan is in a frenzy, b’cos once Kashmir gets settled by enough Hindus to dilute the Muslim majority, they lose any demographic claims they ever had
gravenimage says
I think the start of this problem is Islam…
cameron hanson says
this remember reminds me of the reasoning and situation Hitler used to invade the Sudetenland in 1939. said invasion was the beginning of WWII.
Angemon says
I like this guy – he’s a straight shooter…
Infidel says
Only now! When he first became prime minister, he was full of taquiyya – publicly declaring how he wanted India and Pakistan to be permanently at peace. Unfortunately, a Jihadist attack in Kashmir and the subsequent Indian attack on a Jihadist camp in Pakistan sent that narrative into a tailspin
gravenimage says
Yep. Many silly Westerners gushed over how ‘modern’ he was.
gravenimage says
Pakistan PM on Kashmir: “It is jihad. We are doing it because we want Allah to be happy with us.”
………………..
It seems that “Allah” is never happy unless Muslims are robbing, raping, or mass slaughtering Infidels…
Ray Jarman says
Spot on.
Carolyne says
This idiot wàs once married to Jemima Goldsmith, a very wealthy beautiful English girl. She was a friend of Princess Diana who actually visited her in Pakistan, wearing the full regalia, couture of course. It was during the period of time that Diana was dating the Muslim heart surgeon. I don’t know if Kahn and she had children, but under Muslim law a father has sole ownership of children after the age of four. I said ownership because he holds the power of life and death over them. While obviously Jemima Goldsmith is a foolish woman, I hope she was not foolish enough to have had children with him.
gravenimage says
They have two sons, Carolyne. They mostly live in England with their mom–but they do visit Khan in Pakistan. Hope he doesn’t decide to kidnap them some time, because she’d never be able to get then back.
Infidel says
Unfortunately, she never left Islam, even after her divorce. Even though the only reason she converted was to marry him
gravenimage says
She’s been pretty cagey as to whether she is still a practicing Muslim, but has never formally left Islam.
mortimer says
A very complicated history of all this partition. There’s really no easy answer when people are so intermingled as a result of the former princely states of British India. If you look at an old map of ‘Baluchistan Agency’, you can see what Pakistan wanted at partition, but did not get, due to the rules of the separation.
Under the two-nation theory, Muslims and Hindus were both given their own homelands. However, Muslims made up majorities in both the Western and Eastern parts of British India.
The Dominion of Pakistan, which became the homeland for Muslims, was divided between East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan (now ‘Rep. of Pakistan’). There were large numbers of Muslims still living in the new Union of India and large numbers of Hindus living in one of the two halves of the new Pakistan.
Here’s the big problem: The Princely States were exempt from having to join either India or Pakistan and could opt to stay independent. Hyderabad, the largest princely state and Osmanistan, initially opted for independence.
While it’s population was largely (85%) Hindu, it’s ruling Nizam was Muslim. The Indian government did not feel comfortable having a potentially unpredictable state in the middle of the new Union, and decided to annexed Hyderabad in 1948.
The former kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir on the other hand had a majority Muslim population (77%) but it’s ruler, Hari Singh, was Hindu. It had been expected that he would join the new state of Pakistan, but an insurgency just before partition resulted in Singh asking India for military aide.
India obliged but took control of most of the state with the rest coming under the control of Pakistan. Singh signed an ascension agreement with India, which has resulted in the very complicated situation that still exists to this day.
Pakistan had no right to annex Jammu and Kashmir under the rules of the partition. Because they were not democracies, the people had no say in the way the cards were dealt. Blame it on Prince Hari Singh.
Gaz says
You forget the most important bit here; under two nation theory there was supposed to be population exchanges. Though HIndus and non-Muslims fled from Pakistan to India, less than a third of muslims from India went to Pakistan. As a result, India now has one of the largest muslim populations in the world, more than the muslims of Pakistan! There were 24% Hindus/Sikhs and non muslims population in Pakistan during partition, all of them have now been killed and converted to less than 2%. All Hindus and non-muslims who remained in Pakistan were subjected to murder, rape, genocide and are 1-2% remaining today. They are subjected to forced conversions even today. While muslim population of India at 11% in 1947 (partition/independence year) is now 19% and islam is the fastest growing religion in India. Coming back to Hyderabad and Kashmir accessions. Muslims in Kashmir ethnically cleansed 500,000 Hindus after raping and murdering hundreds in 1990, this was supported by the muslim home minister of the union of India! While muslims of Hyderabad have their own muslim political party and win elections there, they are not harassed by either the state or by Hindus of that region. Can you see the stark difference. India is a democracy solely because it is majority Hindu.
Infidel says
One correction here – India doesn’t have more Muslims than either Pakistan nor Bangladesh. It has 200 million, but Pakistan’s population is 225 million and Bangladesh’s is about the same. Nor is Islam the fastest growing religion in India: it would probably be one of their marginal religions, like Jainism or Sikhism
Gaz says
Sorry ‘Infidel’ you are incorrect. India has more muslims than Pakistan. India gets Rohingya muslims from Myanmar and Bangladeshi muslims crossing over illegally. They are often not counted. Indian census is every 10 years, next one in 2021. Muslims are having more children then any other religion. Islam had 30% growth rate in last few decades compared to less than 20% for Hindus in India. Both as absolute numbers (205 million in India) and as a percentage of population, muslims are fastest growing than at the time of partition. This is creating major problems in social indices, politics and religious extremism and exodus of Hindus from areas muslims start dominating. There are 500 such districts in India where Hindus are being driven out by Muslims using violence. Jainism and Sikhism are dying religions as they have negative population growth, plus they are negligible in numbers. 0.3% Jains and 1.7% Sikhs in India as percentage of total population.
Infidel says
Gaz, the NRC is supposed to address it – infiltrators don’t count as citizens. Also, India was initially taking in Rohingya muslims into Jammu, but they then stopped it, and now Bangladesh is the only one taking it in. In Left Bengal, the BJP was totally irrelevant: this year, they won almost half the seats thanks to the perception in the state that the state government is anti-Hindu.
Do you have any stats to back up the claim that Jains and Sikhs have negative population growth?
gravenimage says
Really, the big problem was hordes of violent Muslims.
Infidel says
I blame it on Nehru, and his party that was determined to pander to Muslims non stop. There are 3 demographic groups in the state – Muslims in Kashmir, Hindus in Jammu and (Tibetan) Buddhists in Ladakh. India could have solved part of the problem by splitting the state in 3, and reducing Pakistan’s claim to cover only the Muslim part of the whole state. But nooooo, the Congress thought that such a solution would be communal, so it was not even considered.
The BJP prying out Ladakh is a good first step, but they too stopped short of separating Jammu from Kashmir
Gaz says
Imran Khan is inconsequential for geopolitics, Pakistani military runs the show. Pak army must have a puppet leader like Imran otherwise all aid from US will stop. The one thing that made the military get Imran Khan elected was that he was known in the West, so they would have a good ambassador for Pak they thought. How wrong Pak military was in this assessment! Imran Khan’s speeches and public engagements have done more to expose the jihadist ideological base of Pakistan than any one else could have. If he had real power then he would have been dangerous, all born again fanatics of any religion are. But he has zero power which is good for the region.
Infidel says
Except that due to his stature as a Paki cricket legend, he has a popularity level unmatched by any past Paki leader – political or military. During the time that he led their cricket team, Pakistan was second only to the West Indies. (Whereas today (and actually, since 2000), Pakistan has been a second rate team at best.) Not just that, his party – Tehreek i Insaaf – is one he built from the ground up, designing it to be grassroots driven. It took him 25 years to build, but now, it’s there.
Despite his embarrassments, I don’t see the military removing him, given that he’s included them in the government on key things like economic posts, since he has no idea about how to run an economy
CTTV15@Hotmail.com says
Their devotion to ‘their book’ of hatred, the dubious background connected to their ‘prophetic leader’, and contempt for everyone in sight – especially women – and this is the result we can see everywhere.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘skin tone’ (racism’) or a ‘religion of peace’.. This is the embrace of 1,400 years of, and the practice of collective (like a hive of hornets) madness..
tim gallagher says
What a loud mouth this wanker Khan seems to be.He never seems to shut up lately with his tough guy garbage. Is he out to become the big time leader of the whole Muslim mob on the world scene? Probably just his massive, out of control ego on display. As for the words about it being jihad and “we want Allah to be happy with us.” Yep, Satan (Allah) will no doubt be very happy with all the barbaric evil you and your fellow satanically evil knuckle draggers in Pakistan are continually doing.
Tattoed Man77 says
I can’t recall this being reported on the BBC or Questions being asked in the Houses of Parliament.
Though if this had been the “joo’s” (sic) talking about Failistine then Jeremy Corbyn would be shouting it from the tallest Minaret.
Mahendra Singh says
He worse than his predecessor. Nawaz Sharif, though corrupt, never flashed his “Jehad Card”.
In fact he removed Musharraf who was fond of Military Jihad.