Mumbai Masala from “God remembers”- on a source of Islamic propaganda protected by India : 1

Posted on September 8, 2008. Filed under: Hindu, India, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Kashmir, Muslims, Politics, religion, terrorism |

I came across some interesting propaganda from an Indian from Mumbai. We have to keep in mind this is a Muslim from India, who is allowed to run an Islamic “research” organization to carry out his propaganda based on highly selective and edited quotations from a certain class of sources in Mumbai, the site of a string of blasts in the public railway system by Islamic terrorists in India, a country whose Muslims amount to less than one-fifth in the overall population, a country that was one of the first to ban the “Satanic Verses” by Salman Rushdie, a country where a provincial government was sacked for not being able to “protect” a Muslim mosque built on territory disputed by the Hindus as the site of a holy temple which has been recorded by Islamic chroniclers to have been destroyed by the Mughal adventurer Babur, a country which however remains completely silent when numerous ancient and archaeologically important Hindu sites in Kashmir are destroyed by Muslims, a country that gags the voice of a woman of Bangladeshi origin writing about the “shame” of Islamic atrocities on Hindu women in Bangladesh and now a refugee because of the “fatwaists” in her own country. Apparently such a propagandist who declares with glee and with a smile that even though the “method” of destroying the twin towers was wrong, the fact is that right after that “attack” a large number of Americans converted to Islam, is welcomed by a visa in western countries whereas the elected Chief Minister of a neighboring province from a “not-anti-Hindu” party in India is denied a visa to attend a conference. What drew my attention was that his claims have been reproduced word-for-word by a Muslim as “counters” to my posts on how Islam came to India. I saw that this person had actually tried to offer an open challenge to the Pope, so it was clear that, his greatest weakness lay in a deep insecurity that needed compensation by provoking through outrageous comments and lies, and ultimately trying to draw attention to himself. So in my new sequence of posts I am not going to name him – the one-who-has-no-name : but the common face of a string of lies not supported by facts usually hurled at non-Muslims. This particular Indian should be an interesting study for anyone trying to understand what really went on in the minds of the early founders of Islam, as I feel that similar motivations of insecurity and inferiority/deprivation complex turned into megalomania, move both this one and the founders. I have left enough hints in the heading for anyone with some knowledge of Hebrew or Arabic to figure out the actual name!


Here I will quote from a reader’s comment to another reader’s similar claim that “Islam literally translates as peace” to one of my posts:

“Actually “Islam” does mean “submission” and not “peace”.

“Islam” is derived from the triliteral root s-l-m. The root means to “submit”…Salaam means peace… Islam means submission. Some confusion exists because people don’t understand how the term “peace” is arrived at, from s-l-m. There will only be peace when one side “submits”. That is why Islam dedicates so much time to subjugation. Once an enemy is defeated, they will be subjugated, at which time peace will ensue. Islam, as in the religion means submission to God, not peace.

The central belief and action of Islam is submission to Allah, not “Peace”. Rendering Islam as “Peace” makes the term senseless in the way of naming a religion. If you studied Qur’anic Arabic, as I did, you should know this. It is a pretty simple concept of Arabic. And my guess is you spent your time memorizing Arabic, and not studying it semantics or syntax.” Ibn al-Rawandi


YUSUFALI: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
PICKTHAL: For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.
SHAKIR: For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

Apart from the obvious quotation from Hebrew sources, and the fact that we have plenty of Hadiths and Ishaq’s biographical notes that show how far from truth the real practice of Islam was even by Muhammad himself  from this injunction, note that all three translations specifically mention “Children of Israel” – primarily the Jews. The propagandist always quotes this verse as a “proof” of peaceful intentions in Quran, but strangely they always drop the “Children of Israel” bit. If Muslims claim that by the various convoluted claims of descent, Arab bedouins were also children of Israel, then also this injunction becomes valid only for the identifiable Semitic ethnicities of the Jews and the Bedouins. A host of questions are not cleared, (1)  should we consider all Muslims as “children of Israel”? Does it mean then that all humankind are descended from the twelve tribes? If so then all humankind are “people of the Book”? Then no-one could be pagan by definition – including the early Meccans against whom Muhammad waged war – and different rules were applied to the “people of the book” and “pagans”? On the other hand if only the Arabs and the Jews are “Children of Israel”, then does this injunction apply to  Muslims who are not of Arab or Jewish origin?

Who interprets what “corruption”, “mischief” means? If we go by the Meccan episode, this could simply mean non-acceptance of Islam, or debating it, or challenging it verbally – as we can and will show in this sequence. This propagandist shouts a lot that the Quran is quoted without context, but he most carefully remains silent on the verse immediately following the above from the Quran.

YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
PICKTHAL: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
SHAKIR: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

So we have the first clause for not being “innocent” – waging “war” against “Allah” and Muhammad : Note that nothing here states about who started the war – for example, if someone wages a “defensive” war to protect themselves from looting of caravans and settlements being raided and attacked it still deprives the “wagers” of this defensive war of their “innocence” and therefore liable for “Muhammad”ian punishments. In the next post I will describe at least six raids and attacks on the Meccan trade kafelas after Muhammad and his followers, who had began to physically attack their opponents in Mecca, were expelled or allowed to leave without any penalties on life, limb or property. Only after six such raids, did the Meccan Qureysh, took preparations to defend their life, property and means of livelihood – the “war against Allah” and his “messenger”. This will also be related to another big lie about the “context” of the so called “hate-murder-unbelievers” verses in Quran, so I will take it up in a longer next post.

Part 2: LIE 3


Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

2 Responses to “Mumbai Masala from “God remembers”- on a source of Islamic propaganda protected by India : 1”

RSS Feed for Dikgaj’s Weblog Comments RSS Feed

Incidentally, I too happened to know about this man and his propaganda through you tube only a day or two before. I was shocked to see that how he is trying to give the same teachings of Islam a veneer of logic and rationality ,as given by maulvis and ulemas, which have been criticized, for their incongruency with world peace and irrationality. Further, it is highly disappointing to see so many Muslims attending his seminars and applauding at some ridiculous explanations. This public is educated I believe because the whole seminar is in English.
By the way, why would you not name the person? I have not named him here because you did not but why the anonymity. I think that one should rather proclaim who he is.

Well, I have stated in my introduction that I measured this man up as someone who desperately seeks attention, and would do or say any preposterous thing to simply pose as a champion of Islam and thereby satisfy his ego – so I do not name him, as it is the satisfaction of seeing his “name” – he as a person, being reacted to by people he dubs as “enemies” and “detractors” of Islam that drives him. Focusing attention on him as a person, inflates and satisfies his ego – so we should ignore him as a person, but expose everything he says for what they are – lies and misrepresentations. I do take it seriously that he is invited and allowed to do propaganda, and that many of the upcoming generations of “Muslims” or non-Muslims who are fed this “white-washed” version of Islam are not being supplied or reached with the pointed counter-arguments necessary. Maybe it is being done, but I am just trying to contribute on my own.

Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: