WATCH OUT FOR THE DIVILS!! Islamic techniques of intimidation

Date: 4/10/2006

Comment

These are typical Islamic techniques of intimidation, threat, coercion, and intimidation to blame the victims and silence the innocent victims from confronting criminal acts and terrorism of Jihadis. Islam spread all over Asia by coercive techniques, terrorism, death and destruction. Islam is a closed, destructive, dangerous dogma disguised as religion. Islamic closed thinking is used to indoctrinate young Muslims at an early age. They are socialized in to a closed paradigm and brainwashed into the dysfunctional dogma. As a result, Muslims are unable or unwilling to accept new ideas when there is a paradigm shift on social sciences and natural science. So far Islam failed to reform or engage in a renaissance. ////// Jihadi mind can be compared to a criminal mind. Both have closed minds, have no fear, remorse, guilt or empathy for the victim. They blame the victim for their crimes. Both Muslims and criminals claim an entitlement from the non-believers of their criminal ideology. ////// Counseling, education, appeasement, political negotiation or surrender to their demands will not work to reform Jihadis and criminals. We need strong cognitive and behavioral restructuring techniques to contain them. Only effective coercive techniques will work with them. Unless we break our wall of denial and have clear cognition and perspectives on the closed, destructive mindset of criminal Jihadis, we will not be able to escape continuous menace from these criminal Jihadis. ////// >Subject: Islam and us - By Balbir K. Punj Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:29:16 >EDT >//////> > >http://www.asianage.com////// >Islam and us - By Balbir K. Punj///// > >I keep on getting mails and e-mails approbating, enquiring, or >critical from my readers. I normally respond at an individual >level. I never thought that one of these could become the theme of a >column. But recently one Nazar Ahmed Khan, resident of Civil Lines, >Aligarh, who apparently keeps a tab on my column in the Hindi daily >Dainik Jagran, has sent me a missive running into five pages. The >letter is a veiled threat to refrain from propagating >my "misinformed views on Islam based on isolated events and >individual writings on Islamophobes." It further offers me a chance >to understand "true Islam," if not embrace it as well, for the >writer is confident that my "future generation" will have to accept >Islam in any case. >////// >I thought it wise to share my reply in Dainik Jagran with readers of >my English column. The letter offers a glimpse into a Muslim mind. >It is an empirical truism that it is Islam that shapes the mind of a >Muslim. Christianity doesn't shape the mind of a Christian, nor >Hinduism of a Hindu, Buddhism of a Buddhist in that sense and to >that extent. > >Most Muslims not only have a different perception of religion, of >their own and others', but also of history, law, politics, >international institutions, banking, education, women's status. No >other ideology or thought, viz. democracy, communism, anarchism, >free thinking, can impassion the Muslim masses except for Islam. In >Muslim countries, any and every decision has to pass the "Islamic or >un-Islamic" test. >///// >The letter, typical of any Muslim apologist, says, I have not >understood Islam. To be precise, my forefathers for 600 years >neither understood Islam nor had any inclination to understand it. >In fact, Dhimmis (non-Muslims under Muslim rule), were legally >barred from teaching their children the Quran. A kafir (non-Muslim) >could either embrace Islam, or pay jizya (religious taxation) to >preserve his identity. Not infrequently, they were given a choice >between sword and Islam (Toru Singh and Veer Hakikat Rai are classic >cases). Forefathers of Mr Nazar Ahmad Khan, probably chose the >former, mine the latter. We did not understand Islam, but we >suffered and survived Islam. >/////// >The truth is that few non-Muslims have academic fascination about >Islam. They want to avoid Islam or escape Islam. It is only the >persistent pressure of Islam on non-Muslim demography and world >order that is compelling non-Muslims to rethink about Islam. > >I don't understand Islam, but Osama bin Laden and Aiyman al Zawahari >do; Aurangzeb, Shah Waliullah, Said Qutb, Maulana Maududi and Ali >Mian did. >/////// >I am sure Mr Nazar Ahmed Khan will not claim better knowledge of >Islam than those eminent men of religion. What do their views come >down to? It is to re-establish an Islamic state and Islamic world >order under the "shade of swords." This view is inherent in Islam. >/////// >Mr Nazar Khan is annoyed at me for calling Islam claustrophobic. He >points out that many in the free society of the West are gravitating >towards Islam for its "philosophical and religious appeal." They >have no monetary, social or political gain by accepting Islam. >Certainly, he has a point, I must accept. Why should Mary McLeod, >daughter of a Jamaican evangelical Christian, become a Muslim and >drape herself in burqa? His son Germaine Maurice Lindsay also known >as Abdullah Shaheed Jamal was one of the four suicide bombers in >London tube rail explosion on July 7, 2005. >/////// >But most westerners who accepted Islam never accepted the rigours of >Islam. Few like John Walker Lynd, the "American Taliban," would give >up comforts and the democratic system of the West to fight on the >rugged terrain of Afghanistan against his compatriots.////// > >But Nazar Khan is not correct in saying that Muslims (despite death >penalty on apostasy) do not go out of Islam. He might check on >websites like www.faithfreedom.org or www.mukto-mona.com run by >apostate Muslims. You also have people like Ibn Warraq writing, Why >I am not a Muslim and editing Leaving Islam, or Anwar Sheikh, Islam: >The Arab Imperialism. Prior to leaving Islam many of them were >devout, even fanatic, Muslims. >/////// >In any case, I leave Islam to them, since each one of them knows >Islam better than I do. >////// >The letter-writer mentions that there is a long list of social >malpractice in Hinduism. Did Hinduism (actually Manu Smriti) not >prescribe pouring molten lead into ears of Dalits if they studied >the Vedas? Okay, but when did he last hear such a case actually >occurring, when almost every week we hear about jihadis killing >kafirs in the 21st century? >////// >I don't know about any actual historical instance of "pouring molten >lead into ears" but Dalits were doubtless subjected to many >religious and social handicaps. But social reformers arose from >within Hindu society in every age, reformers who opposed >untouchability, casteism, sati, bar on women's education, child >marriage, polygamy etc. >////// >Who can be a greater authority on this subject than Babasaheb >Ambedkar? Dr B.R. Ambedkar says, "The Hindus have their social >evils. But there is a relieving feature about them, namely, that >some of them are conscious of their existence and a few of them are >actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims, on the other >hand, do not realise that there are evils and consequently do not >agitate for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in the >existing practices. It is noteworthy that Muslims opposed the Child >Marriage Bill brought in the Central Assembly in 1930, whereby the >age for marriage of a girl was raised to 14 and boy to 18 on the >ground that it was opposed to the Muslim canon law" (Pakistan or >Partition of India, p.233). >/////// >Nor am I surprised when the writer claims that the philosophy of >Islam is so perfect that neither Semitic religions like Judaism or >Christianity nor "tribal religions" (sic) like Hinduism can rival >it. Now, Islam revolves around the Quran, and the Prophet's Sunna >(saying and acts of the Prophet that every Muslim should try to >emulate to the best of his capacity). >////// >Thus Islam is a theology not a philosophy. The Ayat (verses) of the >Quran are like commands to be followed with unquestioning obedience. >There is no scope for discovery, debate, discussion or consensus. >////// >Doubt in Islam, unlike in Christianity, is equal to disbelief, which >is punishable. Philosophy entered Islam through Christian writings, >from Greek scholarship. > >But while philosophy triumphed over Christianity, it was banished >from Islam.////// > >The cornerstone of philosophy of ancient India is self-realisation. >You can be a yogi if you do yoga and push the present frontiers of >human consciousness. Any scientific postulations must stand the test >of experimentation. But in Islam, Allah has uttered his last word >with Prophet Mohammed. There is no way to either contact Allah or >doubt Mohammed's revelations. A Muslim will only have to obey. He >must also engage in jihad to bring the world unto Islam. If anybody >finds fault with Islam, it is at one's own peril. There is no >tradition of debate and discussion in Islam. This is the source of >Islam's incompatibility with the rest of humanity. >////// > 00000000

[_private/ftarc.htm]