What will be the message of general elections?

India has been gripped under fever of general elections as after one week first phase of voting in few constituencies will take place. Being the largest democracy of the world general elections in India always has some curiosity across the world. For last six decades India has proved credibility of its democratic institutions as well as maturity and it has received praise and respect for its successful functioning of these institutions. The final result of 15th Loksabha will come out on 16th on May and verdict of people will be wide open but it is quite clear that process of formation of the new government will last long just like Israel where several political groups come together to form a government and it took few weeks to materialize. Indian next parliament is very much going to receive fractured mandate and no single political party or formation will be able to muster the majority figure of 272. In this article election results which have been supposed will not be discussed because it is quite clear that anything could happen after elections and any political group or party could go in any camp irrespective of its ideological leanings except of two things that Congress and BJP will not join each other  and Left parties will not join BJP. Read more

The UN’s Jihad Against Free Speech

Robert Spencer

In a crushing blow to the freedom of speech worldwide, the United Nations Human Rights Council last Thursday approved a resolution calling upon member states to provide legal “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”
While the resolution speaks of religion in general, the proposal came from Pakistan and had the backing of the powerful 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the UN’s largest voting bloc – so it was clear that Islam was the only religion the drafters of the resolution had in mind. This is underscored by the fact that Muslim states have worked energetically to make “Islamophobia” the focus of Durban II — the UN’s upcoming second World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. A draft declaration declares that “defamation of Islam” should be a criminal offense, even when it takes place under the “pretext” of “freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security.”
In other words, if the OIC and the drafters of the Durban declaration get their way, any honest examination of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to make recruits will be illegal. So not only does this herald the death of free speech, but it also leaves us mute and defenseless before the advancing global jihad.
This has been a long time coming. The UNHRC resolution and the Durban II draft are part of an international agenda agreed upon at the March 2008 meeting in Senegal convened by the OIC. At that convocation the OIC developed what the Associated Press called “a battle plan” to defend Islam – but not from the terrorists who, as we hear all the time, have “hijacked” their religion. Rather, the OIC declared its intention to craft a “legal instrument” to fight against the threat to Islam they perceived “from political cartoonists and bigots.”
The OIC was referring, of course, to the “notorious” Danish cartoons of Muhammad that appeared in 2005, touching off riots and murders all over the Islamic world. “Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination,” explained Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s secretary general. The AP reported that OIC “delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.”
The offensive would take the form of a “legal instrument” that would criminalize what the OIC and other Islamic entities perceive as criticism of Islam. “Islamophobia,” Ihsanoglu declared, “cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement.” This is a careful euphemism calling for restrictions on freedom of speech. Abdoulaye Wade, the President of Senegal and chairman of the OIC, made this point explicit: “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits.”
The OIC’s campaign against free speech met with its first big success at the UN Human Rights Council. In June 2008, Council President Doru-Romulus Costea explained that religious issues can be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense. . . . This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it.” Henceforth only religious scholars would be permitted to broach such sensitive issues.

This campaign represents the international dimension of the stealth jihad. It does not consist of attacking western countries with guns or bombs, or even threatening to do so. Instead, we’re pressured to accommodate Islam by placing the religion off-limits to critical discussion. It’s presented as an act of “tolerance,” but the deliberate result is the erosion of core Western concepts of free expression. Think about the extent to which that single value defines western civilization: for one thing, it is an indispensable foundation of the American Revolution and the American system of republican government. And we are surrendering it, gradually and voluntarily, to those who seek to impose on us a value system that elevates the sanctity of Islam over freedom.
In order to Islamicize the West, stealth jihadists need to convince us to relinquish our attachment to our traditional freedoms. One would have never thought that westerners would give up free speech of their own accord, but we are now in the process of carving out a major exception for Islam. Yet the freedom to criticize religion, of course, is the very cornerstone of the right to free expression. Once we surrender that right, can surrender of the freedom of religion be far behind?
Islam is a religion of peace, we are told. And anyone who argues otherwise better watch out – if the UN, with which Obama wants to work so closely, gets its way, he may soon face legal action.
The only victors can be the jihadists themselves: Western authorities, already mired in politically correct myopia, will grow even more afraid to speak openly about what they’re trying to do and what we can do to stop it. The losers can only be those who value freedom of speech and understand why it is so important in a genuinely pluralistic society. The UN measure moves the West one step closer to submitting to the hegemony of Islamic norms.

Read More…

“The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves.”

When historians look back on our era and wonder how a relatively small group of Islamist radicals controlled the international agenda for great countries across the globe, they will ask why we failed to heed those words that William Shakespeare wrote four centuries earlier. Last week in Kolkata, India, police arrested the editor and publisher of the city’s most prestigious English-language daily for “hurting the religious feelings” of Muslims.

That’s right, we now live in an age where the state can muzzle press freedom because the newspaper hurt someone’s feelings. Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha of The Statesman were hauled before a judge on February 11 and charged under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code which outlaws “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.” The law is unclear, as one might imagine when it comes to specific and objective criteria for determining one’s intentions. It appears that Section 295A trusts this Solomon-like task to whichever bureaucrat happens to take a fancy to pursuing a case. Read more

Obama, the Middle East and Islam – An Initial Assessment

Why, just two weeks into a 209-week term, assess a new American president’s record on so esoteric a subject as the Middle East and Islam? In Barack Obama’s case, because of:

(1) A contradictory record: His background brims over with wild-eyed anti-Zionist radicals such as Ali Abunimah, Rashid Khalidi, and Edward Said, with Islamists, the Nation of Islam, and the Saddam Hussein regime; but since being elected he has made predominantly center-left appointments and his statements resemble those of his Oval Office predecessors.

(2) The outsized role of the Middle East and Islam: His first fortnight in office witnessed an inaugural address that mentioned them prominently, a first diplomatic telephone call to Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, the appointment of two high-profile envoys, and the first interview granted to Al-Arabiya television channel.
Read more

Are we living in the era of Islamic censorship?

In last few months three important developments took place which were although directly not related with each other but they have some connection between them. First, just before Indian economic capital Mumbai was attacked by Islamic terroists on 26 November last year the largest Islamic body OIC approached the supreme law making body of the world UN with a resolution to make it compulsory for the countries of this world to declare vilification of prophet of any religion as illegal as well denouncing the efforts to use term Islamic terrorism in reference to terrorism.

Second, Government of Nederland decided to prosecute president of a political party of this small European state for hurting the sentiments of Muslims with his film “Fitna” based on some controversial ayats of Quran. After the decision of government of Nederland Geert Wilders decided to visit few European countries with message of his controversial film and United Kingdom was one of them. Geert Wilders was banned from UK government and was told to refrain himself from entering into the borders of Britian. Geert Wilders tried to defy the government orders but he was arrested at the airport and expelled from Britain. Geert called this development as a great set back to the freedom of expression. Read more

Iran’s Women Fight for Rights

By NAZILA FATHI
Women’s rights advocates say Iranian women are displaying a growing determination to achieve equal status in this conservative Muslim theocracy, where male supremacy is still enscribed in the legal code. One in five marriages now end in divorce, according to government data, a fourfold increase in the past 15 years.

And it is not just women from the wealthy, Westernized elites. The family court building in Vanak Square here is filled with women, like Ms. Qassemi, who are not privileged. Women from lower classes and even the religious are among those marching up and down the stairs to fight for divorces and custody of their children.

Increasing educational levels and the information revolution have contributed to creating a generation of women determined to gain more control over their lives, rights advocates say.

Confronted with new cultural and legal restrictions after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, some young women turned to higher education as a way to get away from home, postpone marriage and earn social respect, advocates say. Religious women, who had refused to sit in classes with men, returned to universities after they were resegregated.

Today, more than 60 percent of university students are women, compared with just over 30 percent in 1982, even though classes are no longer segregated.

Even for those women for whom college is not an option, the Internet and satellite television have opened windows into the lives of women in the West. “Satellite has shown an alternative way of being,” said Syma Sayah, a feminist involved in social work in Tehran. “Women see that it is possible to be treated equally with men.”

Another sign of changing attitudes is the increasing popularity of books, movies and documentaries that explore sex discrimination, rights advocates say.

“Women do not have a proper status in society,” said Mahnaz Mohammadi, a filmmaker. “Films are supposed to be a mirror of reality, and we make films to change the status quo.”

In a recent movie, “All Women Are Angels,” a comedy that was at the top of the box office for weeks, a judge rejects the divorce plea of a woman who walked out on her husband when she found him with another woman.
Read More…

Media bias, spread of religious hatred and fanatic approach

To a large section of the television viewers in Asia, Dr. Zakir Naik is a known name. This is mostly because of the prominent presence of his Islamist television channel named ‘Peace TV’, which claims itself to be the ‘solution for humanity’. Dr. Naik operates this channel from Britain under the banner of an organization named Islamic Research Foundation and Peace TV runs with heavy donation and contribution by Muslims from a part of their Zakat, as well as donations from various Afro-Arab sources.

According to Islamic dictionary, Zakat or ‘alms for the poor’ is the Islamic principle of giving a percentage of one’s income to charity. It is often compared to the system of tithing and alms, but it serves principally as the welfare contribution to poor and deprived people in the Muslim lands, although others may have a rightful share. Zakat’s similar-sounding, Arabic language analog is the Hebrew word Tzedakah, the charitable obligation in ancient Israel through to present day Judaism. It is the duty of the Islamic state not just to collect Zakat, but to distribute it fairly as well. Zakat is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Read more

Shahadat law against Quran, Sunnah: FSC

LAHORE, 12 FebruaryA FULL bench of the Federal Shariat Court has held that sub-article 4 of article 151 of Qanun-e-Shahadat is repugnant to Quran and Sunnah and asked President of Pakistan to take appropriate steps for repeal of sub-article 4 within six months failing which the said provision would cease to have effect.

Under sub-article 4 of article 151 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, if a man who is prosecuted for rape or an attempt to molest a woman, it may be shown that the female victim was of an immoral character.

The bench comprising Chief Justice Haziq-ul-Khairi, Justice Dr Fida Muhammad Khan, Justice Salah-ud-Din Mirza and Justice Muhammad Zafar Yasin passed this order while accepting a petition of Capt (Retd) Mukhtar Ahmed Sheikh who had challenged the said provision saying it gives protection to a man accused of rape to taint the character of a woman while depriving the similar right to the woman.

The petitioner argued that it was discriminatory and against the dictates of justice and equality as ordained by Quran and Sunnah and tantamount to giving free license to an accused to commit Qazf (allegation of rape on a woman) without producing four male witnesses in clear violation of Holy Quran.

The court observed that the said provision is discriminatory based on sex and violates constitutional provisions. Above all, it negates the concept of gender equality as enshrined in the Holy Quran as a woman is placed in more exalted and respected position than a man is.

The court observed that it had failed to comprehend that what wisdom had prevailed upon lawmakers to add sub-article 4, as it should serve no useful purpose. Assuming that the woman victim was of generally immoral character, will a man accused of rape or attempt to ravish her be exonerated of crime or will a rape cease to be a rape if the victim happened to be prostitute or a woman of easy virtue?

Islam makes no distinction whether the subject of crime was of generally immoral character or not, the bench remarked.

The Holy Quran places women on a much higher pedestal than ever known in the society. She is not considered as an agent of devil nor treated as a personal possession in Islam. She has all the property rights and has similar rights as of a man in matter of marriage and divorce.

The penal laws of Islam treat a woman equally with men. She has lesser responsibilities in worldly affairs and is bestowed with greater respect and kindness.

The representatives of federal government and all four provinces made their submissions in the case and only NWFP government supported the petition saying the law would damage the character of female witnesses.

Read More…

Don’t attack us please, UK ads to say on Pak TV

London The British government will air ads on Pakistani television urging terrorists to not attack Britain.
Prominent British Muslims will star in the British Foreign Office-funded £400,000 (approximately Rs 2.9 crore)-campaign that is set to break on Pakistani television next Monday, ‘The Guardian’ reported on Tuesday.

The three-month public relations offensive, called ‘I Am the West’, will also include high-profile events in regions such as Peshawar and Mirpur, ‘The Guardian’ said. Seven in ten British Pakistanis are Mirpuris.

According to ‘The Guardian’, the first three ads in the project will feature British Communities Minister Sadiq Khan, UK manager of Islamic Relief Jehangir Malik, former England Under-19 captain and promising Worcestershire allrounder Moeen Ali, and the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, Chaudry Abdul Rashid, a Mirpuri.

The campaign, the paper said, will be targeted at ‘15-25-year-old males who are less than well-educated and worldly wise, but potentially susceptible to extremist doctrines’. Nine 30-second commercials, supported by ads on radio, will be aired on PTV, Geo TV and Khyber among other channels. If the Pakistani campaign is successful, it will be extended in Egypt, Yemen and Indonesia.

The central theme of the campaign, ‘The Guardian’ said, “is to assert that there is no contradiction in being a Muslim and being British.” It has four key aims, the daily reported: ‘to ensure Pakistanis realise the west is not anti-Islamic, that British society is not anti-Islam, to demonstrate the extent to which Muslims are integrated into British society and to stimulate and facilitate constructive debate on the compatibility of liberal and Muslim values’.
Read More…

Muslim population ‘rising 10 times faster than rest of society’

The Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years, according to official research collated for The Times.

The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals. In the same period the number of Christians in the country fell by more than 2 million.

Experts said that the increase was attributable to immigration, a higher birthrate and conversions to Islam during the period of 2004-2008, when the data was gathered. They said that it also suggested a growing willingness among believers to describe themselves as Muslims because the western reaction to war and terrorism had strengthened their sense of identity.

Muslim leaders have welcomed the growing population of their communities as academics highlighted the implications for British society, integration and government resources.

Read More…