Articles, Opinions & Views

Ayaan Hirsi Ali:The Global War on Christians in the Muslim World

2012-02-08T20:51:00.000+08:00

Both kinds of persecution—undertaken by extragovernmental groups as well as by agents of the state—have come together in Egypt in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. On Oct. 9 of last year in the Maspero area of Cairo, Coptic Christians (who make up roughly 11 percent of Egypt’s population of 81 million) marched in protest against a wave of attacks by Islamists—including church burnings, rapes, mutilations, and murders—that followed the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak’s dictatorship. During the protest, Egyptian security forces drove their trucks into the crowd and fired on protesters, crushing and killing at least 24 and wounding more than 300 people. By the end of the year more than 200,000 Copts had fled their homes in anticipation of more attacks. With Islamists poised to gain much greater power in the wake of recent elections, their fears appear to be justified.

Egypt is not the only Arab country that seems bent on wiping out its Christian minority. Since 2003 more than 900 Iraqi Christians (most of them Assyrians) have been killed by terrorist violence in Baghdad alone, and 70 churches have been burned, according to the Assyrian International News Agency (AINA). Thousands of Iraqi Christians have fled as a result of violence directed specifically at them, reducing the number of Christians in the country to fewer than half a million from just over a million before 2003. AINA understandably describes this as an “incipient genocide or ethnic cleansing of Assyrians in Iraq.”

The 2.8 million Christians who live in Pakistan make up only about 1.6 percent of the population of more than 170 million. As members of such a tiny minority, they live in perpetual fear not only of Islamist terrorists but also of Pakistan’s draconian blasphemy laws. There is, for example, the notorious case of a Christian woman who was sentenced to death for allegedly insulting the Prophet Muhammad. When international pressure persuaded Punjab Gov. Salman Taseer to explore ways of freeing her, he was killed by his bodyguard. The bodyguard was then celebrated by prominent Muslim clerics as a hero—and though he was sentenced to death late last year, the judge who imposed the sentence now lives in hiding, fearing for his life.

Such cases are not unusual in Pakistan. The nation’s blasphemy laws are routinely used by criminals and intolerant Pakistani Muslims to bully religious minorities. Simply to declare belief in the Christian Trinity is considered blasphemous, since it contradicts mainstream Muslim theological doctrines. When a Christian group is suspected of transgressing the blasphemy laws, the consequences can be brutal. Just ask the members of the Christian aid group World Vision. Its offices were attacked in the spring of 2010 by 10 gunmen armed with grenades, leaving six people dead and four wounded. A militant Muslim group claimed responsibility for the attack on the grounds that World Vision was working to subvert Islam. (In fact, it was helping the survivors of a major earthquake.)

At least 13 people were killed and 140 injured on March 8, 2011, when participants in a large Christian demonstration in a Cairo slum were attacked by residents of a surrounding neighborhood., Mohamed Omar / EPA-Landov

Not even Indonesia—often touted as the world’s most tolerant, democratic, and modern majority-Muslim nation—has been immune to the fevers of Christophobia. According to data compiled by the Christian Post, the number of violent incidents committed against religious minorities (and at 7 percent of the population, Christians are the country’s largest minority) increased by nearly 40 percent, from 198 to 276, between 2010 and 2011.

The litany of suffering could be extended. In Iran dozens of Christians have been arrested and jailed for daring to worship outside of the officially sanctioned church system. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, deserves to be placed in a category of its own. Despite the fact that more than a million Christians live in the country as foreign workers, churches and even private acts of Christian prayer are banned; to enforce these totalitarian restrictions, the religious police regularly raid the homes of Christians and bring them up on charges of blasphemy in courts where their testimony carries less legal weight than a Muslim’s. Even in Ethiopia, where Christians make up a majority of the population, church burnings by members of the Muslim minority have become a problem.

It should be clear from this catalog of atrocities that anti-Christian violence is a major and underreported problem. No, the violence isn’t centrally planned or coordinated by some international Islamist agency. In that sense the global war on Christians isn’t a traditional war at all. It is, rather, a spontaneous expression of anti-Christian animus by Muslims that transcends cultures, regions, and ethnicities.

As Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, pointed out in an interview with Newsweek, Christian minorities in many majority-Muslim nations have “lost the protection of their societies.” This is especially so in countries with growing radical Islamist (Salafist) movements. In those nations, vigilantes often feel they can act with impunity—and government inaction often proves them right. The old idea of the Ottoman Turks—that non-Muslims in Muslim societies deserve protection (albeit as second-class citizens)—has all but vanished from wide swaths of the Islamic world, and increasingly the result is bloodshed and oppression.

So let us please get our priorities straight. Yes, Western governments should protect Muslim minorities from intolerance. And of course we should ensure that they can worship, live, and work freely and without fear. It is the protection of the freedom of conscience and speech that distinguishes free societies from unfree ones. But we also need to keep perspective about the scale and severity of intolerance. Cartoons, films, and writings are one thing; knives, guns, and grenades are something else entirely.

As for what the West can do to help religious minorities in Muslim-majority societies, my answer is that it needs to begin using the billions of dollars in aid it gives to the offending countries as leverage. Then there is trade and investment. Besides diplomatic pressure, these aid and trade relationships can and should be made conditional on the protection of the freedom of conscience and worship for all citizens.

Instead of falling for overblown tales of Western Islamophobia, let’s take a real stand against the Christophobia infecting the Muslim world. Tolerance is for everyone—except the intolerant.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, and escaped an arranged marriage by immigrating to the Netherlands in 1992. She served as a member of the Dutch parliament from 2003 to 2006 and is currently a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Her autobiography, Infidel, was a 2007 New York Times bestseller.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

Six hooligans to avoid

2011-12-01T20:59:00.002+08:00

Click on image to enlarge.

Ridhuan Tee: Hudud has to be implemented 'by force' by Hazlan Zakaria

2011-10-26T09:49:00.002+08:00

The only way to implement the Islamic hudud law is by implementing it "by force", Malaysian National Defence University lecturer Ridhuan Tee Abdullah said today.

"To implement Islamic law and to educate non-Muslims (on Islam) can only be done by force," the associate professor told a forum entitled 'Hudud: Its dilemma and implementation' organised by Malay-language daily Sinar Harian in Shah Alam today.

Qualifying his assertion, Ridhuan (right) said this is because the "negative attitude" of non-Muslims towards Islamic law makes it unlikely that they will voluntarily accept its implementation.

He related his own experience as being an ethnic Chinese from a staunchly Chinese family and observations and studies of non-Muslims and their perception of Malaysia's federal religion.

"I can say that from then (the past) till now, the perception of non-Muslims toward Islam hasn't improved."

He also cited studies that show that the perception of the Chinese, even amongst the educated, toward Islam and hudud is very unfavourable.

"It is said that when asked to pick between an Umno that is known to be corrupt and PAS that is known for its integrity, a Chinese would rather chose the corrupt Umno over PAS and the Islamic state," claimed Ridhuan.

He said with what he felt was serious fragmentation amongst Muslims despite being the majority, they neither had the clout nor the will to follow through with implementing hudud.

"We should have taken the chance to do so (implement Islamic law) after May 13 (1969)," he said.

He argued that at the time, momentum on the side of the Malay-Muslims presented the perfect opportunity to force the implementation of Islamic law.

‘Chinese receptive’

Another panellist, state exco member for religious affairs Mohd Amar Abdullah (below) however said that PAS, in particular its government in Kelantan has other ideas on hudud.

"It is about a change of mindset. From viewing Islam as a ritual, to viewing Islam as a way of life.

"This is via implementing Islamic policies and educating the rakyat, in preparation for their acceptance of Islam and hudud," said Mohd Amar.

He explained that while the PAS led Kelantan government passed the hudud enactment in 1993, they did not implement it in toto immediately.

"We can compromise in the implementation," Mohd Amar said, adding that PAS' experience in Kelantan showed that unlike Ridhuan's assertation, non-Muslims are very receptive to explanations about hudud and Islam.

He explained that time is needed to ensure not only acceptance by the rakyat, but also that all the proper procedures and the nitty-gritty are spelled out in advance.

"The important thing now is to put hudud at its rightful place as a law, then we can work towards implementing it."

Hudud, he said, is not only about cutting off hands of thieves that most people equate it to, but involved a whole slew of other issues and considerations that show the true compassionate face of Islam.

"There is actually a twenty point checklist that will defer the punishment of amputation for thieves," he explained, such as sparing those who steal because of economic pressure and for thefts of goods that are low in value.

The issue of Islamic law and specifically its subset of hudud has been the point of contention for PAS that has pledged to implement Islamic law, to the cool reception from political ally the DAP.

The issue has been played up by the BN at the onset of most general elections, critics say, as the bogeyman had in the past used to scare non-Muslims into supporting the ruling coalition. Malaysiakini

Umno's Somalia mission: Genuine or publicity stunt?

2011-09-06T21:36:00.001+08:00

Blackhawk
Sep 3, 11
3:39pm

Share 117

By the time this article is published, the body of 39-year-old Noramfaizul Mohd Nor, Bernama's late cameraman, who had apparently followed Umno Putra club's humanitarian mission to Somalis would have arrived in Malaysia. It is tragic, that apart from the hundreds of lives lost during the Raya period on Malaysian roads due to the balik kampong mayhem, Faizul should meet his death in war torn Mogadishu, Somalia.

Was this just an accident? Could it have been avoided? Did umno rush to Somalia to genuinely help Somalians? Or did the party throw caution to the wind and rush callously on the eve of Raya to Somalia just for a publicity stunt? If it was for a publicity stunt, then Faizul would have died in vain and this wouldn't have been the first time when our personnel, both medical and non-medical would have risked not only their lives but more importantly the people around them who may be completely oblivious to the dangers of this sort of missions.

In 2003, Mercy Malaysia similarly put medical personnel at risk. Its two doctors, Dr Jamilah and Baba Deni were lucky to get away alive although both were shot in Baghdad. Not so lucky were their Syrian driver and the Iraqi medical personnel who were accompanying them. Both lost their lives in the shooting. Malaysians may mean well, but extending aid to war torn and disaster areas carries immense risks and requires specific training.

Its not a boy scout outing. Apart from the safety aspect, questions have arisen as to how these trips are being financed and who actually audits these ventures. When the 2004 tsunami flattened Acheh, Malaysians were one of the first to reach Acheh. But they were hopelessly ill-equipped for the task ahead. In direct contrast, Singapore and Australia sent in their army and naval outfits to attend to the distribution of aid.

Humanitarian aid carried out by trained forces tend to be more orderly, organized, triaged and focused to help. Malaysians out to help nuclear-disastered Sendai, Japan following this year's tsunami were not even allowed to leave Subang for Japan by Japanese authorities, as they politely refused knowing well they could not guarantee the safety of their own people let alone foreign volunteers untrained in handling nuclear fall-outs.

From the images shown on local TV, the Umno Putra team appeared to be untrained personnel doing their rounds on unfriendly and sometimes hostile terrain. How would giving adhoc cholera/typhoid vaccinations and holding impromptu outpatient clinics at refugee camps help civilians there in the long-term? And why would you want to do a job you are not trained to handle especially on terrain you are not familiar with and unfriendly at that too.

Shouldn't it have been a job for our army boys. We are in peace time anyway and this would have been a good mission to keep them on their toes. There is no imminent danger of our submarines sinking as they apparently cannot dive, or our air force jets with no engines crashing and there are certainly no communists to look out for who may be waiting to create another Bukit Kepong situation.

A brief look at the army's hospitals' websites indicate that almost all their hospitals have hardly any patients, which will then beg the question. What do our army docs and medics do with so much free time on their hands? Shouldn't they have gone instead of the Umno club. Unless, of course, the help Umno went to deliver was a sideshow, the main menu being publicity for the party or its leaders judging from the daily reporting in the MSM and TV images during prime time.

Is this GE13 election campaigning using the Somalians misery and our journalists lives to brain wash kampong folk out in Jengka and Baling? Umno must now be ready to answer some difficult questions. The Mission arrived in Somalia on Aug 30 at one of the world' most dangerous destinations and to a country that is home to pirates that can put to shame even the mightiest of navies in the Indian Ocean, including the US Navy.

Apparently it was timed to provide Hari Raya aid and according to a statement issued by its chief, Datuk Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim to even have Hari Raya prayers there! If the Health Ministry was involved and had sent some of their personnel, Liow Tiong Lai better have some answers ready.

With our own Malaysians getting literally war conditions treatment in many of our government hospitals, it would be interesting to listen to Liow's excuses, in his own Tung Shin way. Aid was supposed to be distributed to five areas, with Mogadishu being the first stop. Others included Badbadur, about 25km from Mogadishu, where about 250,000 people are taking refuge, Al Shabeb in Merka where 300,000 people are affected by the famine and in the Balet Veni camps which house 100,000 people.

Both areas are located 100km from Mogadishu. Even the Operations chief Lt-Col Zahani Zainal Abdin had warned saying it would be risky to even fly into Mogadishu at night. In total there were a total of 55 volunteers and members of the media who formed part of the mission to cover a radius of almost 200 km in a country where there was no law except for a 9000 strong UN backed force - the only law in a country of 10 million.

Make no mistake, in this country even 12 year olds carry AK-47s. Umno club members had no business being in this country and in their pursuit of cheap publicity endangering the lives of other civilians both Malaysians and Somalians. Any mission that carries with it civilians and journalists are a handicap to any military personnel exposing even the most well-trained military commando to being nothing more then a sitting duck.

Al- Fatihah to Noramfaizul Mohd Nor's family. Let's hope Bernama and Utusan don't spin his untimely and unnecessary death into a "mati syahid" affair. Malaysiakini

No tear gas fired into Tung Shin, say police by Joseph Sipalan Jul 10, 11 3:49pm

2011-07-13T22:47:00.001+08:00

Kuala Lumpur acting police chief Amar Singh today denied claims that riot police fired tear gas into the compound of the Tung Shin Hospital along Jalan Pudu, despite evidence indicating otherwise.

He also defended his officers' actions in employing "reasonable force" to disperse the protestors assembled there, saying that the crowd had provoked the police and were "not very friendly".

"... there was no tear gas thrown. I saw the whole incident, I was there," he said at a press conference at the Kuala Lumpur police headquarters.

Claims have been rife on social networking sites with eyewitnesses and opposition party members posting numerous pictures and videos of riot police allegedly firing tear gas and a water cannon into the compound of the private hospital.

At least several hundred protesters were there seeking refuge.

When asked if the police are aware of the mounting photographic and video evidence backing the claims, Amar appeared taken aback and only responded by saying that he will "check and see".

He repeated that tear gas was not used in the alleged assault on protesters in Tung Sin, but said he could not remember whether or not water cannon (above) was used.

Amar claimed that the protesters had provoked the police into taking action, including throwing objects at officers who were on duty.

“I believe you saw the crowd, you saw the people reacting there, and police had to use reasonable force, to apprehend these people.

“The crowd was not very friendly, either, the crowd was aggressive, so we had to use reasonable force to make arrest and the like... To disperse the crowd, we had to use whatever means that we had.

“You must have been there yesterday, you would have seen the crowd provoking the police, and some of them actually throwing items at the police, you saw it yesterday clearly yourself,” he told journalists.

When asked to clarify what he meant by “reasonable force”, Amar said it is no different from inspector general of police Ismail Omar's statement that the police had used “minimal force” to disperse the protesters.

“Our job as police (is) when there is a gathering, we disperse the gathering,” he said.

'Detainees well treated'

Amar also swatted aside claims that the 1,697 detainees were ill-treated while being held at three separate locations last night, stating that preparations were made to make sure each and every detainee was comfortable.

“We set up tents for them, we prepared a buffet for them, they had enough space to pray, there were sufficient toilets... we spent RM25 on food for each detainee. That is far better than the rations my men were getting,” he said.

The city's top cop also pointed out that the majority of the detainees were released unconditionally, with only a small but unspecified number released on bail after processing at three separate locations – the police training centre (Pulapol), the Cheras FRU centre and the Jinjang police station.

“The last person was released at around 11.30pm. It was very fast and I'm very happy it did not last too long.”

Amar urged protesters and detainees who have any complaints of alleged police brutality or abuse to lodge reports with the police.“If there are any complaints of abuse, bring it to us and we will investigate it,” he said. Malaysiakini

Cops question students for 10 hours over 'Interlok' by Zaidatul Syreen Abdul Rashid

2011-03-08T21:42:00.002+08:00

Cops question students for 10 hours over 'Interlok'

Zaidatul Syreen Abdul Rashid
Mar 8, 11
3:40pm

10 friends can read this story for free

Three Form Five students were yesterday taken to the Kuala Kubu Baru district police headquarters and traumatised by being questioned for 10 hours - all for wanting to return the novel 'Interlok' to their principal last Friday.

Initially, seven SMK Kuala Kubu Baru students, who wanted to return the book because they were not happy with its contents, were stopped by a discipline teacher who allegedly abused them verbally.

“All seven of us were walking calmly towards the headmaster's room when our discipline teacher stopped us and started making comments which hurt our feelings,” said one of the students, who was with four others at the Human Rights Party headquarters today.

According to the student, the discipline teacher said the students were purposely creating problems because of their race.

The teacher reportedly said, “Kenapa orang India garang? India memang suka rosakkan nama sekolah. Keling memang dasar pariah sejak sejarah lagi” (Why are the Indians so fierce? Indians really like to tarnish the school's name. The keling have been pariahs since historical times).

The 17-year-old students were not able to return the novel as the teacher told them to disperse immediately.

Yesterday, while the students were in school, Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) head Baktiar Md Rashid, who is a police officer, took three of the teens to the police station for questioning, without the consent of their parents.

A parent, P Gomathi, 42 (left), said she was angry that her son had been taken to the station without her presence or permission.

“My son did not commit any crime. He just wanted to return a book that he didn't enjoy reading.

"Instead he was humiliated and taken to the balai like some kind of hardcore criminal, in a patrol car,” she said, adding that the school authorities did not inform her about this.

Gomathi was informed of her son's whereabouts at 10.30am by a classmate. When she reached the station, she said, she was told that her elder son A Sanjeevkumar, 19, had also been called in for questioning as the discipline teacher had made a police report against him.

“She (the discipline teacher) said in her police report that my elder son had brought 100 Indians from Kuala Lumpur, from the Gang 36, to threaten her and her family,” Gomathi added.

She sees this as a desperate move by the teacher because Sanjeevkumar was away in Kuala Lumpur the whole week when this issue started.

Sanjeevkumar said: “I was a student in this school two years ago, and I have never been involved in any problem. No problem with the teachers or other students.

“Therefore, it is not fair for the teacher to pin it on me on the ground that I was a former student who 'turned' into a gangster to influence my younger brother.”

Gomathi yesterday lodged police reports against Baktiar and the teacher.

“I am not happy with what has happened. It was a school drama that should have ended there. Baktiar was misusing his authority.

"He should have had his PTA hat on, as the matter concerned school children in the school compound... not putting on his 'DSP police hat' and arresting the children and taking them to the balai for questioning. After all it's just (about) a book."

'A night in jail' threat

Asked what took place at the police station, the teary-eyed student said the police threatened that he and older brother Sanjeevkumar would be spending a night in jail.

“I asked for permission to call my parents but they (the police) wouldn't let me, saying I was in only there for questioning, and that they were not going to arrest me. The other two of my friends were also not able to call their parents.”

Asked what he wants from the authorities, he said: “I want to go back to school macam biasa (as usual). Jumpa semua kawan (see all my friends).

“Sebab hari Jumaat, banyak cikgu lain yang dengar cerita ini, semuanya cakap sorry dekat kita. (Last Friday, most of the other teachers who heard of this issue, came and said sorry to us).

“So, all I want is the discipline teacher to apologise to us. That's it.”

HRP president W Sambulingam (left), who was present at the press conference, said it was unfair to put the students through such an ordeal at a tender age.

“This is what I say, harapkan pagar, pagar makan padi. The police are supposed to educate and keep the people from harm. Instead, they lock up students. And for what? For trying to return the novel.

“As we have been saying since the beginning, 'Interlok' must be removed immediately. Look at it today, see for yourself what it has done to this particular school.

“Malaysia is a beautiful country, with beautiful people, so please do not make it ugly with hidden racial agendas. Don't ever victimise the nation.”

'Interlok', written by national laureate Abdullah Hussein, made headlines recently as critics have argued that it portrays the Indian and Chinese communities in a negative light.

There have been protests since the Education Ministry's decision to use it as a literature textbook in secondary schools. This is the first case of students being taken to a police station and questioned over the book.

Statements taken

When contacted by Malaysiakini, Hulu Selangor district police chief Norel-Azmi Yahya Affendi confirmed the incident.

"Since last night, we have been taking statements from all parties, including our police officer, Baktiar," Norel said.

Norel also noted that the three students were taken from school to the police station solely for questioning and they were not being charged.

"This is all just a big misunderstanding and a miscommunication between the teacher and students. My understanding is, the teacher was just explaining the meaning and history of that word (pariah). There was no name calling whatsoever," Norel added.

He gave assurance that the police are taking this case seriously, as the students' parents are not happy with the teacher and Baktiar, adding that the 10-hour questioning the minors underwent was standard procedure.

"The students were at the police station for about 10 hours because we spent about three hours on each student questioning and getting clarification from them on what had happen.

"Apart from the parents, the teacher also lodged a report against one of the students elder brother for threatening her," he said adding that if found guilty, Sanjeevkumar would be charged under Section 506 of the Penal Code, which includes a maximum jail sentence of seven years or pay a fine or both.

Norel said those involved in this matter had tackled this issue wrongly.

Any form of questioning regarding 'Interlok' should be done by school authorities, in the school compound and not elsewhere, he said.

Norel also hoped that no third parties who make this issue into a racial matter.

View Comments (110) From Malaysiakini

Malay history: What’s missing from the textbooks Written by John Doe

2011-01-24T21:36:00.001+08:00

Reproduced here with permission from Centre for policy Initiatives

Part 1
Brunei has always been known to be one of the earliest Muslim Kingdoms in Southeast Asia. They pride themselves in this fact. All their neighbors pride themselves in this too, and of course, since it is fact, it is irrefutable. Right?

Good. Let’s quickly look at some FACTS then:

It is taught in school textbooks that Pateh Berbai, the brother of Awang Semaun and Awang Alak Betatar, discovered Brunei. Awang Alak Betatar subsequently became Brunei’s first Sultan and was known as Sultan Muhammad Shah. Awang Semaun and Awang Alak Betatar were the famous heroes in Brunei during that time.

Sultan Muhammad Shah was the first Sultan of Brunei. He ruled Brunei from 1363 to 1402. He was the first Muslim ruler of Brunei as a result of his conversion to Islam in 1363 for his marriage to a Johorean-Temasik princess. Prior to conversion to Islam, he was known as Awang Alak Betatar.

He sent a mission to China in 1371 by which his name is recorded in Ming historical record as Mo-ha-mo-sha. Sultan Muhammad Shah died in 1402. Sultan Muhammad Shah was the first Sultan of Brunei. He ruled Brunei from 1363 to 1402. He married the daughter of Iskander, a Johorean-Temasik princess introduced by Bal-Paki, her brother-in-law to be.

So far so good... Oh Really?

Read the above again very carefully !! Sultan Muhammad Shah married a Johorean-Temasik princess in 1363. Now, for all those products of Biro Tata Negara (BTN) out there, what year was Malacca formed? 1403. So, there was a Johor king already in 1363? Are you going to argue with Ketuanan Brunei on this? (By the way, he’s more Melayu than YOU!) Also for those who insist that Penang be handed over to Kedah, read the following again and again …

The Johor ruler was under the Thais. The entire Peninsular belonged to the Thais! The ‘king’ of Singapore (Temasik), whom Parameswara of the Malaccan Sultanate murdered in cold blood was in fact the brother-in-Law of the ‘King’ of Pattani, who was under Ayodthaya rule. For those who do not know, Ayodthaya is in Thailand. And that, my friend was already well established before 1363.

Next, Kota Gelanggi was also another Thai City, (yet to be publicized). And why not? Because it is a Thai Buddhist kingdom. Yes, it’s along the Johor River. All I’m allowed to say at this point is that Kota Gelanggi is REALLY along the Johor River. Expose Kota Gelanggi, and you will find its 30ft Buddha statues and its many Buddhist Temples, in all it's glory.

So, for Penang to go back to Kedah, ALL of the peninsula needs to go back to the Thais. Sarawak needs to go back to Brunei, Brunei needs to go back to Majapahit, Sabah needs to go back to the Philippines, and Parameswara needs to go back to Palembang, leaving the Orang Asli in charge all over again. (I find it ludicrous that the Orang Asli are disqualified as ‘Bumiputera’ although they have been here since 60,000 years ago)

Next, the year 1363 is of great significance. Why? That was the year that the first Sultan of Brunei converted to Islam. And he immediately became the Ruler of Brunei? What was he before that? A fisherman? A carpenter? A farmer? What was Awang Alak Betatar in 1362? And what happened the following year when he became a Sultan? Is becoming a Muslim enough to justify becoming a Sultan? Was he the first person in Brunei to convert to Islam?

Let's scroll back time by 100 years; the year is now 1264. A full hundred years BEFORE Awang Alak Betatar converted to Islam, and declared himself a Sultan. A trip to Bandar Seri Begawan is not complete unless one visits the Muslim graves at Rangas. Chuck your ‘pantang’ out the window if you want to enjoy this first-hand, and in real life. Amongst these tombstones is the one of a Chinese Muslim by the name of Pu Kung Chih-mu. He was buried there in 1264. He was a Muslim, buried in a Muslim grave! This is more than a hundred years earlier, before the ascension of Awang Alak Betatar as the ‘first’ Sultan of Brunei. Not only that, he is not the only Chinese Muslim there. I cross-checked against the Brunei Museum Journal of 1993, and found that this has been so well documented!! In fact, this grave had already been found since 1973. Whole communities of Chinese Muslims had already been living in Kampong Batu well before the 12th Century. It is clearly recorded in the 1973 Brunei Museum Journal, and was visited by professors from Japan and China. Pictures are on page 3, 4, 6, 8 and 12. Some are even in colour.

So, here's another nugget for BTN un-educators. The Chinese brought Islam to this region in 1264. Wait! That's not even correct. It was even earlier, because, this Muslim Chinese died in 1264. He had lived a full life in Brunei before he died. And before anyone even thinks of contesting this, let me draw your attention to yet another well-established fact, and let’s see how early the Chinese arrived.

According to records – as in the ‘Notes on the Malay Archipelago and Malacca Compiled from Chinese Sources’ by WP Groeneveldt in 1880 – a Chinese Islamic trader arrived in Brunei in the 10th century. His name was P’u-lu-shieh. He was both a trader and a diplomat. SQ Fatimi writing in the Sociological Research Institute in Singapore in 1963 under an article entitled ‘Islam Comes to Malaysia’, P'u-lu-shieh name is akin to Abu al-Layth.

The Brunei King at that time was named ‘Hiang-ta’. The arrival of the diplomat-trader from China was greeted with great ceremony. If this is so, Islam actually arrived in Brunei in the year of 977.

If this is the year 977, and the Sultan’s name in the year 977 is Hiang-Ta, then how can Awang Alak Betatar be the ‘first’ Sultan of Brunei in 1363? For those with very bad logic (or timeline problems), the year 977 is 406 years older than 1363. And in the year 977, the Chinese were already sending Muslim ambassadors to Brunei. The real question should be, thus, who exactly was that ‘Hiang Ta’ who ruled Brunei in the year 977? An Iban? A Kadazan or a Chinese?

It gets even better. The MOST interesting thing was that the Brunei king’s delegation to China to return the emperor’s greetings was also headed by another Muslim official by the name of P’u A-li (Abu Ali).

Based on this fact alone, Abu Ali must have held an important position in the Brunei government if he was tasked to be Brunei’s ambassador in those days. This is again, irrefutable proof that there was already a government, with a King, and some members of his royal court were Muslims. Again, this is proof that Islam had already reached Brunei before the year 977. This is 75 years into the beginning of the Soong Dynasty, and only severely retarded people will say that Abu Ali was an Arab because of his name.

And by the way, Malacca was not to have been discovered for another 400 years. Is there a prawn under the stone? You can bet your bottom dollar (because Ringgit is worthless toilet paper) that whenever John Doe writes, there is.

A number of European historians claimed that Brunei was still not a Muslim nation until the 15th century. However, the Ming Shih, Book 325, a Chinese reference book noted that the King of Brunei in 1370 was Ma-ho-mo-sa. Some say that this should be read as Mahmud Shah. In fact, local Brunei historians prefer to take this to refer to Muhammad Shah, the first Sultan of Brunei.

Robert Nicholl, a former Brunei Museum curator argued in another paper entitled ‘Notes on Some Controversial Issues in Brunei History’ in 1980 that the name Ma-ho-mo-sa could be pronounced as Maha Moksha which means ‘Great Eternity’. ‘Maha Mokhsa’ would make it a Buddhist name. Nicholl goes on to argue that even the Brunei Sultan who died in Nanjing in 1408 was not a Muslim. (History books always detail that the Sultan of Brunei went to China, but few will state that he died there),

Another historian Paul Pelliot said Ma-na-jo-kia-nai-nai was reconstituted as Maharajah Gyana (nai). But the closest title would have been Maharaja Karna. However Brunei historians have insisted that the King was Sultan Abdul Majid Hassan, who would have been the second Sultan of Brunei.

Nicholl further argued that Sultan Muhammad Shah converted to Islam as late as the 16th century and not during the 14th century as is widely known. However according to Brunei historians, Sultan Muhammad Shah converted to Islam in 1363 and that he ruled until 1402. After which time, it was Sultan Abdul Majid Hassan, who died in China who ascended the throne. That was when Sultan Ahmad reigned in Brunei beginning 1406.

And why did I bring up this detail? Simple !! Read the top all over again:

Sultan Muhammad Shah married a Johorean-Temasik Princess in 1363.
And that Kota Gelanggi and the entire peninsular Malaya belonged to the Thais. And if this is true and correct, then both the Sultan of Brunei and his wife, would have been Buddhists.
In fact, the entire peninsular Malaya had been Buddhist and/or Hindu ever since the second century when Lembah Bujang was built. And since this is the year 1363, all of Brunei and Borneo was also under the rule of King Hayam Wuruk, who was King of the Majapahit empire. And what religion did they have? (I’ll give you a hint... they built the Borobudor. And for those who claim that Borobudor is a mosque in disguise, please learn to recognize temple architecture.)

Borrobudor in all its splendour.

Oh, and even more important is this:

“Sultan Abdul Majid Hassan whose proper name is Zein Ul-Abidin, frequented the near distant islands, that He called ‘Solook’ (Sulu) from 1402 to 1424. Marrying the daughter (Parmursuli) of the Sulu Tomaoi (chief) Baginda” – it means he had a Filipino wife.

Also important to note, that since this is 1363, Parameswara had not yet swum across Pirate-Bay to reach Temasik yet. Hence, the need to locate the earlier kingdoms which pre-date ‘His Royal Pendatangness’.

During the reign of Wikramawardhana, the series of Ming armada naval expeditions led by Admiral Hajji Mahmud Shams (aka Zheng He), a Muslim Chinese admiral, arrived in Java for several times, spanning the period from 1405 to 1433. By 1430, Zheng He’s expeditions has established Muslim Chinese and Arab communities in northern ports of Java, and thus Islam began to gain foothold on Java’s northern coast. “Admiral Hajji Mahmud Shams (aka Zheng He) was so frustrated when he first arrived in Java, because he could not find a single halal restaurant there”, so wrote Mah Huan, his scribe, thus deciding to spread Islam to the “barbarians” as Chinese records would write.

Also interesting to note is the following:

“In late Yuan Dynasty, China became chaotic, people who lived along the coastal area of Fujian, under the leadership of Ong Sum Ping’s siblings, escaped to eastern Kalimantan — they landed at the river mouth. When they were exhausted, facing a shipping crisis, someone lost their arms. After that, the Kadazans named it as Sungai Kinabatangan — the place where the Chinese lost their arms.

Ong Sum Ping and his sister, and the Chinese people developed the area of Sungai Kinabatangan, and they increased their influences there. With the increase of his prosperity, the natives named him Raja, or King. The Chinese named him as ‘Chung Ping’ - meaning the General. We can clearly see that Ong Sum Ping controlled Eastern Kalimantan.

This is Ong Sum Ping Rd in Brunei.

(Part 2 will appear tomorrow)

Bibligraphy

Kenneth Hall, Maritime trade and state development in early Southeast Asia, citing Wang Gungwu, 'The Nanhai trade: a study of the early history of Chinese trade in the South China Sea', JMBRAS 31, 2 (1958): 33, citing Paul Wheatley, The Golden Khersonese, studies in the historical geography of the Malay peninsula before 1500, Kuala Lumpur, 1961, and other secondary sources;

Yoshiaki Ishizawa, 'Chinese chronicles of C1st-5th century AD Funan',

Yoshiaki Ishizawa, 'Chinese chronicles of C1st-5th century AD Funan', citing Wan Zhen, Nanzhou yuwuzhi.

Louise Levathes, When China Ruled the seas, citing the Liang Shu (History of the Liang dynasty) and (i) Paul Shao, Asiatic Influence in Precolumbian art, Ames, Iowa State Univ 1976, and (ii) David H.Kelley, 'Nine lords of the night', Studies in the Archaeology of Mexico and Guatemala, 16, Berkeley, Univ of California Dept of Anthropology, Oct 1972 & 'Calendar animals and deities', Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 16, Albuqerque, Univ of New Mexico, 1960.
Chisholm, Hugh, ed (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (Eleventh ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Ongkili, James P. "Ancient Chinese Trading Links." East Malaysia and Brunei. Ed. Wendy Hutton. Tuttle Publishing, 2001.
Saunders, Graham. A History of Brunei. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2002.
Wright, Leigh. "Brunei: An Historical Relic." Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol. 17 (1977).
"Background Note: Brunei Darussalam". U.S. State Department. Retrieved 2008-12-16.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/m/v/mvp111/karin.htm, citing vol.231 of The Great Chinese Encyclopedia, compiled by court historians of the Wang emperors from 502 to 556 AD (other refs give the editor's name as Ma Tuan-Lin);

Prof V.G.Nair, Buddhist mission visits America before Columbus,

http://www.saigon.com/~hoasen/mission.htm;

http://www.1s.com/hkmission/history/chinese.htm, citing hearsay of an 1100 page diary in the Chinese imperial archives of which only 75 pages of partial excerpts seen;

http://users.wi.net/~maracon/;http://www.ventanawild.org/news/se01/fusang.html;

Kenneth L. Feder, Frauds, Myths and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, p113-4, citing Frost, F, 1982,

The Palos Verdes Chinese anchor mystery, Archaeology, Jan/Feb 23-27,

quoted onwww.kenspy.com/Menzies/Ships.html regarding irrelevance of these anchors.

J.V.G.Mills, introduction, to Ma Huan, Ying-yai Sheng Lan; John Carswell, Blue & White, p.87; Louise Levathes, When China ruled the seas; Ma Huan, Ying-yai Sheng Lan. Inscription in Galle

Part 2

Also interesting to note is the following:

In Late Yuan Dynasty, China became chaotic, people who lived along the coastal area of Fujian, under the leadership of Ong Sum Ping's siblings, escaped to eastern Kalimantan — they landed at the river mouth. When they were exhausted, facing a shipping crisis, someone lost their arms. After that, the Kadazans named it as Sungai Kinabatangan — the place where the Chinese lost their arms.

Ong Sum Ping and his sister, and the Chinese people developed the area of Sungai Kinabatangan, and they increased their influence there. With the increase of his prosperity, the natives named him Raja, or King. The Chinese named him as ‘Chung Ping’ — meaning the General. We can clearly see that Ong Sum Ping controlled Eastern Kalimantan.

This is Ong Sum Ping Road in Brunei.

“Located the north-western part was the Sultanate Brunei; its southern area was controlled by local Malays (from Palembang) and they were in a state of decline. In the eastern part, they suffered from the invasion of the Muslim Sultan of Sulu. When the new (first) ruler — Sultan Muhammad Shah — ascended to the throne, he asked for the help of Ong Sum Ping. Sultan Muhammad Shah married his daughter to Ong Sum Ping, and titled him as Maharaja Lela. Muhammad Shah also asked his brother to marry the sister of Ong Sum Ping, and titled her as Puteri Kinabatangan. Via these marriages, these two regional powers built a close relationship. Under the cooperation of Ong Sum Ping and the Chinese armies, they fought against the Sulu Muslim invasion, and Brunei was saved from utter collapse...”

Without Chinese help, Brunei and Sabah would have collapsed and fallen to the Muslim pirate Suluks. And the year is the early 1400s. And for the record, ‘Kina’ (kee-na) is used by Kadazan Dusun which similar to ‘Cina’ (chee-na) used by Malay which refer the Chinese. So, the correct way to say it in today’s context, is to call it CheenaBatangan, and Mount CheenaBalu, or Mount CheenaBaru (had they mispronounced it), and Kota CheenaBalu (to replace the British given name of Jesselton).

This is all in line with how the Kadazan pronounces Kina, to mean Cheena. Ask your Kadazans friends, if you want to find out more. (‘Sino’-anything, means Chinese)

Mt Kinabalu, is known a Mt CheenaBalu in the Kadazan Language

This is the first clear record of the ‘Social Contract’. Both pendatangs would fight side by side to ward off other vicious attackers. Both pendatangs would help each other in times of need. And both pendatangs would intermarry, regardless of religion.

The second is that Maharaja Lela is a Chinese, and his name is General Ong Sum Ping. Now I ask you this: What is the significance of the title ‘Maharaja’? It contains the word ‘Maha’ followed by ‘Raja’. It is a title to mean ‘Most High King’. A title befitting a God and put together, it means “The God King, Lela”. The king of Thailand (Rama V, aka Chulalongkorn) also changed his name, from Dharma Raja to Dewa Raja)

Using one’s brains, one would easily deduce the following:

Firstly, the Sultan of Brunei was extremely so grateful that he elevated his Chinese brother-in-law to ‘God’ status.

Secondly, no Muslim is going to do that. ‘Maha’ anything is reserved for Allah. And to title his Chinese brother-in-law in this manner, whether Ong Sum Ping was a Muslim or not, is simply unthinkable had the Sultan really been a Muslim. Which again reinforces that Sultan Muhammad Shah was no Muslim.

Thirdly, Malaysia still has the title ‘Duli Yang Maha Mulia’ so I could be wrong about Muslims being able to call a human ‘Maha-something’ instead of the word reserved only for the divine.

And the best of course, is reserved for last:

“In fact according to Chinese records of the Liang Dynasty, Tang Dynasty and Song Dynasty, Brunei had been sending her envoys to China and had also been receiving envoys from China. The earliest records stated that in the years 517AD, 521AD and 631AD, Brunei had sent her envoys to China. In 977AD, China sent her envoys to Brunei.” (see The Brunei Times)

The above sends a clear message that someone else was already King in Brunei circa 876 years before Sultan Muhammad Shah declared himself as Sultan. It is also very clear that the Chinese were already in Brunei 53 years before the Prophet Muhammad was born.

Also important to note, that the Chinese arrived at least 876 years before Parameswara reached Malacca. Could the Chinese have been the original royal lineage of Brunei? Remember that by the Year 53-Before-Prophet Muhammad, Chinese had already been living in Borneo. And never forget that the earliest Arabic maps label Malaya as ‘Barr Chin’ to mean Land of the Chinese.

And even earlier is this:

Second half of the 5^th century: The Buddhist monk Hui-Shen and his Afghan companions travelled from China to Fu-Sang. Yes, the Afghans were Buddhists and carved the Bamiyan Buddhas that were destroyed by the Taliban.

Hui Sen visits Holotan (Java), on his way back to China. And the King of Java then sends seven missions to China begging them to recognize his kingdom, because no one else recognized them. This brings up strange questions. The Javanese kings did it, the Sultan of Brunei did it, and even Parameswars did it. Why were all these kings sucking up to the Chinese over the centuries? Is this what Ketuanan really means? Sucking up to China? All the Austronesians have certainly done it for the past 1,600 years, or more...

Final parting thoughts… Why are the oldest mosques in Malacca shaped all like Pagodas (in Trengkera)?

Why is there no ‘local’-shaped mosque architecture in Malacca? Why is there Bukit Cheena in Malacca, but no Bukit Melayu or more importantly, no Bukit Sultan? Why is there zero trace of any grave belonging to the Sultan of Malacca? Before anyone gives his lame excuse, there are at least 15 royal graves here in Brunei. All intact, all complete, and no missing links.

There are all records ranging from the Chinese (the later ones were Muslims) being in Borneo right from the fifth century right up till the 15th century. So the next time someone tells you that the Chinese only arrived in the 19th century …

Postscript: If I wrote a book on collective Southeast Asian History (complete with actual location photographs), I wonder how many of you people will buy it?

Related: Malay history: What’s missing from the textbooks (1)

Bibligraphy

Yoshiaki Ishizawa, 'Chinese chronicles of C1st-5th century AD Funan',

Yoshiaki Ishizawa, 'Chinese chronicles of C1st-5th century AD Funan', citing Wan Zhen, Nanzhou yuwuzhi.

Prof V.G.Nair, Buddhist mission visits America before Columbus,

http://www.saigon.com/~hoasen/mission.htm;

http://www.1s.com/hkmission/history/chinese.htm, citing hearsay of an 1100 page diary in the Chinese imperial archives of which only 75 pages of partial excerpts seen;

http://users.wi.net/~maracon/;http://www.ventanawild.org/news/se01/fusang.html;

Kenneth L. Feder, Frauds, Myths and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, p113-4, citing Frost, F, 1982,

The Palos Verdes Chinese anchor mystery, Archaeology, Jan/Feb 23-27,

quoted onwww.kenspy.com/Menzies/Ships.html regarding irrelevance of these anchors.

J.V.G.Mills, introduction, to Ma Huan, Ying-yai Sheng Lan; John Carswell, Blue & White, p.87; Louise Levathes, When China ruled the seas; Ma Huan, Ying-yai Sheng Lan. Inscription in Galle

Guidelines For Muslims Celebrating Religious Festivals Of Non-Muslims.

2011-01-19T20:46:00.000+08:00

The 68th muzakarah of the National Fatwa Committee for Islamic Religious Affairs on April 12, 2005 discussed the Guidelines For Muslims Celebrating Religious Festivals Of Non-Muslims. The muzakarah has decided that:

In determining the non-Muslim celebrations that can be attended by Muslims, several main criteria should serve as guidelines so as not to contradict the teachings of Islam. The criteria are as follows:

1. The event is not accompanied by ceremonies that are against the Islamic faith (aqidah).

The meaning of “against the Islamic faith (aqidah)” is a thing, act, word or situation which if conducted will lead to tarnishing the faith (aqidah) of Muslims.

For example:

to include religious symbols such as the cross, installing lights, candles, Christmas tree and so forth;
to sing religious songs;
to put any religious markings on the forehead, or other markings onto parts of the body;
to deliver speech or gestures in the form of a praise to the non-Muslim religion;
to bow or conduct acts of honour to the religious ceremony of non-Muslims.

2. The event is not accompanied by acts against the Islamic law.

The meaning of “against the Islamic law” is a thing, act, word or situation which if conducted will contradict the Islamic teachings practised by the Muslim community.

For example:

Wearing red costumes like Santa Claus or other garments that reflect religion;
Serving intoxicating food or beverages and the likes;
Having sounds or ornaments like church bells, Christmas tree, temple or breaking of coconuts;
Having ceremonies with elements of gaming, worship, cult, superstitions and the likes.

3. The event is not accompanied by “acts that contradict with moral and cultural development of Muslim society” in this country.

The meaning of “acts that contradict with moral and cultural development of Muslim society” is a thing, act, word or situation which if conducted will contradict the values and norms of the Muslim society of this country which adheres to the Islamic teachings based on Ahlus Sunnah Wal-Jamaah.

For example:

Mixing freely without any limit or manners;
Wearing conspicuous clothing;
Singing songs that contain lyrics of obscenity and worship;
Organising programmes such as beauty pageants, cock fighting and such.

4. The event is not accompanied by acts that can “stir the sensitivity of Muslim community”.

The meaning of “stir the sensitivity of Muslim community” is a thing, act, word or situation which if conducted will offend the feelings of Muslims about their beliefs and practices.

For Example:

Speeches or songs in the form of non-Muslim religious propaganda;
Speeches that insult the Muslims;
Speeches that insult Islam;
Presentations with the aim to ridicule the religious belief of Muslims.

5. The organisers and the public are asked to get the views of religious authorities before organising or attending celebrations of non-Muslims. -- JAKIM

http://www.islam.gov.my/en/guidelines-muslims-celebrating-religious-festivals-non-muslims

Quota system for armed forces?

2010-12-01T22:08:00.000+08:00

FOUR underlying reasons were presented to the Dewan Rakyat earlier this month explaining why non-Malays find the armed forces an unattractive, even uninviting, career option. Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi attributed the meagre number of non-Malay soldiers, particularly during the recruitment years of 2008 and last year, to:

- fear of strict discipline;

- a less rewarding job compared with the private sector;
- no encouragement or support from family members; and,

- lack of patriotism.

Is the minister correct in his assessment? With only 82 Indians and 26 Chinese, and some Sabah and Sarawak Bumiputeras, against 9,054 Malays, the armed forces have always been top heavy in Malays, who, as a community, regard serving in uniform as a noble vocation. In that respect, it can be stated that the civil service is Malay top to bottom heavy.

The inference to be made on this lopsidedness is political: since the ruling party had always been Malay-based in 53 years of rule, it is natural that the civil service, from top to down, is filled in the ranks with Malays. The same concept applies to other countries, Singapore included.

That's not to say that non-Malays have not made it to the senior ranks on their own ability.

They have excelled in sectors like education, the navy, air force, police and sciences, but the salient concern here is that the rise of non-Malays to the top in the civil service ranks is irregular, thus the need for the minister to address the issue in Parliament.

Coming back to Zahid's appraisal, his assumptions need to be tested, especially on the assumption that non-Malays fear strict discipline and lack patriotism, which might be contentious at best.

The Chinese are known for their strict discipline in schools and universities, especially in studying and prepping. So, taking orders from a barking drill sergeant, marching in perfect unison, saluting superiors and living under regimented conditions is simply a different feel in the deployment of mass discipline.

Did Zahid mean to say that the Chinese and Indians are not suited to roughing it up in the jungles or the high seas, of eating off the land, ready to lay down their lives in the event of an invasion (an extremely slim prospect)?

That's odd because if genetics is the sounding board, the Chinese are already prepped in the ways of war, their DNA cemented from the long line of fighting at the height of crises and wars between warlords in China in over 2,000 years of imperialism.

Genetically speaking, too, the Indians are known for their high stamina and a long line of fighters from centuries past and ability to work in close quarters in the regimented lifestyle.

So, does it filter down to lack of patriotism? Zahid was vilified for suggesting lack of patriotism as a stumbling block.

The many non-Malay servicemen and ex-servicemen interviewed and profiled by the press since then attest to the fact that patriotism is not an issue.

However, Zahid appears correct in stating that the financial rewards are nowhere close to the private sector and, yes, because of this and other distinctive reasons, family support is unenthusiastic.

But the lack of Chinese and Indian participation in the military and, to that extent, the civil service, can also be attributed, rightly or wrongly, to this perception: the government, being a dominant Malay entity, has little or no place for non-Malays to pursue their ambitions, especially in a sobering climate of ethnic entitlement, identity and angst.

Conceding that the government doesn't enforce an "inclusionary" policy to even the racial balance on recruitment, other than qualification and interest as criteria, Zahid should be addressing this challenging question: why is it so, especially after senior politicians regularly implore non-Malays to join the military and, to that extent, the civil service, as the better trajectory of their occupa-tional ambitions?

In any case, Zahid might need to change tact or at least tweak the recruitment policies, perhaps with this novel, if not radical, idea: re-engineer the recruitment policy to purposefully include non-Malays, starting perhaps with a 10 per cent increase in the ranks and capping it at a gradual 30 per cent, in the same fashion Malays have asked over the past 40 years that the private sector fulfil the New Economic Policy's stipulatory 30 per cent quota.

The non-Malays might be taken aback with the idea that they, too, might need official abetment.

The Malay intelligentsia, in and out of the government, should regard the idea as an accommodation of their sincerity: it is only fair that they allow a nominal non-Malay number in the domain of their control in the same manner they beseech the private sector to give up a certain portion of their executive populace to Bumiputeras. (It might be argumentative fodder here that in some parts of the private sector, the 30 per cent slice has been abolished.)

Would this be an acceptable quid pro quo in the Malaysian institution of social engineering? It won't be known unless this far-reaching theory is given a try.
2010/11/29
AZMI ANSHAR
mishar@nst.com.my

Source: NST

Spotlight/Non-Malays in armed forces: Ample opportunity for the deserving to shine

2010-12-01T22:01:00.000+08:00

Colonel S. Mahendra (centre) being conferred the insignia by Army chief General Datuk Zulkifeli Mohd Zain (right).
THE perception that non-Malays working in the armed forces have fewer opportunities for promotion is wrong.
On Oct 11, Teoh Siang Chang, 55, who served in the Royal Malaysian Air Force for the past 36 years, was made a brigadier-general.

Teoh, who hails from Nibong Tebal, Penang, had been holding about 24 senior posts in the RMAF before he was promoted. He received his early training at Maktab Tentera Darat, Sungai Besi, Selangor, in 1974 and is now the directorate-general Technical Airworthiness at Markas Tentera Udara, Wisma Pertahanan, in Kuala Lumpur

S. Mahendra, 51, from the army, was made a colonel on Oct 15. Mahendra, who has been serving the army since 1979, received his early training at Unit Latihan Pendahuluan Pegawai Kadet, Port Dickson. He is now serving at Markas Tentera Darat, Wisma Pertahanan, in Kuala Lumpur.
On Nov 1, Mundaw Dayak, 52, was made a general in the armed forces, a first for the Dayak community.

Mundaw, from Sri Aman, Sarawak, received the promotion from army chief General Datuk Zulkifeli Mohd Zain at the Sixth Royal Malay Regiment camp in Sibu, Sarawak. Source: NST

The hard copy of the Catholic Herald

2010-11-02T10:33:00.003+08:00

Click on image to enlarge

The Erdogan government crafted the Mavi Marmara affair as a piece of theater by Spengler

2010-06-11T19:21:00.001+08:00

But it is a bit more complex than that. Modern Turkey is an artificial construct, rather than a nation-state in the Western sense. Since the Turks completed the conquest of Byzantine Anatolia in the middle of the 14th century, a relatively thin crust of ethnic Turks has ruled over subject peoples. The Ottoman Empire at various points in its history had a Christian majority; its civil service at different points was more Venetian, Armenian and Jewish then Turkish; its self-understanding was global and religious, that is, as the caliphate of Islam, rather than as a national entity.

When World War I reduced Turkey to an Anatolian rump, Kemal Ataturk attempted to impose "Turkishness" as a secular, national ideology on the European model. To make the country "Turkish", several million Orthodox Christians were estimated to have been killed. The hollowness of Ataturk's secular construct, modeled on the nastier European national movements, made it vulnerable from the beginning. The army was the only institution that could hold Turkish society together.

What will replace Ataturk's secularism? I wrote two years ago:

If political Islam prevails in Turkey, what will emerge is not the same country in different coloration, but a changeling, an entirely different nation. In a 1997 speech that earned him a prison term, Erdogan warned of two fundamentally different camps, the secularists who followed Kemal, and Muslims who followed sharia. These are not simply different camps, however, but different configurations of Turkish society at the molecular level. Like a hologram, Turkey offers two radically different images when viewed from different angles. Turkish Islam, the ordering of the Anatolian villages and the Istanbul slums, represents a nation radically different than the secularism of the army, the civil service, the universities and the Western-leaning elite of Istanbul. If the Islamic side of Turkey rises, the result will be unrecognizable. Turkey in the throes of Islamic revolution? Asia Times Online, July 22, 2008.

Gulen's pan-Turkic mysticism views Turkey as the center of a new caliphate uniting the Muslim world. He preaches a "Turkish renaissance" with a modern spin "to ensure that religion and science go together and that science penetrates not only individual lives, but also social life". His schools educate the elite of the Turkic world across Asia. Gulen's interest, to be sure, focuses on the Turkish state, whose bureaucracy is now filled with his acolytes. But unlike Ataturk's secular nationalism, which tried to redefine Turkey on a European model, Gulen's Islamism is inherently expansionist.

What Gulen means by science is of an entirely different order than the Western understanding. This "imam from rural Anatolia", as his website describes him, inhabits the magical world of jinns and sorcery. Science is just a powerful form of magic of which Turks should avail themselves to enhance their power, as he writes in his 2005 book, The Essentials of the Islamic Faith:

Jinn are conscious beings charged with divine obligations. Recent discoveries in biology make it clear that God created beings particular to each realm. They were created before Adam and Eve, and were responsible for cultivating and improving the world. Although God superseded them with us, he did not exempt them from religious obligations.

As nothing is difficult for God almighty, he has provided human beings, angels and jinns with the strength appropriate for their functions and duties. As he uses angels to supervise the movements of celestial bodies, he allows to humans to rule the Earth, dominate matter, build civilizations and produce technology.

Power and strength are not limited to the physical world, nor are they proportional to bodily size ... Our eyes can travel long distances in an instant. Our imagination can transcend time and space all at once ... winds can uproot trees and demolish large buildings. A young, thin plant shoot can split rocks and reach the sunlight. The power of energy, whose existence is known through its effect, is apparent to everybody. All of this shows that something's power is not proportional to its physical size; rather the immaterial world dominates the physical world, and immaterial entities are far more powerful than material ones.

He goes on to warn about sorcery and the danger of spells; he allows that it is meritorious to break spells (for evil witches are everywhere casting spells), although a good Muslim should not make a profession of this, for then he might be mistaken for a sorcerer himself. The notion that "wind" and "energy" are "immaterial" forces exudes the magical world view of an Anatolian peasant; the miracles of technology are the secret actions of jinn, just as the planetary movements are the actions of angels. When Gulen talks about the union of religion and science, what he means quite concretely is that the magical view of jinns in the Koran aids the believer in enlisting these "immaterial" forces to enhance the power of Islam. Science for Gulen means the management of jinn.

Gulen, in short, is a shaman, a relic of pre-history preserved in the cultural amber of eastern Anatolia. Kemalism was sterile, brutal, secular and rational; the "moderate Islam" of Gulen is magical, a mystic's vision of Ottoman restoration and a pan-Turkic caliphate.

The Erdogan government crafted the Mavi Marmara affair as a piece of theater, preparing the deus ex machina (god from the machine) entrance of Gulen himself, more Pagliaccio than Apollo, to be sure. The trouble is that the Turkish Islamists live in a world of magical realism in which theater and reality, human and jinn, desire and achievement blend into a mystical blur. Gulen explains in his The Essentials of the Islamic Faith that Allah created the jinn out of fire. And that is what the apologists for Turkish Islamism are playing with. Asia Times

Martin Jalleh sodomises Matthias Chang

2010-04-06T19:19:00.003+08:00

MC: Point to note: in accordance with Malaysian law, I had not committed any crime at that stage to warrant any arrest, more so one instigated by a lawyer…

MJ: “Malaysian law”? What’s that? This country only knows of Umno’s law and rule by law or the PM's laws and his orders!

MC: (Letter continues) I immediately called my friend and fellow colleague, Mr. Zainur Zakaria…

MJ: Zainur would understand. He was found guilty of the contempt of court by the late Augustine Paul (AP) in a case related to the corruption trial of Anwar. The Federal Court described AP as one who "was behaving as though he was acting as counsel for the two prosecutors in the motion" and "should have been the last person to deal with the contempt issue".

MJ: In fact your former boss echoed the above, when he came to your defense in his blog: “One of the principles in law which is believed to ensure that justice is done is that disputes must be settled by a third party. No one (except Dr M?) should be the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner.”

MJ: Dr M ventured further: “In several recent cases an accused person has demanded that the judge recuse himself for being biased. Indeed we hear of an accused person demanding that the prosecutors be changed because of allegedly being bias. And in fact the persons concerned, who were only doing the work they had officially been tasked with, were not allowed to carry out their usual work.” If Dr M was referring to Anwar in the latest sodomy case, he got his facts wrong. The prosecutors were allowed to continue their “usual work” of ensuring that there would be penetrating evidence that Anwar goes to jail, and the judge refused to recuse himself from the judicial circus!

MC: (Letter continues).

MC: THIS SUMS UP WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED. The judicial system is rotten

MJ: You mean to say it took you so long to make such a conclusion!

MC: …but I had in the past tried to reform by working within the system

MJ: You can’t undo what your former Master did to the judiciary! Anwar and Zaid Ibrahim tried and failed! Strange we can’t recall any significant attempts of judicial reform on your part.

MC: and held back my open criticisms.

MJ: It appears you are suffering from the same self-inflicted selective amnesia of your former Master.

MC: I never expected to be a victim of the system.

MJ: The "system" which you worked for? Alas, our injustice can boomerang on us one day! If this can happen to me, what more the poor and or unrepresented litigant.

MJ: You do not have to worry about them. They are quite familiar with the "system". You only have to make sure you do not futher contribute to the system!

MC: It seems that there have been many cases of abuse by this Judge but the Chief Justice did not take any action.

MJ: Pity though that the judge cannot defend herself. But I must say that she is a rather brave judge to take you on and send you to jail! Perhaps you have finally met your match!

MC: MY FAMILY IS 100% BEHIND ME ON THIS MATTER.

MJ: Thank God for your family support, for many feel you deserve to be in the pit which your former Master had dug a long time ago, with your faithful assistance of course. Foreign support for you has also increased though some Malaysians feel foreigners should not interfere with a local issue! Sounds familiar?

MC: (Letter continues)

MC: The public would be confused and may even think that I was indeed wrong in opposing the abuse. They may also be cowed in the future in any opposition to similar abuse.

MJ: The public has got used to fighting against a rotten judiciary for so long. We are in fact very concerned about you who have been very confused and cowed!

MC: I am therefore preparing myself to go to jail and hopefully, my incarceration would arouse the conscience of the people to stand up and fight against an injustice. An action that has been DELAYED FOR TOO LONG.

MJ: We do not need such “arousal” Matthias. The fight for a free and fearless judiciary began the day after your former boss sacked the judiciary and sullied its reputation irreparably. Further, your incarceration and fast would definitely not be able to exorcise the judiciary of the "devil incarnate" (a name given by former judge Ian Chin to Dr M) whose harm and havoc still haunts the judiciary!

MJ: There are also those who feel that your fast is just a farce to make you famous. Not to worry, there were those who said the same of the jailed Anwar when he sought treatment for his neck and back problems. Surely you were not one amongst them?

MC: I appeal to all of you for your understanding and support and I seek your assistance that my plight be given the widest publicity as possible.

MJ: You can be assured of the support of many Malaysians who have always taken a stand and spoken out for justice. The only way the reputation of the judiciary can be restored and the rot got rid of, is to rally the nation towards a radical change – a change in government! I appeal to you for your understanding and support towards such a goal!

(6 April 2010)

The Silence of the Lambs

2010-03-26T20:37:00.001+08:00

The response to all this on the part of Christian leaders has been muted. In fact, many Christians seem more worried about the dangers of Islamophobia than about the persecution of fellow Christians. For instance, Protestant and Catholic clergy throughout Europe have strongly condemned the recent Swiss vote to ban construction of new minarets. Likewise, in France the clergy seem more focused on a possible ban of the burqa than on the precarious situation of Christians in Muslim countries. In Holland a majority of Dutch clergy have condemned Geert Wilders as un-Christian for speaking out against Islamic violence. And at a “Christian-Muslim Summit” held at the Washington National Cathedral in early March, the harshest words in the final statement were reserved for the media, which was challenged to live up to its responsibility of “stemming the tide of Islamophobia.”

A few weeks earlier, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue issued his own warning against Islamophobia. “We must not fear Islam,” he said at a theology congress in Granada, and added, “dialogue alone allows us to overcome fear, because it allows one to experience the discovery of the other…” So, it seems the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Once you get to know the other fellow and his religion—“experience the discovery of the other” and all that—your fears will melt away. In a January interview with L’ Osservatore Romano, Cardinal Tauran decried the “feeling of fear” associated with the Swiss minaret vote. “I wonder,” he said, “if these persons [who are afraid] know Muslims, if they have ever opened the Qur’an.”

Just be careful not to open it with dirty hands if you happen to be living in Pakistan. The point is, a lot of Christians living in the Muslim world are discovering the otherness of the other—often at the business end of a machete. What many professional dialoguers fail to appreciate is the almost total otherness of the Islamic belief system. It’s one thing to encounter the “other” in the carpeted rooms of the inter-faith meetings in Washington and Rome; it’s another thing to encounter him in a society where he has complete power to enforce his will and his religion on you.

Christian self-indictment isn’t the worst of it. While some Christians agonize over Islamophobia, others seem to be OK with Judeophobia. Thus, a number of mainline churches are devoting their energies not to seeking justice for fellow Christians, but to echoing Muslim complaints against Israel. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America recently disseminated to its members a statement by 16 Palestinian Christians declaring that “the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is a sin against God and humanity…” And a report issued by Arab Catholic bishops in January blames the sufferings of Christians in the Arab world not on their Muslim persecutors but on the Israeli presence in the West Bank. So the next time a Christian Copt in Egypt steps out of his church into a hail of gunfire, blame the Jews.

Were Christians silent during the Nazi era? Some were, some even collaborated. On the other hand, some resisted, some risked their lives to save Jews. But the pertinent question for us is how would we react if faced with a similar evil. Right now we have a situation that is eerily reminiscent of the rise of Nazism: in this case the rise of a fanatical ideology that seeks world domination while calling, as the Nazis did, for the extermination of the Jews. Islamists even read the same books. Hitler’s Mein Kampf, is a bestseller in the Middle-East as well as in the Muslim sections of European cities. The anti-Semitic tract The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, also sells briskly. Hitler is a hero in some Muslim countries. Rabid anti-Semitism is an established fact of life on European and American campuses, and Jews are once again fleeing Europe. This is not a matter of history repeating itself in some subtle way that future historians will be able to sort out 50 years hence. This is history grabbing you by the collar, pulling you up close, and snarling, “Remember me?”

After World War II many Germans claimed that they didn’t know the extent of Nazi atrocities. And since the Nazis did keep some of their activities hidden, there may well have been many Germans who knew nothing about the killing camps. Nowadays, it’s a little more difficult to claim ignorance, what with the streaming headlines at the bottom of your TV screen itemizing the daily toll taken by Islamic suicide bombers. After 15,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, the picture seems fairly clear. Why don’t Christians get it? The answer is that a considerable number of Christians seem to have confused their Christian faith with the more popular religion of tolerance—a religion which is mainly concerned with displays of multicultural respect.

So, in regard to Islam, many Christians are more eager to demonstrate their tolerance than to understand the facts. As Faith McDonnell of the Institute of Religion and Democracy puts it:

Many churches are obsessed with making themselves likeable to Islamists…such churches opt for sessions of feel-good dialogue with the local mosque, gushing about how much Christianity and Islam have in common, and never challenging Muslims to serious debate on those so-called commonalities…

Today’s culturally sensitive Christians haven’t grasped the point that if there really were a lot of common ground between Islam and Christianity it would not be wise to advertise it. It’s a bit like bragging that you have a lot in common with the neighborhood bully who beats his wife. In short, searching for common ground with a tyrannical religious ideology is a formula for discrediting your own faith.

The religion of tolerance affords many opportunities for self-congratulation, but not for clear thinking. All moral/religious codes are not created equal. And to speak and act as though they are is to engage in a form of lying. Christians who keep quiet about the crimes of Islam or make excuses for them should stop congratulating themselves on their open mindedness, and should ask, instead, how they differ from all those Europeans who looked the other way when crimes were being committed in the Nazi era.

The record of Pope Pius XII is still being debated, but most of the evidence shows that he spoke out strongly against the Nazis and in defense of Jews. His efforts were not limited to formal protests, but also included initiatives to protect and shelter Jews throughout Europe. Historian David Dalin notes that in Rome alone, in response to the Pope’s request, “155 convents and monasteries sheltered some five thousand Jews… No fewer than three thousand Jews found refuge at Castel Gandolfo, the Pope’s summer residence…Pope Pius himself granted sanctuary within the walls of the Vatican in Rome to hundreds of homeless Jews.”

When the pope and other Catholic bishops did not speak out, it was often at the request of Jewish leaders who feared Nazi retaliation—a justified fear, seeing that the very strong protests by the Dutch bishops in July 1942 against the deportation of the Jews provoked the most savage of Nazi reprisals against the Jews.

But that is not the reason that so many Christians today remain silent about Islamic crimes. While it’s undoubtedly true that some church officials temper their words for fear of retaliation against their Christian brethren in the Muslim world, the majority of Western Christians are barely aware that they have brethren in places like Egypt, Pakistan, and Malaysia. Their silence is the silence of those who are blind to the danger—blinded by their faith in multicultural myths about moral equivalence, and blinded in part by the glow of their own self-regard. Tolerance is fine up to a point, and it does wonders for one’s self-esteem. But as Thomas Mann said, “Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.” We’ve reached the point where Christians need to subordinate their search for self-esteem to a search for facts.

By William Kilpatrick
www.frontpagemag.com

William Kilpatrick’s articles on Islam have appeared in Catholic World Report, The National Catholic Register, Jihad Watch, World, and Investor’s Business Daily. AINA

Open Letter to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Vice-Prime Minister Bülent Arınç

2010-03-18T18:17:00.001+08:00

When the protocols were signed in Switzerland, we believed that it marked the end of ninety-five years of the policies of lies and that it was the death knell for the Gündüz Aktan [a former member of the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission , Şükrü Elekdağ and Yusuf Halaçoğlu [the head of the Turkish Historical Society] era. Not only was the border going to be opened, but commissions devoted to making recommendations on how to resolve the issues stemming from history were going to be established. It seems likely that while the Swiss were mediating the agreement, they tried to convince both you and the Armenians by pointing to the “Bergier Commission” which had been established in 1996, as an example of a “Commission of Independent Experts.” This commission had been formed to research the role that Switzerland had played in the Jewish Holocaust. After five years of work, it presented a final report in 2001, but during those five years, twenty-five research papers were published covering almost 11,000 pages of information.

There is, however, a fact that is even more important. One year before the commission was formed, in 1995, the Swiss government apologized to all Jews in the world for its policies during the Second World War. In actuality, the commission was formed as a result of that apology. There is no possible way that you could not have known that one of the conditions for the establishment of the commission was an apology to the Jews. Even if the Swiss hadn’t mentioned it to you, it was a well known fact and we believed that you signed the protocols with full knowledge of this, and this heralded the beginning of change in ninety-five years of the policy of denial…. “an apology to the Armenians is on its way,” or so we thought. Apparently, this wasn’t the case; instead you had some “oriental inscrutability” in the works. You were going to continue the ninety-five year old policy of denial while fabricating a resolution to the problems that have plagued our relationship with Armenia. This is hard to believe, but it is apparent from everything that you have done thus far.

Mr. Prime Minister and Mr. Arınç, I ask that you put this bit of information somewhere in the corner of your minds: you will never resolve the problem of 1915 by repeating a lie that has been memorized over ninety-five years. If it could have been resolved by rote repetition, there were those before you – who were much louder – who would have already achieved it. A black stain was smeared on the brow of the Turkish nation in 1915. The ones who did this were the Unionist murderers. If you don’t identify that stain and if you don’t put some distance between yourselves and those who placed that stain upon the brow of the Turkish nation, you won’t be able to take a single step forward on this issue. Don’t even bother trying.

Mr. Prime Minister, you’ve called what happened in 1938 in Dersim a massacre. It’s true we don’t know exactly how many were killed, but you are acting like a bully towards those who condemn what happened in 1915, an event that involved at least ten to fifteen times more human beings than those who perished in Dersim. On the subject of war crimes committed by Israel against the residents of Gaza, you have shown your displeasure and lifted your voice in opposition, with justification. But when the subject of 1915 comes up, an event that involved killings on a level that can’t even begin to be compared with the violations of human rights in Gaza, you made absurd remarks like “No one can force me to admit that Moslems commit murders. My forebears were not murderers.” Don’t you think others are going to look at that and say, “Who is he kidding?”

You are the ones who have changed the traditional line that’s been followed on the Kurdish question. You are the ones who have fought to push the military out of political life. Why are you parroting the same ninety-five year old lies that have been told by this military and this bureaucracy? Let me give you an example. You weren’t able to make any progress on the Kurdish and military matter by siding with the ones who called those involved in the Şemdinli event [a bombing of a bookshop in the town of Şemdinli suspected to be a false flag operation] “our boys.” (2) You were only able to make progress after so many painful experiences, once you put distance between those “good boys” and yourselves. The subject of 1915 is no different.

“Our boys” are the ones who continue to deny that Armenians were annihilated in 1915! They’re the ones forming the Talat Pasha Committees and organizing the memorial meetings for Kemal, the murderous Mayor of Boğazlayan. And, let’s not forget, they are the same ones who have planned assassinations against you and have tried to overthrow your administration…Don’t you realize that you will never be able to solve anything regarding 1915 by holding onto the same position of those who want to dig your graves?

Mr. Prime Minister and Mr. Arınç, the answers to the problems that are the legacy of 1915 can’t be found in the denialist policies of Veli Küçük, Doğu Perinçek [leader of the nationalist Workers’ Party], Şükrü Elekdağ and Yusuf Halaçoğlu. Don’t search for the answers there. You won’t get anywhere repeating the chorus they’ve been singing for ninety-five years. They are your adversaries on the issue of 1915, just as they are when it comes to the Kurdish issue and the issue of the military’s place in politics. You cannot construct your response to 1915 by holding rank with those who want to drag the country into chaos, who murdered Hrant Dink, who have planned massacres against Christians, and who have been plotting coups against you.

If you are going to respond to 1915, you need to search for that answer in a place that is different than the answers given by Ergenekon [an alleged Kemalist terrorist organization] or by the ones who plotted the coups. For this, you should follow your Moslem roots in Anatolia that have risen alongside your party and take a closer look at what these roots did during 1915.

Mr. Arınç, these words are for you. With reason, you were angered by the way the women of CHP in Mersin tore up the Muslim veil. (2) Do you realize, however, that with the position that you have taken you have torn the deep fabric of Anatolian Islam, have ripped apart the cultural legacy of Anatolian Moslems who can walk head held high for bravely challenging the murders of 1915? Do you know that when the Unionist gangs were murdering Armenians in 1915, the ones who put up the biggest fight, who challenged them the most were the Moslems of Anatolia? Did you have any idea that it was the Moslem community of Kastamonu that marched upon the Governor’s office demanding “we won’t stand for our neighbors being murdered”? Or that it was the Moslems of Yozgat who opposed Killer Kemal of Boğazlayan yelling “there’s no place in the Koran for the murder of innocents!”? Have you never heard of the important role played in the hanging of Killer Kemal by the written testimony of the Grand Mufti of Boğazlayan, Abdullahzade Mehmed? Did you know that in opposing the murders being committed by Killer Kemal, this Moslem Mufti said “Allah stands above us all. I fear his wrath”?

Mr. Arınç, are you aware of the order given by Kamil Pasha of the Third Army in 1915? He stated, “Who ever tries to hide Armenians in their homes will be executed before his front door and his home will be burned to the ground.” Despite this order, do you know that Haji Halil, a Moslem from Urfa, hid an Armenian family of eight in the attic of his home, in the market of Urfa for one full year despite the threats of death and burning? Go to Eastern Anatolia and ask the members of parliament from your own party. They’ll tell you dozens, hundreds of stories like this.

I don’t need to make the point that when the Unionists were massacring Armenians in Anatolia, pious Moslems opposed what was happening and saying that the murder of innocents has no place in the Koran. Whenever I’m talking with Armenians today, they tell me, “If we are alive today, it is without a doubt because of the aid of some Moslems.” But they’ll also add, “Because of your government’s policy of denial, we can’t talk about it openly.”

Mr. Arınç, you can’t build a future on the backs of murderers. You can build a future on the backs of those righteous Moslems in Anatolia who challenged the murderers. In the same way that you can’t resolve today’s problems by supporting Hrant’s murderers, the “Samats” and the “Veli Küçüks”, you won’t get anywhere supporting the murderers of the Hrants of the past. The answers to 1915 can’t be found in the answers of Doğu Perinçek or Veli Küçük. They are members of the Ergenekon gang that killed Hrant Dink; it’s natural that they defend the murderers of the Hrants of the past. Let the “Veli Küçüks” defend the murderer Samat of today and the murderers Talat, Enver and Kemal of yesterday. Your place is not at the side of Veli Küçük. Your duty is to stand by the side of the “Haji Halils,” to stand up for those Moslems who put themselves and their families at risk opposing the massacres.

I would like you to recognize one more thing. Because of the ninety-five years of denialist policies and the defense of murderers, there is, from an international perspective, a second stain on the brow of Turkishness and Islam, next to the one created by 1915. Because of the policies followed by the Şükrü Elekdağs and the Veli Küçüks, Turks are perceived as a people who enjoy murdering, who defend murders. We need to rescue Turkishness and Islam from the Talats and the Envers of yesterday and the Samats of today and to not allow the Elekdağs and the Küçüks to define it. Turkishness and Islam are identities that are too honorable to be left at the hands of murderers and their defenders. I have an Armenian friend, and he once said to me, “Until yesterday, when I heard Turkish, I felt a hatred for it. I called it the language of my enemy. But since getting to know you, I’ve begun to say it’s the sound of my friend, a Turk.”

We need the honest and honorable cry of Turkishness and Islam. Let Doğu Perinçek, Veli Küçük and the ones who planned your assassination defend the murderers of yesterday and today. You must see, by now, that the ones who defended Talat, Enver and Dr. Nazım in the past are the same people who defend Oğün Samat today.

If we can walk with a shred of self-respect today, head held high, it’s because we can point to Hrant’s killer and call him what he is. You need to see that once we acknowledge the murderers of the Hrants of 1915, we will walk with our heads held high, self-respect intact. Nazim Hikmet has the best words for describing what needs to be done in connection with 1915. I’d like to conclude this letter with him.

Grocer Garabed’s lights are on
He hasn’t forgiven, this Armenian citizen,
The way his father was slaughtered in the Kurdish mountains
But he loves you because you haven’t forgiven either
The stain that’s been drawn on the brows of the Turkish people

Mr. Prime Minister, I know that you like to read poetry. The Turkish person and the Moslems of the Middle East want to hear these verses from you!

(1) This references an incident where a book store in a Kurdish city was bombed. Officers in the Turkish military were suspected of having planned and/or executed the deed. The Chief of the General Staff was quoted as saying the officers were “our good boys”.

(2) This is in reference to an incident during “International Women’s Day” where women members of the CHP (Republican People’s Party) tore up symbolically a Muslim headscarf.

Taner Akçam is associate professor of history and the Kaloosdian/Mugar Chair in Armenian Genocide Studies, at the Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Clark University (Worcester, MA). This article originally appeared in Turkish for the newspaper Taraf on March 13, 2010. Special thanks to Dr. Akçam for providing this English translation.

Source: History News Network

The Forgotten Refugees Part 2 to Part 5

2010-03-17T19:27:00.006+08:00

Part 2

Makes you wonder, if the same is applied to Muslims in Europe? Will it be called racism or Islamphobic? Well,double standards are the standards in all OIC countries, a very clear cut answer. So whatever you do, the left will join these "be tolerant of our intolerance" crowd. Leading to the demise of our freedom or the right to pursue our happiness.

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

The dirty Pakis

2010-02-10T23:57:00.001+08:00

15. After the attack on the Indian Parliament in December, 2001, India mobilized its troops and moved them to the border. Unnerved by the threat of war, Musharraf banned the terrorist organizations operating against India, closed their offices and arrested their leaders. When India withdrew the troops from the border, Musharraf claimed it as a great victory for Pakistan. “We forced India to blink,” he said. He removed all the ban orders and allowed the terrorists to operate again against India.

16. After the raid by the Pakistan Army Commandoes in the Lal Masjid of Islamabad in July, 2007, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) went on the offensive against the Pakistani Armed Forces, the ISI and the Police. Suicide acts of terrorism, commando style attacks and other kinds of attacks were reported not only from the tribal areas, but also from non-tribal areas, including Islamabad, the capital, Rawalpindi, where the General Headquarters of the Army are located, Lahore, Sargodha, Peshawar, Kohat and even Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. The TTP even raided the GHQ and occupied it for some hours----- the only instance in the history of terrorism anywhere in the world where a terrorist group had occupied the headquarters of the Army----even it be for a few hours. The TTP also attacked the offices of the ISI and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in the capital, Rawalpindi, Lahore and Peshawar.

17. Unable to cope with the TTP offensive, they quietly allowed the USA’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to hunt for the TTP leaders through its Drone (unmanned) planes. They allowed US ground forces personnel to operate in different areas under the cover of employees of Blackwater, a US security company, which works in close co-ordination with the CIA.

18. The Pakistani leaders, who are adept in charades, enacted one more and continue to enact it. They pretended to be opposed to the Drone strikes and the operation of Blackwater in Pakistani territory. They called in public for their stoppage, but allowed the US in private to continue with them.

19. The TTP allegedly assassinated Mrs.Benazir Bhutto in Rawalpindi on December 27, 2007. They did not have the courage to investigate it lest the TTP target President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani. They were also worried that a thorough investigation might expose the involvement of some army officers in the assassination. They ordered the Police not to investigate and asked the UN to take over the responsibility for the investigation. More than two years after her assassination, the Pakistani people do not know who killed her. There has been no prosecution.

20. They found themselves unable to counter the Baloch freedom struggle, which continues to pick up momentum. They were embarrassed by the repeated successes of the Baloch freedom-fighters. Instead of addressing the grievances of the Baloch people, they accused India of helping the freedom-fighters. Before the elections of 2008, they had promised the Baloch people that they would investigate and prosecute the officers of the security forces who were responsible for the murder of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, the legendary Baloch leader. They have not carried out their promise after coming to power. The security forces continue to kill more and more Baloch freedom activists. Balochistan today resembles East Pakistan in 1970 before the birth of Bangladesh.

21. They were unable to protect the Shias, who constitute about 20 per cent of the population. Sunni extremists continue to kill Shias in their hundreds all over Pakistan. They imposed an iron curtain in the Kurram Agency of the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), which has been the scene of anti-Shia violence for over two years now. The Shias allege that a genocide of the Shias has been going on in Kurram without the world knowing about it. The Army has no time or inclination to protect the Shias.

22. When the George Bush Administration asked its famous question “are you with us or against us” after 9/11, Musharraf lost his nerve and did whatever the US wanted him to do. He placed the bases of the Pakistan Air Force in Balochistan at the disposal of the US for use against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. He rounded up a number of Pakistani citizens, including two retired nuclear scientists, and handed them over to the US agencies for interrogation in return for cash payment. Musharraf had mentioned in the first edition of his book as to how the CIA was paying for every person handed over by the ISI to the US agencies. When his admission caused embarrassment to the CIA he deleted this admission from the subsequent editions. His troubles with Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhury, which ultimately led to his humiliating exit from power, started when the Chief Justice began looking into the cases of a large number of missing persons, who had been allegedly rounded up by the ISI and “sold” to the CIA for money. A large number of innocent Pakistanis and Arabs were branded by the ISI as Al Qaeda suspects and thus “sold” to the CIA. Musharraf allowed the US intelligence agencies to operate all over Pakistan in search of Al Qaeda leaders.

23. At the same time, he quietly allowed the Afghan Taliban leadership to set up its rear base in the Quetta area of Balochistan and Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri and other operatives of Al Qaeda to operate from the North Waziristan area of FATA. When the Bush Administration got preoccupied with Iraq from 2003 and diverted its attention from Afghanistan, the Pakistan army took advantage of it for relaxing its supposed hunt for Al Qaeda and for retraining the Afghan Taliban and helping it to re-launch its offensive in Afghanistan.

24. Till 9/11, all major terrorist acts in different parts of the world by Al Qaeda and its associates were planned and orchestrated from Afghan territory under the control of the Afghan Taliban. Since 9/11, all such acts are being planned and orchestrated from Pakistani territory in the FATA. Every terrorist act unearthed in the UK has had a Pakistani hand in it. The planned terrorist strike in Copenhagen by the LET’s Chicago cell and the 313 Brigade of Ilyas Kashmiri was being orchestrated from Pakistan before the FBI got scent of it and quashed it. The brutal murder of seven CIA officers and an officer of the Jordanian intelligence in Afghan territory was carried out by the TTP from Pakistani territory. The planned terrorist strikes in Germany by associates of the Islamic Jihad Union were being orchestrated from the FATA. The terrorist attacks in China’s Xinjiang province before the Beijing Olympics of August 2008, including an abortive attempt to blow up a plane, were orchestrated from the FATA. Acts of terrorism in Uzbekistan and in the Chechnya and Dagestan areas of Russia are planned and guided from the FATA. Even Teheran alleges that the acts of terrorism in its territory by the so-called Jundullah are being carried out from Pakistani territory in Balochistan.

25. Before 9/11, only India was the victim of acts of terrorism mounted from Pakistani territory. After 9/11, the whole world has become the target of Pakistan-based terrorists. The world’s attention is on Pakistan because it has become the GHQ of global jihadi terrorism. But the Pakistani political and military leaders live in such an unbelievable world of illusions that they have convinced themselves and they are trying to convince their people that the world’s attention is on Pakistan because of its geopolitical importance and its successful diplomacy.

26. Peshawar is bleeding. Karachi is bleeding. Balochistan is bleeding. The FATA is out of control. There is a new Great Game on in Pakistani territory with the US intelligence agencies on the one side and Al Qaeda and its associates on the other hunting each other, with the Pakistan Army and the ISI helping both sides in their attempts to kill each other and making money in the process.

27. While playing this treacherous game, the Pakistani leaders have the cheek to project themselves to their own people and to the rest of the world as playing an important role in bringing about peace in Afghanistan. They are unable to bring about peace in their own country. They are patting themselves thinking that they are going to help the NATO forces in bringing about peace in Afghanistan.

28. Pakistan’s penchant to live in a self-created world of illusions is known to us. We are not surprised. But we are surprised by the inability of the US and the rest of the world to see through the games which Pakistani political and military leaders have always played. They are letting themselves be sucked into Pakistan’s world of illusions.

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail:seventyone2@gmail.com)
South Asia Analysis

10 reasons why George W. Bush was a smarter world leader than Barack Obama

2010-01-23T13:28:00.000+08:00

2. Bush identified and confronted evil

There was something very refreshing in George W. Bush’s Reaganesque interpretation of the world in terms of good and evil. In contrast, Barack Obama has viewed the globe largely in shades of grey, with a reluctance to describe who exactly America’s enemies are, from North Korea and Iran to Islamist terrorists. I applauded Bush when he delivered his infamous Axis of Evil address because he correctly identified the nature and scale of the threat the West is facing from an array of rogue regimes, who in some cases also act as large-scale sponsors of international terrorism. President Obama’s disastrous decision to engage Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs of Iran has simply bought the regime in Tehran valuable time to advance its nuclear and ballistic weapons programme, as well as its ambitions to dominate the Middle East.

3. Bush made the advance of freedom a key component of his agenda

The spread of freedom and liberty was always a centerpiece of the Bush agenda. His critics derided this approach as unrealistic, or as a grandiose dream. But few would argue today that the people of Iraq were better off living under a monstrous tyrant like Saddam Hussein. In marked contrast, Barack Obama rarely mentions the word freedom, and the issue of human rights is far down his list of priorities. He has remained largely silent in the face of extreme brutality by the Iranian regime, has extended the hand of friendship to genocidal killers in Sudan and has turned a blind eye to repression in places like Burma. There is a name for this kind of strategy – appeasement – and it only serves to weaken America’s standing in the world and strengthen the brutal fist of its enemies.

4. Bush defended national sovereignty

One of the biggest shifts in US foreign policy under the Obama administration has been its willingness to undermine national sovereignty, and its desire to give more power to supranational institutions such as the United Nations. Washington has already rejoined the embarrassing UN Human Rights Council (HRC), and is likely to sign up to the International Criminal Court and a host of UN treaties that threaten US interests. Barack Obama gave one of the most embarrassing and cringe-worthy speeches in American history at the UN General Assembly last September. President Bush, never a big fan of Turtle Bay, wisely kept his country out of the ICC and the HRC, and firmly resisted calls for him to sign the Kyoto Protocol as well.

5. Bush believed in the Special Relationship

I don’t recall George W Bush ever throwing a bust of Churchill out of the Oval Office or giving the British Prime Minister an insulting pack of DVDs. President Bush recognized Great Britain as America’s closest friend and ally, and placed the Special Relationship at the very heart of US foreign policy. Under Obama, the Anglo-American alliance has reached its lowest point since the Suez Crisis of 1956, a damning indictment of his world leadership. Bush possessed a genuine affection for the British people, their great heritage and their role in the world. Barack Obama cannot even bring himself to mention Britain in a major policy address or acknowledge the sacrifice of British forces in Afghanistan.

6. Bush cultivated key allies

Granted, Bush was hardly the most popular leader the US has ever had in Europe. But he did invest a great deal of time and effort in cultivating a strong personal relationship with several key European leaders, including Tony Blair, Jose Maria Aznar and Silvio Berlusconi. President Obama has largely ignored building alliances with European heads of state, and seems indifferent towards the transatlantic alliance. His administration has placed far greater emphasis upon backing the rise of a European superstate, than it has on strengthening ties wit close allies. The Obama administration has also succeeded in damaging the partnership between Israel and the United States, something no president has achieved since Jimmy Carter.

7. Bush understood the importance of missile defence

The Obama White House’s appalling surrender to Moscow’s demands to scrap Third Site missile defence was a shameful act in the face of Russian intimidation. It was an agreement the Bush Administration had painstakingly negotiated with key allies Poland and the Czech Republic, and the ensuing US withdrawal was a massive propaganda victory for Vladimir Putin and a huge betrayal of America’s friends in central and eastern Europe. It also demonstrated hesitation over adequately funding and building an effective global missile defence system, vital to the defence of the West against a mounting Iranian threat.

8. Bush believed in fighting a global war

One of the gravest mistakes of Obama’s first year in office has been his reluctance to describe the conflict against al-Qaeda and its backers as a global war. He dropped the idea of a War on Terror within days of entering office, which was subsequently renamed as an “Overseas Contingency Operation”. President Bush was right to rally his country behind a large-scale long war, one which may last for several decades, against an enemy that seeks the destruction of the West.

9. Bush did not compromise US security

The Obama administration’s zealous drive to dismantle the Bush administration’s infrastructure for dealing with al-Qaeda, including the promised closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, is having zero effect on lessening the threat the United States faces from Islamist terrorists. In fact, the followers of Bin Laden are now further emboldened by the President’s weakness, as demonstrated by the recent failed Detroit bombing attempt. President Bush was right to use all the tools at his disposal to keep America safe in the face of a vicious enemy. Barack Obama’s PR offensive to win over the hearts and minds of America’s enemies is already a spectacular failure.

10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy

A constant theme of Barack Obama’s speeches has been to describe the war in Iraq as a “war of choice”, underscoring his own intense opposition to the war, hardly a message of support for the more than 100,000 U.S. soldiers still stationed in the country. He also spent months dithering over whether to send additional US forces to the war in Afghanistan, and when he finally did make an announcement of an extra 30,000 troops it was tempered by the simultaneous declaration of an exit strategy, and a warning that America could not wage war against the Taliban indefinitely. This was hardly a display of Churchillian grit by the Commander-in-Chief. In contrast, President Bush never failed to give his soldiers the full, unequivocal backing they deserved, and always spoke in terms of achieving victory, instead of artificial timetables that hand the initiative to the enemy. Nile Gardiner in the Telegraph

Battle of Long Tan

2009-11-04T22:06:00.001+08:00

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Mumbai Terror Attacks

2009-11-04T20:39:00.002+08:00

The storage room in which Sandra Samuel and Zakir Hussain were hiding from the gunmen measured 3.5 metres by 3 metres. It was lined with shelves, two windows looked out onto grubby lanes and courtyards, and there was a stainless-steel refrigerator. A banal scene, really, but it was a sanctuary. For around three hours, Sandra, 44, a plainly dressed and dedicated nanny, and Zakir, 22, a diminutive cook with delicate, almost feminine features who called himself Jackie, had been wedged behind the fridge. “I called the police, I called our security guard,” says Jackie. “I thought this was the end for me.” There was little indication of what the men upstairs were doing with the American rabbi, his wife and son, Moshe, who was almost two, and their guests. “Nobody was speaking, there was just the moving of tables, shaking noises, bumps, things being pushed against the wall, things grinding,” says Sandra. It was approaching 1am on Thursday, November 27, 2008.

In an adjacent building, a British woman, Anna, was crouching in the hall of her apartment with her Indian husband. Anna, 41, is a thoughtful, dark-haired teacher; she didn’t want to give her real name because, in light of what happened in her adopted city, she fears becoming a target. All their windows — about 21 panes — had shattered from a blast after the gunshots and explosions had started at Nariman House at 9.45pm the previous night. So they waited on the floor for hours in the darkness, calling and receiving calls from worried relatives and friends, unsure of what was going on next door, even though Nariman House was only a few steps away. Curiously, the thing that struck Anna was the silence. It was as though the city beyond had ceased to exist. No car horns, no chatter from the street, none of the normal hum of a sprawling tropical metropolis. That night there was nothing except for gunshots, and they issued from Nariman House infrequently.

British survivors recall the Mumbai attacks. At around 1am there was one unforgettable sound that Sandra, Jackie and Anna would all hear. It came from Nariman House. Anna was crouching. Jackie and Sandra were hiding. And then, very clearly, a woman screamed. From that moment on, there could be little doubt about what was taking place there. “She screamed as a gunshot rang out,” says Anna. “Then there was a real sobbing. She was crying with that kind of… like she was terrified. That kind of crying.”

The central figures in this story are Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg, emissaries of the Lubavitch movement who arrived in Mumbai in 2003. They offered local and visiting Jews a free place to eat, sleep, and pray. Gabi, as he was known, was an Israeli-born New Yorker, a strapping man with a wispy reddish beard. Educated in yeshivas (traditional Jewish schools), he saw Mumbai as a chance to build something — a beacon of Judaism — and to fulfil God’s will. Rivka, usually called Rivki, was 28, and grew up in the northern Israeli town of Afula. In some senses, her role was traditional, and included cooking and making a welcoming home. To acquaintances, the couple seemed to complement each other. Gabi, 29, was formal where Rivki was relaxed. “She was more loose, she wore trendy glasses. She was more playful. He was serious,” says Hillary Lewin, an American student and sometime house guest.

Illness afflicted the Holtzberg family. Their first child, Menachem Mendel, was diagnosed with Tay-Sachs, a genetic disorder, and died in 2006, aged two. Another son, Dov Ber, also had the disease, and was to die at four years old in December 2008, a month after his parents. Amid all this, the Holtzbergs had their youngest child, Moshe, and to them he was a blessing. He did not have Tay-Sachs, and Rivki called him her malach, her angel. Everyone on their street seemed to know him. Rita Sushil Merchant, a neighbour, recalls that Moshe would stand in his window and happily shout to her the new English words he had learnt. Before the attack, he was up to “banana” and “balloon”. What’s more, Rivki was five months pregnant, another reason to be thankful.

Sandra, a Catholic Mumbaikar who previously worked as a private cook and a masseuse, started with the Holtzbergs in 2003. Jackie, a Muslim from Assam, was hired as a cook in 2006 after meeting Gabi at a sports club where he worked. Since the siege, The Sunday Times has learnt, suspicions have arisen that he may have been implicated.

According to Sandra and Jackie, Wednesday, November 26, 2008 was a day like many others at Nariman House. Rivki was very happy. “That was normal,” says Jackie. “She was always very happy.” Gavriel koshered some chickens for guests and other Jews in India, something he did often. In the evening, he exchanged a few words with Sandra about Moshe. “You know, Sandra, I love this baby so much,” she recalls him saying.

The Holtzbergs had guests for dinner. Among them were the American rabbis Benzion Kruman, 28, and Leibish Teitelbaum, 37. There were also two women: an Israeli grandmother, Yocheved Orpaz, 62, and Norma Shvarzblat Rabinovich, 50, from Mexico. Kruman, Teitelbaum, Orpaz and Rabinovich would not leave Nariman House alive. Another Israeli visitor, David Bialka, 52, a diamond trader from Netanya, was more fortunate. Unbeknown to the occupants of Nariman House, at around 8.30pm on Wednesday, a dinghy landed at a local jetty. It contained 10 men from Pakistan. Splitting into small groups, they fanned out across the city, some leaving bombs in taxis on the way. Each man carried an AK-47, a pistol, 8 to 12 grenades, and was in constant phone contact with handlers in Pakistan. Two of them, identified as Babar Imran of Multan and Nasir of Faisalabad — little else is known about them — walked a few streets to the only Jewish target. Their handlers would emphasise to them the importance of killing Jews.

The first sign that anything unusual was taking place at Nariman House varies, depending on who you ask. On the first floor, Jackie and Sandra were putting leftovers in the fridge. Perhaps Gabi and the other rabbis were studying; the visiting women from Mexico and Israel may have been using the internet. Suddenly, in the dining-room doorway that leads to the staircase, a man with a gun appeared. “He was thin, light-skinned, tall. Almost like a common Indian,” says Jackie. “A long face, short hair. I only had a very short glance, so I couldn’t see the expression on his face.” In Sandra’s head, the events are much more confused. “I don’t know how it happened. It was all of a sudden, like a shot…” As the man raised his gun to fire, Sandra and Jackie ducked. The bullet missed them and thudded into a pillar. Somehow there was a delay, the man did not shoot again, and Jackie had time to close the door. He and Sandra ran to the row of windows that faced the street and looked out. A crowd was gathering. Motioning down to a TV repairman whose shop faced Nariman House, they asked where their building’s security guard was. The guard had left for dinner, said the repairman. Sandra and Jackie told him to call the police, and might have said more except that the agitated mass of people began throwing rocks at them. There had been gunshots from Nariman House onto the street, and they were angry. The servants retreated to the storeroom, and as they did, a terrorist lobbed a grenade at one of the doors on their floor. “He didn’t come and check on us,” says Jackie. “He must have thought we were dead.”

In a bathroom on the fourth floor, Bialka, the Israeli diamond trader, was taking a shower. He had been in Mumbai on business, and was due to fly home a few hours later. The atmosphere at Nariman House that evening, he says, was congenial. He had studied the Torah after dinner, and then went upstairs to freshen up before his journey. Bialka is too traumatised by what happened next to speak about it — he currently sees a therapist twice a week, and has been unable to return to work — but his wife retells his story. As he stepped out of the shower, there were bangs and the sound of glass breaking. “He thought that it was fireworks,” his wife relates. “When he heard gunshots, he realised something was very wrong.” He threw on trousers and a shirt and opened the bathroom window. “Luckily, it didn’t have any bars on it,” his wife says. The street was 10 metres below. Clutching drainpipes and balancing on air-conditioning units, Bialka half-climbed, half-slid four storeys to the ground. As he ran from Nariman House, locals seized him. Assuming he was a terrorist, “they lynched him and broke several of his bones”.

Word began to spread throughout the city about what was taking place. Gabi made what was perhaps his last telephone call, to a security officer at the Israeli consulate. “He said, ‘Something has happened in Chabad house,’” says Orna Sagiv, the consul general. “‘There’s a terror attack. Come and help us.’” The call was interrupted, however, and they were not able to re-establish contact. Two officials headed for the building. As the terrorists continued to shoot from Nariman House, the crowd retreated. A few were unlucky: Harish Gohil, a 25-year-old call-centre employee, and Salim and Maria Hararwala, 62 and 55, were shot.

Few developments gave cause for optimism. At 10.45pm, an hour after the terrorists entered the Jewish centre, a bomb they had left at a local petrol station exploded. The scream heard by Anna, the Englishwoman, came at around 1am. “At that point, my blood ran cold,” Anna says. In Nariman House itself, it appears that some of the hostages were killed immediately after the terrorists’ arrival, although this would not be known until the end of the siege. Rivki and Gabi seemed to have survived for a few hours after the terrorists arrived, according to Sandra. She says it was Rivki who screamed. Soon after, she heard Rivki shout “Gabi, Gabi, stop, stop”. “What she wanted him to stop, I don’t know,” Sandra says; she suggested that Gabi had been fighting the terrorists. In the morning, there was a burst of hope. A Lubavitch leader in America, Rabbi Abraham Shemtov, had been repeatedly calling Gabi’s phone. At 10.30am, someone — an Urdu speaker — answered. Lubavitch tracked down an interpreter called PV Viswanath, a New York economics professor from Mumbai. Viswanath rang back.

“Several times we asked how the rabbi was,” Viswanath recalls. “He said, ‘They’re fine.’ And then he said, ‘We haven’t even hit him.’” Over the course of four or five calls with the professor, the terrorist asked to speak to an Indian government official. Strangely, he spoke with little emotion. There were no vitriolic comments against Israel or the West. Eventually Shemtov found someone, but could not patch him into the call. They were unable to contact the terrorist again.

While the terrorists focused on the phone conversations with Lubavitch, there was a lull in the gunfire. In the storeroom, Sandra and Jackie suddenly heard Moshe crying upstairs. Sandra’s reaction was instinctive. “I heard him cry, I ran towards him, that’s it,” she says. “I wasn’t frightened. If I was frightened I would have run away.” It is not known who brought Moshe down from his fifth-floor room, or why Babar Imran and Nasir did not shoot him. A sense of humanity may have prevailed. Sandra found him wandering amid the bodies of his parents and the two visiting rabbis. “They were unconscious, not dead,” she insists. “There was no blood on the scene, not one scratch on the bodies. It was like they were sleeping. Rabbi Gabi had a little bit of blood on his leg.” It is possible Sandra did not fully take in the scene, because there was certainly blood on Moshe’s clothing. Grabbing the baby, she and Jackie fled.

At dawn, a helicopter dropped Indian commandos onto the roof. For hours, rockets and bullets slammed into Nariman House as commandos closed in on the terrorists from the roof and the ground floor. Onlookers were stunned at the intensity of the battle. It continued until Friday evening, when the terrorists were killed by commandos. Their bodies were riddled with bullets; Nasir’s arm was charred. A team of volunteers at Zaka, an emergency-response group, had arrived from Israel on Friday with Rivki’s parents, and now they and others moved into the building to recover the bodies. As the Jewish Sabbath started, the siege of Nariman House was over. The rumours began shortly afterwards. Some in Mumbai heard that the hostages had been tortured, their bodies mutilated. There was speculation that the terrorists had taken mind-altering drugs before committing appalling acts, perhaps even sexually abusing the women. Few know what actually happened. The situation was complicated by the fact that no autopsies were performed on the bodies, in accordance with Jewish law.

Three days after I arrived in Mumbai, I tracked down a man who was one of the first people into Nariman House after the siege ended. It was the first time he has spoken to a journalist, and he asked me not to reveal his identity as he feared upsetting the families of the deceased. He allowed me to say that he has medical training. One windy evening, he seemed to want to talk, as if he were carrying a great burden. So we drove to a promenade ringed by skyscrapers and sat in the darkness as he told his story.

He had waited outside Nariman House as the commandos battled their way in on Friday, he said. He was optimistic; when Sandra escaped on Thursday morning, she had stated that the hostages looked unconscious rather than dead. But what he found appeared different. “They were tortured very badly,” he told me, speaking sombrely and matter-of-factly. He was greatly affected by what he saw, and says of the attack’s organisers: “I want to kill them.” All the hostages had been shot, he said. Some had multiple bullet wounds. But there was more. Two of the rabbis had broken bones. The skull of one of the victims had caved in, as sometimes happens when somebody is shot in the head at close range with a rifle, except the man had not been shot in the head. The two female visitors, Orpaz and Rabinovich, were found bound with telephone cord and lying next to each other on a fourth-floor bed. One of the hostages had bruising all over her body, which the man, who is not a pathologist, said was consistent with being hit by a blunt object. There was a large cut on her thigh. And one of her eyes was out of its orbit and lying on her cheek.

It sounded so extreme, so hard to believe, that the man said in a quiet voice: “I can show you photographs.” So we drove through deserted night-time streets to his home, where he opened a folder on his laptop entitled “Nariman House”. Inside were pictures, presumably taken by the Mumbai police, of the terrorists and four of the hostages: Gabi, Teitelbaum, and the two visiting women. He did not have photos of Rivki or Kruman. The pictures are overwhelming, an almost unbearable tableau of blood and contorted bodies. Nariman House is in disarray, the furniture overturned, bullet holes everywhere. It was not hard to believe that the hostages met a horrific, drawn-out end. Based on the images and eyewitness reports, it becomes clear that most did not die in the first hail of bullets as the terrorists entered the building, as has been reported. They may have fought back. Survivors would hear Rivki through the first night, and Gabi appears to have died some time after being shot in the leg, as there is a tourniquet around his thigh. The most brutal injuries suggest torture, but the organisations that might have conclusive answers, such as Zaka, the Israeli emergency-response group, decline to comment.

I showed the images to Vincent Di Maio, a noted US pathologist. He saw in them something hinting at another controversial rumour: that hostages had been alive when commandos stormed Nariman House, but were killed by crossfire. This was the conclusion of volunteers from Zaka. One volunteer leaked the finding to the Israeli press, sparking an angry reaction from the Israeli government, which said the claims were unfounded and could harm Israeli-Indian relations.

According to Di Maio, one of the female hostages was almost certainly fired on after she died. Bullet wounds to the arm and shoulder of one of the visiting women were inflicted postmortem: “Note no bleeding and visible yellow fat,” he says. It is unclear who shot her. Perhaps it was the terrorists. Perhaps it was crossfire when the commandos stormed the house. If it was crossfire, then the accidental shooting of live hostages does not seem too distant a possibility.

One more question remains: how did the terrorists and their handlers apparently know the layout of Nariman House, and the schedule of its inhabitants, so well? Suspicion has fallen on Jackie, the Muslim cook. Since the siege, he says he has had about 100 interviews with police and officials, including Israelis. Solomon Sopher, a leader of the Mumbai Jewish community, says he thinks Jackie is suspected not of direct collusion with terrorists, but perhaps of unwittingly revealing information to scouts who struck up a friendship with him. Jackie denies this, and it is probable that if there were evidence against him, he would have been charged.

I met him by a rain-swept train station in the north of Mumbai. He now lives with Sandra’s son, and works at a falafel firm. When he speaks warmly of the Holtzbergs, he seems genuine. He has pictures of Moshe and Dov Ber, the child who died of Tay-Sachs, on his phone. He carries around a photo of Gabi. “This is my rabbi,” he says.

Moshe, almost three now, seems to have adjusted. He lives in Israel with Rivki’s parents and Sandra. When I call, I hear Sandra and Moshe laughing in the background. Has what has happened scarred him? Moshe, Sandra says, is “like a normal kid”. Meanwhile, Damyanti Gohil, the mother of the call-centre worker who was shot from Nariman House, says that before the siege she would sit out, watch the building’s sparkling lights, and listen to the melodies of prayers and songs. The Holtzbergs had parties and it all seemed lovely. Now it aches so much for her to see the house through her kitchen window that she has blocked it with bricks and cement. Pinned to the cement is a photo of her son, Harish, and his wristwatch. Sitting outside her flat one evening, Gohil pulls her sari over her eyes as she starts to cry. “Something should be done with that building,” she says. “It should be pulled down.” The windows of Nariman House are dark, and the exterior panels gleam a ghostly white in the moonlight.

Surprisingly, considering the grim history, dozens of Lubavitch couples have applied to replace the Holtzbergs in Mumbai. “The light has to shine again from Chabad house,” Berkowitz says. So far, nearly $1m has been pledged for a new centre. Recently Berkowitz led five visitors, all western Jews who knew the Holtzbergs, up the crumbling staircase at Nariman House. Amid the devastation, traces of the Holtzbergs linger, as if they were there only yesterday. Two bottles of medication remain in one of the fridges. On the top floor, in Moshe’s room, a painted Hebrew alphabet scrolls along a wall, and by the door are pencil marks where Rivki recorded Moshe’s height. In the Holtzberg’s bedroom stands a rack containing Gabi’s and Rivki’s shoes; their smart leather ones for synagogue, his trainers, her easy shoes for around town. They have been left here in accordance with Jewish tradition, Berkowitz explains.

It is Tisha B’Av, a Jewish day of mourning for the destruction of two Jerusalem temples about 2,000 years ago. On the roof, Berkowitz sits and begins to recite a traditional prayer. “They attacked us and besieged us, our enemies,” he half-sings, the city spread out beneath him. “They made impure what was pure. There is no comfort.” The visitors look at the ground or into the distance. “Hashem,” he says, using one of the Jewish names for God, “return us. We will repent and you will return us. May you reinstate the glorious days of old.” Times Online

Hitler - Mein Kampf Part 2 to Part 4

2009-09-26T22:12:00.002+08:00

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Auschwitz: The Final Solution Parts 2 to 5

2009-09-23T23:39:00.000+08:00

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Hitler's Special Forces

2009-09-23T18:17:00.001+08:00

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Islam gets concessions; infidels get conquered

2009-09-18T20:09:00.000+08:00

If some Muslims wish to wage eternal jihad until Islam dominates the globe, they are only being true to Islam and its doctrines as they understand it. However, in that case, where the world is divided into two warring camps, Islam and Infidelity — or, in Islamic terms, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War — how can these Muslims expect any concessions from the international community? The natural conclusion of the view that "might makes right" is "to the victor go the spoils."

The fact that Turkey conquered Constantinople more than 500 years ago does not prevent the Turkish government from returning Hagia Sophia to Christendom today, which would undoubtedly be a great gesture. But of course that can never be. The Muslim world would undergo a "paroxysm of fury" if a Christian pope dares pray in the conquered church; what would the Muslim world do if Hagia Sophia were actually converted back to a church?

But perhaps Muslims cannot be blamed for expecting special treatment, as well as believing that jihad is righteous and decreed by the Almighty. The West constantly goes out of its way to confirm such convictions. By criticizing itself, apologizing and offering concessions — all things the Islamic world has yet to do — the West reaffirms that Islam has a privileged status in the world.

And what did the pope do in his controversial visit to Hagia Sophia? He refrained from any gesture that could be misconstrued as Christian worship and merely took in the sights of the museum. Moreover, when he was invited into the Blue Mosque nearby, he respectfully took off his shoes and prayed, eyes downcast, standing next to the the grand mufti of Istanbul like a true dhimmi — a subdued non-Muslim living under Islamic law and acknowledging Islamic superiority.

And therein is the final lesson. Muslims' zeal for their holy places and lands is not intrinsically blameworthy. Indeed, there's something to be said about being passionate and protective of one's own. Here the secular West — Christendom's prodigal son and true usurper — can learn something from Islam. For whenever and wherever the West concedes ideologically, politically and especially spiritually, Islam will be sure to conquer. If might does not make right, zeal apparently does. Los Angeles Times

What do Muslims want? By Raymond Ibrahim

2009-09-16T23:25:00.001+08:00

However, if living in strict accordance to sharia is the first priority of some Muslims, one wonders: Why have they voluntarily come and immersed themselves in infidel countries that do not recognize sharia law and, indeed, allow many things that run counter to it, such as the selling and consumption of alcohol and pork and the liberal intermingling of the sexes? Most of the Muslim countries that Muslims abandon for the West are much more conducive to the Muslim lifestyle and uphold many if not all aspects of sharia law. Yet, each year, thousands of supposedly “ultra-devout” Muslims forsake these countries and, of their own free will, come and surround themselves with wine-imbibing, swine-eating libertines. Why?

It is for the same reason that everyone else comes to the West — for the “good life.” They come in order to be prosperous and to enjoy opportunities, security, and equality the likes of which they could never have in their own countries (ruled quite often — no surprise — according to sharia). The vast majority of Muslims emigrating from the Islamic world do not leave due to necessity — say, oppression or starvation. No, they come to the infidel West solely to prosper materially.

But why are Muslims of the “ultra-pious” variety seeking after material comfort in the first place — especially when doing so will almost certainly undermine their professed desire to live strictly according to the sharia? Coming to live in a democratic country composed of some 300 million infidels is bound to affect any Muslim’s observance of sharia. These pious Muslims risk coming into daily contact with, not only pork, alcohol, and dogs, but all sorts of other defilements: flamboyant homosexuals, scantily clad women (who are often in positions of authority!), gamblers and usurers, to name a few. Are they not concerned that they, or especially their children, might become contaminated by the licentious and seductive practices of the infidel West? If their priority is truly to strictly follow sharia, should they not remain in their Muslim countries of origin, which, if not as prosperous as the West, are definitely more conducive to the Muslim lifestyle?

Or, could it be that, despite all the ruckus (and subsequent headlines) made by these Muslims, living in accordance to Allah and his sharia is not their first priority, after all? At least, not to the degree that they would be unwilling to put this priority at substantial risk for the sake of living the good life, in a strictly secular and materialistic sense.

Furthermore, if common sense does not dissuade them from relocating to the West, the very sharia they claim to want to closely observe should. For instance, if pork and alcohol are condemned (e.g., Koran 5:4; 2:219), voluntarily living among infidels, idolaters, and atheists is looked on no better. The Koran declares: “O you who believe! Take neither Jews nor Christians as friends…whoever among you turns to them is one of them” (5:51).

There are countless verses and traditions, in fact, that make it clear that Muslims are to be in a constant state of animosity toward non-Muslims, waging war through tongue and teeth in order to spread Islam, and, when finally in a position of superiority, discriminating against those who refuse to convert (see, for example, 3:28, 5:73, 5:17, 9:5, 9:25, etc). When the Meccans persisted in their unbelief, refusing to accept the prophet-hood — and subsequent authority — of Mohammad, he finally abandoned his kinsfolk with these parting words, which some Muslims believe still define the proper relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims: “We [Muslims] disown you [non-Muslims] and what you worship besides Allah. We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — until you believe in Allah alone!” (60:40).

So why are some Muslims making public scenes here in the United States over scanning bacon or transporting customers with sealed bottles of wine in their luggage while at the same time freely choosing to live with — and of course benefit from — those whom they are commanded to hate and wage war upon, or at the very least, disavow and be clean of?

“Straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel” has long been a sure sign of hypocrisy. All Muslims who freely migrate to the West must understand that they can’t have it both ways — that they can’t have their cake and eat it, too. They must choose between either strictly upholding the laws and customs of 7th-century Arabia (in which case they should remain in their “sharia friendly” countries of origin) or, if prosperity and comfort is their first choice, let them relocate to the West, but prepare to assimilate — that is, compromise — to some degree. It’s a simple question of priorities. National Review