DONT JUDGE ISLAM BY WHAT FEW TERRORISTS ARE DOING

Terrorism should be seen as an international menace. No religious identity should be attached to it as no religion on earth justifies the killings of the innocent. Islam strongly forbids violence against innocents. The unenlightened people who say they are acting in the name of religion may have either misinterpreted Islam or are practising it erroneously. And so, you will make a big mistake if you try get an idea of Islam on the basis of the activities of these terrorists.

Yet the fact is, since the 9/11 World Trade Center attack, the entire Muslim community has been living in despair of being misunderstood by the rest of the world. The attack by few criminals was condemned by global Muslim leadership that identified the attackers as the black sheep in the community. But the entire Muslim community is still being viewed as terrorist today.

Very few non-Muslims have bothered to consider the facts that tens of thousands of local Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan have been involved in anti-terrorism operations, helping the Allied Forces and local governments. Could the US led military action against Iraq ever succeed if it did not get key support of the Islamic country of Saudi Arabia?

If you want to know about Islam, read the Quran- the only authentic source to know the widely misunderstood religion. The Quran is based on the concepts of morality, love, compassion, mercy, modesty, self-sacrifice, tolerance, and peace. One who truly lives according to these moral precepts is considered the best Muslim. However, today Islam is mostly being identified on the basis of what its morality-less section is doing.
If you read the Quran you can understand how Allah instructs His followers to be nice to his neighbours around, and shun cruelty and violence. Allah says, He does not like his followers who resort to violence against innocent people. Those who do not obey this divine command are walking in the footsteps of Satan and moving away from Allah.

Even the political doctrine in Islam is extremely peaceful, moderate and accommodating. The concept that badly needs clarification in this context is that of "jihad". The exact meaning of "Jihad" is "effort". That is, "to carry out jihad" is "to show efforts, to struggle". To be very precise, Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) explained that "the greatest jihad is the one a person carries out against his lower soul". Here the “lower soul" is one’s selfish desire, unhealthy ambitions and immoral intentions. The use of the concept of "jihad" for acts of aggression against innocent people, is indeed “TERRORISM”, and is not only unjustified but amounts to a serious distortion of tenets of Islam. These misguided lots- "the terrorists", ignore what their conscience says and listen to their earthly desire for violence by resorting to wickedness, which is indeed un-Islamic. They become loveless, aggressive people who do not hesitate to hurt others without the slightest pang of conscience. Having no fear of Allah or god, they do not abide by the morality of their religion, nor do they practice it. Nothing can stop them from committing crimes and hurting the innocents. Hence these misguided men should not be considered followers of any religion at all.

Compassion, peace and tolerance constitute the very basis of Islam, and the commands of the Quran leave no room for dispute and contradictions. The moral teaching offered to humanity by Islam is one that aims to bring peace, happiness and justice to the world. The barbarism that is happening in the world today under the name of "Islamic Terrorism" has no connection with the Quran. Such terrorism-related activities are the work of a section of ignorant, bigoted criminals who have nothing to do with religion and its tenets. A strong action should be taken against these individuals, groups and organisations who take to savagery under the guise of Islam.

This further leaves every Muslim with a duty to represent, through his attitudes and behavior, the religion of Allah in all finest possible manners. Muslims must display kindness, humility, forgiveness, as our Prophet (PBUH) possessed. And they must be compassionate and affectionate as he was.

With no other better option around, Muslims have decided to support Trinamool Congress....

West Bengal appears like a heaven to the rest of the country. In fact it is in a shape more dilapidated than one outside the state can imagine. Minorities here face more hostile a government than their counterparts have faced in Gujarat. Compared to Gujarat more people have been killed in Bengal, but unlike Narendra Modi’s government it has not been caught. The law and order situation in Bengal has taken a beating and administrative machinery has been politically and religiously biased.

I am sure you all remember the popular 2002 Gujarat Riots picture of a weeping man with folded hands- appealing to Hindu activists to spare him. The Left Front widely used this picture of the Gujarat-based Bengalee Muslim tailor Qutubuddin Ansari during the 2005 campaign for Assembly elections. Ansari and his picture were used by the Front to seek Muslim votes in Bengal. Then the Front promised to arrange to rehabilitate and help Ansari in the most humane way possible. But as soon as the election was over and Muslims were found to have overwhelmingly voted the Communist coalition to power, the Front literally kicked Ansari out of the state. The poor tailor felt he had been cheated by the Left Front and chose to move back to Gujarat.

Before the last assembly and 2009 general elections, this Left Front government made lots of promises to help the backward Muslim community reintegrate into the mainstream. But as soon as the elections were over it backtracked on its promises.

Some months ago the Left Front government announced reservations for backward sections of the Muslim community. The government took good care so that the news could spread all across the country to boost the image of the “minority caring” government. But few in the country know what happened to the implementation part of the scheme. The government identified some groups among Muslims as backward [OBC] and placed them in the reserved categories. But I can cite at least few thousands of cases in which young students of those OBC Muslim groups in the state have been actually denied the reservation facilities by the communally-biased administrative machineries when they queued up for the certificates. Communally biased bureaucrats and their officers have routinely been rejecting the applications of the poor Muslim students in the districts.

The scheme in fact has turned into a public scam now. It’s like they sold show tickets to public with behind-the-door instructions to gate-keepers to keep the gates closed when the public turned up for the show.

The government should understand that this reservation is an acknowledgement of the plight of a backward community and that it provides a remedial measure to uplift the down-trodden Muslims.

As I pick holes in the functioning of the Left Front government I should not be misconstrued that I appreciate the style of politics or policies adopted by Mamata Banerjee’s party. She is already a powerful union minister and appears set to take power in West Bengal soon. Yet, she has done nothing or hinted to do anything to improve the standard of life of Muslims, apart from resorting to some meaningless or hollow gestures.

She could have done something at least to make people realise that her rule, if she came to power, would be different from that of the present Stalinists. But as she closely follows Brahmanisation of her party, mislead people and indulges in the politicians’ well-known habits of making false promises only with an eye to grab power as quickly as possible, we become sure her rule would not be different from the one by the Front. In fact I am sceptical if she or her party members would even bother to listen to grievances of the Muslims, once she comes to power.

However, Bengal’s Muslims, who repeatedly kept electing the Front to power sees a bigger evil in the Communists, and have for now, decided to stand by Mamata’s TMC. It must be noted that Muslims are being forced to choose Mamata Banerjee as their new leader only because they do not have any other viable option before them at the moment.

The United States asserts the right to bomb, invade and destroy whatever country it chooses. Isn't it Terrorism ?

On September 17, 2002 the Bush administration published its “National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” So far, there has been no serious examination of this important document in the establishment media. This is unfortunate, to say the least, because this document advances the political and theoretical justification for a colossal escalation of American militarism. The document asserts as the guiding policy of the United States the right to use military force anywhere in the world, at any time it chooses, against any country it believes to be, or it believes may at some point become, a threat to American interests. No other country in modern history, not even Nazi Germany at the height of Hitler’s madness, has asserted such a sweeping claim to global hegemony—or, to put it more bluntly, world domination—as is now being made by the United States.
The message of this document, stripped of its cynical euphemisms and calculated evasions, is unmistakably clear: The United States government asserts the right to bomb, invade and destroy whatever country it chooses. It refuses to respect as a matter of international law the sovereignty of any other country, and reserves the right to get rid of any regime, in any part of the world, that is, appears to be, or might some day become, hostile to what the United States considers to be its vital interests. Its threats are directed, in the short term, against so-called “failed states”—that is, former colonies and impoverished Third World countries ravaged by the predatory policies of imperialism. But larger competitors of the United States, whom the document refers to, in a revival of pre-World War II imperialist jargon, as “Great Powers,” are by no means out of the gun sights of the Bush administration. The wars against small and defenseless states that the United States is now preparing—first of all against Iraq—will prove to be the preparation for military onslaughts against more formidable targets.
The document begins by boasting that “The United States possesses unprecedented—and unequaled—strength and influence in the world.” It declares with breathtaking arrogance that “The US national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests.” This formula is so striking that it should be committed to memory: American Values + American Interests = A Distinctly American Internationalism. It is a very distinct sort of internationalism that proclaims what’s good for America is good for the world! As President Bush asserts in the introduction of the document, America’s values “are right and true for every person, in every society...”
These values are none other than a collection of the banal nostrums of the American plutocracy, such as “respect for private property”; “pro-growth legal and regulatory policies to encourage business investment, innovation, and entrepreneurial activity”; “tax policies—particularly lower marginal tax rates—that improve incentives for work and investment”; “strong financial systems that allow capital to be put to its most efficient use”; “sound fiscal policies to support business activity.” The document then declares: “The lessons of history are clear: market economies, not command-and-control economies with the heavy hand of government, are the best way to promote prosperity and reduce poverty. Policies that further strengthen market incentives and market institutions are relevant for all economies—industrialized countries, emerging markets, and the developing world.”
All these right-wing platitudes are asserted in the midst of a deepening world economic crisis, in which entire continents are suffering the consequences of market economics that have shattered whatever once existed of their social infrastructures and reduced billions of people to conditions that defy description. One decade after the dismantling of the USSR and the restoration of capitalism, the death rate of Russia exceeds its birthrate. South America, a laboratory where the International Monetary Fund has gleefully practiced its anti-social experiments, is in a state of economic disintegration. In Southern Africa, a substantial portion of the population is infected with the HIV virus. According to the World Bank,
“The AIDS crisis is having a devastating impact on developing countries, especially in Africa. Health care systems—weakened by the impact of AIDS, along with conflict and poor management—cannot cope with traditional illnesses. Malaria and tuberculosis continue to kill millions—malaria alone is estimated to reduce GDP growth rates by 0.5 percent per year on average in Sub-Saharan Africa. Life expectancy in the region fell from 50 years in 1987 to 47 years in 1999; in the countries hardest hit by AIDS (such as Botswana, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Lesotho) the average lifespan was cut short by more than ten years.”[1]
These catastrophic conditions are the product of the capitalist system and the rule of the market. The strategic document acknowledges in passing that “half of the human race lives on less than $2 a day,” but, as to be expected, the prescription drawn up by the Bush administration is the more intensive application of the economic policies that are responsible for the misery that exists all over the world.
Defining its idea of a “distinctly American internationalism,” the document states that “While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone...” In another passage, the document warns that the United States “will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept.” In other words, the actions of the leaders of the United States will not be restrained by the conventions of international law..