Sam Harris did it again. He expressed his Muslim-hatred again.

Sam Harris criticized Israel and Judaism in the beginning of his article. He sounds neutral. But he is not. He is as Muslim hater as before.

The question I’ve now received in many forms goes something like this: Why is it that you never criticize Israel? Why is it that you never criticize Judaism? Why is it that you always take the side of the Israelis over that of the Palestinians?
Now, this is an incredibly boring and depressing question for a variety of reasons. The first, is that I have criticized both Israel and Judaism. What seems to have upset many people is that I’ve kept some sense of proportion. There are something like 15 million Jews on earth at this moment; there are a hundred times as many Muslims. I’ve debated rabbis who, when I have assumed that they believe in a God that can hear our prayers, they stop me mid-sentence and say, “Why would you think that I believe in a God who can hear prayers?” So there are rabbis—conservative rabbis—who believe in a God so elastic as to exclude every concrete claim about Him—and therefore, nearly every concrete demand upon human behavior. And there are millions of Jews, literally millions among the few million who exist, for whom Judaism is very important, and yet they are atheists. They don’t believe in God at all. This is actually a position you can hold in Judaism, but it’s a total non sequitur in Islam or Christianity.

Is Sam Harris sad because Jews population is much less than Muslim population? I am sure he knows the reasons why Muslims are more in number than Jews. If they are more, does not mean they are powerful. You have money and weapons, you are much more powerful than them.
Sam says, Judaism is very important for millions of Jews, even though they are atheists. Why should atheists care for any particular religion? If any religion is very important to X, X is not a true atheist. When a person becomes an atheist, he /she denounces his /her religion first, then start denouncing other religions. If your religion is very important to you and you are an atheist, then something is wrong with you.

There are millions of Muslims who are also agnostics or atheists, who do not believe in gods. But most of them say that they are Muslims, because it is safer to say it in Muslim countries and also that they believe though they are atheists, they live in Muslim culture, so they should be called Muslims. They are cultural Muslims.

You must not think all Muslims believe in the Koran or Hadith or they pray regularly. To my surprise I have noticed that it is Muslims, specially non Arabic Muslims, who know almost nothing about Islam or the Koran and the Hadith. If they knew, they could have easily become atheists.
If ordinary Muslims could get proper education, they would have believed in democracy, human rights, equality, freedom of expression the way enlightened people believe in. Muslims are deprived of their rights to become enlightened by corrupt Muslim authorities and oppressive religious systems they impose.

So, when we’re talking about the consequences of irrational beliefs based on scripture, the Jews are the least of the least offenders. But I have said many critical things about Judaism. Let me remind you that parts of Hebrew Bible—books like Leviticus and Exodus and Deuteronomy—are the most repellent, the most sickeningly unethical documents to be found in any religion. They’re worse than the Koran. They’re worse than any part of the New Testament. But the truth is, most Jews recognize this and don’t take these texts seriously. It’s simply a fact that most Jews and most Israelis are not guided by scripture—and that’s a very good thing.
Of course, there are some who are. There are religious extremists among Jews. Now, I consider these people to be truly dangerous, and their religious beliefs are as divisive and as unwarranted as the beliefs of devout Muslims. But there are far fewer such people.

There are two billion Muslims living in the world. The percentage of ‘dangerous Muslim religious extremists’ is not really much. If the percentage was high, we all atheists would have been killed a long time ago.

For those of you who worry that I never say anything critical about Israel: My position on Israel is somewhat paradoxical. There are questions about which I’m genuinely undecided. And there’s something in my position, I think, to offend everyone. So, acknowledging how reckless it is to say anything on this topic, I’m nevertheless going to think out loud about it for a few minutes.
I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible. [Note: Read this paragraph again.]

Fine. I think it is impossible for a true atheist to accept any state which has been created based on religion. Mr. Sam, have you ever protested against the birth of Israel before? You say that you are against the creation of a religion-based state. Did you ever ask Israelis to come back to Europe and America leaving their stolen land to Palestinians?

Though I just said that I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state, the justification for such a state is rather easy to find. We need look no further than the fact that the rest of the world has shown itself eager to murder the Jews at almost every opportunity. So, if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state. Now, friends of Israel might consider this a rather tepid defense, but it’s the strongest one I’ve got. I think the idea of a religious state is ultimately untenable.
Needless to say, in defending its territory as a Jewish state, the Israeli government and Israelis themselves have had to do terrible things. They have, as they are now, fought wars against the Palestinians that have caused massive losses of innocent life. More civilians have been killed in Gaza in the last few weeks than militants. That’s not a surprise because Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on Earth. Occupying it, fighting wars in it, is guaranteed to get woman and children and other noncombatants killed. And there’s probably little question over the course of fighting multiple wars that the Israelis have done things that amount to war crimes. They have been brutalized by this process—that is, made brutal by it. But that is largely the due to the character of their enemies. [Note: I was not giving Israel a pass to commit war crimes. I was making a point about the realities of living under the continuous threat of terrorism and of fighting multiple wars in a confined space.]

Is Israel brutal because of the character of her enemies? Wow, this is so funny. Palestinians have no air force, no navy, no army, no cannons, no nukes that Israel have. Israel is the 4th largest military power in the world. Gaza is one of the poor places of earth. Gaza is also called an open air prison. We saw that the brutality of Israel by its air strikes and ground offensives already killed more than a thousand Gazans in the last few days, most of them were civilians. Gazans have home made rockets, bricks, bottles which they use against their enemies. There is no comparison between Hamas and Israel. When Israel kills 1000, Hamas only can manage to kill 20 or so.

Whatever terrible things the Israelis have done, it is also true to say that they have used more restraint in their fighting against the Palestinians than we—the Americans, or Western Europeans—have used in any of our wars. They have endured more worldwide public scrutiny than any other society has ever had to while defending itself against aggressors. The Israelis simply are held to a different standard. And the condemnation leveled at them by the rest of the world is completely out of proportion to what they have actually done. [Note: I was not saying that because they are more careful than we have been at our most careless, the Israelis are above criticism. War crimes are war crimes.]
It is clear that Israel is losing the PR war and has been for years now. One of the most galling things for outside observers about the current war in Gaza is the disproportionate loss of life on the Palestinian side. This doesn’t make a lot of moral sense. Israel built bomb shelters to protect its citizens. The Palestinians built tunnels through which they could carry out terror attacks and kidnap Israelis. Should Israel be blamed for successfully protecting its population in a defensive war? I don’t think so. [Note: I was not suggesting that the deaths of Palestinian noncombatants are anything less than tragic. But if retaliating against Hamas is bound to get innocents killed, and the Israelis manage to protect their own civilians in the meantime, the loss of innocent life on the Palestinian side is guaranteed to be disproportionate.]
But there is no way to look at the images coming out Gaza—especially of infants and toddlers riddled by shrapnel—and think that this is anything other than a monstrous evil. Insofar as Israel is the agent of this evil, it seems impossible to support its behavior. And there is no question that the Palestinians have suffered terribly for decades under the occupation. This is where most critics of Israel appear to be stuck. They see these images, and they blame Israel for killing and maiming babies. They see the occupation, and they blame Israel for making Gaza a prison camp. I would argue is a kind of moral illusion, borne of a failure to look at the actual causes of this conflict, as well as of a failure to understand the intentions of the people on either side of it. [Note: I was not saying that the horror of slain children is a moral illusion; nor was I minimizing the suffering of the Palestinians under the occupation. I was claiming that Israel is not primarily to blame for all this suffering.]
The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” This is a political document. We are talking about a government that was voted into power by a majority of the Palestinians. [Note: Yes, I know that not every Palestinian supports Hamas, but enough do to have brought them to power. Hamas is not a fringe group.]

If Muslims followed Koranic advice to kill Jews, they would have killed Jews everywhere, in America, in Europe, in Asia, in Africa. But Muslims and Jews have been living together without any conflict in the other parts of the world but Israel and Palestine. Jews are living in Israel surrounded by Arab Muslims. Except the oppressed Palestinian Muslim extremists, no other Muslims go to kill Jews. And that is more for political reasons than religious reasons.

The discourse in the Muslim world about Jews is utterly shocking. Not only is there Holocaust denial—there’s Holocaust denial that then asserts that we will do it for real if given the chance. The only thing more obnoxious than denying the Holocaust is to say that it should have happened; it didn’t happen, but if we get the chance, we will accomplish it. There are children’s shows that teach five-year-olds about the glories of martyrdom and about the necessity of killing Jews.

Jewish children are also taught to hate Muslims. In Israel tvs, children recently said that they would occupy more and more lands and they would be able to control better. They got applauds. Look at those pictures, where Jewish children are writing ‘from Israel with love’ on missiles which will soon be dropped in Palestine and kill children. And the picture of a Jewish boy and his mother who were harassing and physically abusing a Muslim woman who was just walking on the streets. If Jewish were Palestinian Muslims, they would have done the same thing what Palestinians have been doing.

If Palestinian children could get security, secular education, proper nutrition, no poverty, no worries, and good environment, one day many of them could have become like Jewish physicists, scientists, film makers, writers etc.

And this gets to the heart of the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. And this is something I discussed in The End of Faith. To see this moral difference, you have to ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it.
What would the Jews do to the Palestinians if they could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that question, because they can do more or less anything they want. The Israeli army could kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. So what does that mean? Well, it means that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident. They’re not targeting children. They could target as many children as they want. Every time a Palestinian child dies, Israel edges ever closer to becoming an international pariah. So the Israelis take great pains not to kill children and other noncombatants. [Note: The word “so” in the previous sentence was regrettable and misleading. I didn’t mean to suggest that safeguarding its reputation abroad would be the only (or even primary) reason for Israel to avoid killing children. However, the point stands: Even if you want to attribute the basest motives to Israel, it is clearly in her self-interest not to kill Palestinian children.]

Israel can kill anyone in Gaza tomorrow. They are doing it anyway. They are intentionally killing innocent people. How do you know that killing children on the beach was an accident? The beach was far away from commercial and residential areas. That beach killing could not be an accident. Even some Zionists blamed Israel for killing children who were playing football on the beach. But it is our big famous atheist Sam Harris who is defending the killer.

Now, is it possible that some Israeli soldiers go berserk under pressure and wind up shooting into crowds of rock-throwing children? Of course. You will always find some soldiers acting this way in the middle of a war. But we know that this isn’t the general intent of Israel. We know the Israelis do not want to kill non-combatants, because they could kill as many as they want, and they’re not doing it.

How would we know that killing is not the general intent of Israel? We saw how Israel invading and occupying Palestinians’ land, dropping bombs on civilian houses, killing hundreds of children. Anyone could realize that invading, blockading, occupying and killing were Israel’s intentions. They could kill all Palestinians. But they are not killing everyone right now, probably because they want to kill systematically and slowly. Because they want to be recognized as victims, not as fascists. If they did not have any intention to kill people, they would not have killed people at all.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. You are a state. You should not and must not behave like Hamas. You should not and must not violate your neighbors’ right to live only because some terrorists disturb you.

What do we know of the Palestinians? What would the Palestinians do to the Jews in Israel if the power imbalance were reversed? Well, they have told us what they would do. For some reason, Israel’s critics just don’t want to believe the worst about a group like Hamas, even when it declares the worst of itself. We’ve already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit genocide, we should listen. There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could. Would every Palestinian support genocide? Of course not. But vast numbers of them—and of Muslims throughout the world—would. Needless to say, the Palestinians in general, not just Hamas, have a history of targeting innocent noncombatants in the most shocking ways possible. They’ve blown themselves up on buses and in restaurants. They’ve massacred teenagers. They’ve murdered Olympic athletes. They now shoot rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas. And again, the charter of their government in Gaza explicitly tells us that they want to annihilate the Jews—not just in Israel but everywhere. [Note: Again, I realize that not all Palestinians support Hamas. Nor am I discounting the degree to which the occupation, along with collateral damage suffered in war, has fueled Palestinian rage. But Palestinian terrorism (and Muslim anti-Semitism) is what has made peaceful coexistence thus far impossible.]
The truth is that everything you need to know about the moral imbalance between Israel and her enemies can be understood on the topic of human shields. Who uses human shields? Well, Hamas certainly does. They shoot their rockets from residential neighborhoods, from beside schools, and hospitals, and mosques. Muslims in other recent conflicts, in Iraq and elsewhere, have also used human shields. They have laid their rifles on the shoulders of their own children and shot from behind their bodies.
Consider the moral difference between using human shields and being deterred by them. That is the difference we’re talking about. The Israelis and other Western powers are deterred, however imperfectly, by the Muslim use of human shields in these conflicts, as we should be. It is morally abhorrent to kill noncombatants if you can avoid it. It’s certainly abhorrent to shoot through the bodies of children to get at your adversary. But take a moment to reflect on how contemptible this behavior is. And understand how cynical it is. The Muslims are acting on the assumption—the knowledge, in fact—that the infidels with whom they fight, the very people whom their religion does nothing but vilify, will be deterred by their use of Muslim human shields. They consider the Jews the spawn of apes and pigs—and yet they rely on the fact that they don’t want to kill Muslim noncombatants. [Note: The term “Muslims” in this paragraph means “Muslim combatants” of the sort that Western forces have encountered in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The term “jihadists” would have been too narrow, but I was not suggesting that all Muslims support the use of human shields or are anti-Semitic, at war with the West, etc.]

Jews would have terrorized the way Palestinians terrorized if Jews were in Palestinians’ situation. If Jews were living in a land for hundreds of years, and suddenly saw that Muslims came from Europe, stole their land and settled there because their holy book asked them to do so— and then occupied more and more land and killed more and more people, — Jews would be doing every bad thing in their desperate situation.

There is no evidence than Hamas uses children as human shield. Hamas kept their weapons inside UN schools, thinking that Israel won’t bomb schools. But Israel bombed almost everything. They bombed civilian houses, hospitals, schools. And there was a roof knocking thing, yes Israel knocked roof before bombing. But after around 50 seconds of roof knocking Israel bombed and demolished houses, and killed children and women. Israel used illegal and dangerous dime bombs and depleted uranium to kill people, those bombs are also carcinogenic. It looks like Israel has an intention to wipe out Palestinians, to get rid of trouble makers, for ‘so called self defense’.

People shut their mouth, they won’t say anything against Jews even if Jews commit crimes, they won’t say because they fear of being called anti-Semite. Sam Harris, you yourself is an anti-Semite. Saying against the Quran and Arab Muslims are also anti-Semitic. Like Hebrew, Arabic language is a Semitic language.

Now imagine reversing the roles here. Imagine how fatuous—indeed comical it would be—for the Israelis to attempt to use human shields to deter the Palestinians. Some claim that they have already done this. There are reports that Israeli soldiers have occasionally put Palestinian civilians in front of them as they’ve advanced into dangerous areas. That’s not the use of human shields we’re talking about. It’s egregious behavior. No doubt it constitutes a war crime. But Imagine the Israelis holding up their own women and children as human shields. Of course, that would be ridiculous. The Palestinians are trying to kill everyone. Killing women and children is part of the plan. Reversing the roles here produces a grotesque Monty Python skit.
If you’re going talk about the conflict in the Middle East, you have to acknowledge this difference. I don’t think there’s any ethical disparity to be found anywhere that is more shocking or consequential than this.
And the truth is, this isn’t even the worst that jihadists do. Hamas is practically a moderate organization, compared to other jihadist groups. There are Muslims who have blown themselves up in crowds of children—again, Muslim children—just to get at the American soldiers who were handing out candy to them. They have committed suicide bombings, only to send another bomber to the hospital to await the casualities—where they then blow up all the injured along with the doctors and nurses trying to save their lives.
Every day that you could read about an Israeli rocket gone astray or Israeli soldiers beating up an innocent teenager, you could have read about ISIS in Iraq crucifying people on the side of the road, Christians and Muslims. Where is the outrage in the Muslim world and on the Left over these crimes? Where are the demonstrations, 10,000 or 100,000 deep, in the capitals of Europe against ISIS? If Israel kills a dozen Palestinians by accident, the entire Muslim world is inflamed. God forbid you burn a Koran, or write a novel vaguely critical of the faith. And yet Muslims can destroy their own societies—and seek to destroy the West—and you don’t hear a peep.
So, it seems to me, that you have to side with Israel here. You have one side which if it really could accomplish its aims would simply live peacefully with its neighbors, and you have another side which is seeking to implement a seventh century theocracy in the Holy Land. There’s no peace to be found between those incompatible ideas. That doesn’t mean you can’t condemn specific actions on the part of the Israelis. And, of course, acknowledging the moral disparity between Israel and her enemies doesn’t give us any solution to the problem of Israel’s existence in the Middle East. [Note: I was not suggesting that Israel’s actions are above criticism or that their recent incursion into Gaza was necessarily justified. Nor was I saying that the status quo, wherein the Palestinians remain stateless, should be maintained. By “siding with Israel,” I am simply recognizing that they are not the primary aggressors in this conflict. They are, rather, responding to aggression—and at a terrible cost.]
Again, granted, there’s some percentage of Jews who are animated by their own religious hysteria and their own prophesies. Some are awaiting the Messiah on contested land. Yes, these people are willing to sacrifice the blood of their own children for the glory of God. But, for the most part, they are not representative of the current state of Judaism or the actions of the Israeli government. And it is how Israel deals with these people—their own religious lunatics—that will determine whether they can truly hold the moral high ground. And Israel can do a lot more than it has to disempower them. It can cease to subsidize the delusions of the Ultra-Orthodox and it can stop building settlements on contested land. [Note: Read that again.]
This incompatible religious attachments to this land has made it impossible for Muslims and Jews to negotiate like rational human beings, and it has made it impossible for them to live in peace. But the onus is still more on the side of the Muslims here. Even on their worst day, the Israelis act with greater care and compassion and self-criticism than Muslim combatants have anywhere, ever.
And again, you have to ask yourself, what do these groups want? What would they accomplish if they could accomplish anything? What would the Israelis do if they could do what they want? They would live in peace with their neighbors, if they had neighbors who would live in peace with them. They would simply continue to build out their high tech sector and thrive.
What do groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and even Hamas want? They want to impose their religious views on the rest of humanity. They want stifle every freedom that decent, educated, secular people care about. This is not a trivial difference. And yet judging from the level of condemnation that Israel now receives, you would think the difference ran the other way.
This kind of confusion puts all of us in danger. This is the great story of our time. For the rest of our lives, and the lives of our children, we are going to be confronted by people who don’t want to live peacefully in a secular, pluralistic world, because they are desperate to get to Paradise, and they are willing to destroy the very possibility of human happiness along the way. The truth is, we are all living in Israel. It’s just that some of us haven’t realized it yet.

Those Muslims are ignorant or bad who do not cry for the Muslims killed by Muslim terrorist organizations like ISIS, Boko haram etc but cry for Muslims of Gaza killed by Israel. But it does not justify Israel’s killing of innocent people.

Fill up the form

Fill up the form if you want to be a Moderate Syrian Rebel. President Obama is giving $500 million to train and arm Moderate Syrian Rebels, so that they can kill ISIS. It is exactly like helping terrorists A to wipe out terrorists B. $500 million is not really a small amount of money. So don’t hesitate to apply for becoming a member of the group A.
Here is The Application Form.

WASHINGTON—After announcing, on Thursday, that it would seek $500 million to help “train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the moderate Syrian armed opposition,” the White House today posted the following Moderate Syrian Rebel Application Form:

Welcome to the United States’ Moderate Syrian Rebel Vetting Process. To see if you qualify for $500 million in American weapons, please choose an answer to the following questions:

As a Syrian rebel, I think the word or phrase that best describes me is:
A) Moderate
B) Very moderate
C) Crazy moderate
D) Other

I became a Syrian rebel because I believe in:
A) Truth
B) Justice
C) The American Way
D) Creating an Islamic caliphate

If I were given a highly lethal automatic weapon by the United States, I would:
A) Only kill exactly the people that the United States wanted me to kill
B) Try to kill the right people, with the caveat that I have never used an automatic weapon before
C) Kill people only after submitting them to a rigorous vetting process
D) Immediately let the weapon fall into the wrong hands

I have previously received weapons from:
A) Al Qaeda
B) The Taliban
C) North Korea
D) I did not receive weapons from any of them because after they vetted me I was deemed way too moderate

I consider ISIS:
A) An existential threat to Iraq
B) An existential threat to Syria
C) An existential threat to Iraq and Syria
D) The people who will pick up my American weapon after I drop it and run away

Complete the following sentence. “American weapons are…”
A) Always a good thing to randomly add to any international hot spot
B) Exactly what this raging civil war has been missing for the past three years
C) Best when used moderately
D) Super easy to resell online

Thank you for completing the Moderate Syrian Rebel Application Form. We will process your application in the next one to two business days. Please indicate a current mailing address where you would like your weapons to be sent. If there is no one to sign for them we will leave them outside the front door.

Fatwa cannot be forced upon people, Indian Supreme Court rules.

Indian Supreme Court says, fatwa cannot be forced upon people. But fatwas are forced upon people.

Fatwa issued by Muslim clerics cannot be forced upon people and the state has to protect persons who are harassed for not following such diktats, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said while expressing reservation in interfering with shariat courts.

Holding that it’s a matter of choice for the people to accept fatwa or not, the apex court said running of institutions like Darul Qaza and Darul-Iftaa is a religious issue and the courts should interfere only when someone’s rights are violated by their decision.

“We can protect people who are subjected to suffering due to this. When a pujari gives a date of Dussehra, he cannot force someone to celebrate the festival on that day. If somebody forces them on you, then we can protect you,” the bench said after the petitioner pleaded that fatwa issued by clerics is unconstitutional.

The petitioner says fatwas or religious edicts are unconstitutional. If democracy, human rights, women’s rights, freedom of expression are constitutional, fatwas automatically become unconstitutional. I didn’t know before reading this news that fatwas were not illegal in India. Why does India need fatwas?

It said fatwa issued by clerics or prediction made by pandits do not violate any law and so courts should restrain them from doing so.

Fatwas violate laws, human rights and freedom. Fatwas are for violating rights. If fatwas did not violate laws, there would not be any fatwas. Laws made by gods or worshipers of gods and laws made by modern rational humans are completely different. God’s laws are bound to violate human’s laws. It is better to make fatwas illegal rather than judging each fatwa whether it violates any law. A secular state must not have religious laws or edicts. The state that is separated from religion is called secular state.

“Which law gives power to issue fatwa and which statute gives pundit power to make horoscope? Court can only say that the state will protect the people if one is subjected to suffering due to fatwa,” the bench said adding some fatwas may be issued for the welfare of the people.

“These are political and religious issues and we do not want to go into it,” the bench said while hearing a PIL filed by an advocate Vishwa Lochan Madam challenging the constitutional validity of shariat courts for allegedly running a parallel judicial system in the country.

It is like putting a poisonous snake in your room and assuring you that if it bites you, you will be taken to a hospital for treatment. Why don’t they take the snake out and let you live peacefully?

All India personal law board submitted fatwa is bot binding on people and it is just an opinion of Mufti and he has no power and authority to implement it.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the Board, submitted if a fatwa is sought to be implemented against the wish of the concerned person, then he can approach court of law against it.

The petitioner submitted the fundamental rights of Muslims could not be controlled and curtailed through fatwas issued by qazis and muftis appointed by Muslim organizations.

A fatwa was issued against me by All India Muslim Law Board. No action was taken against the men who issued fatwas. The issuance of such fatwas was against the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution.
An unlimited amount of reward money was offered to my would-be killers in Kolkata. It happened in broad day light, and in the middle of the city. No one was arrested for setting price on someone’s head.

If they can get away with declaring fatwa once, they will declare fatwas more. Fatwas are contagious. Because fatwas were issued in Kolkata, fatwas were issued in Uttar Pradesh and other places. Others learn to issue fatwas, to create terror in society. The fanatics are having wonderful life. Nobody even questioned them for their crimes of setting price on people’s heads.

The state is now protecting me. It is the same protection Supreme Court offers to persons who are harassed by fatwas. Protection alone can not give a tension free life. I have been living in constant fear. Anyone can kill me at any moment. Fatwas are still there, not a single fatwa was withdrawn. I could get a life without being surrounded by police if there were no fatwas. The state could save money.

Mullahs have been issuing fatwas against women everyday. Women are not allowed to use mobile phones, to work for private companies, to go anywhere without wearing hijabs or burqas etc. Who will provide them protection? If fatwabaaz mullahs roam around free, and if they are free to issue fatwas against whoever they want, women won’t feel protected, they won’t enjoy their basic human rights.

Fatwabaaz and politicians

All the religious fanatics who issued fatwas against me, and set prices on my head or attacked me physically or tried to kill me for expressing my opinions were honored by the politicians in Bangladesh and India.

Bangladesh:

press-conference

The picture above is from a press conference held in 1993 by Islamic fundamentalists for the banning of my all books, for my arrest and for my execution by hanging. Shaikhul Hadith and Habibur Rahman, sitting in the middle, issued a fatwa against me, set price on my head and called for demonstrations, processions, general strikes, hartal all over the country in order to force the government to hang me till death. They demanded my execution because they were against women’s rights, freedom of expression and plurality of thoughts.

300,000-mollar-meeting-antitaslima

Habibur Rahman who had declared a Tk 50,000 reward for my head in 1993, wants Taliban rule in Bangladesh. He said, “If alems and ulamas can run Afghanistan then Bangladeshi alems would be able to run the country with Allah’s help.”

Here is the amnesty report how Muslim fundamentalists issued a fatwa against me. See page 13-16.

Sheikh Hasina, the chairperson of Awami league, one of the biggest political parties in Bangladesh, chose fatwabaaz Taliban Habibur Rahman as a nominee of the 2007 general elections.

Both Habibur Rahman and Shaikhul Hadith have been respected by almost all the big politicians in Bangladesh.

saikhul

Awami League leader Abdul Jalil came to religious fanatic Shaikhul Hadith to offer him nomination.

Sheikh Hasina has been admiring Shaikhul Hadith since her childhood.
When he died, she expressed deep shock at the death of Shaikhul Hadith. In her condolence message, the Prime Minister recalled contribution of Shaikhul Hadith to the society. She prayed for eternal peace of the departed soul and conveyed sympathy to the bereaved family members.

India:

Fatwabaaz 1. Imam Barkati.

Imam Barkati issued a fatwa against me in 2004. He set price on my head, Rs 20,000.

Imam Barkati issued another fatwa against me in 2006.
He set price on my head, Rs 50,000.

Imam Barkati issued a fatwa again in 2007, the price that was set for my head was unlimited amount of money. Watch the video. They were issuing fatwa in the middle of Kolkata. Many police officers were there, but they did not arrest any fatwabaaz for announcing cash reward for the people who would kill a writer.

After issuing fatwas, Imam Barkati has been rewarded by the politicians. West Bengal’s current chief minister Mamata Banerjee invited him on the stage and honored him many times. She know very well that Imam Barkati asked people to kill a writer for having different opinions.

mamata

mamata1

Idris Ali, another Muslim troublemaker who committed crimes in November 21, 2007, got the blessing of West Bengal’s chief minister. He was given clean chit.

image

Fatwabaaz 2. Taukeer Raza Khan.

News in 2007.
a.
“Taslima should be killed & beheaded and anyone who does this will get a reward from the council”
– Tauqeer Raza Khan.March,2007

b. Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan announced a reward of Rs 5 lakh on Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen’s head if New Delhi does not restrict her entry into the country.

c. The creator of the Rs 5 lakh reward offer on her head, president of All India Ibtehad Council, Tauqeer Raza Khan, however, insisted he had community support.

d. Fatwa against Taslima. A public interest litigation petition filed by a local lawyer seeking action against Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, president of the All India Muslim Personal Board.

News in 2013.
e. Cleric who issued fatwa against Taslima Nasreen may campaign for Arvind Kejriwal.

f.Taslima slams Kejriwal for feelers to maulana behind beheading fatwa.

After Kejriwal, another politician praised the fatwabaaz.

Why do politicians ask for support from anti-women anti-free speech Muslim fanatics who illegally set price on people’s heads? They should go to ordinary Muslims if they need their votes. They should not bow down to Muslim fanatics who are responsible for Muslim community’s backwardness. Since independence, politicians in the Indian subcontinent have been seeking help of religious fanatics who do not respect human rights, free speech and the Constitution. People should speak up against fanatics who vitiate society, push it backward and the politicians who encourage them. Else, it’s bad news for democracy.

A great news from a fucked up Islamized country.

The Bangladesh High Court banned the biggest Islamist party called Jamaat-e-Islami from contesting future polls. Such a great news from a fucked up Islamized country! Jamaat-e-Islami acts like a terrorist organization. This is the group of barbarians that has been systemically destroying the secular fabric of the country through Islamization. The Jamaati terrorists brutally stabbed and killed the country’s enlightened people whoever opposed them. It is the same group that has been screaming for the death of the atheist bloggers for the past few months. They are desperate to grab the power, and introduce Islamic sharia laws,and the laws against blasphemy. Jamaat-e-Islami’s ideology goes against democracy, human rights, women’s rights and freedom of expression. They are for theocracy, Islamism and barbarism.

The newly independent Bangladesh banned religion based politics in 1971. But after a few years, some unpopular rulers who tried to gain popularity by using Islam in Muslim majority country, legalized Jamaat-e-Islami, and helped them win elections. Frankenstein was made to threat all the legitimate political parties.

In front our eyes a secular state was circumcised and converted to an Islamic fundamentalist state. Now you are worried about democracy, right? Banning Jamaat-e-Islami is not about violating democratic principles, it is rather saving them. No,’it’s not a blow to democracy. Recognizing terrorists as legitimate political entity would be a blow to democracy’.

India and Pakistan and other neighboring countries should learn from little Bangladesh to ban religion based politics. If you want a secular state, you have to separate religion from state, right? And if you do that, there is no way that you can allow a political party which is based on religion to exist. Let’s have true secularism in the subcontinent.

Two cheers for democracy!

Ghulam azam, a 91-year-old war criminal, has been sentenced to 90 years in prison for the crimes he committed during the liberation war of Bangladesh in 1971.

A collaborator of the Pakistani army, Azam was directly involved in killing 3 million people and the rapes of 200,000 women. After the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founder of Bangladesh, Azam returned to the country with the help of the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Meanwhile, the Jamaat-e-Islami, the once-banned political party of Islamists, was given a free hand in the Islamisation of politics. Beginning in the mid-1970s, Islamisation went on to destroy the secular fabric of the newborn nation.

Of course, Azam will not live another 90 years to end his prison term. An ailing man, he will stay in the hospital until he dies. He will not really suffer like other prisoners. He enjoyed a celebrity life for more than 40 years as the top leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh, the country whose birth he had violently opposed. Even though he will be privileged as a prisoner in his last days, still his punishment means a lot for the secular people in Bangladesh.

The war criminals have got every opportunity to turn a secular country into Darul Islam, the land of Islam. Many of them were even made Parliament members. The Jamaat-e-Islami uses religion to win the hearts and minds of god-fearing ordinary people.

A few months ago, however, there was a big secular uprising despite the threats of the Islamic fundamentalists. Many secularists demanded the banning of Jamaat-e-Islami. I supported that demand even though I am all for democracy, because the Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh is a terrorist organisation. The Islamists aim to bring theocracy and bury democracy and secularism forever.

The punishment Azam got now in his 90s is just a symbolic one. Sheikh Hasina has been in power before, but she was reluctant to bring war criminals to justice. But this time, probably, the popularity of the recent secular movement made her decide to punish war criminals. She got a huge number of votes in the last election after she promised to bring them to justice and fight the fundamentalists. Though she also promised to bring back 1972’s secular Constitution, as Prime Minister she showed no such initiative.

Her party is considered the most secular in Bangladesh, yet they arrested some secularist bloggers a few months ago. Indeed, there is no true secular political party in the country that can assure the security of all the people, including non-believers, and protect their right to express their opinions fearlessly.

Bangladesh may have won the war in 1971, but the war actually is far from over. A war is still going on, a war of two opposite ideas — secularism and fundamentalism; between rational, logical thinking and irrational blind faith; between modernism and barbarism, humanism and Islamism; between those who value freedom and those who do not.

The old generation committed an enormous mistake by letting fundamentalists influence the people. Now the new generation has to transmute their country into a secular nation — free of religion, fanaticism, fascism and barbarism. People need to get angry. I am painfully aware of the evil powers that once attempted to eliminate me, and with whom the pro-Islamist government ultimately conspired to throw me out of Bangladesh, my own country, 20 years ago, never to allow me in again.

Therefore, I would love to see millions of angry, passionate young people with a vision rise against the Islamists’ insanity, and guide the country to a new era.

Shahbag is a new Tahrir Square

Shahbag1

After Arab Spring, Tahrir revolution, and the victory of Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists in Egypt, I am not impressed by the crowd. Bangladesh’s Shahbag is now like a tiny Tahrir Square. Facebook and Twitter generation gathered at Shahbag to demand death penalty for Abdul Kader Mullah, the war criminal. He raped and killed people during Bangladesh liberation war in 1971, more than 40 years ago. The war criminal gets life imprisonment, but the Shahbag crowd is not happy, wants death penalty for him. As more people join the crowd, Shahbag starts asking death penalty for all war criminals. The fact is, all war criminals are Islamists. They did not want to be separated from Pakistan, a country based on Islam.

The Shahbag crowd is desperate to execute an old war-criminal-Islamist. What would they do to the millions of growing young Islamists in Bangladesh? I questioned. The crowd has made it clear that they are not against Islam or Islamists, they are against criminals, rapists, and murderers of 1971. The Tahrir crowd was against Mubarak but not against Islamists. The Shahbag crowd is quite similar to the Tahrir crowd. The Shahbag crowd is against war criminals but not against Islamists.

Four hundred thousand Islamists gathered in the streets demanded my execution by hanging in Bangladesh in 1994, much bigger than today’s Shahbag crowd. In 20 years, Islamists have gained their strength quite a lot. The Bangladesh government filed a case against me on the charges of hurting religious feelings and threw me out of the country. No government has shown courage yet to allow me to enter the country since then. Since then no people, no organization, no media protested against the heinous crime committed by the fundamentalists and the state against an innocent writer.

I believe if Islamists now want to have a public meeting in Bangladesh, they will be able to make 100 times bigger crowd than the Shahbag crowd. More people go to Madrasas than to facebook or twitter or blogs. More people are brainwashed to be Islamists than to be non-Islamists, more people are conservative, religious than progressive and enlightened. Much more women are veiled now than before. Now much more men go to mosques to pray than before. I lost hopes I had for Bangladesh many years ago. I probably should have new hopes, because young people at least are fighting against war criminals, a bunch of rapists and mass murderers, who have been forgiven, given opportunities, adored, respected, empowered by the worthless politicians and military since the independence of Bangladesh. I sympathize with young people at Shahbag, I can show my solidarity, but I can not support capital punishment for anymore, not even for the biggest enemy of mine, for whatever crimes they commit, not even for my assassin. I strongly believe everyone has the right to live. Bad ruling systems, bad societal systems, bad education or lack of education make people bad, corrupt, criminal, extremists.

I asked a Shahbag revolutionary, ‘Abdul Kader Mullah is now 64. He will die in prison while serving life sentence. Why are you asking for his execution?’
He said, ‘He will be freed by the next government.’
I said, ‘Then you should start protesting again the way you are protesting now. There will be second Shahbag!’
He did not like my arguments, so he called me bad names.

If those war criminals or Islamists want to kill a person, that is me, not the Shahbag crowd. They know very well who their real enemy is. They hounded me for decades. I am against all kinds of religious fundamentalists, against Islamists, against war criminals, but I am also against the death penalty. People in an uncivilized corrupt country drowned in Islamism get crazy to hang an old man. By killing Abdul Kader Mullah along with all war criminals, you will not be able to get rid of poverty, illiteracy, ignorance, patriarchy, misogyny, corruption, Islamism – your real enemies. Until you fight your real enemies, none of your revolution is a real revolution.