“Quotas Won’t Help India’s Muslims” — By SADANAND DHUME, Wall Street Journal

July 26, 2012

The Supreme Court should not repeat the mistake of seeing Muslims as a special category of citizens.


India’s Supreme Court is this week reviewing whether Muslims deserve affirmative action, and this has once again ignited a debate on how the world’s largest democracy treats its biggest minority. India’s left-leaning intelligentsia has already made up its mind, insisting on viewing the 175-million strong Muslim population through a prism of permanent victimhood. Hence, righteous television anchors self-flagellate about the alleged discrimination faced by Muslims in day-to-day life, while earnest reporters dig up evidence that the country doesn’t measure up to its secularist ideals.

These elites at least grasp the enormity of the matter: Whether the Muslim community is well-integrated and productive or marginalized and resentful remains one of the big questions on which the country’s future hinges. But their diagnosis is off the mark. And their favorite solution, to offer so-called reservations for Muslims in schools and jobs, betrays a dangerous ignorance of history.

Such affirmative action is doled out to lower caste Hindus to redress historic discrimination but hardly ever on a religious basis, which is why the case the Supreme Court accepted Monday has wide-reaching implications. New Delhi had earlier carved out a 4.5% quota for Muslims for universities and jobs controlled by the central government, but a lower court in Andhra Pradesh struck it down as unconstitutional.


Agence France-Presse/Getty ImagesBollywood stars Shah Rukh Khan (left) and Aamir Khan do well on their own.

Whatever grounds the courts rule on, the question for India’s political class is largely philosophical. It’s laudable that they want to increase Muslim representation in government and higher education but why does this require the crude instrument of quotas, which dilute merit and deepen divisions in society?

According to a widely cited report by retired judge Rajinder Sachar, in terms of education and government jobs, Muslims lag not only upper-caste Hindus but also Dalits (those historically at the bottom of India’s social hierarchy). Anecdotal evidence suggests that in many cities, educated Muslims find it harder to rent homes than their Hindu counterparts. In Hindu-Muslim riots, such as those that rocked the Western state of Gujarat in 2002, Muslims invariably suffer greater loss of life than Hindus.

Though these are hardly facts to be proud of, they miss the forest for the trees. Far from being the intolerant land of caricature suggested by the activist left, India is in fact one of the world’s most tolerant and unselfconsciously pluralistic societies.

Take demographics, arguably the ultimate marker of a community’s wellbeing. Between 1961 and 2001, India’s Muslims’ share of the population rose to 13.6% from 10.7%. According to a 2009 Pew Foundation report, that number has since increased to about 15%. In contrast, both Pakistan and Bangladesh have seen an outflow of religious minorities, including persecuted minority Muslim sects, and a sharp decline in their populations since independence. India, warts and all, is still the most attractive place to work and live in South Asia.

Then there’s Bollywood, one of India’s biggest exports. Muslim superstars such as Shah Rukh Khan and Salman Khan today dominate the industry, while much of the behind-the-scenes musical and writing talent is also Muslim. None of this draws comment—if anything, polite society regards bringing attention to faith as the height of gaucheness.

Nor is success confined to the movies. Indian Muslims regularly occupy the top rungs of politics, journalism, business and the military. About a decade ago, India’s first citizen (then President Abdul Kalam), top movie star (Shah Rukh Khan) and richest man (Wipro’s Azim Premji) were all Muslim.

As for riots, for the most part, the country has moved on. Unlike in the 1980s when one case of mass violence seemed to follow another in quick succession, these hardly occur anymore.

In such a scenario, do Indian elites really want to push for new legislation, especially something as drastic as quotas? For Muslims, this will only reinforce a sense of separateness; and, for majority Hindus, it will stoke resentment and the sense that unscrupulous politicians put pandering ahead of principle.

India’s culture wars started in the 1980s in part because former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi provided Muslim men exceptional marriage rights (by denying divorced women alimony). They culminated in the demolition of a mosque in Ayodhya and nationwide riots in 1992-93.

The Supreme Court should not repeat that mistake, and it should also bear in mind two occasions from farther back in history. In the 1920s, Mohandas Gandhi’s shortsighted attempt to mobilize Muslims against the British by demanding the restoration of Turkey’s Caliphate sowed the seeds of Partition (one reason Indian Muslims are predominantly poor is that many of the upper and middle classes migrated to Pakistan). In the 1950s, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s failure to reform regressive Muslim personal laws—when Parliament rightly banned practices such as polygamy among Hindus—did the community no favors either.

On all these occasions, the political class blundered by viewing the community through the prism of faith rather than nationality. These Muslims are Indians and the best way for India to integrate them is to strive to treat them as individuals rather than members of a group. Against the backdrop of political ferment in the Middle East, and the rise of radical Islam in South Asia, Indians disregard this common sense notion at their own peril.

This means stressing equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcomes. Better schools in Muslim-majority districts, along with privately endowed fellowships for bright students from Muslim-dominated schools (but open to all), are a start. In the longer term, Muslim leaders themselves must address issues such as attitudes toward female education that keep the community backward. But one thing is for sure: The crude fix of quotas may just end up creating more problems than it solves.

Mr. Dhume is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a columnist for WSJ.com. Follow him on Twitter @dhume01


“To the average Muslim, cursing of Jews in mosques feels normal and even holy.”

July 26, 2012

“Egypt’s Candid Camera, Jew-Hate and Violence”

Posted By Nonie Darwish On July 26, 2012 @ 12:40 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 26 Comments

Recently, an Egyptian Candid Camera prank type TV show turned very ugly and violent when the guest, an Egyptian actor, was told he was on Israeli TV. The prank was done on several guests with similar reactions: extreme violence and hate speech against Jews who were described as the most cursed by Allah in Islam.

I personally was not surprised by the video clip, but a lot of American friends of mine were shocked by the responses they witnessed on camera. Many books have been written about why Muslims hate Jews but I decided to write my own explanation, which I detailed in chapter four of my most recent book “The Devil We Don’t Know.”

No true Muslim dares to ask why Islam is consumed with hatred of non-Muslims, especially Jews. When I was a Muslim, I never dared to ask that question, let alone objectively answer it. I never dared to question why our religious leaders curse, lie and preach hatred and violence from the pulpit of mosques. To the average Muslim, cursing of Jews in mosques feels normal and even holy. That intense hatred of Jews was especially intensified in the last ten years of Mohammed’s life and it was not a new development in Islamic countries after the 1948 war.

After a lot of thinking, analysis, research and writing, I discovered that Jew-hatred in Islam is an essential foundation to the Islamic belief system that Muslims cannot seem to be able to rid themselves of. Jew-hatred masks an existential problem in Islam. If Jew-hatred is removed, Islam itself would self-destruct. This is why:

When Mohammed embarked on his mission to spread Islam, his objective was to create a uniquely Arabian religion, one created by an Arab prophet, which reflected the Arabian values and culture. Yet to obtain legitimacy, he had to link it to the two previous Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Christianity. He expected the Jewish tribes who lived in Arabia to declare him their Messiah and thereby bring him more legitimacy with Arabs, especially with his own tribe in Mecca, the Quraish. Because his own tribe had rejected and ridiculed him, Mohammed needed the approval of the Jews, whom he called the “People of the Book.” But the conversion of Jews to Islam was part of the scenario that Mohammed had to accomplish in order to prove to Meccans that they had made a mistake by rejecting him.

That was one of the reasons Mohammed chose to migrate to Medina, a town that had predominantly been settled by Jewish tribes and a few impoverished Arabs who lived around the Jews. The Jews allowed Mohammed to move in. In the beginning, the Koran of Mecca was full of appeals to the Jews, who were then described as “guidance and light” (5:44) and a “righteous” people (6:153–154), who “excelled the nations” (45:16). But when the Jews rejected the appeasement and refused to convert to Islam, Mohammed simply and literally flipped. The Qur’an changed from love to threats and then pure hatred, cursing and commandments to kill Jews. Rejection by the Jews became an intolerable obsession with Mohammed.

Not only did the Jews reject him, but their prosperity made Mohammed extremely envious. The Jewish Arabian tribes earned their living from legitimate and successful business, but Mohammed earned his living and wealth through warfare, by attacking Arab tribes (some of whom were from his own tribe) and trade caravans and seizing their wealth and property. That did not look good for a man who claimed to be a prophet of God. The mere existence of the Jews made Mohammed look bad which led Mohammed to unspeakable slaughter; he ordered the beheading of 600 to 900 Jewish men of one tribe and took their women and children as slaves. Mohammed had the first pick of the prettiest woman as his sex slave. All of this senseless slaughter of the Jews was elaborately documented in Islamic books on the life of Mohammed, not as something to be ashamed of, but as justified behavior against evil people.

One does not have to be an authority on human behavior to see how tormented Mohammed must have been after the massacre he orchestrated and forced his fighters to undertake, to empower and enrich himself and his religion. To reduce his torment, he needed everyone around him as well as future generations, to participate in the genocide against the Jews, the only people who he could not control. An enormous number of verses in the Qur’an encouraged Mohammed’s fighters to fight and kill and curse those who wanted to escape fighting. The Qur’an is full of promises of all kinds of pleasure in heaven for those who follow Mohammed’s killing spree; it curses and condemns, meanwhile, all those who choose to escape from fighting. Muslims are encouraged to feel no hesitation or guilt for the genocide because it is not they who do it, but Allah’s hand which is behind the killing.

Mohammed never got over his anger, humiliation, and rejection by the “People of the Book” and he went to his grave tormented and obsessed that some Jews were still alive. On his death bed, Mohammed entrusted Muslims to kill Jews wherever they found them, which made this a “holy commandment” that no Muslim can reject. Muslims who wrote Sharia, understood how Mohammed was extremely sensitive to criticism and that is why criticizing Mohammed became the highest crime in Islam that will never be forgiven even if the offender repents. Mohammed’s message on his deathbed was not for his followers to strive for holiness, peace, goodness, and to treat their neighbors as themselves, but a commandment for Muslims to continue the killing of, and the genocide against, the Jews. Killing thus became a holy act of obedience to Mohammed and Allah himself.

Mohammed portrayed himself as a victim of Jews and Muslims must avenge him till Judgment Day. Sharia also codified into law the duty of every Muslim to defend Mohammed’s honor and Islam with their blood and allowed the violation of many commandments if it was for the benefit of defending Islam and Mohammed. Thus, Muslims are carrying a huge burden, a holy burden, to defend Mohammed with their blood and in doing that, they are mandated to kill, lie, slander, etc.

Mohammed must have felt deep and extreme shame after what he had done to the Jews and thus a very good reason had to be found to explain away his genocide. Thus, by commanding Muslims to continue the genocide for him, even after his death, until the Day of Judgment, Mohammed expanded the shame to cover all Muslims and Islam itself. All Muslims were commanded to follow Mohammed’s example and chase the Jews wherever they went. One hundred years after Mohammed’s death, Arabs occupied Jerusalem, and built the Al Aqsa mosque right on top of the Jewish Temple ruins, the holiest spot of the Jews. Muslims thought they erased all memory of Jewish existence.

Mohammed’s genocide of the Jews of Arabia became an unholy dark mark of shame in Islamic history, and that shame, envy, and anger continues to get the best of Muslims today. In the eyes of Mohammed and Muslims, the mere existence of the Jewish people, let alone an entire Jewish state, de-legitimizes Islam and makes Mohammed look more like a mass murderer than a prophet. For Muslims to make peace with Jews and acknowledge that Jews are humans who deserve the same rights as everyone else would have a devastating effect on how Muslims view their religion, their history and the actions of their prophet.

Islam, therefore, has a major existential problem. By no will of their own, the Jews found themselves in the middle of this problem. Islam must justify the genocide that Mohammed waged against the Jews. Mohammed and Muslims had two choices: either the Jews are evil subhumans, apes, pigs, and enemies of Allah, a common description of Jews still heard regularly in Middle Eastern mosques today, or Mohammed was a genocidal warlord and not fit to be a prophet of God, a choice that would mean the end of Islam.

Then and now, Mohammed and Muslims clearly chose the first worldview and decreed that any hint of the second must be severely punished. Jews must remain eternally evil enemies of Islam, if Islam is to remain legitimate. There is no third solution to save the core of Islam from collapsing; either Mohammed was evil or the Jews were evil. Any attempt to forgive, humanize, or live peacefully with Jews is considered treason against Islam and Mohammed. How can Muslims forgive the Jews and then go back to their mosques, only to read their prophet’s words, telling them they must kill Jews wherever they find them? It does not add up, if someone wants to remain Muslim.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

The TOWNS & CITIES of Judea and Samaria are LEGAL according to International LAW.

July 26, 2012

Israel’s Settlers Are Here to Stay

DANI DAYAN, Chairman Jewish Communities in Judea & Samaria
July 25, 2012

WHATEVER word you use to describe Israel’s 1967 acquisition of Judea and Samaria — commonly referred to as the West Bank in these pages — will not change thehistorical facts. Arabs called for Israel’s annihilation in 1967, and Israel legitimately seized the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria in self-defense. Israel’s moral claim to these territories, and the right of Israelis to call them home today, is therefore unassailable. Giving up this land in the name of a hallowed two-state solution would mean rewarding those who’ve historically sought to destroy Israel, a manifestly immoral outcome.

Of course, just because a policy is morally justified doesn’t mean it’s wise. However, our four-decade-long settlement endeavor is both. The insertion of an independent Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan would be a recipe for disaster.

The influx of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere would convert the new state into a hotbed of extremism. And any peace agreement would collapse the moment Hamas inevitably took power by ballot or by gun. Israel would then be forced to recapture the area, only to find a much larger Arab population living there.

Moreover, the Palestinians have repeatedly refused to implement a negotiated two-state solution. The American government and its European allies should abandon this failed formula once and for all and accept that the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are not going anywhere.

On the contrary, we aim to expand the existing Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria, and create new ones. This is not — as it is often portrayed — a theological adventure but is rather a combination of inalienable rights and realpolitik.

Even now, and despite the severe constraints imposed by international pressure, more than 350,000 Israelis live in Judea and Samaria. With an annual growth rate of 5 percent, we can expect to reach 400,000 by 2014 — and that excludes the almost 200,000 Israelis living in Jerusalem’s newer neighborhoods. Taking Jerusalem into account, about 1 in every 10 Israeli Jews resides beyond the 1967 border. Approximately 160,000 Jews live in communities outside the settlement blocs that proponents of the two-state solution believe could be easily incorporated into Israel. But uprooting them would be exponentially more difficult than the evacuation of the Gaza Strip’s 8,000 settlers in 2005.

The attempts by members of the Israeli left to induce Israelis to abandon their homes in Judea and Samaria by offering them monetary compensation are pathetic. This checkbook policy has failed in the past, as it will in the future. In the areas targeted for evacuation most of us are ideologically motivated and do not live here for economic reasons. Property prices in the area are steep and settlers who want to relocate could sell their property on the free market. But they do not.

Our presence in all of Judea and Samaria — not just in the so-called settlement blocs — is an irreversible fact. Trying to stop settlement expansion is futile, and neglecting this fact in diplomatic talks will not change the reality on the ground; it only makes the negotiations more likely to fail.

Given the irreversibility of the huge Israeli civilian presence in Judea and Samaria and continuing Palestinian rejectionism, Western governments must reassess their approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They should acknowledge that no final-status solution is imminent. And consequently, instead of lamenting that the status quo is not sustainable, the international community should work together with the parties to improve it where possible and make it more viable.

Today, security — the ultimate precondition for everything — prevails. Neither Jews nor Palestinians are threatened by en masse eviction; the economies are thriving; a new Palestinian city, Rawabi, is being built north of Ramallah; Jewish communities are growing; checkpoints are being removed; and tourists of all nationalities are again visiting Bethlehem and Shiloh.

While the status quo is not anyone’s ideal, it is immeasurably better than any other feasible alternative. And there is room for improvement. Checkpoints are a necessity only if terror exists; otherwise, there should be full freedom of movement. And the fact that the great-grandchildren of the original Palestinian refugees still live in squalid camps after 64 years is a disgrace that should be corrected by improving their living conditions.

Yossi Beilin, a left-wing former Israeli minister, wrote a telling article a few months ago. A veteran American diplomat touring the area had told Mr. Beilin he’d left frightened because he found everyone — Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — content with the current situation. Mr. Beilin finds this widespread satisfaction disturbing, too.

I think it is wonderful news. If the international community relinquished its vain attempts to attain the unattainable two-state solution, and replaced them with intense efforts to improve and maintain the current reality on the ground, it would be even better.

The settlements of Judea and Samaria are not the problem — they are part of the solution.



July 26, 2012

 July 19th, 2012 |  Author: 



Read the rest of this entry »

Hindus have offered heartfelt condolences on the death of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, top rabbinic authority and highly respected Jewish law expert, on July 18 in Jerusalem (Israel).

July 26, 2012


Hindus have offered heartfelt condolences on the death of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, top rabbinic authority and highly respected Jewish law expert, on July 18 in Jerusalem (Israel).

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada (USA) today, said that they were saddened by the passing of Rabbi Elyashiv, 102, highly influential spiritual leader of Judaism. He would be greatly missed.

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, voiced appreciation for Rabbi Elyashiv`s expertise on Jewish law, scholarship, humble and modest lifestyle, rejection of worldly possessions, promotion of traditions, humility and ethical and sermonic insights.

Rajan Zed, who described Rabbi Elyashiv as a pillar of Jewish scholarship, mourning his death, extended heartfelt sympathy at this time of great sorrow to his hundreds of thousands of followers spread worldwide who respected him like a sage.

Born in 1910 in Lithuania, mostly self-taught Rabbi Elyashiv devoted his life to Torah study.

%d bloggers like this: