The Renegade Writings

Adding to the misconceptions

2008-04-10T10:05:00.006+05:30

Recently I read an editorial in the Times of India, written by S M Murshed, who according to the newspaper was a former advisor to the governor of J&K. The article was titled “Islam misunderstood”, considering the fact that Mr. S M Murshed was an advisor to the governor of J&K, an Indian state infested with terrorism – due to Islamic sectarian outfits. One would expect an erudite writing on how extremist views of Islam have led to all the blood shed and commotion, and how it can be reformed. If so, you are in for a disappointment! Instead of doing any of this Mr. S M Murshed, is a mode of extreme denial! – that Islamic extremism exists, that these extremists can use the Quran to justify there actions. What is in fact worrying is, he is most probably not ignorant of these but probably lying!

Mr. S M Murshed, launches an attack on western media for spreading myths about Islam and finally blames Pope Benedict XVI, for championing the spread of the myth. Now, what is it, that he calls myth?

The principal myth propagated is that Islam exhorts its followers to jehad or holy war and belligerent Muslims are termed as jehadis.

An Erroneous Strategy

After, defending the Quran with a rhetoric that it doesn’t support the concept of holy war (and latter he will say pope doesn’t know the meaning of jihad – it simply doesn’t mean holy war and also that the pope never quoted a quranic verse in support of his thesis), Mr. S M Murshed, goes on to remind the pope about the crusades:

The Pope forgot momentarily that a Holy War was a purely Christian concept and the call for it, i.e. the first Crusade, was given in 1095 AD by Pope Urban II, who granted all those taking part in it, the soldiers of the Church, absolution from all their sins as a reward.

I am not the one who champions the cause of the Catholic Church or the pope, pretty much obvious from my criticism of the bible. But one must admit that the pope is far more erudite than Mr. S M Murshed, in comparative religion.

Mr. S M Murshed, never once thought that his own argument (that jihad doesn’t mean holy war) could back fire on him. Crusade was actually derived from a French word croisade, meaning “Marked by the Cross”, referring to the taking of the cross during the journey to Jerusalem. So would that mean that the concept of Holy war doesn’t exist in Christianity? Also note that Mr. S M Murshed never quoted the bible in support of what he claims about crusade, yet he would call it a christian concept (I say so, because Mr. S M Murshed, would latter on wonder why the terrorists are called “Islamic terrorists” just because they are muslims when people of other religions are not).

Mr. S M Murshed, also forgets that the quran promises the Mujahideens (those involved in jihad with their wealth and lives) with greater reward, forgiveness than the those who stay back and those who are not disabled [Q 4:95-96] (Note that the verse has the word “jihad” and it clearly separates them from those who stay back, uninjured (and yet they stay back) and the Mujahideens, a clear reference from the quran that the jihad can refer to war). Other verses talk about similar rewards to those who fight [Q 4:74, Q 9:20-22, Q 9:111, Q 49:15, Q 61:10-13]. Yet Mr. S M Murshed would reckon Crusade as a holy war but Jihad which is given similar rewards in Islam isn’t! So much for the consistency, he will ask us latter regarding the calling of terrorists as Islamic!

Meaning Of Jihad

He then writes:

The Pope has not troubled himself to mention the specific verse or verses in the Qur'an that he alluded to. One must, therefore, divine what the Pontiff had in mind from the Arabic word jehad, which is commonly, and wrongly, regarded by the non-Muslim world in general, and the western world in particular, as meaning a Holy War of the Muslims.

Jehad means striving or struggling for any just and righteous cause and most emphatically, it does not mean war. The word occurs 41 times in the Qur'an and not once can it be construed to be an exhortation to war. Those familiar with the Urdu language will know that the term is used in daily life in conversation, for instance, when it is said that after considerable jadd-o-jehad one has been able to overcome some bad habit like smoking or drinking.

Note what Mr. S M Murshed says, the wrong term Holy war for jihad is only popular in non-Muslim and the western world and his emphatic denial that Jihad could refer to war. Then probably Mr. S M Murshed could explain this dictionary entry for Jihad in the, Lisan al-'arab, a great classical Arabic dictionary

Fighting the enemy. It involves using all effort in words and deeds.

And also another dictionary entry in Mujam matn al lughah:

Jihad is commonly used to refer to waging war for the sake of Al-haqq (the truth)

Sunni Islam, the largest Islamic division has different schools of thought, namely Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali – each having their own Fiqh (law). Al Inayah Sharh al Hidayah, a fiqh Hanafi has this to say on Jihad:

Calling towards the true religion and fighting with one’s soul and wealth against those who reject it.

Al Sheerazi in al Muhadhab, a fiqh Shafi'I says Jihad is fighting. Mawahib al Jaleel fi Sharh Mukhtasar Khali, a fiqh Maliki, says:

Jihad is a Muslim waging war agianst a non-Muslim who has no peace agreement with Muslims and the fighting is for the sake of the word of Allah to prevail. Jihad is also fighting the non-Muslim who attacks Muslim territory and it is also the Muslims attacking the non-Muslims in their land.

It is true Jihad means striving or struggling for any just and righteous cause, as Mr. S M Murshed says, but didn’t it never dawn on him fighting a war would be one among them? And what is termed as righteous may not end up being so righteous. In fact, if any of us are to look into the quran for the term "Holy War" – we would certainly not find it, for the very term "Holy War" is relatively very new. Friedrich Schwally coined the infamous term "holy war" (heilige Krieg) in his monograph by that name published in 1901. Issue is not whether Quran sanctions "Holy War" in those exact words, but whether it sanctions what we now understand as "Holy War"– war that is understood by its adherents and warriors as divinely sanctioned – and whether Jihad is used in the quran in that sense.

Jihad by definition could mean a host of things:

to strive or labour or toil, exert oneself or his power or efforts, employ oneself vigorously or diligently or studiously, take extra pains, put oneself to trouble or fatigue, examine someone or something, to burden or weaken or fatigue beyond one's power, churn and extract from a thing, very eagerly desire or long for something, lay upon or compress, become manifest, to fight for a cause, be in a state of extreme difficulty or trouble, meditate upon something, to overload (such as a camel or cattle), strive after, struggle against difficulties.

The context determines the meaning. Mr. S M Murshed’s analogy that “jadd-o-jehad one has been able to overcome some bad habit like smoking or drinking”, completely misses the point. Has Mr. S M Murshed heard English phrases such as “Crusade against Adult Illiteracy” or “Crusade against Littering” etc. So employing Mr. S M Murshed’s argument we could safely conclude Crusade has nothing to do with religious warfare. As noted the context determines the meaning, no matter what Mr. S M Murshed has to say on the other uses of Jihad.

Mr. S M Murshed’s logic is a mere smoke screen. Jihad literally doesn’t mean “Holy War” (the actual Arabic word for holy war is "Harb Muqaddasah") so the quran doesn’t teach the concept of holy war and Jihad can’t refer to holy war. This argument was first brought out by Muslim speaker and polemicist, Dr. Jamal Badawi, which has since been deflated by Sam Shamoun of Answeing Islam. Shamoun was not to be outwitted he came up with a fitting reply. It is simple, according the quran “the holy” is one of Allah’s names and numerous verses call for fighting is Allah’s cause in the quran – so there we have a Holy war!

The point is, it is not that we need to find the exact words for holy war to say that a book promotes it. Crusades can’t be “holy war” since it doesn’t mean holy war, yet Mr. S M Murshed calls it “holy war” but he can’t even dream of similar logic against his own religion. I think enough references has been provided from Islamic sources that Jihad can be referred to “Holy war”, though it doesn’t literally mean so.

In fact, he couldn’t deny that Jihad could mean war:

But conceivably when a struggle has to be undertaken literally on a war footing in a just cause, the war becomes jehad, such as, for instance, the Palestinians are fighting to expel foreigners, who, with Anglo-American support, have usurped their land.

Let’s set aside the general meaning of Jihad and the questions as to whether Mr. S M Murshed supports the violent ways of the groups like Hamas. Let us concentrate on the Killer argument of Mr. S M Murshed – “The word occurs 41 times in the Qur'an and not once can it be construed to be an exhortation to war.” It is true that the word “Jihad” and its derivatives are used 41 times in the quran. Given the fact that Mr. S M Murshed is aware of the no occurrences of the Arabic word in quran, it would be inconceivable that he doesn’t know their context. I had already pointed out one of those verses [Q 4:95-96] and it clearly a call for muslims to fight/war. Let me quote Tasfir Ibn Kathir – a extremely popular and authoritative commentary on the quran by renowned commentator Ismail Ibn Kathir – on the verse:

Al-Bukhari recorded that Al-Bara' said, "When the Ayah, (Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home),) was revealed, the Messenger of Allah called Zayd and commanded him to write it. Then, Ibn Umm Maktum came and mentioned that he was blind. Allah revealed, (except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame)).'' Al-Bukhari recorded that Sahl bin Sa`d As-Sa`di said, "I saw Marwan bin Al-Hakam sitting in the Masjid. I came and sat by his side. He told us that Zayd bin Thabit told him that Allah's Messenger dictated this Ayah to him, (Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled, and those who strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah) Ibn Umm Maktum came to the Prophet as he was dictating that very Ayah to me. Ibn Umm Maktum said, `O Allah's Messenger! By Allah, if I had power, I would surely take part in Jihad.' He was a blind man. So Allah sent down revelation to His Messenger while his thigh was on mine and it became so heavy for me that I feared that my thigh would be broken. That ended after Allah revealed, (except those who are disabled).'' This was recorded by Al-Bukhari. At-Tirmidhi recorded that Ibn `Abbas said, (Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled), refers to those who did not go to the battle of Badr and those who went to Badr. When the battle of Badr was about to occur, Abu Ahmad bin Jahsh and Ibn Umm Maktum said, `We are blind, O Messenger of Allah! Do we have an excuse' The Ayah, (Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled) was revealed. Allah made those who fight, above those who sit in their homes not hindered by disability. (but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home), by a huge reward. Degrees of (higher) grades from Him), above the believers who sit at home without a disability hindering them.'' This is the wording recorded by At-Tirmidhi, who said, "Hasan Gharib. Allah's statement, (Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home),) this is general. Soon after, the revelation came down with, except those who are disabled). So whoever has a disability, such as blindness, a limp, or an illness that prevents them from joining Jihad, they were not compared to the Mujahidin who strive in Allah's cause with their selves and wealth, as those who are not disabled and did not join the Jihad were. In his Sahih, Al-Bukhari recorded that Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said, قالوا: وهم بالمدينة يا رسول الله؟ (There are people who remained in Al-Madinah, who were with you in every march you marched and every valley you crossed.) They said, "While they are still in Al-Madinah, O Messenger of Allah'' He said, (Yes. Only their disability hindered them (from joining you).) Allah said, (Unto each, Allah has promised good) meaning, Paradise and tremendous rewards. This Ayah indicates that Jihad is not Fard on each and every individual, but it is Fard Kifayah (which is a collective duty). Allah then said, (but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home), by a huge reward). Allah mentions what He has given them rooms in Paradise, along with His forgiveness and the descent of mercy and blessing on them, as a favor and honor from Him. So He said; (Degrees of (higher) grades from Him, and forgiveness and mercy. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.). In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said that the Messenger of Allah said, (There are a hundred grades in Paradise that Allah has prepared for the Mujahidin in His cause, between each two grades is the distance between heaven and Earth.)

The only reason blind and other disabled where exempted from jihad was not because Jihad here was merely some struggle, but it was a war!

Is this not an exhortation to war Mr. S M Murshed?

So lets look at the other verses too. Q 5:53 uses the word “jihad” in the sense diligent or studious. Q 6:109, Q 16:38, Q 24:53, Q 35:42, Q 9:79, Q 8:74 – 75, Q 16:110, Q 29:6, Q 29:8, Q 29:69, Q 31:15, Q 5:54, Q 5:35, Q 22:78, Q 22:52, Q 9:24, Q 47:31 – almost all of these verses use the word either in a similar sense & which can’t be seen as an outright and obvious call to war.

Q 2:218 uses the word in the sense of striving in Allah’s path, we already saw what it means to strive in Allah’s path in Q 4:95-96, this verse only reiterates that stand with its context. The previous verse deals with the norm prevalent then, not to fight in the sacred months. The Meccan polytheists point out this norm and the reply comes in Q 2:217-218 that it is a greater fault to be in Allah’s way and this is a greater fault than to kill someone. And hence urges the believers to fight, a clear call for war!

Q 3:142, a verse better understood in the light of the previous and subsequent verses. Muslims suffer great losses in the battle of Uhud, including seventy dead, Allah talks about the killing on both sides in Q 3:140 and reminds that the muslims have also inflicted causalities on the opponents. In verse Q 3:142, Allah says:

“Do you think that you will enter Paradise before Allah tests those of you who fought (in His Cause) and (also) tests those who are As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.)?”

Not only does the verse use Jihad (those who fought) in the sense of war, but also but also clearly says that whether they fought or not will determine their entry into paradise! Allah is luring muslims into war with the bait of paradise. How audacious is it for, Mr. S M Murshed, to say in the light of these few verses that never has Jihad been used in the quran as an exhortation to war?

Q 9:73 is another verse, with the word jihad with asks the prophet to be harsh against the disbelievers and promotes violence against the disblievers.

It is not possible for me to touch upon all the verses, I will just summarize the rest of the verses - Q 8:72, Q 9:16, Q 9:19, Q 9:20, Q 9:88, Q 9:44, Q 9:81, Q 61:11, Q 9:41, Q 9:86, Q 49:15, Q 66:9, Q 60:1. All contain an exhortation to fight and kill in war. Another point that should be taken note is that, many of the verses that call for war have been omitted because they don’t use the word jihad!

Moreover, the major Sunnah [saying of Muhammad] including the “two Sahihs (authentic)” Sahih Bukari & Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu-Dawud, Muwatta' Imam Malik all contain a chapter on Jihad: Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad), The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar), Jihad (Kitab Al-Jihad), Jihad. And astonishingly almost all of hadiths (sayings) included in them refers to Jihad as fighting war!

Mr. S M Murshed, is merely playing to the galleries using the naiveté of his readers on the Quran and other aspects of Islam.

Final Comments

He continues:

Some terrorist organisations have, however, adopted the term jehadi, attributing their cause to a struggle for justice, for redressing an imagined wrong done to their fellowmen. In the instances where it has been so used, it is a misnomer and no Quranic support can be found for it.

We have seen enough evidence, this is an outright lie! Mr. S M Murshed becomes more desperate:

The transition from jehad to terrorism becomes all too easy, giving currency to the fallacious aphorism: All Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. It is Islamic terrorism, they say.

I would say it is Mr. S M Murshed’s imagination rather than being any aphorism. I have not seen a single serious commentator on Islamic terrorism use such an aphorism. Yes! All terrorists are not muslims.

Of the people killed in terrorist attacks in India in the year 2007, less than one-third were killed by Muslim organisations, while the rest were killed by others - notably Left-wing extremist groups, the ULFA in Assam and the PLA in Manipur.

So what is your point Mr. S M Murshed? Apart from the fact he gives no proof for his stats. Anyone, understand the hollowness of his logic. A lot more people die of diseases than terrorism, does that make terrorism any less dangerous? Moreover, muslim extremists groups are present all over the world, what is he trying to achieve by considering only India?

Surely the Gita or the Bible cannot be blamed for much of the terrorist activities in the world, which has, meanwhile, learned to blame only the Qur'an. All Muslims are not terrorists, only a minority is. Why is it that all the terrorists are not identified by their religious denominations while the term ‘Islamic terrorism' comes glibly to one's tongue in identifying a section of them on the assumption that terrorism is ingrained in Islam?

Mr. S M Murshed, conveniently forgets that he used the term “Left-wing extremist groups” yet all left-wing groups are not terrorists groups. But He can’t allow the same principle being applied to his religion. They are called Islamic terrorists because they draw justification and Inspiration for their actions from Islam. And of course, terrorism is ingrained in Islam, after all didn’t the prophet of Islam claim that he has been made victorious by terror? Are you going to deny this too, Mr. S M Murshed?

For his information Christian extremism or terrorism is not an alien term to muslims – the current war on terror is widely known so in muslim nations and Atheists also use the term.
Mr. S M Murshed, has failed fatally in removing any misconception on Islam, if at all he has succeeded in anything, he has only managed add a few of his own.

This has been the problem with muslims, for that matter followers of any religion. There are possibly three groups of followers – those who know what their religion preaches and they follow it, those who are not aware of all what is preached or are totally unaware of it, those who know what it preaches, but pretend as though it doesn’t teach something. The latter think they are doing their religion some good by protecting it, they are wrong! The first step in arriving at a solution to any problem is accepting that there is a problem. If Murshed wants to do away with the problems that plague Islam he needs to confront it, closing your eyes and pretending that no problem exists will do no good! In fact it will do more damage than anything.

Tags: Islam, Religion, Quran, SM Murshed, Terrorism, Times Of India

Regional Nonsense!

2008-04-03T23:25:00.009+05:30

The Tamils have apparently decided to take the cue from the kanndigas attack on tamils, the result? Counter attacks on Kannadigas in Tamil Nadu!

The protests are childish & are stooping too low, for instance:

Tension prevailed at the Athipalli junction near the State’s border with Karnataka after activists of the Kannada Jakridhi Vedike took out a procession and burnt the effigy of Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi. The activists also raised slogans against the PMK founder Dr. S. Ramadoss for his remarks on Kannadigas.

The agitators asked the PMK to refrain from staking a claim for the Kolar Gold Fields, Chamrajpet and Bangalore, threatening to stake a counter claim for Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri districts. They urged the Tamil Nadu government to abandon the project, failing which they warned of paralysing inter-State traffic.

OMG! (not literally]) Should I laugh or cry? What next? - Strom into my house and claim it belongs to Karnataka/TamilNadu! Ridiculous! Nonsense!

Tags: Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Regionalism

Tamils Attacked In Karnataka

2008-04-01T22:37:00.003+05:30

In an unfortunate turn of events members of the Kannnada Rakshana Vedike, became violent in their protest against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi’s statement that TN will continue with the Hognekal project.

Members of the group disrupted the screening of Tamil movies (in ten theatres) across Bangalore on Monday as a mark of protest. They ended up ripping up their posters and also assaulted several people. The office of the Tamil Sangam in Ulsoor was also attacked. Members of the Vedike hit one person with a helmet when he requested them not to tear up a poster of Tamil superstar and former Tamil Nadu chief minister MGR.

Narayan Gowda, convener of the Vedike, also warned that the Vedike would not allow a single Tamil movie to be screened in Karnataka.

Though, it is within their rights to show the disapproval of the statements of TN CM, it against the law to use force and violence to achieve their goals. This brand of fanatical regionalism is highly deplorable and can shake the very fabric of the Nation. The necessary authorities must step in before the problem goes out of hand.

Meanwhile, Kannnada Rakshana Vedike has asked all theatre owners and cable operators to stop screening Tamil movies across the state and take Tamil channels off the air from Wednesday onwards.

Tags: Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Regionalism, Hognekal

SIMI's Hand In Mumbai Blasts?

2008-04-01T15:16:00.002+05:30

Banned Students’ Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) head Safdar Hussein Nagori (who was arrested last week) on Tuesday admitted before the police officials that a meeting of important leaders of the outfit took place at Ujjain just before the Mumbai train blast which claimed a large number of lives.

However, Indore range Inspector General Anil Kumar told reporters that it is too early for the investigating team to establish whether the particular meeting took place to plot the Mumbai train blasts.

Mumbai police Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) has also arrested a SIMI activist, Ehtesham Siddiqui, soon after the blasts who revealed during interrogation that a meeting of the outfit was held in Ujjain just before the Mumbai train blasts.

The IG also said that the probe team is trying to find out who all were present in that meeting with the arrested SIMI's top leadership.

He also said that the investigators are also trying to find out whether these SIMI activists have links with Lashkar-e-Toiba and Al-Qaida type international terrorist outfits or not.

Besides Madhya Pradesh police, investigators from Haryana, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Karnataka are also camping in the city to probe the arrested SIMI leaders.

Police has so far arrested 20 SIMI activists since the major crackdown on the banned outfit on March 27 when its 13 top leaders were arrested by the police from Shyam Nagar area of Indore.

[Via: Times Of India]

Tags: SIMI, Terrorism, Safar Nagori

Because... God did so!

2008-04-01T01:13:00.004+05:30

Genesis 5:1-2 attempts a real short summary of man’s creation:

This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them “man.” (אדם) [Gen 5:1-2]

אדם – âdâm – is translated as man/mankind (bolded). So isn’t God of the bible gender biased or misogynistic for calling them man rather than (also) woman or something else? Here is a Christian answer:

.....b. And called them Mankind: The human race - mankind - was given the name “man” by God from the beginning. It is not sexist or gender biased to call the human race by the general heading “mankind,” because God does this. ..... [David Guzik on Gen 5:1-2]

No! Because God did so! What a classic example of circular reasoning?!

It isn’t biased because God did so. So, doesn’t that [very act] make him biased? – No, it isn’t biased! Because?

Tags: God, Bible, man, woman, Adam, Eve, misogynistic, Christianity, Genesis

More SIMI Men Held

2008-03-31T19:04:00.003+05:30

Seven activists of the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) have been arrested on charges of providing assistance to their former chief Safdar Nagori and 12 other top leaders nabbed last week in a major crackdown against the outfit.

Five activists were apprehended early on Monday morning from Unhel town near Ujjain, which, police said, was a major centre for SIMI activists to carryout their anti-national plans.

The arrested are Jabil Parvez - brother of Aamil Parvez who was held last week - Aiyaz, Akbar, Irshad and Mehruddin, Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDOP) Sanjeev Singh told.

Two SIMI activists were arrested on Sunday night from Indore, Madhya Pradesh's commerical capital, Suprintendent of Police, Anshuman Singh Yadav said.

They have been identified as Abdul Razzak and Rais Ahmed Khan. Both are criminals with past records and hail from Indore, police said.

They were being questioned with regard to their involvement in illegal activities and helping anti-national elements, they said.

[Via: Times Of India]

Tags: SIMI, Terrorism

Safar Nagori's Interview

2008-03-31T15:56:00.003+05:30

SIMI was reportedly defended in the so called Anti-terrorism meet headed by Darul Uloom, Deoband, pointing out that none of its member has so far been convicted by the court. Here is an interview of Safar Nagori (SIMI's secretary-general, who was arrested in an operation that began on March 26th allegedly while planning terror attacks), dated April 2, 2001, from the India Today:

INTERVIEW: SAFDAR NAGORI India Today April 2, 2001
[Link]

"I Am Very Bitter About Being An Indian"
Safdar Nagori, SIMI's secretary-general, spelt out his group's agenda to principal correspondent Sayantan Chakravarty:

"We have no regard for Nehru, Gandhi... Osama has shown great character."

Q. Are you aware the Government is keeping a watch on SIMI?
A. Yes, we are. But it is expected of this Government, isn't it?

Q. A line on your calendar says that "Jehad is our Path". Can you elaborate?
A. Let me explain the concept of jehad as detailed in the Quran. It is not when an individual is harmed but when an entire community finds itself collectively persecuted that the cry for jehad is given. There are various stages. You raise your voice. Protest democratically. Warn. If nothing works then one is forced to revolt, take to arms.

Q. So what stage of jehad do you find yourself at?
A. When the Muslim voice is muffled, when we are fired upon and killed, like at Kanpur, when you find the Sangh Parivar making statements that the mandir will be built by March 2002 at Ayodhya, then I can say Muslims will not take it lying down. And I am not too sure of the
consequences.

Q. But the Government is not being run by the RSS.
A. Of course it is. Atal Bihari Vajpayee's statement that "I am a swayamsevak" has left no doubt in the minds of the Muslims. At times he seems to be shedding tears for the Babri episode but they are only crocodile tears.

Q. SIMI is known to launch vitriolic attacks against Indian leaders. Why?
A. We Muslims, and not just SIMI, do not recognise leaders as ideals. There is only one true Lord, one true Ideal.

Q. Can you elaborate?
A. When we are told that there is a rashtrapita in Gandhi, and another great statesman in Nehru, we feel it is a direct attack on our fundamentals. Nehru wanted Muslims to recognise Ghulam Ahmed Qadaini as our Prophet. He was forcing us to alter our religious belief and we have no regard for such a man. Also, Gandhi is not our greatest ideal by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is Indira Gandhi.

Q. So what is your agenda. Is it to Islamise India?
A. Look, we have respect for the practitioners of other religions. As true Muslims, we always will. But at the same time our aim is to propagate the Quran's tenets. This will be done even among non-Muslims but there will be no coercion. It's not like you want everybody to sing Vande Mataram.

Q. You seem bitter at being Indian.
A. Yes. Very bitter. Even in Jerusalem where the atrocities on Muslims have been like in no other part of the world, the main mosque, Masjid-e-Aksa, is still intact. At Ayodhya, sadly, it isn't. They use rubber bullets to keep protesters at bay in Israel, here they kill Muslims, like in Kanpur.

Q. In your conferences you have openly eulogised Osama bin Laden.
A. Not once, but dozens of times. We believe that he has shown great character in standing up to the Americans, the biggest terrorists in the world. The US made allegations that he was behind the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam, but we know that Osama had no hand in them.

Q. But he does support the ISI's terrorist activities in India.
A. Incorrect. The ISI is different. Osama has no links with the ISI. His enemy no. 1 is not India, but the US.

Q. At SIMI meetings speeches of Qazi Hussain, the Jamait-e-Islami chief in Pakistan, are played. Why?
A. We link up with him in Pakistan through phones and the speeches are amplified for the audience. The Qazi wants us to take Islam to non-Muslims.

Q. Is SIMI's presence in the north stronger than in the south?
A. We are everywhere, as strong in Kerala and Maharashtra as we are in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. Even Assam.

Q. Where do you see your agenda taking you?
A. We are not interested in focusing on leaves and branches. We are interested in changing things at the roots. In the world's largest democracy there must be open ideological discussions and not just false propaganda. Our madarsas are not nurseries of terror.

This is the organization that the Darul Uloom – Deoband supports! An organization, who’s general secretary openly supports Osama bin Laden and shows disrespect to towards its mother land.

Tags: SIMI, Terrorism,Islam, Darul Uloom, Safar Nagori

Top SIMI leaders arrested

2008-03-28T23:10:00.003+05:30

Top SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India) leaders have been arrested in Indore on thursday, where they were allegedly finalizing the training programme of its cadres.

Indore Range IG Anil Kumar said Thursday night:

"SIMI activists, under the leadership of former Chief Safdar Nagori, had arrived in the city for the organisation's annual meeting. From the preliminary inquiry, it seems they finalised training programme to its members during the meet,"

The police also recovered news clippings from them relating to the Mumbai train blasts, which raises the role of SIMI in the case. They were supposedly planning to carry out major attacks in Mumbai and Bangalore.

Among those arrested as part of a special police operation that began Wednesday night were Safdar Nagori and his brother and chief of the operations in Andhra Pradesh Kamruddin. All of them were remanded to police custody till April 11 by a local court.

Tags: SIMI, Terrorism

Deoband – A failed exercise?

2008-03-27T23:24:00.004+05:30

Darul Uloom, the oldest Islamic seminary in India and one of the biggest in the world, had announced terrorism is un-Islamic. But how sincere was the announcement? Why didn't any of the speakers name a single Islamic terrorist organization or terrorist and go on to condemn it or denounce it? While literally every speaker talked about the so called Western terrorism and Judaism? Why was George Bush termed a terrorist but Osama bin laden wasn't? Most of the mainstream media focused only on the announcement that Terrorism is Un-Islamic, but rather faltered in reporting the entire message of the meet. Here are some illuminating articles on the issue:

Anti-Terrorism Conference Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband – A failed exercise?

Deoband's Anti-Terrorism Convention: Some Reflections

Tags: Terrorism, Islam, Darul Uloom

Gavaskar at it again!

2008-03-24T18:48:00.005+05:30

Gavaskar known for his expressive commentary is back. In an article in Mid-Day Gavaskar has taken a swipe at the double standards of some sections of English and Australian media over their stance on IS Bindra's candidature for ICC's CEO on the grounds that too much power will be on India's hands since Mr Pawar was going to be President of the ICC in 2010:

The ICC CEO was to be given a three-year contract, which could be renewed of course, but it was only in the final year of his contract that there could have been two Indians at the helm of the ICC. Those worried of the prospect of India’s hegemony were conveniently forgetting that only a few years back, there were two Australians at the top of the ICC. Malcolm Gray as President and Malcolm Speed as the CEO, but there were no fears about Australia ruling the game then. Why is it that these writers have no qualms about similar situations when it concerns their own countrymen, but are quick to raise a hue and cry when it is from India or the sub-continent?

Once again, it is misplaced belief that they are the only ones with honesty, integrity and have the welfare of the game at heart, while the ‘sub-continentals’ do not. Every controversy in international cricket has shown that no country has the monopoly on honesty and integrity, and so should not be looking down upon others.

I am loving this guy's writings!

Tags: Cricket, Gavaskar, ICC, CEO

Cheney accuses Hamas of trying to torpedo Mideast talks

2008-03-24T17:33:00.003+05:30

American Vice President Dick Cheney has accused that Hamas, with support from Syria and Iran, is trying to "torpedo" peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel.

"It is clearly a difficult situation, in part, because I think it's true, there's evidence, that Hamas is supported by Iran and Syria and that they're doing everything they can to torpedo the peace process."

Hamas has pounded southern Israel with rockets; Israel has retaliated with attacks in Gaza. The terrorists [Hamas] keep doing these.

Tags: Hamas, Terrorism, Peace, Cheney

Why not ban manufacture of cigarettes?

2008-03-24T11:39:00.008+05:30

I was just reading an interesting article by Dhananjay Mahapatra on “Why not ban manufacture of cigarettes?” – A question that I keep asking myself (not that, I don’t know the answer). Dhananjay, brings in religious authorities among others and says: “Surprisingly, from available history, no religious head, dictator or government have ever thought of banning cigarettes”. Its sure perplexing, that even religious authorities, who are known for dogmatic stances, and given the sway religion holds among people couldn’t impose a ban on manufacturing cigarettes.

He cites instances of religious (Christian) crackdown on smoking starting with Pope Urban VII's ban on using tobacco inside the church to the 17th century European ban on smoking in public places based on the papal advice.

I wouldn’t buy the argument that all these people at the helm never thought about banning manufacturing cigarettes, for he himself has cited the curbs laid on smoking, it is not fanciful that those in authority thought of a ban on manufacture of cigarettes but had no means of doing so, when even reasonable & less severe curbs on smoking was met with resentment. It is just that they couldn’t implement such a law.

On to the present, Dhananjay, tells us why it is difficult. The tobacco industry is a Rs 35,000 crore industry, which employs a whopping 36 lakh people and contributes 10% of India's total excise revenue, of which nearly 90% is contributed by cigarettes.

It is not a surprise that there would be strong pro tobacco lobby in the government which would prevent any move to banning the manufacture of cigarettes. Before cigarettes we must develop a plan to rehabilitate these people.

Tags: Smoking, ban

Row over embryo research

2008-03-24T09:45:00.005+05:30

Cardinal O’Brien and well known UK scientist & Labour peer Lord Winston are at logger-heads over a bill to permit the creation of human-animal hybrids for research. Cardinal O’Brien had described it as a "monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life" and also equated the research of being in “Frankenstein proportion”.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien

Cardinal O'Brien's comments prompted Lord Winston, a Labour peer and one of the UK's best-known scientists, to accuse him of misleading the public over the bill. He told the Telegraph: "His statements are lying. They are misleading and I'm afraid that when the Church, for good motives, tells untruths, it brings discredit upon itself.

"I have huge respect for the Catholic Church, which does great good, but it will be destroying its probity with overblown statements of this kind."

Lord Winston had earlier accused that red tape is stifling cutting edge attempts by British researchers to solve the shortage of organs available for transplant patients. Allegedly, the Government and European Union bureaucracy had prevented him carrying out experiments to genetically modify pigs so that their heart and kidneys could be used in humans.

Lord Winston and colleagues have been attempting to genetically modify immature sperm cells in male pigs so that their offspring would have kidneys, hearts and other organs that could be safely transplanted into humans.

Lord Winston

Catholic Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the leader of Roman Catholics in England and Wales, became the most senior church figure to call on Mr Brown to sanction a free "conscience" vote of MPs on the Bill.

"I think Catholics in politics have got to act according to their Catholic convictions, so have other Christians, so have other politicians," he said. "There are Catholics who feel very strongly about this matter and I am glad that they do.

"Certainly, there are some aspects of this Bill on which I believe there ought to be a free vote, because Catholics and others will want to vote according to their conscience. I don't think it should be subject to the party whip."

While, one senior Labour insider said it was wrong for members of the Catholic Church to misrepresent the Bill.

"These comments, timed so they get publicity over Easter weekend, are at best naive and at worst downright scare-mongering. People will rightly ask: why is the Catholic Church trying to dictate Government and public policy?

"They are playing on fears which are just not justified. These cells are destroyed after a short period and they should leave science to the scientists because the Catholic Church has not got a good record in denouncing medical advances.

"If they care about the sanctity of life they should want human life protected and they should want some of these horrendous diseases eradicated."

So again we have Religion and Science at logger-heads and as usual it is the people who are help hostage.

Tags: Embryo cell research, Science, Catholics, Lord Winston, Cardinal O’Brien

The Problem Of Being All-knowing

2008-03-12T08:57:00.003+05:30

The Biblical God after creating Adam warns him not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil [Gen 2:17]. In reality, the all knowing God knew that Adam would not heed his advice and would go on to commit the sin of disobeying him along with his wife Eve [Gen 3:6] (whether they were really guilty is another question). Yet, he didn’t try and save humans from committing the sin, as it is, I don’t have a problem. Now that humans committed the sin, God curses them and throws them out of the Garden of Eden, he also places Cherubim with a flaming sword to guard the tree of life from man so that he doesn’t become immortal [Gen 3:16-17, Gen 3:22-24].

Now the question is why should God place a guard? Isn’t God, all knowing? The Bible nowhere quotes man of trying to eat from the tree of life, so why was a guard needed? Doesn’t God believe in his own abilities at knowing the future? Or would man have attempted to eat from the tree of life had God not placed a guard? – So did God change the course of future?

Now why didn’t God want man to eat from the tree of life? The most obvious answer is that God didn’t want man to become immortal. But a Christian answer is because of God’s mercy:

b. And take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: In mercy, God protected Adam and Eve from the horrible fate of having to live forever as sinners by preventing them from eating from the tree of life.

But why didn’t the same merciful God, not prevent Adam and Eve from eating the fruit from the tree of good and evil? Had he done so, there would have been no fall and there would have never been a need to send prophets, neither would he have to send his son to shed blood for our supposed sins. Certainly, if some one needed mercy it was the Adam and Eve before fall and not after the fall. Someone who still wants to err without correcting himself/herself doesn’t deserve the same kind of mercy you would endow upon someone for whom it would have been his/her first.

The argument that God didn’t want to interfere in man’s free will falls short from answering the conundrum. God would have been guilty of arresting man’s free will had he somehow negated the thought of eating the fruit from man’s brain; rather all he had to do is stop man from doing the sin. For example, having guard doesn’t affect a robber’s free will to rob. The robber can still think about robbing, only that it is difficult to do so. All God had to do was to send an Angel or could have presented himself and prevented Adam and Eve from committing the sin, yet he choose not to. Is this mercy? Or did he want man’s fall? Why else didn’t he prevent man’s fall, but prevented man from eating from the tree of life?

Tags: Bible, Genesis, God, Adam, Eve, Fall of man, Christianity, Omniscience, Free will

Cursed By Creation?

2008-03-05T23:32:00.004+05:30

The Biblical story of the fall of mankind may seem to be remainder of how ungrateful humans where. God had done humans so much, but humans couldn’t comply with a simple rule to not eat from tree of knowledge of good and evil [Gen 2:17]. Humans sinned by disobeying god, very well, but why shouldn’t humans break God’s law?

What is sin?

Let’s look at what a Christian website [CARM] has to say on sin.

What is sin?

1. Sin is doing what is wrong, as well as not doing what is right. It is breaking the Law of God (1 John 3:4). In other words, it is doing what is against God's will. If He says "Do not lie," and you lie, then you have sinned. If He says "Do not steal," and you steal, then you have sinned. And, according to God, sin separates you from Him (Isaiah 59:2).

2. Sin is an offense to God's character. Because God cannot lie, it is wrong for you to lie. Because God cannot steal, it is wrong for you to steal. Right and wrong, then, is a manifestation of the character of God. God is holy; He cannot sin. Sin offends Him personally because they are His laws of right and wrong you are breaking. If you have offended Him, then you must find a way to "unoffend" Him. The problem is that you can't, but He can and has, by offering His Son, Jesus Christ, on the cross as a sacrifice for sin.

So, sin is disobeying God’s law and it is wrong because right and wrong is a manifestation of his character, & he prohibits what is wrong. Well, fair enough man erred and got cursed? – At first glance the biblical story of the fall of man seems flawless, but crumbles upon a closer look.

A Closer Look

The question is how does man realize what (actions) are right and what (actions) are wrong? We know that humans realized the sin of their nakedness only after they ate a fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil [Gen 3:7]. A Christian Commentary notes:

a. Then the eyes of both of them were opened: Seemingly, it was only after the sin of Adam that they knew of their sinful state. They knew they were naked, in the sense of having their shame exposed to all creation.

In short, humans before they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil had no faculty of right and wrong. They were an amoral being. The prohibition was laid out, but humans had no means by which they could decide on whether to uphold it or not. For Adam and Eve, the decision to abide by or break the prohibition would have been neither right nor wrong since they knew none of this. They didn’t know sin, ironically, the very same tree that was a reason for them committing the sin was the one that endowed them with the faculty of knowing sin. To put it in H. A. Zach’s words [whose article opened my eyes on this issue]:

The Bible says Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil--and even had the gall to convince Adam to eat his share too. And, of course, we are aware of the result. The dilemma is that neither Adam nor Eve had any conception of what was good or evil prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil! That is to say they simply could not understand the concept of what was acceptable and what was not. In what is often referred to as "the first temptation," namely the serpent tempting Eve, we realize that it simply could not have happened. "Temptation" infers a choice to do "A" or "B." Is "A" good or evil? Is "B" good or evil? Eve was not equipped with the mentality to know; therefore she could NOT be tempted. The same is true of Adam. For God to issue rules that the players could not possibly understand is incomprehensible and immoral.

God curses Adam and Eve for their sin, but isn’t illogical to curse them something they didn’t know was right or wrong? – The curse, in reality, seems to predate the fall. It seems to lie in God’s creation, his failure to provide humans with a faculty of right and wrong.

Tags: Bible, Genesis, God, Adam, Eve, Fall of man, Christianity

India Wins The CB Series!

2008-03-05T10:10:00.003+05:30

Yeah! They have done it! In a tour that was more in the news for controversies than cricket, India have managed to defeat the world champions at their own den, twice in a row to pocket the CB series. I am on cloud nine!

Tags: Cricket, Australia, India, CB Series

Hayden Let Off With A Reprimand

2008-02-27T20:47:00.004+05:30

Hayden has been let of with a reprimand by Cricket Australia for his disparaging comments against Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh on Brisbane Radio. Hayden could have got a serious or the least troubling punishment, but it was all in the hands of CA to decide.

Charge Against Hayden

Hayden had been charged under Rule 9 of Cricket Australia's Code Of Behaviour:

Without limiting any other rule, players and officials must not make public or media comment which is detrimental to the interests of the game

Two clauses of rule 9 fit Hayden's offense:

1. publicly denigrate another player or publicly denigrate or criticise an, official, umpire, referee or team against which they have played or will play, whether in relation to incidents which occurred in a match or otherwise;

2. denigrate another player or official by inappropriately commenting on any aspect of his or her performance, abilities or characteristics;

Hence Hayden had been charged under rule 9. Now under SECTION 5 of Australia's code of behavior, which is for penalties, says the following about Rule 9 breach:

2. Without limiting Rule 1 of this Section, in the event the Commission decides that any person has breached any of Rules 5, 6 or 9 of Section 1 of this Code of Behaviour, it will apply one or more of the following penalties:

(a) Ban the person from participating in any Match;

(b) Ban the person from holding (or continuing to hold) any position within Cricket Australia or a State or Territory Cricket Association (including as an employee, official or officer);

(c) Fine the person an amount that accords with Rule 11 of this Section;

(d) Direct that the person make reparation for damage caused by that person to any
property;

(e) Require the person to undergo counselling for a specified time;

(f) Require the person to perform voluntary service to cricket or the community; and/or

(g) Reprimand the person.

Hence, Hayden could be banned / fined at the maximum or could be let of with a reprimand at the minimum. And CA let him off with the least possible punishment.

Let Off Lightly?

Now, why is the question? If we look at clause 3 of Section 5 it says the things that needs to be considered before punishing some one.

3. Without limiting Rule 1 of this Section, when imposing any penalty upon a person who has breached this Code of Behaviour, the Commission may take into account any circumstance it considers relevant, including the following:

(a) the seriousness of the breach;

(b) the harm caused by the breach to the interests of cricket;

(c) the person’s seniority and standing in the game;

(d) remorse shown by the person and the prospect of further breaches;

(e) the prior record of the person in abiding by this Code, the ICC Code of Conduct and any similar code of behaviour; and

(f) the impact of the penalty on the person, including the person’s capacity to pay a fine as evidenced by the proportion of the person’s annual income from Cricket Australia or a state or territory cricket association that the proposed fine represents.

I think it is a serious breach (a), because he was in no way provoked by Harbhajan And it does cause harm to the to the interests of cricket and the relationship between India & Australia, in cricketing terms (b). But clauses that should have aided Hayden are: he is senior and an important player in Aus (c). And certainly he would have show remorse (d), whether it is heart felt or not is a secondary issue. And I don't think there have been previous incidents of this happening with Hayden (e). And the penalty could impact his performance in the finals (f)

So at the most Hayden could have been required to perform voluntary service to cricket or the community; and/or be reprimanded. The harshest punishment Hayden could have got is a fine. According to Rule 11 of the section 5 he could be fined upto $5750 since he is not a repeat offender. But CA chooses to let him off with a reprimand which is not on, since Hayden showed no signs of remorse:

"I maintain my innocence, my intentions were never to denigrate cricket or anyone. But in the spirit of cricket I respect and accept the decision."

The prospect of him committing a similar offense in the future still looms large with him thinking that there was nothing wrong with what he said.

Another amazing thing here is Hayden had not been charged under Level 3 offense of CA COB [for threatening Ishant] which could mean a ban of between 2 and 4 multi-day Matches and/or between 4 and 8 one day Matches. People may say he was just joking but that is open to interpretation. CA shouldn't judge what he was doing without an inquiry. But it didn't do that.

Tags: Cricket, Hayden, Harbhajan, Cricket Australia, Sledging

Obnoxious Little Weed of cricket

2008-02-27T11:05:00.009+05:30

This has been one hell of a tour down under, first the Bahjji – Symo row, then the Sydney umpiring fiasco, then Ishant – Symo spat and just when we thought enough is enough, things have turned uglier. Sledging is okay as long it stays within the field and within the limits, after all players always say some thing or the other. This time it is off the mark on both counts. Aussie opener Mathew Hayden has called Indian off spinner Harbhajan Singh as an “obnoxious little weed” in an interview to Brisbane radio.

Hayden, answering to a query on his supposed calling of Harbhajan as a “mad boy”, he said he called him a “bad boy” and found it funny that he took offence of that. The questioner asks why they are too sensitive; this is when Hayden launches another salvo of tirade against Harbhajan:

Q: Why are they so sensitive?

Matthew Hayden: It's been a bit of a long battle with Harbhajan. The first time I ever met him he was the same little obnoxious weed that he is now.

He also took a jab at Harbhajan’s record:

His records speak for themselves in cricket. There is a certain line that you can kind of go to and then you know where you push it and he just pushes it all the time. That's why he has been charged more than anyone that's ever played in the history of cricket.

Some Aussies I spoke to found it amusing that Indians seem to take offence for words like “obnoxious little weed”, since worse things are said all the time on the field. Let’s recognize the fact that these kinds of things are always said on the field, in fact, much worse things are said, but to say this off the field is not on. If no action is taken it would send a very dangerous and unsavory message to the cricketers of the world – you are free to abuse your opponent off field. Would it be okay if Harbhajan comes out and says Hayden is an “idiot”, when asked what he thinks about him? Or for Dhoni to say “Australia is a team of morons”, when asked about what he thinks about the Australian team? If we are to show inaction against Hayden’s remarks it should be.

What this will do, is turn International cricket into a mellowed down version of WWE, where opponents call each other names before/after their face off. Gradually, more offensive words like the “F” word will also become common in the tirades launched against the opposition players in the press. Sure, it is a gentleman’s game?!

More over, who are the Aussies to determine which words are offensive and which aren’t. “Monkey” is not a racial word in India, would they be okay if we called Symonds a Monkey? Hayden had clearly crossed his line by breaching Level 1.7 of ICC code of conduct for players:

Level 1.7:
Public criticism of, or inappropriate comment on a match related incident or match official.

It also goes on to explain what this means:

Without limitation, players and team officials will breach this rule if they publicly criticise the match officials or denigrate a player or team against which they have played in relation to incidents which occurred in a match. When assessing the seriousness of the breach, the context within which the comments have been made and the gravity of the offending comments must be taken into account.

Hayden clearly breached Level 1.7 by going public and criticizing Harbhajan for the on field tussles and calling him names. Hayden doesn’t stop there. He goes to attack Ishant Sharma, while answering a question on whether Ishant is threading the path of Harbhajan:

Hayden said he had told Ishant Sharma to settle down and on Monday quipped he would like to meet the stringbean paceman in a boxing ring.

A clear breach of level 3.2:

Threat of assault on another Player, Team Official or spectator.

What is the ICC going to do? Play a silent spectator? When Gavaskar, a former Indian cricketing great, commentator, and a member of ICC technical committee, to whom none of these codes of conduct applied criticized the umpiring at Sydney in a more dignified manner without calling names, ICC was abuzz with on possible action against him, but what now?

An isolated word here and there on field is okay, after all, they play to the galleries. But to come out in open and call names in a childish and boorish manner is an obnoxious little weed that needs to be removed from cricket, otherwise the alias “gentleman’s game” will become a butt of a joke!

Tags: Cricket, Sledging, Australia, India, Hayden, Harbhajan Singh, Weed, Obnoxious, ICC

Terrorism is un-Islamic: Darul Uloom

2008-02-26T20:16:00.007+05:30

In an interesting development Darul Uloom, the oldest Islamic seminary in India and one of the biggest in the world, has announced terrorism is un-Islamic!

Maulana Marghoob-ur Rahman, chief rector of Darul Uloom, told UNI:

"We don't have any link or association with terrorism, terrorists, whatsoever. We reject terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Terrorism completely negates the teachings of Islam, which is the faith of love and peace,..... Madarasas, which are the real flag bearers of the Islamic teachings, hereby declare without mincing words that they don't have any truck with terrorism."

Whether it helps to bring down the increasing trend of allegiance to terror is Islamic Community is to be seen, but this is something that should be really welcomed and would help in reforming the Islamic community.

Tags: Terrorism, Islam, Darul Uloom

Is Glen McGrath a liar or a blind? You be the judge!

2008-01-08T16:53:00.000+05:30

What extent will you go on to support your former colleague? – What ever you may do, Aussie great glen McGrath would go to the extent of lying to save the skin of his former captain. This is what he has to say on the appeal for a catch against Dhoni from Ricky pointing:

"That catch, he could have caught it, but he was unsure and he said it - end of story. I saw the replay of what they were talking about yesterday. To me, the replays showed it flicked the glove, he dived back, caught it, and was well in control of the ball."

Really, Mr. McGrath? – anyone can see the video of the appeal down here. The ball did seem to brush the glove but it was for even less than a fraction of a second but Pointing had grounded the ball and it was visible for about a second or two. But amazingly McGrath was blind to the obvious fact.

Pointings Dubious Appeal

The image to the left shows a side angle of the frame where pointing grounds the ball, as one can see his index and middle finger, are in front of the ball and have not gone under the ball. The ball is touching the ground; his thumb to the right of the ball is at a higher position to than his middle finger.

Now look at the image in the right, which gives another angle of the alleged catch. Are your eyes okay? If so it needs no explanation, it is obvious that he has grounded the ball. Pointing’s thumb is at the right of the ball above the ground. His index finger is to the left, also covering a small part of the front of the ball. His middle finger is barely visible to the left seems to be grounded but not under e ball. I don’t believe, I am explaining this obvious thing!

But here is McGrath who says “he dived back, caught it, and was well in control of the ball”. Glen McGrath could have said, may be pointing wasn’t aware of it, but he choose to lie, why? – as I said in my previous posts any one playing cricket for enough time can clearly testify to the fact that a fielder has full knowledge regarding the issue of grounding the ball.

The only other excuse that saves McGrath from the outright lie is that he is obviously blind and needs an eye checkup. You be the judge, and say which one is it?!

If Pointing and Clarke are sure about not lying about grounding the ball, then these incidents prove that, the ausssie policy, that the fielder is a sure shot source, & his claims regarding the catches must be accepted at face value, is utter rubbish!

Tags: Cricket, Ricky Pointing, Glen McGrath, Cheating, Lying, Blind, India, Australia

Australia wins, Cricket losses!

2008-01-07T08:46:00.000+05:30

In the world of cricket, Aussies are the champions. Something you would expect from a champion team is high level of skill in game play and, to set benchmarks in sportsmanship for others to emulate. Highly skilled? Sure they are. But they are far from the latter, could even be the worst.

Australia, have won their 16th consecutive test match equaling a record set by none other than themselves. But sadly though the test match will be remembered for all the wrong reasons – dubious umpiring, accusations of racial abuses, false appeals & what not?

The 14 member Australian team

India had a tough task, in fact an impossible task with them being out numbered 14 to 11. Puzzled? Well, I am talking about the umpires. They can be really dangerous players as team India found out. The Aussie captain Ricky Pointing who talks well about integrity, stands his ground after he gets an edge to keeper Dhoni who is late on the appeal, which gets turned down by umpire Mark Benson, the rub of luck going in pointing favor one may think. Ponting goes on to make a half century before he becomes prey to another one of Mark Benson’s poor decisions. Justice served! Though a little late, but little did anyone realize it was just a dose of what was going to come in the course of the next few days. Unfortunately it was going to be worse with India bearing the entire brunt.

The Australian Hero A. Symonds is the next lucky man, he nicks a ball from Ishant sharama, a pretty loud one indeed [with only the ball near the bat], and everyone on the ground thought it was out except for the man who mattered most, Steve Bucknor turns the appeal down, to the utter disbelief of everyone down there [unless some one was deaf]. He was in his 30’s then and Aussies where 6 wickets down with only bowlers to follow. Symonds goes on to make 160 odd runs, saving Australia from dire straits & denying India the upper hand. That wasn’t the only let off. He was let off twice more! A stumping of Harbajan was turned down by the third umpire, but replays clearly showed his foot was in the air when the bails where removed. If a third umpire with all the Slow motion replays and 10s of angles could be blind to that, then, God Save India! – And that didn’t happen since God is not there! [I am an atheist]. A. Symonds again gets stumped and replays show he was short of his crease, but umpire Steve bucknor calmly walks down to the stumps and adjusts the bails, he doesn’t even bother to check with the third umpire - his eyes aren’t any better either! And how many more times do you want the Indians to dismiss Symonds? – He is not a cat… give me a break!

India’s hard luck didn’t end there. Fast forward to the last day of play, India chasing a target of 333, has its back against the walls, Soon opener Jaffer get bowled by Brett Lee, only that it was NO BALL! India somehow clawed their way back with some repair work done by veterans Rahul Dravid and Sauvrav Gangully. Just when it looked like they had managed to salvage India. Bucknor struck again with a fatal blow, knocking the wall [Dravid] over. A. Symonds goes up in appeal, aided by his team mates for a caught behind. Dravid has his bat fortified nicely behind his pads, there is no way the ball could take the bat and it didn’t. It just brushed the pads, and Bucknor was up in a flash, leaving the wall sporting a tragic laugh! Bucknor conforms he is blind – that’s bad news for India! Things can’t get any worse? But it did! Soon afterwards Ganguly nicks one to the slip cordon, Michael Clarke, takes a low and doubtful catch. The Aussies celebtrate, Gangully stands his ground, and Benson is confused. Confused? – He was so confused that he was doing utter nonsense there. He wasn’t sure whether the catch came clean, fair enough. One would expect him to consult his colleague Bucknor to have his take on the issue. But surprisingly he choose to ask Ricky pointing, the Aussie captain, on whether Clarke took it cleanly and pointing raises his deadly fingers! Replays were not only inconclusive but also showed Clarke had grounded the ball soon after he took the dubious catch – meaning he wasn’t in control of the ball – it wasn’t a catch. This is nonsense. If you believe Pointing why not believe Gangully? Commentator & veteran cricketer Sunil Gavaskar, obviously enraged by Benson’s lack of application shot back “Why believe a person who stood his ground after being caught behind on 14? Why believe a person who appealed for a catch when he had clearly grounded the ball [that was another story, involving Dhoni]? Why not ask the third umpire?”. A TV host jokingly remarked we have seen third umpire, heard about 4th umpire, who is pointing? The fifth umpire?”. But Indians can hardly enjoy the joke, for they where on the receiving end it of all. There are some more, but these were the obvious ones.

The umpire stung India again and again with bad decisions at crucial points in the game. Benson erred only once against Australia, that too against Ricky pointing who should have been a goner long ago. India had more than luck against them. By any standards no one can accept such callous umpiring! It was not that all these decisions where close that they could have gone either way. They where blatant errors that even an umpire officiating a club match should be ashamed off. He we have two members from ICC’s elite panel literally deciding the course of the game with their dismal show! Perhaps it is not an understatement to say Australians had more than 11 men playing the game.

Umpires Cheat India out

Questioning your Integrity? – You have none to be questioned Mr. Pointing!

Pointing had stood his ground after a clear edge being turned down. Pointing had gone up in appeal against Dhoni when he had clearly grounded the ball. As person who has played some cricket, I can testify to the fact that a player knows whether has grounded the ball, most of the times. You can only be in doubt if the contact with the ground was so minimal and it was just for something even less than a fraction of a second. And I hope anyone who has played enough cricket will agree. Pointing’s case was obvious, the ball was having a major contact with the ground for about a second or two and he was resting his palm over the ball which was in turn resting on the ground. In all possibility he knew that he hadn’t taken the catch [in fact it came of Dhoni’s pads, so it didn’t matter either way], but still he choose to appeal vociferously. This comes from a team which believes in the policy that the batsmen should walk off and trust the fielder when he claims the catch! After all this where is the integrity Mr. pointing? Had Benson referred the Gangully dismissal to the 3rd umpire, the world would have laughed at the integrity of your claims.

After all this retorting at a press person claiming he questioned your integrity and telling him, he has no place here, if he does so, is high and mighty of you Mr. Pointing. You don’t have that luxury. If you insist, you are nothing but a cheater. Even as the entire world saw Clarke’s and Pointing’s dubious appeals, those two have the guts to claim that they were right on their appeals. Some one should seriously consider buying them a pair of spectacles. Or their parents need to be taken to task for not kicking their asses when they had lied or for at least not teaching them when to lie! Integrity is not only something Pointing doesn’t have, but is also something that doesn’t fit his vocabulary!

Tags: India, Australia, Umpiring, Cheating

Terror Alert: Maoists kill CPM leader in West Bengal

2007-11-01T18:58:00.000+05:30

Date	City	Killed	Injured	Description	Total Attacks	Total Killed	Total Injured
01/11/2007	Purulia	1	0	Suspected Maoists killed a local CPM leader	5	27	35

Note: All attacks are counted from 14th October 2007

Terror Alert:17 including Ex-CM's son killed by naxalites

2007-10-27T19:41:00.000+05:30

Date	City	Killed	Injured	Description	Total Attacks	Total Killed	Total Injured
27/10/2007	Giridih	17	1	Armed Naxals open fire in a cultural program	4	26	35

Note: All attacks are counted from 14th October 2007

The Renegade Bookshelf

2007-10-26T17:08:00.000+05:30

Here you will find about the books that I read and what I felt about them. Books are the greatest of treasures that we Humans have and a good recommendation is always welcome.

Topics:

Atheism

Science

Atheism

The God Delusion

Publisher: Houghton Mifflin (September 18, 2006)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0618680004
ISBN-13: 978-0618680009

Buy The Book

My Book Review:

I first came to know about Richard Dawkins through the TV documentary titled "The Root of All Evil?" - written and presented by himself. The documentary is about how the world would be a better place to live in without religion. The documentary was to the point and was reflective of my thoughts. When "The God Delusion" was released, I had a lot of expectations, even though I haven't read "The selfish Gene" said to be one of his all time masterpieces. "The God Delusion" did live up to the expectations. Read more...

Science

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Publisher: Ballantine Books (February 25, 1997)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0345409469
ISBN-13: 978-0345409461

Buy The Book

My Book Review:

Coming soon....

Tags: Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, The God Delusion, Books

Politicians should stay at home if they feel threatened: HC

2007-10-25T23:04:00.000+05:30

"If these people feel so threatened they should not come out in public places." – that’s what a Bench comprising Justice T S Thakur and Justice Veena Birbal told the Centre about the politicians who want a dozen, security personals to rally around them whenever they step out of their houses.

The politicians in our nation act so high and mighty, bringing traffic to stand still whenever their convoy passes through a road, causing immense inconvenience to the public. Everywhere they go, the place almost becomes a virtual fortress disrupting the normal activity of the public. Ironically though, these are the ones who tout to serve the public.

The courts would have none of this. The court pointed out that their very presence in public places is threatening to the common men.

"You should not let these men (politicians) to come out. Their presence in public places itself threatens the common men. I do not know why it has become a matter of prestige for them to move with 10-15 uniform security personnel carrying lethal weapon,"

Neither was the court happy about the security offered turning into some sort of status symbol among the politicians.

"It has become fashionable and a status symbol. The more people (security men) surrounds these people (politicians) the more prestigious they feel. It is obnoxious that common men are forced to stay on the sidelines and are prevented to walk on the pavements when the politicians pass through"

It is highly worrying that we have little security to offer where, there is a real threat even after terrorist attacks [for instance the security lapses in Ludhiana, Chandigarh, Bangalore, and the nation's capital, Delhi], but some politicians who have little or no threat have plenty of them.

“We have requested for additional sanctions of staff for security because the strength we have at hand is not enough.” – is what the police commissioner of Bangalore had to say when Times Now, a private TV channel exposed lapses in the city's security, even after the recent terror attacks in Ludhiana & Ajmer. Well, why wouldn’t there be a shortage of personal, when the police is spending too much of its resources in guarding our politicians. After all we are just poor citizens of India, at least, the courts are concerned, giving us some hope.

Tags: Security Lapse, Politicians, Court