24. November 2009 by admin.

Courtsey: Shaili Rawal

   
P.S.: This a letter to the terrorists stating the reasons why he should attack India and Hinduism!

To Terrorists :

Here, I am telling you many awkward things that can be out of your notice ! This shall boost up your confidence for attacking India.

In India, we have flock full of Human Rights NGO, that feel immense pride in touting the rights of the killers! They get to search any faux pas arguments to save you from the INJUSTICE !! The law system of this country is drastic slow that even though, by mistake, you are condemned, the punishments will take years of waiting ! because LAW= PROCRASTINATION .

There is a strong possibility of your getting free with the mere reason of LACK OF EVIDENCE! because, here, in this country, the definition of Evidence varies from case to case! The apex court if gives you the Death Sentence, our secular government is your protector ! It shall never let happen to you ! (The condition is that the killer/terrorist should be a muslim).

Your attack on Hinduism is well justified.
You are not doing anything great, however! You are killing the half killed people!

  We Hindus are the easiest kill for you since we Hindus are lacking in religious (culture & way of life) protection instinct, having loopholes in our intentions for religion ! We have developed an attitude of Who Cares for our religions from the years together !

Besides this, India is the heaven for all you Terrorists.
You shall have guaranteed support of our VOTE BANK Govt !! ‘Leaders’ like Sonia, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad, Ram Vilas Paswan are your protectors. Imam Bukhari is there to get you back form any jail !

We are here to get hunted! We have only one right being Hindu: Tremble like a deer!

The country that is heaven for terrorists is of course the hell like place for peace loving people. Your constant Bomb Blasting, proves our Human Right Screamers impotents. I think just to keep their nose up, you should not blast.

Take my words: If your role model Dawood Ibrahim gets arrested, bright chances are there of him getting free again due to LACK OF EVIDENCE! Selling of India is not out of our Vote Bank Govt’s interest and nothing unethical if they get Vote Bank in return ! These all don’t wish a ban on SIMI ! For Congress, Secularism=VoteBank ! This Govt don’t wish to treat Muslims as a common citizen !

In our country, Fake Encounter is an unconstitutional but, killing of innocents have the privilege of protections from Human Rights!

See our Sarva Dharma Samabhav (Secularism):
To make a joke of the religion and that of Hinduism as a whole is a ladder to be a So Called fashionable Secularist!

If Muslim favours Islam, he gets a golden label of Secularist, but if Hindus favour Hinduism, he is a Theocratic Chauvinist disloyal Indian.

Welcome to “ISLAMIC” REPUBLIC OF INDIA

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

23. November 2009 by admin.

Why Osama Bin Laden wants Muslims to re-occupy Al Andalus (Spain)

This is same mentality why that bearded satan, Osama Bin Laden wants Muslims to re-occupy Al Andalus (Spain). Spain is one example where the Muslims were able to sink their claws in for eight hundred years before they were thrown out by the heroic fighters of the Spanish re-conquista. The last sigh of the Moriscos (Moors) still makes the Muslim aggressors breathless, and they pine for the re-occupation of Spain.

  The Spanish Reconquista, in the Middle Ages, was the most successful example of an European answer to Muslim expansionism. Christian European forces battled incessantly for eight hundred years and eventually liberated the entire Iberian Peninsula, permanently from Muslim tyranny. The origins of the movement, however, were exceedingly modest.

  After the Battle of Guadalete river in 711, the Moors had conquered most of Southern and Central Iberia within five years. The reconquest began almost immediately in 718 with the defeat of the Muslim army at the battle of Alcama by the Visigoth chieftain Pelayo who was one of the few survivors of the battle of the Guadalete river.

  Pelayo refused to accept Islamic overlordship of his homeland. He escaped capture at the battle of Guadalete, where he was a member of the Visigothic King Rodrigo’s bodyguard, and returned to his native Asturias in the northern part of Spain. He soon became the leader of a rebellion against Munuza, the Moorish governor of the area. He was captured in 717 and imprisoned by the Moors, but soon escaped and returned to Asturias, where he defeated Munuza and established the Kingdom of Asturias in 718, with its capital at Cangas de Onis.

  In accordance with Visigothic custom, he was elected as his nation’s first king by a vote of his countrymen. For a few years after that, Pelayo’s kingdom was always under the threat of extinction, as he was facing attacks from Muslim forces much stronger than his own.
It wasn’t until 722 that his kingdom was secured, when a powerful Muslim force sent to conquer Asturias once and for all was defeated by Pelayo at the Battle of Covadonga. Today, this is regarded as the first Christian victory of the Reconquista. The Muslims, ungracious in their defeat, as usual, described Pelayo and his men as “thirty wild donkeys” in their chronicles. But this itself tells a story. Pelayo, with a small band of brave warriors had tamed the Muslims. Pelayo’s was a story of bravery matching that of King Arthur and Robin Hood.

  Pelayo had won independence for his country. Pelayo died in 737. His son Favila succeeded him as king but could not enjoy the throne for a long time: legends claim that he was killed by a bear. After Pelayo, the subsequent kings of Asturias, León, Castile and Spain itself could trace their lineage back to him in some manner for hundreds of years. Some sources link Pelayo to the royal house of the Visigoths (he is supposed to be the grandson of the Visigothic King Chindaswinth (563-653).

  After Pelayo the resistance continued, but could become substantial in the course of the next four centuries. When the Muslim hordes overran Spain from 711 to 730, Pelayo’s tiny Kingdom of Asturias, centered on Oviedo, had survived as a sole Christian sentinel in Spain, exposed to continuous Muslim raiding. This kingdom was helped by Charlemagne’s March in Catalonia on the Pyrenees that threw the Muslim barbarians out of France. In the early 900s, the Asturias king took advantage of Muslim infighting to move his capital south to Leon and the County of Castile.

  Though not a Crusader-type state and content to work with Muslim amirs in order to survive, its leaders began to attract freemen as colonists with generous offers of agricultural land and tax rebates. Warring with Muslims when it suited them, Castilian leaders were not at this point fighting a war of liberation.

  Continued resistance was put up, to rebuff the renewed attacks launched to overrun this tiny Christian enclave by the Ummayad Khilfah al Qurdubah (Caliphate in Cordoba). By 1034, Sancho the Great had incorporated Aragon, Sobrarbe, Barcelona, as well as Asturian Leon and Castile.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

13. November 2009 by admin.

     
 
Credit goes to RantForAmerica
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
http://web.archive.org/web/2004062714…

Law Reference:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organi…

AP Article:
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/20…

Music used in the video was written, recorded and produced by RantForAmerica. All images and content are produced 100% by RantForAmerica. This video can be downloaded and freely distributed by anyone as long as it is left in its full format.

I am so tired of hearing from liberals who cant seem to see the facts, or refuse to I should say.
People seem to think that the law that is on the books NOW is what applies to mr obama, it does not, the law that was in force when he was born is what matters.
Do you even know what the law was at the time your messiah was born? The LAW then is what mattered, and it was in effect from Dec 24, 1952 until Nov 13, 1986

Here is what that law means, according the federal law at the time (which is what is applicable to barry).

If you have 2 parents that are American citizens, then you are an American citizen at birth no matter the birth place.

But if you have only one parent who is an American citizen (which is what is applicable to barry) then the parent who is the citizen has to have at least 10 years residency in the USA, 5 or those years have to be after the age of 14.

Barry’s mother was 18 when he was born,she would have to had been 19 when barry was born in order for him to be natural born and eligible to be president.

Oh that is just a small technicality, it doesn’t really matter, YES IT DOES THE LAW IS THE LAW, it was the law and it applied to mr soetoro, aka dunham, aka obama, aka giggles or whatever the his real name is, wno one knows, we can only go by what that lying fraud claims, he sealed all of his records, all of them. Hmm I wonder why he does not want anyone to see his college records? Could it be that he went to school as a foreign student here? Could it?

HE IS A FRAUD, plain and simple.

Download the info as soon as you get to it, as I am sure that barrys handlers will have this evidence destroyed asap.

Fellow patriots, I am unsure why so many of his supporters refuse to accept the fact that this man is an imposter and that he is a direct threat to everything this country and the constitution stand for. He is a threat to everything our brave men and women have fought and dies for. He is a treading on everything our forefathers bled and died to put in place to protect us. He is shredding the constitution, making a mockery of the legal system, and laughing at us, all of us. You think he and his cronies are only laughing behind closed doors at the birthers? At his opposition? NO, he is laughing the hardest at all of the idiotic blind sheeple that cant see the forest for the trees.

People have been convicted of murder and sentenced to death with less evidence than is screaming out against this fraud.

People, democrat. Republican. Independent, we need to get past our political views long enough to expose this fraud.

Think about it, if we show what is true about obama, there will most likely be another election, then you can come out strong, vote for a liberal and get another democrat president, one that is legal.

I have no problem with a democratic president who is eligible to sit in the white house.

We are witnessing such horrific acts against the constitution and more importantly, against us, the American people.

Stop, stop looking the other way. The evidence is there, you just need to look.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

12. November 2009 by admin.

-Ann Coulter

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

12. November 2009 by admin.

The Hasan Case: Overt Clues and Tactical Challenges

By Scott Stewart and Fred Burton
In last week’s global security and intelligence report, we discussed the recent call by the leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Nasir al-Wahayshi, for jihadists to conduct simple attacks against a variety of targets in the Muslim world and the West. We also noted how it is relatively simple to conduct such attacks against soft targets using improvised explosive devices, guns or even knives and clubs.

  The next day, a lone gunman, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire on a group of soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas. The victims were in the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, a facility on the base where troops are prepared for deployment and where they take care of certain processing tasks such as completing insurance paperwork and receiving medical examinations and vaccinations.

  Even though the targets of Hasan’s attack were soldiers, they represented a very soft target in this environment. Most soldiers on bases inside the United States are normally not armed and are only provided weapons for training. The only personnel who regularly carry weapons are the military police and the base civilian police officers. In addition to being unarmed, the soldiers at the center were closely packed together in the facility as they waited to proceed from station to station. The unarmed, densely packed mass of people allowed Hasan to kill 13 (12 soldiers and one civilian employee of the center) and wound 42 others when he opened fire.

  Hasan is a U.S.-born Muslim who, according to STRATFOR sources and media accounts, has had past contact with jihadists, including the radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki is a U.S.-born imam who espouses a jihadist ideology and who was discussed at some length in the 9/11 commission report for his links to 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. Al-Awlaki, who is currently living in Yemen and reportedly has contacts with al Qaeda, posted a message on his Web site Nov. 9 praising Hasan’s actions. Despite Hasan’s connections to al-Awlaki and other jihadists, it is unknown at this point if he was even aware of al-Wahayshi’s recent message calling for simple attacks, and therefore it is impossible to tell if his attack was in response to it.

  However, one thing that is certain is that investigators examining Hasan’s computer hard drive, e-mail traffic and Internet history will be looking into that possibility, along with other indications that Hasan was linked to radicals.

  We noted last week that by their very nature, individual actors and small cells are very difficult for the government to detect. They must somehow identify themselves by contacting a government informant or another person who reports them to the authorities, attend a militant training camp or conduct correspondence with a person or organization under government scrutiny. In the Hasan case, it now appears that Hasan did self-identify by making radical statements to people he worked with, who reported him to the authorities. It also appears that he had correspondence with people such as al-Awlaki, whom the government was monitoring. Because of this behavior, Hasan brought himself to the attention of the Department of Defense, the FBI and the CIA.

  The fact that Hasan was able to commit this attack after bringing government attention to himself could be due to a number of factors. Chief among them is the fact that it is tactically impossible for a government to identify every aspiring militant actor and to pre-empt every act of violence. The degree of difficulty is increased greatly if an actor does indeed act alone and does not give any overt clues through his actions or his communications of his intent to attack. Because of this, the Hasan case provides an excellent opportunity to examine national security investigations and their utility and limitations.

The Nature of Intelligence Investigations

The FBI will typically open up an intelligence investigation (usually referred to as a national security investigation) in any case where there is an indication or allegation that a person is involved in terrorist activity but there is no evidence that a specific law has been broken. Many times these investigations are opened up due to a lead passed by the CIA, National Security Agency or a foreign liaison intelligence service. Other times an FBI investigation can come as a spin-off from another FBI counterterrorism investigation already under way or be prompted by a piece of information collected by an FBI informant or even by a tip from a concerned citizen — like the flight instructors who alerted the FBI to the suspicious behavior of some foreign flight students prior to the 9/11 attacks. In such a case, the FBI case agent in charge of the investigation will open a preliminary inquiry, which gives the agent a limited window of time to look into the matter. If no indication of criminal activity is found, the preliminary inquiry must be closed unless the agent receives authorization from the special agent in charge of his division and FBI headquarters to extend it.
 
If, during the preliminary inquiry, the investigating agents find probable cause that a crime has been committed, the FBI will open a full-fledged criminal investigation into the case, similar to what we saw in the case of Luqman Ameen Abdullah and his followers in Detroit.
One of the large problems in national security investigations is separating the wheat from the chaff. Many leads are based on erroneous information or a misidentification of the suspect — there is a huge issue associated with the confusion caused by the transliteration of Arabic names and the fact that there are many people bearing the same names. Jihadists also have the tendency to use multiple names and identities. And there are many cases in which people will falsely report a person to the FBI out of malice. Because of these factors, national security investigations proceed slowly and usually do not involve much (if any) contact with the suspect and his close associates. If the suspect is a real militant planning a terrorist attack, investigators do not want to tip him off, and if he is innocent, they do not want to sully his reputation by showing up and overtly interviewing everyone he knows. Due to its controversial history of domestic intelligence activities, the FBI has become acutely aware of its responsibility to protect privacy rights and civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and other laws.
 
And the rights guaranteed under the Constitution do complicate these national security investigations. It is not illegal for someone to say that Muslims should attack U.S. troops due to their operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that more Muslims should conduct attacks like the June 1 shooting at a recruiting center in Little Rock, Ark. — things that Hasan is reported to have said. Radical statements and convictions are not illegal — although they certainly would appear to be conduct unbecoming a U.S. Army officer. (We will leave to others the discussion of the difficulties in dealing with problem officers who are minorities and doctors and who owe several years of service in return for their education.)
 
There are also many officers and enlisted soldiers in the U.S. Army who own personal weapons and who use them for self-defense, target shooting or hunting. There is nothing extraordinary or illegal about a U.S. Army major owning personal weapons. With no articulable violation of U.S. law, the FBI would have very little to act upon in a case like Hasan’s. Instead, even if they found cause to extend their preliminary inquiry, they would be pretty much limited to monitoring his activities (and perhaps his communications, with a court order) and waiting for a law to be violated. In the Hasan case, it would appear that the FBI did not find probable cause that a law had been violated before he opened fire at Fort Hood. Although perhaps if the FBI had been watching his activities closely and with an eye toward “the how” of terrorist attacks, they might have noticed him conducting preoperational surveillance of the readiness center and even a dry run of the attack.
Of course, in addition to just looking for violations of the law, the other main thrust of a national security investigation is to determine whom the suspect is connected to and whom he is talking to or planning with. In past cases, such investigations have uncovered networks of jihadist actors working together in the United States, Canada, Europe and elsewhere. However, if all Hasan did in his correspondence with people such as al-Awlaki was exercise his First Amendment right to hold radical convictions, and if he did not engage in any type of conspiracy to conduct an attack, he did not break the law.
 
Another issue that complicates national security cases is that they are almost always classified at the secret level or above. This is understandable, considering they are often opened based upon intelligence produced by sensitive intelligence programs. However, this classification means that only those people with the proper clearance and an established need to know can be briefed on the case. It is not at all unusual for the FBI to visit a high-ranking official at another agency to brief the official on the fact that the FBI is conducting a classified national security investigation involving a person working for the official’s agency. The rub is that they will frequently tell the official that he or she is not at liberty to share details of the investigation with other individuals in the agency because they do not have a clear need to know. The FBI agent will also usually ask the person briefed not to take any action against the target of the investigation, so that the investigation is not compromised. While some people will disagree with the FBI’s determination of who really needs to know about the investigation and go on to brief a wider audience, many officials are cowed by the FBI and sit on the information.
 
Of course, the size of an organization is also a factor in the dissemination of information. The Department of Defense and the U.S. Army are large organizations, and it is possible that officials at the Pentagon or the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command (still known by its old acronym CID) headquarters at Fort Belvoir, Va., were briefed on the case and that local officials at Fort Hood were not. The Associated Press is now reporting that the FBI had alerted a Defense Criminal Investigative Service agent assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Washington about Hasan’s contacts with al-Awlaki, and ABC reports that the Defense Department is denying the FBI notified them. It would appear that the finger-pointing and bureaucratic blame-shifting normally associated with such cases has begun.
 
Even more severe problems would have plagued the dissemination of information from the CIA to local commanders and CID officers at Fort Hood. Despite the intelligence reforms put in place after the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government still faces large obstacles when it comes to sharing intelligence information with law enforcement personnel.

Criminal Acts vs. Terrorism

So far, the Hasan shooting investigation is being run by the Army CID, and the FBI has been noticeably — and uncharacteristically — absent from the scene. As the premier law enforcement agency in the United States, the FBI will often assume authority over investigations where there is even a hint of terrorism. Since 9/11, the number of FBI/JTTF offices across the country has been dramatically increased, and the JTTFs are specifically charged with investigating cases that may involve terrorism. Therefore, we find the FBI’s absence in this case to be quite out of the ordinary.
 
However, with Hasan being a member of the armed forces, the victims being soldiers or army civilian employees and the incident occurring at Fort Hood, the case would seem to fall squarely under the mantle of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). From a prosecutorial perspective, a homicide trial under the UCMJ should be very tidy and could be quickly concluded. It will not involve all the potential loose ends that could pop up in a federal terrorism trial, especially when those loose ends involve what the FBI and CIA knew about Hasan, when they learned it and who they told. Also, politically, there are some who would like to see the Hasan case remain a criminal matter rather than a case of terrorism. Following the shooting death of Luqman Ameen Abdullah and considering the delicate relationship between Muslim advocacy groups and the U.S. government, some people would rather see Hasan portrayed as a mentally disturbed criminal than as an ideologically driven lone wolf.
 
Despite the CID taking the lead in prosecuting the case, the classified national security investigation by the CIA and FBI into Hasan and his possible connections to jihadist elements is undoubtedly continuing. Senior members of the government will certainly demand to know if Hasan had any confederates, if he was part of a bigger plot and if there are more attacks to come. Several congressmen and senators are also calling for hearings into the case, and if such hearings occur, they will certainly produce an abundance of interesting information pertaining to Hasan and the national security investigation of his activities.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

11. November 2009 by admin.

Yoga is a practice that people do keep their bodies in shape. All of the elements of Yoga were inherited form the practice of Hinduism. Ethnic principles, and body principles, along with spiritual guidance and philsophy are just some of the features associated with Yoga. Yoga is usually taught, by a person called a “Guru”. Their intentions are to teach people how to obtain a quieter state of mind through meditation. Quiet breathing and chanting “mantras” are practiced to help the person get to the “quiet” state of mind.

  Yoga is supposed to lead a person to better health, and a calmer, more emotional well-being. Mental clarity and a joy in living are the main thoughts imposed upon a person who practices Yoga. The steps in Yoga ultimately are supposed to lead to an advanced state of meditation called “samadhi”.

  All the goals of Yoga are expressed in different ways among a lot of different traditions. In Hinduism the main thought is that yoga brings people closer to God. In Buddhism practices, yoga is supposed to help people get a deeper sense of wisdom, compassion, and insight. In some of the farther Western countries, individualism is the strongest emphasis, so yoga would help people there get a better meaning in themselves. But, the ultimate goal of yoga is to actually attain liberation, from any type of suffering and/or the cycle of birth and death.

  The word “yoga” derives from a sacred root of “Sanskrit”, which in English means “yoke”. The general translation of yoga is a “union of the individual with the universal soul”. The diversity of yoga involves many subdivisions, but everyone would agree that “the path to enlightenment” is the best suited phrase for yoga.

  A common theme of yoga is the practice of concentration. The concentration is mainly focused on one point of sensation. When you sustain this “concentration” for a long enough period of time you will reach, what is called “meditation”. Most meditators express deeper feelings of joy, peace, and self-oneness. The focus of meditation differs between yoga teachers. Some may focus more on peaceful thoughts, spiritualism, or a better sense of well-being, while others will focus on the more physical aspects like, different types of stretches for getting the body into being more fit. All would agree though that meditation for either the spiritual part or physical part of yoga is the most practiced.

  A little bit of history on yoga comes from the Indus Valley Civilization that was around somewhere in between six or seven thousand years ago. The earliest accounts of yoga were documented in the Rig Veda. This was a certain type of writing used back around 1500 to 2000 BC. However, the full description of yoga was first found in the “Upinasads” composed around the eighth century before Christ. The main thought of the Upinasads was that they constituted the end or conclusion of the “traditional body of spiritual wisdom”. The Upinasads used to offer sacrifices and hold certain types of ceremonies to appease the Gods. They used the thought that man could please the external gods by these sacrifices and in return that they would become one with the Supreme Being, through moral culture, restraint, and a stronger training of their minds.

  With all the different types and practices of yoga, one person has so many types to choose from. Whether they want a more peaceful inner self, a stronger sense of well-being, or a body that will be put into better shape. All practices contain a characteristic designed for each purpose. While some practices are argued about, all have one thing in common, it is practiced regularly around the world by many, and it is growing more popular every day.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

10. November 2009 by admin.

“I have seen firsthand how Jihadist ideologies have systematically penetrated the United States . . . This web of ideological penetration is the most dangerous long-term threat to U.S. national security . . . The reasoning is rational: Once you control the mind, the body will follow.”
 

I agree with both Steven Emerson and Dr. Phares. The Jihadists and traitors within are controlling the mind of America; there is no greater proof of this than our collective compulsion which forces us to call Islam the Religion of Peace which in turn prevents us from designating Islam as the enemy.
  In a similar perspective, Dr. William Gawthrop, (former manager of the defense department’s Counter Intelligence Field Activity-CIFA), explains it is a taboo to mention that Islamic violence has anything to do with the religion of Islam. Specifically he states: “Officials must first overcome the political taboo of linking Islamic violence to the religion of Islam, its sacred scripture, and the personal example of its revered prophet.”   In other words, this taboo requires one and all to blindly proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace, which is equivalent to saying that Mohammed was an extreme pacifist, just like Jesus. What a crying shame that our leaders and experts have become so intellectually dishonest and weak minded. Today’s Muslims, like Muslims of all time, emulate Mohammed not Jesus.
 
The problem is MOHAMMED WAS NOT A PACIFIST. Mohammed was a military tyrant who fought “hands on” in several blood thirsty raids, and mercilessly killed nearly all those who disagreed with him. It is a concrete historical fact that over a 10 year period, called the Hijra (622-632), Mohammed conducted 84 murderous raids proving he is the exact opposite of a peaceful prophet. Author Dr. Gregory Davis in “The Religion of Peace?” provides excellent insight into Islamic aggression.
  Despite obvious facts, we Americans respond pathetically and irrationally; like naïve children we think, “How can this be? Jesus is a prophet and he was never violent, and since Mohammed is also a prophet he likewise must never have been violent”. Wake up America, Mohammed and Jesus were polar opposites. Don’t take my word on it. Please read, the 800 page biography of Mohammed (Sirat Rasul Allah) written by Ibn Ishag and translated by A. Guillaumne, it incontrovertibly proves that Mohammed was a military tyrant bent upon bloodthirsty worldwide imperialistic Jihad.
 
To know and understand ones enemy and to clearly identify the enemy is the primary dictum of warfare. Our leaders and experts have failed in their duty to identify the enemy. They keep calling the enemy “terrorism”. Terrorism is not the enemy. The enemy is Islam. Islam uses terrorism (guerilla warfare) as a method (tactic) to attack us. The enemy is the “entity” implementing the method of terrorism. For example, if someone is throwing rotten eggs at you, it is not the “rotten eggs” but rather the “person” throwing them who is the enemy.   It is an outrage, that the majority of our leaders and experts think like overly genteel and sissified school boys who are too spineless if not politically cowardly (P.C.) to call anyone an enemy — no matter how blatantly obvious it is. For example, take Dr. Angel Rabasa and his colleagues of the highly acclaimed Rand Corporation, he states: “In the Global War on Terrorism, the United States is confronting a very different type of enemy: shadowy non-state actors that are not subject to traditional means of deterrence. . . It is unclear what targets, if any, the United States could hold at risk to deter attack.”
 
Wrong! Once again, the enemy is not terrorism. Rabasa proves his ineptness by stating the “Global War on Terrorism” meaning he cannot distinguish between a rotten egg and the person who has thrown it.
  By refusing to identify the enemy as Islam, Angel Rabasa and Rand Corporation, have thereby swallowed the bait of Islamic deception by promoting a strategy called, “Building Moderate Muslim Networks”. This means they have unwittingly become Jihadist propagandists promoting Islam’s primary method for defeating us which is: the infiltrations and deceptions utilized by moderate Muslims. Sure, moderate Muslims are not suicide bombers, but they have accomplished even greater damage by manipulating our overly liberal laws and naiveté. This is why it is so terribly wrong to call terrorism the enemy, because doing so completely ignores the damage being committed by Islam’s peaceful invaders the so called moderate Muslims.
 
I do not mean to pick on Rabasa alone. Permit me to give the following two criteria for determining an expert’s competence: First: Anyone who calls the enemy terrorism rather than the religion of Islam is incompetent and should be fired from his job. Second: Anyone who calls Islam a Religion of peace is incompetent or an outright enemy propagandist or badly informed regarding Islamic religious conditioning.
 
Why have our leaders and experts become so blind? They are afflicted with the Oslo Syndrome meaning they are pathologically unable to evaluate the crimes committed by Islam to the extent they are going to get us all killed. Dr. Kenneth Levin in his book the “The Oslo Syndrome” explains that those afflicted with the syndrome live in absolute denial of the blatant fraud and egregious dishonesty that Muslims employ by making counterfeit peace agreements. For many, such relentless mockery proves that diplomacy has failed long ago and war is the necessary solution. Everyone should read chapters 12 thru 16 of Dr. Levin’s book. The pervasively masochistic behavior documented within proves that our leaders and experts have been leading us into defeat. The Oslo syndrome has now morphed into the Annapolis syndrome. Here we go round and round again!
 
Truly, we need face the fact that moderate Muslims are more difficult to find than “a needle in the haystack”. We are at war and the brutal realties must not be soft peddled. Please consider the following distinction: The militant Muslim is the person cutting the head off the infidel while the moderate Muslim holds the victims feet. During 9/11 the trade towers were the “head” cut off by the militants, while the moderate Mosque community “held the victim’s feet”. Please reflect deeply on this analogy. History proves that both militant and moderate Muslims are invaders working as a team to conqueror America. This is clearly articulated by Abdullah-Al-Araby in his book “The Islamization of America.”

Please mark my words, calling Islam a religion of peace is patently dishonest and the worst ideological mistake in American history. It truly is our “Achilles heel” as before mention. No wonder Dr. Paul Williams states in his book “The Dunces of Doomsday”: “The Day after 9/11, President Bush promulgated the granddaddy of all whoppers by saying, “Islam is a religion of Peace.”
 
I have great respect for President Bush and support him wholeheartedly because he is the first President having the guts to fight the Islamists since President Thomas Jefferson sent our Navy to Tripoli in 1803. The problem is President Bush has invalidated his own war efforts by this ideological error, that is, his administration’s obsession for calling Islam a Religion of Peace. The truth must be told: Islam is a Religion of War and the evidence proving this fact is piled a mile high right up to 9/11. A website site sarcastically named The Religion of Peace ( www.thereligionofpeace.com ) lists the thousands of Islamic murders and atrocities committed worldwide.
  In conclusion, permit me to make this prediction: The war cannot be won unless we clearly identify the enemy as Islam, and the American government makes a formal declaration of war against the Religion of Islam. That’s right; this will be a new thing for Americans who wrongly believe that all religions are benign!
 
In numerous places worldwide the murderers are shouting Allah Akbar and carrying the Koran, yet we Americans fool heartedly provide unrestricted freedom of religion to Islam - oblivious to the carnage. This oblivion was the root cause of 9/11 and has sent us spinning headlong toward a nuclear Islamic terrorist attack on American soil which the Islamo-fascists have been bragging about for nearly 10 years.

Martel Sobieskey has 35 years research experience in the field of religious conditioning and its relationship to warfare. He is greatly alarmed that American politicians, educators, journalists, intelligence analysts, security personnel and police have failed to comprehend the deeply entrenched Jihadist conditioning inherent in all of Islam, moderates included.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Islam | Print | No Comments »

10. November 2009 by admin.

Dawood Ibrahim, one of Asia’s most notorious mafia dons and India’s version of Osama bin Laden, is emerging as a key suspect in the funding and logistical support for the November 26 terrorist strike on Mumbai.
 
Ibrahim, who tops the Mumbai police list of its 44 most wanted criminals, is among 20 fugitives India has asked Pakistan to extradite following the multiple attacks in Mumbai that killed nearly 200.

  Pakistan, as it did with a similar list received after terrorists assaulted India’s parliament in 2001, has refused to deport the fugitives, or even acknowledge their presence in the country.   The “most wanted” list reflects a deadly South Asian stew of terrorist organization chieftains, crime gang bosses, murderers, hijackers and violent leaders of separatist groups.   If Pakistan extradited Ibrahim, an Interpol-listed criminal, it may ease tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. If not to India, Pakistan could hand him over to Interpol, or the US, where enforcement authorities want him as one of the world’s most dangerous drug lords. Such a move would mollify India’s public anger against Pakistan’s inactivity.
The catch is that India’s most infamous mafia boss has stories that powerbrokers on both sides of the border might not want the world to hear. Therein lies a reason why Ibrahim apparently continues to live lavishly – alternating between Karachi and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, according to various reports including from the Pakistan media.   Even as Pakistani authorities claim ignorance of Ibrahim’s whereabouts, his family is well settled in Pakistan society. Dawood’s eldest daughter Mahrukh married Junaid Miandad, eldest son of well-known former Pakistan cricket captain Javed Miandad in July 2005. Javed Miandad is now the newly appointed director-general of the Pakistan Cricket Board.
The boss of “D” Company, as India calls Dawood Ibrahim’s global criminal organization, is the main suspect in the 1993 serial bomb blasts in Mumbai that killed over 300. He has been accused of executing the attack in collusion with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).   Ibrahim is also suspected of orchestrating the November 26 terrorist strikes in Mumbai through a businessman in Saudi Arabia said to be his frontman.
The Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists set sail from Karachi to Mumbai in the ship MV Alpha, allegedly an Ibrahim-owned vessel. After being warned of Indian navy patrols along the Indian coast, the LET terrorists hijacked an Indian fishing trawler, Kuber, and murdered its crew except for the navigator, Amarsinh Solanki.   The terrorists slit Solanki’s throat five nautical miles off the Indian coast – the Indian Navy found his body aboard the abandoned trawler with his hands tied behind his back. Later, they linked up with an Ibrahim gang member in Mumbai who provided them motorized inflatable rubber dinghies in which they landed ashore after 9pm on November 26. Within 30 minutes, they struck pre-determined targets in South Mumbai starting with the Leopold Cafe in Colaba.   The Mumbai police’s Crime Branch has yet to make any official statement on “D” Company’s alleged involvement in the terrorist attacks. Still, there is unofficial tacit admission from present and retired police officials that the attacks could not have been carried out without Ibrahim’s involvement.   “The Dawood Ibrahim involvement comes under criminal intelligence and none speaks whoever has it,” Kiran Bedi, a former inspector General of Police and special commissioner of Police Intelligence, told Asia Times Online. Bedi, one of Asia’s most distinguished female police officers and 1994 Magsaysay Award winner, was a prominent voice within the Indian police until she retired in 2007. “The only other option is the media’s investigators who may have covered him in the past and are still on the person concerned,” she said.
Some senior Indian Coast Guard officials have privately admitted to Mumbai journalists of Ibrahim’s hand in the terrorist attacks, saying nobody knows the sea around Mumbai better than the man who controls smuggling off Mumbai’s coast. The LET terrorists used resources provided by one of Ibrahim’s pointmen in Mumbai, who is said to be a major smuggler of diesel, drugs and petroleum products along India’s western coast.   Ibrahim’s involvement featured in a media briefing at the White House on December 1, even as US President George W Bush was in the Situations Room receiving an update on the Mumbai attacks. Press Secretary Dana Perino neither denied nor confirmed Ibrahim’s role in the attacks, though she pointedly picked at the reference to him in a long-winded question from one of the reporters present.   Fifty-two-year old Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar has 26 aliases – from Abdhul Hamid Aziz to Sheik Ibrahim – and is known to have used at least 11 passports. He started as small-time smuggler of gold and silver nearly 30 years ago in Mumbai. Standing 5-feet, 4-inches, the diminutive son of a police constable gradually built a worldwide criminal network said to number around 1,500. His path to power has been littered with accusations of extortion, murder contracts, counterfeit currency printing, smuggling, gambling, narcotics and international cricket match-fixing.   Mumbai police officials in the Crime Branch have long been aware of Ibrahim’s heavy investment in real estate and the production of Bollywood movies. Police said “D” Company men in Mumbai recently sent Ibrahim US$24 million from real estate transactions.
The US government set its sights on Ibrahim on October 16, 2003, with the US Treasury Department marking him as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist”. “For the Ibrahim syndicate, the business of terrorism forms part of their larger criminal enterprise, which must be dismantled,” said Juan Zarate, the US deputy assistant secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, while releasing Executive Order 13224.   On June 1, 2006, the US Statement on “Presidential Designation of Foreign Narcotics Kingpins”, named Ibrahim among “significant foreign narcotics traffickers, their organizations and operatives worldwide” who were to be “denied access to the US financial system and all trade and transactions involving US companies and individuals”.
Ibrahim’s involvement in the Mumbai terrorist attacks may have already been known to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as early as September. According to information now circulating among the global intelligence community, US signals intelligence (SIGINT) spotted a sharp increase in “chatter” from Pakistan that indicated an operation was cooking. Field agents confirmed suspicions.   In mid-September, the CIA station chief in New Delhi met his Indian counterpart of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India’s overseas spy agency. The CIA station chief is said to have specifically revealed that the Lashkar-e-Taiba was planning a major attack that would come from the sea.   As late as November 18, RAW intercepted a satellite phone call made to a number in Lahore, Pakistan, often used by Yusuf Muzammil, the military commander of LET. The caller informed his Pakistan-based handlers that he was heading for Mumbai with unspecified “cargo”, in the ship belonging to Ibrahim.   When Interpol on July 21, 2006, arrested a leading Lashkar-e-Taiba operative, Syed Abdul Karim, in Mombassa, on the East African coast, Indian and US intelligence agents pointed to Ibrahim’s growing connections with Pakistan-based terror groups such as the LET and Harkat ul-Jihad Islami, as well as al-Qaeda. Ibrahim is suspected of renting out his vast smuggling network, and resources such as ships, material and corrupt officials, to terrorist groups worldwide.   Following his trail, Mumbai police on December 2 interrogated “D” Company gangsters in Arthur Road Jail. Those questioned included Ibrahim henchman Abu Salem, Mustafa Dossa and Salim Fruit. The outcome of the interrogations is not yet publicly known, but one account claims that incarcerated “D” Company gangsters are now “terrified”.
Where is Dawood Ibrahim? According to Mumbai police, his last known city address is “33/36, Pakmodiya street, Haji Ismail, Musafirkhana, Dongri, Mumbai”.   An Interpol-United Nations Security Council Special Notice QI K 135 03, maintained by the UN Security Council al-Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee (1267 Committee), gives Dawood Ibrahim’s address as “White House, near Saudi Mosque, Clifton, Karachi.”
Karachi-based newspaper Newsline reported in a September 2001 cover story titled “Karachi’s Gang Wars” that two rival underworld gangs in the city were both working for Ibrahim.   “After the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts, Dawood Ibrahim and his team have made Karachi their new home and base of operations,” the Karachi Newsline report said. “Living under fake names and IDs, and provided protection by government agencies, they have built up their underworld empire in Karachi employing local talent like Shoaib and Bholoo.”
But Pakistan leaders, including current President Asif Zardari, have for years dismissed Ibrahim’s presence in Pakistan. Zardari even termed Dawood “a phantom created by India”.
Even so, a US Office of Foreign Assets Control statement from June 1, 2006 listed at least four addresses for Dawood Ibrahim in Karachi, Pakistan:
- 617 CP Berar Society, Block 7-8, Karachi
- House No. 37, Street 30, Phase V, Defense Housing Authority, Karachi
- House No. 10, Hill Top Arcade, Defense Housing Authority, Karachi
- Moin Palace, 2nd Floor, Opp Abdullah Shah Gazi Dargah, Clifton, Karachi   The Foreign Assets Control list also included Ibrahim’s Dubai address: White House, Al-Wassal Road, Jumeira, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.   “Dawood’s underworld connects and business ventures are extensive,” according to Lahore-based Pakistan journalist Amir Mir. “And he sublets his name in Pakistan, Thailand, South Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates, among other countries, to franchises in the fields of drug trafficking and gambling dens.”   Another Pakistan journalist Ghulam Hasnain described Ibrahim’s life as a “king” in Karachi: “His home is a palatial house spread over 6,000 square yards, boasting a pool, tennis courts, snooker room and a private, hi-tech gym. He wears designer clothes, drives top-of-the-line Mercedes and luxurious four-wheel drives, sports a half-a-million rupee Patek Phillipe wristwatch, and showers money on starlets and prostitutes.”   The Karachi-based Hasnain explains why Ibrahim is valuable to the ISI and the army: “Dawood is Pakistan’s number one espionage operative. His men in Mumbai help him get whatever information he needs for Pakistan. Rumor has it that sometimes his men in Karachi accompany Pakistani intelligence agents to the airports to scan arriving passengers and identify RAW agents.”   Hasnain even claims Dawood once rescued Pakistan’s Central Bank during a crisis by providing a huge loan. For now, as international patience wears thin, Pakistan could rescue itself from a worsening crisis by handing over Dawood Ibrahim to Interpol or US law enforcement agencies, if not directly to India.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Islam, India | Print | No Comments »

9. November 2009 by admin.

The Fort Hood shooter showed signs of being a radical scum sucking Jihad for years, and yet it was ignored by the military because they didn’t want to offend Muslims, so instead we ended up with this massacre. What kind of sense does that make? Are we out to get ourselves killed as a country? Are we trying to commit national suicide?This politically correct BS has got to stop before it ends up getting us all killed. I mean give me a break, the guy was in our military and yet he basically campaigned against the actions of our military; he was a traitor. If that was not enough reason to banish him from the military,and maybe to even put him in the brig, then I don’t know what would be.What will it take for us as a country to wake up? Will it take another series of attacks like the ones that happened on 9/11? Or will the next attack be so big that we will not be able to wake up after it even if we wanted to?

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Texas, Jihad, Islam, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

9. November 2009 by admin.

Hinduism is a vast religion with multiple facets. It is the oldest religions in the world. For the less informed, Hinduism may look too confusing, too complicated to understand, and too contradictory in its precepts and practices. Even many Hindus do not know the exalted philosophies of the religion. Naturally, there are many misconceptions commonly prevalent about Hinduism, some propagated by vested interests, some by ill-informed westerners and some by self-doubting Hindus. Here is an attempt to clear up some of those misconceptions.

1) Know that Hinduism does not have 330 million Gods.

As per Hindu mythology, this count actually refers to Devas - celestial beings - but not Gods. Deva is a Sanskrit term that at times is used to glorify Gods, but not to represent Gods. This usage has led to the mischievous misinterpretation by westerners to denounce Hinduism as a religion of 330 million gods. Unfortunately, many ill-informed Hindus, too, have taken to believe in this misperception. Devas, according to mythology, live in Indralokha (or Devalokha, an equivalent of Heaven) and they are none other than human beings in earlier births who did extraordinarily good deeds with a desire to enjoy the fruits of such deeds. They enjoy the fruits of those deeds in Deva Lokha, and once exhausted, they have to take birth again in this world. According to the mythology, this cycle is an ongoing phenomenon.

2) Know that Hinduism, in its essence, is not a religion of multiple Gods.

Hinduism permits worship of multiple God forms, endowed with different looks, powers, and attributes, who, in reality, represent the One God, known as Brahman, or Parabrahman, Paramatma or Satchidananda. Hinduism accepts the basic differences in every person in taste, temperament and capacity of intake in the matter of religion. A woman found distasteful to one person can be the soul-stirring sweetheart of another person. When such a difference in taste can exist, why not allow different tastes in the worshiping of God? Thus Hinduism permits you to choose a specific God form most appealing and lovable to you; it encourages you to believe wholeheartedly that that particular God form indeed is the one supreme God. A chaste woman considers her husband alone to be the most handsome and most wonderful person; likewise, at the lower echelons of religion, a believer’s conviction that his personal God alone is the most powerful and the “only true God” is also encouraged.

As a person matures in his religious progress, he surpasses his narrow convictions. He understands by experience that one supreme lord has, by His grace, adapted to come in the form of his personal God and that He presents Himself in other forms to satisfy other sects of believers. At the ultimate level of experience, the seeker perceives that the whole universe is simply nothing other than God and it includes his own soul, too.

3) Know that Hinduism has not ordained that the society should be caste-based with all the concomitant discriminations.

Hinduism had accepted the practical fact that there will always be differences among persons in intellectual, physical and mental capabilities. For the society to run smoothly like well-oiled machinery, there has to be a well-defined division of labor. The society needs all sorts of people who do their jobs to the best of their ability doing those activities best suited to them. The society needs peasants and artisans (‘Shudra’), traders (‘Vysya’), intellectuals and teachers (‘Brahmin‘), and warriors (‘Kshatriya‘). Each class requires its own skill sets, physical and mental capabilities, food habits, ethical and moral codes of conduct and the Hindu Dharma has provided these guidelines. What is best suited to one class need not be a benchmark for another. The society at large accepted these classifications as matters of fact (without acrimony) in ancient days. It is also said that such a division of labor was not originally based on family lineage. But when followed over generations, it gradually turned into a caste system and further degenerated into upper and lower classes with discrimination

and acrimony between them. This is actually a sociological phenomenon and it is incorrect to blame the religion for it.

4) Know that Hinduism, by its Karma theory and the concept of rebirth, does not say that one has to gradually take birth “from lower to upper class” before attaining Moksha. Hinduism says that as long as one has desires, one has to take rebirth. The rebirth can be in any class of the society and even a rebirth as an animal is not ruled out. Even a highly spiritually oriented Brahmin may get a rebirth in the form of an animal just to satiate some odd, unquenched desires of the previous birth. 5) Know that Hinduism does not say that the experience of God is reserved for Brahmins (the upper class/priest class) only.

Traditionally, Brahmins, by virtue of their social status, had the exclusive access to the highest scriptural knowledge (of Vedas) in those days. That way, they were better informed of the nuances of the highest religious facts. But that never made them exclusively able to attain the vision of God. The knowledge about swimming acquired by a person by reading books, but without any exposure to water, is useless. Likewise, in Hinduism, the personal experience of God is what really matters (and not the scriptural knowledge).

There are countless great masters in Hinduism who have experienced God without any theoretical knowledge of scriptures. Traditionally, even great pundits and Brahmin scholars kneel before these unlettered divine souls, many of whom are not Brahmins by birth, to learn about the true experience of God from them. Umpteen examples are available in Indian history on this count. The phenomenon of Brahmins dominating the religious scenario and showing discrimination towards other castes is again a sociological development and not a religiously ordained one.

6) Know that Hinduism is not totally anti-materialistic and does not totally discourage enjoyment.

What Hinduism says is that materialistic pursuits or running behind sensual pleasures is not going to fetch you everlasting happiness. It only says that behind any unbridled searching for enjoyment, there is always a pain lurking behind. Hinduism advises one to practice moderation, to be watchful, and not to get carried away. Hinduism does place liberation - ‘Moksha‘ as the ultimate goal of life and for the majority, the path of progress towards the goal (Moksha) includes Dharma (righteousness), Artha (materialism) and Kama (sensual enjoyments). The important point is that the materialistic and sensual enjoyments (Artha and Kama) must always be guided by righteousness (Dharma). Leading a life this way, one can gradually understand the transient nature of worldly life, acquire dispassion (‘Vairagya‘) and the mind then yearns for liberation (Moksha), the ultimate goal.

It is no doubt that Hinduism gives the highest regard to renunciation. But again, for the society at large, the recommended way of living so as to attain the supreme goal starts at ‘Brahmacharya‘ (celibacy at a young age while acquiring education), followed by ‘Grihasta‘ (married life of a householder), ‘Vanaprasta‘ (living frugally in a secluded way at the forest, once the couple has completed their duty toward their offspring) and finally ‘Sanyasa‘ (total renunciation). When an earnest seeker is mature enough to comprehend the transient nature of worldly life, has a high degree of discrimination and dispassion and yearns for God, he can opt to renounce much earlier, without going through all these stages one by one.

7) Know that Hinduism does not preach fatalism and does not negate self-effort.

It is wrong to think that by advocating Karma theory (which says that for every action in the past, one has to face the reaction inescapably in the future and this cycle transcends births over births), Hinduism encourages a fatalistic attitude. What Hinduism says is that one cannot have freedom of choice in facing the repercussions of past actions, but one does have the free will to choose his present actions. It is quite obvious that only because we have the freedom of choice of action, we have accumulated our past Karmas!

The essence of Hinduism on this matter is two-fold. One: The reactions to our past actions are not entirely self-propelling; they are indeed executed by the will of God; the more one surrenders to God and the more one accepts with humility the divine dispensation, the more one gets relief from the impinging effects of Karma. Two: By carefully choosing one’s present actions based on Dharma, by doing acts with dispassion and a sense of surrender to the supreme, one paves the way for escaping from the evil effects of his present actions in the future

Know that Hinduism does not say that faith and surrender to a Hindu God alone are the way to salvation. 

Hinduism has two major approaches to the concept of God. One starts by negating “I” and the other starts and ends with “I”.

In the first school (Bhakti Yoga - the path of love), the whole universe is God; It is God who creates, preserves and destroys. He is omnipresent and omnipotent. In front of him, “I” am nothing. I have no individuality. I, too, am part of him. He, the Paramatman, is the true existence. I, the Atman, am part and parcel of (and subservient to) Him.

In the second school (Gnyana Yoga - the path of Wisdom), the seeker thinks “I don’t know whether a God exists; whether he is with form or without form; I don’t know whether the world is his creation; But one thing I know; I exist. In waking, dreaming or deep sleep, I am aware of my existence. When I think, “I am,” at that moment, everything else also comes into existence. When my mind ceases to function (as in deep sleep), the whole world, the entire creation vanishes. Everything - the world, the cosmos, the personal God of worship - everything is a product of the mind. When the seeker inquires to find ‘Who am I?” and truly experiences this reality in a truly “mindless” state, he grasps the fact that his soul, Atman, is none other than the Brahman, the supreme soul.

9) Hinduism does not say that possession of occult powers is an indication that one has attained God realization. Occult powers (Siddhi) may develop in a person who is deeply involved in spiritual practices with single-pointed concentration. But it has to be understood that presence of Siddhi is not an indication of a person’s attainment of true spiritual wisdom. The highest goal being God realization in Hinduism, obtaining Siddhis in fact can distract a person from his goal and cause spiritual downfall. This is the warning given by all great spiritual masters of Hinduism. But a person who has reached his goal, may still have Siddhis in him but he cares the least about them. It is up to him to use them for the good of others or not. 10) Know that Hinduism does not say that one should blindly believe his Guru to attain salvation.

For an earnest seeker who is convinced that attaining Moksha - salvation/God realization/self-realization - is the goal of life, Hinduism emphasizes the need for surrendering to a Guru (rather to a Satguru - a Guru of the highest order who has personally experienced the Supreme Truth). Hinduism encourages one to do all the questioning and doubting before selecting a Guru; After surrendering to a Guru, asking probing questions of the Guru until getting convincing answers is also encouraged. At the same time, Hinduism is very clear that egotism is one of the greatest impediments to attaining the supreme truth. That’s why great masters say that unconditional surrender (rather than egotistic arguments and doubting) is the best option to receive the grace of the Satguru.

Other than the above, there are always differences of opinions among various schools of philosophies in Hinduism about the interpretation of scripture. But these are quite normal and acceptable in a vast religion like Hinduism. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used to say, “Until one gets the vision of God, there will always be lurking doubts; Once divine vision is had, all doubts will vanish once for all.”

http://kingmaker21.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-to-remove-common-misconceptions.html

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Hindus & Hinduism | Print | No Comments »