Discussion:
WHY BUSH, BLAIR SAY 'ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE'
(too old to reply)
Dr. Jai Maharaj
2005-10-23 22:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Why do Bush and Blair say "Islam is a Religion of Peace"

[ From: newsonterror <***@yahoo.com.sg>
[ Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005

Why do President Bush and Prime Minister Blair say "Islam
is a Religion of Peace" and that "Terrorists are Misusing
Islam"

Have we not wondered many a time why President Bush says
Terrorists are Misusing Islam, when any observer of Islam
knows that Islam is a psychological deformity that makes
its followers kill, behead, blow up innocents, torture,
murder, rape. And in all this they are motivated by the
Instruction Manual of Hate and Terror - the Quran. And
the face of these happenings in front of our eyes, saying
that Islam is a religion of peace would make the person
look as if he has lost his marbles. But the President is
shrewd person. Then why does he say things which fly in
the face of facts?

Why in spite of knowing Islam's track record in attacking
American interests before and after 9/11, in addition to
its bloodied history over the last 1400 years, why did
our President call Islam a "Religion of Peace"(sic) and
even in his latest address the President says that
Terrorists are Misusing Islam.

We can only see one rationale why the President refuses
to acknowledge the inherently universally violent and
sadistic nature of Islam itself. The policymakers at the
White House would be wanting to keep the Muslims a
divided house with the so called moderate Muslims pitted
against the violent ones. But all of them take their
motivation from one single document that preaches hate
and murder of non-Muslims. Then how can there be
moderates amongst its followers. All hard-headed
Americans know this and so do the policy makers at the
White House and so does President Bush. Or else he would
never have spoken out in terms of a Crusade against not
just the terrorists but also against all those who harbor
them, provide them with logistical assistance, finance
them and sympathize with them.

Multiple surveys have given us statistics about how about
85 to 90 percent of the population in the Arab and the
wider Muslim world is against the USA. Even in our front-
line major non-NATO ally Pakistan, the overwhelming
proportion of the population is anti-American. Even the
Rand Corporation acknowledges this assessment.

Then why does our President provide Islam with a fig leaf
that it is a sparkling virgin, whose modesty is being
violated by the terrorists, when Islam is synonymous with
terror and hate?

The answer lies partly in the fact that our policy-makers
want to keep our enemy a divided house till domestic
public opinion in the USA and in the West as a whole make
for political compulsions to take on the Islamic world in
a decisive way, as we did with the Japanese towards the
end of World War 2. Nothing short of a dirty nuke or a
nuke attack on one of our cities can make this a
political compulsion today. This is the unfortunate
reality. And the compulsion to keep up with this phony
phase of the War against Terror makes it necessary to
keep making suitable noises that we are fighting terror,
but are not fighting Islam. To begin with during WW2 we
did say that the German people were not our enemies, only
the Nazi ideology was. But when the war began in earnest
after 1943, we made no difference between the Nazis and
the lay German population and the carpet bombing Dresden
was the result. Neither did we make any distinction
between Japan's militaristic rulers and the lay Japanese
population when we undertook the bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.

What made this possible was that public opinion in the
West had then made it politically compulsory to do so,
while it was always militarily possible sometime before
it became politically compulsory to use nukes or
undertake carpet bombing. Today it has not yet become
politically compulsory to nuke the Islamic world. Till
then we need to keep the enemy a divided house. And what
better way than trying to pretend that we believe that
the enemy practices a Religion of Peace (sic).

The other potent reason for this brilliant strategy is to
keep the enemy guessing that we the dumb Westerners have
no clue of the bloodlust inherent in Muslims. We who have
been at death grips with the Jihad ever since they
started their attack on Christendom when they occupied
Jerusalem in 635. We have been the most potent enemies of
Islam and are the only power stand between Islam and
their complete domination of the world. It is we (the
Western Christendom) who have defeated Islam repeatedly
and have checked it spread. For this reason the hate in
Muslim hearts for us is the deepest. Ever heard them
yelling out Death to China, Death to India? Not really,
but Death to America, Death to the Great Satan America
and Death to Israel are favorite slogans.

And so President Bush and our masterminds at the White
House need to be complimented on this brilliant strategy
of keeping the enemy guessing whether we know of their
bloodlust or we are dumb to believe that they are a
religion of peace, and thus keep them divvied within
themselves between those who hate us openly and those who
would want to keep their emotions circumspect.

The kingpin of this strategy is that we are using the
Muslim tactic of taqiya (deception) against its
progenitors. And the best of it is that it works. Bravo
to our President and to the masterminds around him. we
can truly rest our hopes on the Charles Martel of our
times.

http://www.waronjihad.org

http://www.hinduvoice.net/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi?flavor=archive&id=20051022144331&list=hnl

Visit:
http://www.hinduvoice.net
http://www.vandemataram.com

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
g***@hotpop.com
2005-10-24 03:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Jai Maharaj
Why do Bush and Blair say "Islam is a Religion of Peace"
(and the rest gives info on how Islam is founded on terrorism)

Okay, Dr. Maharaj, you've convinced me. And I'm a USA Republican and an
ex-Christian. (Although I really wish I could be a Christian.) I was a
slightly devout Christian until I started reading books from Graham
Hancock and another from the two authors who wrote The Jesus Mysteries.
So if I reject Christ (and God does that sound awful), does that bring
me back to Judaism, no. After reading Graham Hancock, Genesis and
Exodus are pretty much ruled out for me, so Judaism is out too.
However, I **DO** believe in God -- it is obvious to me that a divine
master runs this universe. And after reading about the sick, twisted,
X-rated stuff in the Koran, it's obvious I won't be turning to Islam
any time soon. So what's left in the world in major religions are
Buddhism and Hinduism, right? Unfortunately as much as I like speaking
and listening to Buddhists, and like some of their principles, I cannot
believe that I am to just lie down and let things happen to me. So this
brings me to Hinduism, which I know very little about except by what
Graham Hancock, who grew up in India, shared in his book, Underworld. I
learned that primarily the Hindu faith is passed down by word of mouth
and what is written in books is said to only be a weaker reflection of
what's real in the religion. (That, actually, is a wonderful thing --
there go all the fundamentalists, out the window with them!)

However, I keep wondering, if Hinduism is great, why can't India get
over the fact that women should be more equal to men in many respects,
not waiting on them hand and foot, and not being made accountable for
the actions of a family member? And why cannot India get over this
terrible caste system? Surely they can see the wisdom in giving up on
these two things, right? Surely there is something in Hinduism that
does not condone these practices, right?

Lastly, there is pantheism in Hinduism, right? And the detail given for
these Gods, to me, seem a bit absurd. My concept of God is far more
powerful, I'm afraid, and almost indescribable.

So please educate me.

Faithfully Yours,

Lost but not Godless in Southern USA

P.S. In some ways I am a Bush supporter, but you are right -- that
statement he made was just stupid. It saved his face before Muslims,
but man did it blow Bush's hope of getting votes from Indian-American
citizens. As for Christians, most don't even know what's in the Koran
(or bother to care) to know better and question Bush.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
2005-10-24 07:49:38 UTC
Permalink
. . . So this brings me to Hinduism, which I know very little about . . .
A place to begin learning about Hindu principles:

http://www.hindu.org

And,

TRIBUTES TO HINDUISM

1. Mahatma Gandhi:

"Hinduism has made marvelous discoveries in things of
religion, of the spirit, of the soul. We have no eye for
these great and fine discoveries. We are dazzled by the
material progress that western science has made. Ancient
India has survived because Hinduism was not developed
along material but spiritual lines.

"India is to me the dearest country in the world, because
I have discovered goodness in it. It has been subject to
foreign rule, it is true. But the status of a slave is
preferable to that of a slave holder."


2. Henry David Thoreau:

"In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous
and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita in
comparison with which our modern world and its literature
seems puny.

"What extracts from the Vedas I have read fall on me like
the light of a higher and purer luminary, which describes
a loftier course through purer stratum. It rises on me
like the full moon after the stars have come out, wading
through some far stratum in the sky."


3. Arthur Schopenhauer:

"In the whole world there is no study so beneficial and
so elevating as that of the Upanishads. It has been the
solace of my life -- it will be the solace of my death."


4. Ralph Waldo Emerson said this about the Gita:

"I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad Gita. It was as
if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but
large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old
intelligence which in another age and climate had
pondered and thus disposed of the same questions which
exercise us."

The famous poem "Brahm" is an example of his Vedanta
ecstasy.


5. Wilhelm von Humboldt pronounced the Gita as:

"The most beautiful, perhaps the only true philosophical
song existing in any known tongue ... perhaps the deepest
and loftiest thing the world has to show."


6. Lord Warren Hastings, the Governor General, was very
much impressed with Hindu philosophy:

"The writers of the Indian philosophies will survive,
when the British dominion in India shall long have ceased
to exist, and when the sources which it yielded of wealth
and power are lost to remembrances."


7. Mark Twain:

"So far as I am able to judge, nothing has been left
undone, either by man or nature, to make India the most
extraordinary country that the sun visits on his rounds.
Nothing seems to have been forgotten, nothing overlooked.

"Land of religions, cradle of human race, birthplace of
human speech, grandmother of legend, great grandmother of
tradition. The land that all men desire to see and having
seen once even by a glimpse, would not give that glimpse
for the shows of the rest of the globe combined."


8. Rudyard Kipling to Fundamental Christian Missionaries:

"Now it is not good for the Christian's health to hustle
the Hindu brown for the Christian riles and the Hindu
smiles and weareth the Christian down; and the end of the
fight is a tombstone while with the name of the late
deceased and the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here who
tried to hustle the east".


9. Jules Michelet, a French historian, said:

"At its starting point in India, the birthplace of races
and religions, the womb of the world." This is what he
said of the Raamyana in 1864: "Whoever has done or willed
too much let him drink from this deep cup a long draught
of life and youth .. . Everything is narrow in the West -
- Greece is small and I stifle; Judea is dry and I pant.
Let me look toward lofty Asia, and the profound East for
a little while. There lies my great poem, as vast as the
Indian ocean, blessed, gilded with the sun, the book of
divine harmony wherein is no dissonance. A serene peace
reigns there, and in the midst of conflict an infinite
sweetness, a boundless fraternity, which spreads over all
living things, an ocean (without bottom or bound) of
love, of pity, of clemency."


10. Shri Aurobindo:

"Hinduism.....gave itself no name, because it set itself
no sectarian limits; it claimed no universal adhesion,
asserted no sole infallible dogma, set up no single
narrow path or gate of salvation; it was less a creed or
cult than a continuously enlarging tradition of the
Godward endeavor of the human spirit. An immense many-
sided and many staged provision for a spiritual self-
building and self-finding, it had some right to speak of
itself by the only name it knew, the eternal religion,
sanaatan dharm...."


11. Will Durant would like the West to learn from India,
tolerance and gentleness and love for all living things:

"Perhaps in return for conquest, arrogance and
spoliation, India will teach us the tolerance and
gentleness of the mature mind, the quiet content of the
unacquisitive soul, the calm of the understanding spirit,
and a unifying, a pacifying love for all living things."


12. Joseph Campbell:

"It is ironic that our great western civilization, which
has opened to the minds of all mankind the infinite
wonders of a universe of untold billions of galaxies
should be saddled with the tightest little cosmological
image known to mankind? The Hindus with their grandiose
Kalpas and their ideas of the divine power which is
beyond all human category (male or female). Not so alien
to the imagery of modern science that it could not have
been put to acceptable use.

"There is an important difference between the Hindu and
the Western ideas. In the Biblical tradition, God creates
man, but man cannot say that he is divine in the same
sense that the Creator is, where as in Hinduism, all
things are incarnations of that power. We are the sparks
from a single fire. And we are all fire. Hinduism
believes in the omnipresence of the Supreme God in every
individual. There is no 'fall'. Man is not cut off from
the divine. He requires only to bring the spontaneous
activity of his mind stuff to a state of stillness and he
will experience that divine principle with him."


13. Sir Monier-Williams:

The Hindus, according to him, were Spinozists more than
2,000 years before the advent of Spinoza, and Darwinians
many centuries before Darwin and Evolutionists many
centuries before the doctrine of Evolution was accepted
by scientists of the present age.


14. Carl Sagan, (the late scientist), asserts that the
dance of Nataraj signifies the cycle of evolution and
destruction of the cosmic universe (Big Bang Theory). "It
is the clearest image of the activity of God which any
art or religion can boast of."


15. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, a professor of Eastern
Religions at Oxford and later President of India:

"Hinduism is not just a faith. It is the union of reason
and intuition that cannot be defined but is only to be
experienced. Evil and error are not ultimate. There is no
Hell, for that means there is a place where God is not,
and there are sins which exceed his love."

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
r***@yahoo.com
2005-10-24 15:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr. Jai Maharaj
Why do Bush and Blair say "Islam is a Religion of Peace"
[ Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005
Why do President Bush and Prime Minister Blair say "Islam
is a Religion of Peace" and that "Terrorists are Misusing
Islam"
http://www.6gun.co.uk/6gunmk2/blank_western.htm
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of
God.
- Matthew 5:9
t***@juno.com
2005-10-25 15:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Please someone explain to me how to interpret
the following seemingly contradictory two
passages of Mathew, one quoted by ranjit_mathews
and another by Dr. Jai Maharaj

Happy are those who work for peace;
God will call them his children!
-Mathew 5.9

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to
the world. No, I did not come to bring peace,
but a sword. I came to set sons against their fathers,
daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law
against their mothers-in-law; a man's worst enemies
will be the members of his own family.
-Mathew 10.34-36
harmony
2005-10-27 23:51:35 UTC
Permalink
the first part was without consultation or approval by jesus who was clearly
mad at mathew for trying to upstage him.
jesus had a tough talk with mathew guy and the result was the second part
you mention.
Post by t***@juno.com
Please someone explain to me how to interpret
the following seemingly contradictory two
passages of Mathew, one quoted by ranjit_mathews
and another by Dr. Jai Maharaj
Happy are those who work for peace;
God will call them his children!
-Mathew 5.9
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to
the world. No, I did not come to bring peace,
but a sword. I came to set sons against their fathers,
daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law
against their mothers-in-law; a man's worst enemies
will be the members of his own family.
-Mathew 10.34-36
Dr. Jai Maharaj
2005-10-28 00:03:04 UTC
Permalink
harmony has explained the foundation of Christianity
very well.

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Post by harmony
the first part was without consultation or approval by jesus who was clearly
mad at mathew for trying to upstage him.
jesus had a tough talk with mathew guy and the result was the second part
you mention.
Post by t***@juno.com
Please someone explain to me how to interpret
the following seemingly contradictory two
passages of Mathew, one quoted by ranjit_mathews
and another by Dr. Jai Maharaj
Happy are those who work for peace;
God will call them his children!
-Mathew 5.9
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to
the world. No, I did not come to bring peace,
but a sword. I came to set sons against their fathers,
daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law
against their mothers-in-law; a man's worst enemies
will be the members of his own family.
-Mathew 10.34-36
are we on same page?
2005-10-30 03:52:16 UTC
Permalink
It would seem, then, that the first part was bc and second part ac?
Post by Dr. Jai Maharaj
harmony has explained the foundation of Christianity
very well.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Post by harmony
the first part was without consultation or approval by jesus who was clearly
mad at mathew for trying to upstage him.
jesus had a tough talk with mathew guy and the result was the second part
you mention.
Post by t***@juno.com
Please someone explain to me how to interpret
the following seemingly contradictory two
passages of Mathew, one quoted by ranjit_mathews
and another by Dr. Jai Maharaj
Happy are those who work for peace;
God will call them his children!
-Mathew 5.9
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to
the world. No, I did not come to bring peace,
but a sword. I came to set sons against their fathers,
daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law
against their mothers-in-law; a man's worst enemies
will be the members of his own family.
-Mathew 10.34-36
Dr. Jai Maharaj
2005-10-30 05:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Heh.

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Post by are we on same page?
It would seem, then, that the first part was bc and second part ac?
Post by Dr. Jai Maharaj
harmony has explained the foundation of Christianity
very well.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Post by harmony
the first part was without consultation or approval by jesus who was clearly
mad at mathew for trying to upstage him.
jesus had a tough talk with mathew guy and the result was the second part
you mention.
Post by t***@juno.com
Please someone explain to me how to interpret
the following seemingly contradictory two
passages of Mathew, one quoted by ranjit_mathews
and another by Dr. Jai Maharaj
Happy are those who work for peace;
God will call them his children!
-Mathew 5.9
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to
the world. No, I did not come to bring peace,
but a sword. I came to set sons against their fathers,
daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law
against their mothers-in-law; a man's worst enemies
will be the members of his own family.
-Mathew 10.34-36
t***@juno.com
2005-10-30 19:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Here is my interpretation. It also partly answers
the title question, "Why Bush, Blair say 'Islam
is a religion of peace.'"

First, note the first quotation is a sermon given
by Jesus to the sufferers who had all kinds of
disease and sickness and followed him from all
parts of the country. Here he taught them they
should be peaceful, as any other dictatorial leaders
like Bush and Blair said to the oppressed people,
as Israeli prime ministers to Palestinians, as Saddam
to Kurds and Shiites in Iraq, as Indian prime ministers
to the natives in Kashmir, as Russian presidents to
the natives in North Caucasus.

The second quotation is an instruction to a closed inner
circle of his disciples. Here he declared himself not to be
a peace maker but a war maker. It is like an instruction
given by Bush to his cabinet members and generals.

Jesus like bush and Blair wanted the oppressed, sufferers,
and his enemies to be peaceful but instigated his soldiers
to unleash violence against those who opposed him.

Following the second quotation, Jesus further said,
"Whoever loves his father or mother more than me is not
fit to my disciple....Whoever tries to gain his own life will
lose it; but whoever loses his life for my sake will gain it."
But if Bush thinks US soldiers are his disciples, he is crazy.

The instruction in the second quotation is completely opposite
to his instruction given to the mass, "Love your enemy." I think
this is a fundamental contradiction and hypocrisy of Christianity.
Why can the followers of "love your enemy" can drop two
nuclear bombs to instantly wipe out 10s of thousands of civilians?
Why do some of so-called pro-life people scream "Nuke Iran!."?

Reginald Perrin
2005-10-29 21:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Why is Jai-Maharaj anti-Christian?
Why is Jai-Maharaj anti-Muslim?
Why is Jai-Maharaj anti-American?
Why is Jai-Maharaj anti-British?
Why is jai Maharaj anti-Pakistani?
Why is Jai-Maharaj anti-carnivore?
Why is Jai-Maharaj so intolerant of the beliefs and cultures of others?

Why does Jai-Maharaj call himself a doctor?
Where did Jai Maharaj buy his doctorate from?
Why does Jai Maharaj harass those who criticise him online?
Why does Jai Maharaj spam newsgroups?
Why is Jai Maharaj a hypocrite?
Why doesn't Jai Maharaj answer questions?


Why?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...