Yvonne Ridley - Use media to counter Islamophobia - IANS - Newatrackindia.com

http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2013/01/12/232--Use-media-to-counter-Islamophobia-Yvonne-Ridley-.html

Use media to counter Islamophobia: Yvonne Ridley

India,Religion, Sat, 12 Jan 2013 IANS

inShare

Hyderabad, Jan 12 (IANS) Award-winning British-born journalist Yvonne Ridley has called upon Muslims to join together and publish the truth to counter Islamophobia.

Addressing the 'Spring of Islam' conference here, organised by the Jamaat-e-Islami over video conference from London, she said more and more Muslims should join the media as it is the most powerful way to get the message out about the purity of Islam.

"Ambitious parents want their sons and daughters to become doctors, lawyers, scientists and engineers. Why don't you encourage them to join the media as writers, photographers, filmmakers and documentary makers," said Ridley, who was denied a visa by India to attend the conference.

She said by joining the media, Muslims can counter lies and distortion about Islam and can make people see Islam as a religion which promotes peace, encourages education and does not discriminate against women.

"We need to lift the veil of ignorance towards Islam from the face of the West and the best way is to create more and more journalists from within our ranks. Misinformation, deliberate or otherwise, and negative stereotypes, heighten tension and legitimise imperialistic wars, brutality and torture of Muslims," she said.

"If the pen is mightier than the sword, and I truly believe it is, then we must arm ourselves and be prepared to use it as a potent weapon in the war of words," she said.

Ridley, who hit the headlines after she was captured by Taliban in Afghanistan 2001, said the 9/11 attacks changed her life, like that of so many others, forever.

"9/11 brought us to the war on terror and the media began to portray Islam as an enemy towards mankind, especially the West. 

Islam became the new face of the public enemy, and Muslims, whether young or old, we all became targets of physical and verbal abuse," said Ridley, who embraced Islam in 2003.

"Men, women and children were targeted in work places, schools, universities and in streets in the West. I know similar abuse has been meted out to my Muslim brothers and sisters in India and hate crimes in India are reaching an unacceptable level. Islam is not a threat to India. It is not a threat to mankind or humanity," she said.

Ridley, who worked for The Sunday Times, The Observer, Daily Mirror, the News of the World and other newspapers, said being a Muslim journalist was challenging. "We are checked daily. Our work and words are scrutinized and the need of honesty and accuracy in reporting is probably at a level higher than for anyone else," she said.

Pointing to how Islam spread 1,400 years ago by word of mouth amongst merchants, who used to travel to far away countries, Ridley said it is now easy for the Muslims to use the sophisticated means of communication. She also called for harnessing social media sites like Twitter and Facebook to spread the message of Islam.

IDSA : The Aggressor Will Always Get Away - By Ramesh Phadke - IDSA - Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/TheAggressorWillAlwaysGetAway_rphadke_100113 IDSA COMMENT The Aggressor Will Always Get Away Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on email More Sharing Services Ramesh Phadke   January 10, 2013 One of the biggest weaknesses of India’s security discourse is the failure of the Indian leadership to truly understand the nature and psyche of its Western neighbour. Pakistan, like any other country, does not like to lose face, is always ready to up the ante, initiate audacious and precipitous action, make noise, co-opt its benefactors especially the United States and China, demand international intervention and establish a sort of moral and psychological ascendancy and superiority over India. Once the dust settles down, it is business as usual including demands for a dialogue to resolve the core issue of Kashmir before bilateral relations can be improved. The rest is cosmetics. The Indian leadership seems to repeatedly fall prey to such ruses. India, on the other hand, mistakenly believes that because Pakistanis talk, eat, speak and very often behave like us they are indeed like us; our long lost brothers whose wayward behaviour can only be corrected through sustained and sincere peace building as well as disproportionately large concessions because India is after all a big country which is focused on its economic development and can ill afford to be distracted by resort to arms. India is also convinced that Pakistan’s benefactors will not let that country sink beyond a point and intervene to ensure its survival. There is much truth in this assessment but history tells us a somewhat different story. Right from the time of its birth, Pakistani leaders including Jinnah had convinced themselves that India had somehow cheated and short-changed Pakistan with British help and that is how Jinnah got a ‘moth eaten Pakistan’. Although legal, the accession of Jammu & Kashmir was also seen as another case of Indian treachery conveniently forgetting that it was brought on by Pakistani aggression and attempts to wrest control of the state by force. India committed its first blunder by prematurely taking the issue to the United Nations and compounded the folly by choosing the ‘wrong’ article/clause of the Charter, thus allowing Pakistan to become an equal party to the ‘dispute’ when in fact Pakistan was simply the aggressor and nothing more. Thereafter, through the last 65 years, Pakistan has tried to settle the matter by resort to force whenever its leadership felt that the circumstances were propitious and favourable. A major mistake that Pakistan has always made and continues to make even today is to underestimate the resolve of India’s leadership and the capability of the Indian military. The defensive defence policy that India has followed in preference to military retaliation has unfortunately emboldened Pakistan, which continues to believe that it can always get away.  Repeated attacks by Pakistan at Haji Pir, Kargil and Chhamb are examples of such aggressive behaviour. Worse, every time Pakistan lost the battle its resolve became stronger to somehow avenge the previous defeat. The wars of 1965, 1971 and 1999 were followed by more aggressive and violent behaviour.  India’s shooting down of a Pakistan Navy Atlantique, which had violated Indian air space, was followed by the hijack of Indian Airlines Flight IC-814 in December 1999 as well as various terrorist attacks including KaluChak, Delhi’s Red Fort and the Indian Parliament.  India did not retaliate to any of these provocations. It must not be forgotten that in the run-up to bigger hostilities, Pakistan always began with sustained heavy shelling of border posts and towns, as in Kargil in July 1998, to gauge the Indian reaction. In all of these incidents Pakistan’s losses were minimal simply because India had consistently demonstrated self-imposed restraint but to no avail. The recent case of cease-fire violation and Pakistani barbarity should be seen against this backdrop. Once again a pattern is discernible. Pakistan has reportedly violated the 10-year long ceasefire on many occasions but since 01 December 2012 alone the number of such violations has gone up to 22. India has repeatedly been telling the world that the Pakistan Army resorts to unprovoked firing across the Line of Control (LoC) to facilitate infiltration of terrorists but somehow refuses to take action with the result that the world at large does not believe the Indian story. If it is true that Pakistan lost a soldier (Lance Naik Aslam) in the exchange of fire in Mendhar on Saturday last, India should have expected a tit-for-tat response from Pakistan. In 1996, when a Pakistani helicopter carrying a Brigadier was allegedly shot down by India over the Siachen heights, Pakistan lost no time and shot down an Indian Mi-17. The brutal Pakistani response came on Tuesday simply because it had to avenge the loss of Aslam. It reportedly chose Mendhar because here the border fence is well within Indian held territory and Indian army patrols move along and inside the LoC but still on the other side of the fence hence making it easier for Pakistan to mount a raid across the LoC. Foggy conditions further helped Pakistani designs but it is not understood why the so-called Area Domination Patrol was moving so close to the LoC in such poor visibility and that too in the aftermath of the Saturday incident and when the Intelligence Bureau had warned of possible Pakistani action. What sort of area domination was achieved when the Pakistani intruders in fact return unscathed? It is also noteworthy that the Pakistan Army was not satisfied with merely killing the two Indian soldiers and injuring others in the well planned ambush but had to leave a tell-tale signature, a sign of victory, by beheading and mutilating the body/bodies of the Indian soldiers in the medieval practice of victors building a pyramid out of the heads of slain enemy soldiers right outside their tents. The main aim of the exercise was never to hide the barbarity but to explicitly tell the Indian Army to not mess with Pakistan. Why else would Pakistan have returned the mutilated bodies of the brave Lieutenant Saurabh Kalia and the six Indian soldiers during the 1999 Kargil Conflict? This is the psyche that India needs to understand. No amount of cajoling or appealing to their better sense is likely to change this characteristic of the Pakistan Army. The Pakistani message is clear; “We have done what we had to; you want to escalate, do so at your own peril.  Pakistan has thrown the gauntlet, try if you have the guts”. Pakistan knows full well that there will soon be a chorus from world leaders demanding restraint and cooling of tempers from both sides. Pakistan knows it can get away unscathed. This time, however, India cannot blame the Jihadi terrorists for wanting to provoke hostilities between the neighbours because it is Pakistani regulars who have perpetrated this atrocity. The tragedy is that many among Indian decision makers are experienced and intelligent enough to understand perfectly well the real import of such brutal and barbaric behaviour but are unable or unwilling to devise appropriate responses in the vain and forlorn hope that Pakistan will somehow mend its ways and reform itself into a ‘normal’ member of the international community. It is time India reviewed this thinking. Instant, hard and yet calibrated military, diplomatic and political response is needed since mere warnings and protestations have proved grossly inadequate to change Pakistan’s behaviour. It is not surprising that the Indian Government spokesperson is ‘perplexed’. While India cannot afford to respond in anger it must also not make the mistake of allowing others to meddle in its affairs but, in fact, show to the world that it is perfectly capable of taking care of these pinpricks and teaching its recalcitrant neighbour(s) a hard lesson if need be. To do this, India must, however, shed its misplaced and grossly exaggerated fears of escalation into a two front war if such limited military action was initiated; in fact, the world will welcome it. The Indian Jawan is a simple man who is trained to obey orders but his morale should not be undermined by continued inaction and India’s faith in high sounding principles of international behaviour. The constant demand to withdraw the AFSPA from parts of Jammu & Kashmir when the Indian Army is repeatedly attacked by the so-called militants is already causing the Jawan avoidable anguish. He still routinely walks into harm’s way without a moment’s hesitation simply because he has vowed to defend his sacred land. But his unquestioned obedience must never be taken for granted nor should he ever be allowed to feel defenceless against such atrocities. It is not as if India lacks the wherewithal to safeguard its borders. Intelligence gathering mechanisms, armed and attack helicopters, Special Operation Forces, specially trained Commandos and above all plenty of electronic air and space based means are available to accurately identify and strike at the enemy in a highly calibrated response with little or no collateral damage. But for such actions to be successful India needs to first show strong resolve and equally importantly initiate without any further loss of time a truly ‘joint’ planning process that includes all arms/agencies of the state.  While politicians and diplomats will do their job by informing other countries of India’s concerns and limits of patience, let the military devise ways to ensure a permanent stop to future provocations from across the borders. It is also time India considered the use of ‘drones’ or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) fitted with suitable weapons and missiles to punish the enemy; merely possessing them will however not help. There is a chance that such declarations of red lines and open preparations for military retaliation will raise a storm of protest and criticism by India’s neighbours and other countries simply because they are not used to India taking any action but that should not be allowed to dissuade us. By constantly resorting to legal action such as exchange of dossiers of universally known international criminals, India has been sending a wrong message to the world. What India must urgently consider is a declaratory national security policy that includes as a first step the recovery of India’s lost territories to its neighbours or national reunification even if it means waging a long struggle. The absence of such an articulated aim has in fact weakened India’s case. A bold yet calm declaration of red lines is the only way India can put the onus of peace on the other side. The Indian soldier is enjoined to not only defend the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty but more importantly its honour. We must not be found wanting in this sacred duty by neglecting the soldier’s honour. Views expressed are of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

Hagel can reveal the 'real' Obama - By M K Bhadrakumar - Asia Times Online

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/OA10Ak01.html



Hagel can reveal the 'real' Obama
By M K Bhadrakumar

In Spanish, they say Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres - "Tell me with whom you walk and I will tell you who you are."

When United States President Barack Obama walked into the East Room in the White House on Monday evening with former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel, his nominee for defense secretary, that was the thought that came to mind. It was a short walk, which nonetheless had precipitated in its anticipation much animated debate in the Washington circuit.

Hagel is an extraordinary person for the US president to walk with at this point in America's trajectory as the world's lone superpower with a military budget that outstrips the rest of the world combined.

Obama underscored it by saying his choice of Hagel is "historic", since the former senator would be the "first from the enlisted

 
ranks" to serve as secretary of defense and "one of the few secretaries who have been wounded in war" who would know "war is not an abstraction... [he] understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that's something we only do when it's absolutely necessary."

Obama said everything that he thought was needed to be said about Hagel - that is, almost everything. However, what he didn't say and what is on everyone's mind nonetheless is also important to recount: Hagel is someone who opposed the 2003 Iraq war and in fact went on to seek an investigation over the reasons given by the George W Bush administration to justify the invasion. He is someone who questioned the "surge" in Afghanistan and drew parallels with Vietnam, and who is a strong critic of economic sanctions in general.

He also favors talks with Hamas.

Here is someone who won't mistake engagement as "appeasement" but will regard it as an "opportunity to better understand" others, and who advocates that great and powerful nations "must be adults in world affairs".

Here is a future US defense secretary who believes that the conflicts of the future "are beyond the control of any great power" and unlikely to involve unilateral US action"; and who estimates that the defense department that he is going to run "in many ways has become bloated" and "in many ways... the Pentagon needs to be pared down".

Shedding timidity
That is to say, prima facie, Hagel is an odd choice as the defense secretary if the conventional wisdom holds good that US foreign policy is driven by that country's military-industrial complex and the pervasive lobbies that work out of Washington, and is indeed embedded deep within American imperialism.

So, where is the real departure - or, is there a departure at all? The answer to the question lies in Obama's political personality. Obama has been a proponent of "soft power", but being a consummate politician, he proved to be a pragmatic president in his first term, surrounding himself with advisers such as Hillary Clinton, Dennis Ross, and Robert Gates, whom he knew very well to be by no means his soul mates sharing the beliefs he boldly professed - on the Iraq war, Guantanamo Bay, and so forth - while being an aspirant for the Oval Office.

Looking back, Obama picked up the threads on many issues where Bush left them, and he coolly abandoned some of his own campaign promises.

Suffice to say, the nomination of Hagel harks back to the "audacity of hope" that Obama famously held out in the run up to his unceremonious entry as an outsider into national politics in the US. The big question today is: Are we about to witness the real beginning of the Obama era in US foreign policy?

A good case can be made that Obama is breaking out of the image of timidity that somehow came to be associated with the foreign policy he pursued in the first term as president. Of course, to be fair to him, the lurking suspicion was always there that as a clever politician he deliberately chose not to follow his instincts during his first term as president in order to get re-elected. To be sure, he ended up disappointing his admirers (home and abroad) and supporters - and at times vindicated his detractors - but then, it is never an easy balance to strike between value-based politics and the politics of expediency.

Arguably, a combination of the difficult circumstances within the US and the complexities of the emerging world order would now enable Obama to settle on a style of leadership, finally, that is value-based and accords to his beliefs and convictions. Meanwhile, liberated from the exigencies of having to fight for another public office, he is also largely free to follow his instincts without inhibitions. Obama being a gifted intellectual with a strong sense of history would also have his eyes cast on his presidential legacy as the helmsman at this defining moment in his country's future.

Obama is acutely aware of the rise of other leading states on the international arena and is conscious of the growing limits to the US's dominant military might in the international system. On the other hand, as he never tires of admitting, he is a great patriot who is a passionate believer in the ideas of American exceptionalism, and in the US's destiny as a world leader. Without doubt, therefore, he will continue to uphold American interests and seek to relentlessly perpetuate the US's lead role in world affairs, although his methods may vary.

A powerful signal
However, it may not necessarily be up to Obama to set his foreign-policy compass, given the volatility of the international environment and the forces of history that are at work today. In sum, he is going to be as much a "victim" of events overseas as a navigator.

Take the Iran problem, for example. Reaching a grand bargain with Iran may seem a low-hanging fruit (which it is) - ensuring that Tehran doesn't pursue a nuclear weapon program in return for Washington lifting the onerous economic sanctions - but it overlooks that there are entrenched interest groups on both sides, including among some of the US's key allies in the region, who would continue to thwart any attempts by him to unfreeze US-Iran ties.

Again, ending the crisis is Syria may seem a deceptively simple matter of working out a deal with Russia and of the US exercising self-restraint by refraining from directly involving in fighting the war. But on the contrary, the eruption of sectarian schism in that country may already have let loose demons that could prove to be difficult to control even with the best of intentions in Moscow and Washington.

Similarly, the Arab Spring is yet in its early stages, and already the palpable reality staring the world in the face is that the US is barely coping with the treacherous flow of events.

Clearly, the will to end the Afghan war is undeniably there, but then, the challenge of reassuring a problematic Pakistan and cajoling it to relinquish its long-held objective of gaining "strategic depth" and to give up the support for the Taliban as a hedge to ward off Indian influence in Kabul as the US role wanes is a formidable one, with no clear prospects of an agreeable end result in view, although the withdrawal of US combat troops is scheduled to be completed within the year.

Yet, imagine, all these troubling questions are also closely linked one way or another to the US's discourse with the Muslim world. Moving further on, the expert opinion happens to be that US relations with China and Russia may be heading for a rough patch. The US's "rebalancing" to Asia; its propensity to get involved in China's territorial disputes and its support of democratic advances; Obama's own "Asia Pivot Tour" soon after the November election - Beijing no doubt sees them all as provocative.

Similarly, Obama needs to reinvent the "reset" with Russia, but whether he feels the urge to strike a productive relationship with President Vladimir Putin - as he apparently struck with former president and now prime minister Dmitry Medvedev - remains in doubt.

The high probability is that although Obama has promised "more flexibility" with Russia on the thorny issue of missile defense after his re-election, the US administration would still continue to engage Russia only selectively on pressing issues of concern to the US while otherwise by and large ignoring Russia. On its part, Moscow seems to be keeping its fingers crossed as to the prospects for a real breakthrough in the increasingly acrimonious US-Russia discourse during Obama's second term.

Thus, on balance, it all but seems likely that the more things appear to change, the more they might remain the same. But that will be a gross simplification of the powerful signal Obama has chosen to send by selecting two Vietnam veterans for the two key cabinet posts of secretaries of state and defense - John Kerry and Hagel.

Obama is signaling much more than a new leadership style of using more carrots than sticks, more ideas and persuasion than threats and sanctions, more "soft power" than "smart power". The bottom line is that now that he won't be running again, Obama enjoys far greater space and flexibility than during the past four years to really test a values-based foreign policy approach that relies on negotiations.

Monday's short walk with Hagel is long enough to recall who Obama used to be - and could still turn out to be.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

"Jamaat recipe: Ban co-education, live-in relationship" - FPJ Bureau - The Free Press Journal, Mumbai, India

http://freepressjournal.in/jamaat-recipe-ban-co-education-live-in-relationship/



Headlines    January 8, 2013 04:10:24 AM | By FPJ Bureau

Jamaat recipe: Ban co-education, live-in relationship

The Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, too, has its own recipe for preventing rapes: It wants co-education and live-in relationships blamed. It also wants that women be made to wear what it calls “dignified dresses”.

The outfit has submitted 11 suggestions, one of which is the public execution of rapists. The following are its suggestions forwarded to Justice JS Verma committee for ensuring safety and security of women.

• Only a proper marriage contracted by free will should be recognized as the permitted form of legal sexual intimacy. All sex outside marriage, including live-in relationship, should be illegal and punishable.
• There should be provision for capital punishment for heinous crimes such as rape. These punishments should be given in public and people should be afforded an opportunity to witness the same, so that it might act as a deterrent to such heinous crimes.
• Co-education should be abolished
• Educational institutions should prescribe sober and dignified dress for girls.
• Services of religious institutions and religious leaders should be sought to reform society
• Proper transport facilities for woman be made available in towns and cities.
• Marriage should be made: all forms of dowry be abolished and all unnecessary expenditures be curbed and made punishable.
• Electronic and print media should avoid exposing woman and it should be made punishable.
• Alcohol is in the root of all evils
• The criminal laws in cases of offenses against women should be made more stringent, the judicial procedure be simplified and made faster.
• Police reforms should be implemented and the complaint of not lodging FIRs or delaying of FIRs be made punishable offences.

------------------------------------------------------------------

My humble addition to the Jamaat list:

Separate health facilities for women, exclusively manned by women doctors, surgeons, medical equipment operators, nurses, ward attendants, building supervisors, cleaners, Ambulance drivers and attendants. Women's dignity should be upheld at all costs.To achieve the Women Only services by Women Only -- 50% compulsory reservation in Medical Education and other ancillary educational and training services.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>

WHO HOLDS THE TORCH FOR INDIA'S VEGETARIANISM? BRAHMANISM OR JAINISM? BOTH MINORITIES!!!

WHO HOLDS THE TORCH FOR INDIA'S VEGETARIANISM? BRAHMANISM OR JAINISM? BOTH MINORITIES!!!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: An Indian Muslim's Blog: News, Views & Urdu Poetry Website <indscribe@rediffmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:49 AM
Subject: An Indian Muslim's Blog: News & Urdu poetry website: Daily Articles and Views about Indian Muslims

An Indian Muslim's Blog: News & Urdu poetry website: Daily Articles and Views about Indian Muslims

---

A non-vegetarian family cornered among vegetarians during a train journey Posted: 05 Jan 2013 01:41 PM PST By Indscribe I was travelling in a North-bound train, perched on the side upper berth when I witnessed this interesting spectacle in the compartment. Often during journeys, one or two people due to their talkative nature, change the atmosphere of the 'coupe' and then everyone gets friendly. So was the case here. There was a couple, in late 30s, who hailed from Bihar, on the lower seats in front of me along with their children. There was another family--Mr and Mrs Maheshwari with their kids. Apart from them, two other men, one of them was Mr Agarwal from Bhilai (Chhattisgarh). Another was Mr Garg who was basically from Indore. Mr Agarwal brought out a pack of cards and soon he was playing cards with Mr Garg and another person from a nearby seat who came there. He was cracking jokes also. The children were also getting interested, and were keenly watching the three 'uncles' play 'taash'. From 4 pm when I boarded the train, till 8 pm, they had all got friendly with each other. The kids were loving this new 'uncle' [Mr Agarwal] who could show them all sorts of 'jadus' [tricks with cards] and tell them jokes apart from recalling funny anecdotes about his family including his nephews and nieces. All of them had become a big middle-class family, who had discussed everything under the sun in these four hours. They were quite aware about each other--the jobs, the places where they lived and whose parents or in-laws stayed where in India. You eat 'Non-Veg'.... It was at around 8.30 pm when the family [Bihar origin] decided that the kids should have their dinner. The Tiffin was brought out. Mrs Pandey opened the boxes one after the other. As the aroma wafted in the compartment, Mr Agarwal asked, 'Non-veg hai kya'. At that moment, the chirpy Mrs Pandey seemed to have lost all her confidence. Mr Agarwal was surprised, 'Aap log non-veg khate hain'. Poor Mrs Pandey was embarrassed though Mr Agarwal was so mild. Now Mr Garg also jumped into the fray, 'You people are Pundits, na!' Mrs Pandey was totally on back foot now. She was fumbling for words. 'Bachchon ko khila dete hain' [we let the children eat it]. The guys said, "no we don't have any objection but...". Mrs Pandey had now put the lids back on the dibbas. "I will send the children to the XYZ's seat [perhaps a relative or acquaintance travelling in same bogey] in the other end of the compartment'. "No, no you don't need to do that", Garg sahab said, touching his nose. Koi problem nahi hai. We are not used to anyone eating non-veg. "We don't even eat eggs. My wife in fact doesn't touch onion or garlic", he added. All the fun had ended by now. Mrs Pandey murmured: We make it for kids. She seemed really sorry for existence. "We don't eat regularly now. Actually we are from Bihar na, Brahmins eat mutton in Bihar", she said. Her husband who was squirming, said something about the days every week when they keep fast. Vegetarian Virtues Mr Maheshwari, who wasn't talking much, suddenly joined the conversation. "Once my brother's friends had come and cooked mutton on our 'chauka' in our absence. You know, she [pointing at his wife] had got the entire cooking platform washed so many times. She didn't step in until we had the kitchen white washed again", he said with pride. My God, it was going too far now. Politically speaking, a 'vegetarian majority' here was psychologically crushing a minority non-vegetarian family which had allowed itself to be bullied. It was like, 'We thought you were just like us, how come you be so different'. One felt like intervening but then they were all so close just a while ago that interference would haved seemed odd. The Pandey couple was silent. But Mrs Pandey's behaviour and mannerism suggested that she was 'apology personified'. Being Brahmins [highest is caste ladder; the other three families were Vaisyas and veggies], they were supposed to carry the vegetarian values but here, they were caught 'red-handed' and that too when passengers all around [coupe's on either side] were listening to this conversation. Apologetic about Eating Habits "Arrey bhai, bachchon ko khane do", said one of the veggie brigade. The discussion on Indian values and how non-vegetarian food [taamsik] leads to corruption of not just soul but also body, took off. Even Mr and Mrs Pandey were supporting the virtues of vegetarianism. They said how because of their upbringing in Mithila region, they had this habit, but that they no longer cherished mutton or chicken. Mrs Pandey suggested that even the kids were not too fond of it and will perhaps shun it once they are old enough. It was sad to see the two kids [bhai-behen] go towards the window, sit and eat without talking. The elders' conversation continued about how people in Rajasthan and Gujarat have 'saatvik' food and that it is so tasty. The wonders of desi spices and the miracles the 'maida' and 'besan' can do, were discussed. From 'baati' to 'baafla', we heard about all unique vegetarian delicacies. And how celebrities like Amitabh Bachchan don't eat non-vegetarian food. If the couple had any plans to eat the food brought along by them, they couldn't dare to think of it. The ordered the 'thaali' and had it along with others. After all, they had claimed that the non-vegetarian food in the Tiffin was for kids. Call it 'Food Fascism' or just a funny episode! Though it was a pretense. Perhaps, the veggie brigade also knew it. None of them asked the couple that they  should eat the non-veg food. The Bihar couple was clearly under massive moral pressure and feeling guilty. No one had blamed them. They should have spoken for themselves. Had they taken a stand and said that food habits had got nothing to do with religion or given examples and said that 'Look, its our choice what we eat', the situation wouldn't have taken such a turn. They could have said how Brahmins originally in the Vedic era ate mutton but later under the influence of Jainism or due to other factors, quit it. But they did nothing of that sort. They sounded apologetic. Perhaps, because they really felt that being Brahmins they should have protected the 'tradition', which all the Bania families around them were doing with such conviction. The manner in which they got cornered was a bit sad. It took a while before the topic of conversation changed. But it couldn't get as lively as in the earlier phase. However, as the journey was coming to an end, they all noted each others phone numbers and promised that if they visited each others cities, they would make a call. The kids said goodbye to the uncles. Perhaps, they will remember them for a long time. Often people get friendly during train journeys but the promises to call or meet are forgotten once they get off the train. But this episode will surely stay with me for quite sometime. Is there any moral to draw from this incident? (C) INDSCRIBE Any post on this blog must not be reprinted or republished on any other website or blog. If, at all, you are publishing any excerpt or part of the article, please give proper credit and link to anindianmuslim.com

Guidelines of Islam to protect honor of women - The Quran Foundation

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

Guidelines of Islam to protect honor of women

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

�

Islam is not just a true religion but also a social order that enables individuals to attain the cherished goal of material happiness and welfare in the world and to prepare them for the next world

through righteousness and virtuous deeds.Islam removes the possible causes which may breed corruption. It strikes hard at the root of evil and suggests measures which may bring about peaceful,

�happy and harmonious relations among the Muslims.It puts restraint to such impelling forces which might play a disastrous role in degenerating the mind of young men and women.

�

As 23 year old Delhi girl who was assualted last week clings on to threads of life , this incident has outraged the entire country and rightly so.

�Thousands of people are erupting in protests resulting in a huge wave of pressure on the Government to take take solid, substantial action on the issue once and for all.

�

As the ugly details of the rape and brutal assault on the 23 year old survivor come to light, people have taken to the streets and forced our political leaders to take immediate action and various ways are being suggested to prevent such incidents.We take a peek into ancient wisdom and try to find out how Islam deals with the issue of protecting honor of women.

�

Islam has given multi pronged solution to this issue.We take a look at just a few of them given below:

-Islam Commands� women to dress modestly to prevent them from lustful glances

-Men are commanded to respect women just like they want women of their household to be respected

-A Woman is commanded not to go alone on a long journey and should have male relative as escort

-Orderliness in society is brought through promotion of institution of marriage

-capital punishment to� people guilty of outraging the modesty of women

-The punishment is� given publicly to induce fear of law in the hearts of would be criminals

�

�

�

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

Islam Commands� women to dress modestly to prevent them from lustful glances

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

�

�

The Qur'an instructs Muslim women to observe veil.The Arabic word for "veiling" is hijab. Lexically it means "cover".The hijab cuts off the ill thoughts and the greed of the sick hearts

.The clothing must hang loosely and not be so tight and fitting as to show the shape of the woman’s body. The garment should be thick and opaque so as not to display the skin colour and form of the body beneath it.

�

Its mentioned in the Qur'an:

"O children of Adam, we have provided you with garments to cover your bodies, as well as for luxury. But the best garment is the garment of righteousness. These are some of Allah’s signs, that they may take heed."

►[Holy Quran ,Chapter 7:Verse�26]

�

O Prophet! Say to your wives, your daughters and the women of believers that (while going out) they should draw their veils as coverings over them....►[Holy Qur'an , Chapter 33:Verse 59]

�

Its mentioned in Hadith:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Muslim ibn Abi Maryam from Abu Salih that Hazrat Abu Hurayra said,

�"Women who are naked even though they are wearing clothes, go astray and make others go astray, and they will not enter the Garden nor will they experience its fragrance, and its fragrance can be experienced

from as far as the distance travelled in five hundred years."�►{Narrated by Imam Malik in Al-Muwatta, Book on Dress,Hadith #7}

�

�

Hazrat Ayesha reported that Hazrat Asma came to the Holy Prophet(Peace be upon him) wearing very fine clothes. The Prophet(Peace be upon him) turned his face and said:

“O Asma! When a woman attains the puberty, no part of her body should be exposed to others except face and palms.”���►{Narrated by Abu Dawood}

�

�

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

Men are commanded to respect women just like they� would want women of their household to be respected

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

�

Men are commanded to respect women just like they� would want women of their household to be respected.Here is a incident from life of Prophet Muhammad(Peace be upon him).

�

One day, a young man (apparently Julaybib) asked Allah’s Messenger(Peace be upon him) for permission to fornicate, since he could not restrain himself. Those who were present reacted in various ways.

�

Some scoffed at him, others pulled his robe, and still others readied themselves to hit him. But the compassionate Prophet(peace be upon him) drew him near and engaged him in conversation.

�

�He began by asking him:“Would you let someone do this with your mother?”

�to which the young man replied:�“My mother and father be your ransom,O God’s Messenger, I don’t agree with that.”

The Prophet(peace be upon him) said:“Naturally, no one agrees that his mother should be a party in such a disgraceful act.”

�

He then continued asking Julaybib the same question, but substituting daughter, wife, sister, and aunt for mother.

Every time Julaybib replied that he would not agree to such an act. By the end of this conversation, Julaybib had lost all desire to fornicate.

�

But Allah’s Messenger(Peace be upon him) concluded this “spiritual operation” with a supplication.

�Placing his hand on Julaybib’s chest, he prayed:�“O God, forgive him, purify his heart, and maintain his chastity.”

�Julaybib became a model of chastity. Some time later he married through the intermediation of Allah’s Messenger(peace be upon him)...►{Ibn Hanbal, 5:256-57}

�

�

�

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

Islam brings orderliness in society by promoting the institution of marriage

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

Islam brings orderliness in society by promoting the institution of marriage. Marriage is a� door from the doors of righteousness for the person with the correct intention.

�

Allah Ta’ala also states:

“And enjoin in marriage those among you who are not married, and your deserving slaves and bondwomen...”►(Surah Noor Verse 32)

�

It is stated in a Hadith:“Those among you who are able to marry, should marry...”�►(Bukhari Shareef Hadith 5065, Muslim Shareef Hadith 3464)

�

Parents have been advised� is to marry off children once they reach a suitable age.

�

Hazrat Abu Sa’eed and Ibne Abbas Ä narrate that

RasoolAllah(Peace be upon him) said, “Whoever has children should give them a good name, teach them manners and

�once they have reached puberty should arrange for their marriage.

�If a child is not married (at a suitable age) and as a result of that he commits sins (adultery) then the sin will be on the father.”►(Mishkaat-ul-Masabih,Hadith 3138)

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

A Woman is commanded not to go alone on a long journey and should have a male relative as an escort

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

A Woman is commanded not to go alone on a long journey and should have a male relative as an escort for security.

�

It is related from Ibn 'Abbas that he heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say,�"A man should not be alone with a woman, nor should a woman travel except with a dhu mahram.(i.e. her husband or a person whom she cannot marry in any case for ever; e.g. her father, brother, etc.)."

A man stood up and said,�"Messenger of Allah, I have been written down for such-and-such an expedition and my wife has gone out on hajj."

He said.�"Go and make hajj with your wife."�►{Sahih Bukhari ,Kitab Al-Jihad, Hadith 2844}

�

�

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

Capital punishment to the one who outrages modesty of a woman

▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄

In Islam,Capital punishment to the one who outrages modesty of a woman.

�

Stoning for adultery is mass-transmitted from the Prophet, upon him peace, both as verbal injunction (Hadith "The child belongs to the household where he is born and the adulterer gets stones") and actual deed (stoning of Maa`iz ibn Maalik, Allah be well-pleased with him) cf. al-Kattani, Nazm al-Mutanathir (p. 105-106 §181-182).

�

Abdul Jabbar ibn Wail ibn Hujr reported on the authority of his father�that a� modesty of a woman was outraged in the Prophet(peace be upon him)’s times.

He let her off, but appointed hadd(capital punishment) on the man who had assaulted her..►{Sunan Tirmidhi,BOOK OF HUDUD,Hadith #1483}

�

The punishment is� given publicly to induce fear of law in the hearts of ,would be criminals.

�

�

May Almighty Allah make the society realise the wisdom behind Divine laws revealed to mankind to get rid of the crime prevelant in society ..Ameen!

�

--

Jazakum Allah Khair
The Qur'an Foundation.

�

�www.facebook.com/thequranfoundation

www.youtube.com/thequranfoundation, http://thequranfoundation.posterous.com,

The enemy within: Soldier suicides outpaced combat deaths in 2012 - By Bill Briggs, NBC News contributor - usnews.nbcnews

USA pays heavily in unleashing wars abroad. It is time American people made the key warmongers, in politics, media, army and 'defense' industry accountable for such horrific count of soldiers' suicide death on return.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
<ghulammuhammed3@gmail.com>

-----

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/03/16309351-the-enemy-within-soldier-suicides-outpaced-combat-deaths-in-2012?lite

The enemy within: Soldier suicides outpaced combat deaths in 2012

By Bill Briggs, NBC News contributor

More soldiers took their own lives than died in combat during 2012, new Department of Defense figures show. The Army's suicide rate has climbed by 9 percent since the military branch launched its suicide-prevention campaign in 2009.

Through November, 177 active-duty soldiers had committed suicide compared to 165 during all of 2011 and 156 in 2010. In all of 2012, 176 soldiers were killed in action -- all while serving in Operation Enduring Freedom, according to DOD.

Army suicides have increased by at least 54 percent since 2007 when there were 115 — a number the Washington Post then called "an all-time record." An Army spokesman said Wednesday it is uncertain if 177 marks a new annual high (with December numbers still to come), or if suicides have ever outpaced combat deaths in a single year, because the Army has not always tracked suicides.

Some Army families who recently lost members to suicide criticize the branch for failing to aggressively shake a culture in which soldiers believe they'll be deemed weak and denied promotion if they seek mental health aid. They also blame Army leaders for focusing more heavily on weeding out  emotionally troubled soldiers to artificially suppress the branch's suicide stats versus embracing and helping members who are exhibiting clear signs of trouble.

Furthermore, in September, two U.S. lawmakers pressured the Pentagon to immediately use unspent money specifically appropriated to the agency to help slow the suicides within the military. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., and Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, also pushed for increased anti-suicide funding for the Department of Defense in 2013.

“The Pentagon hasn’t spent the money that it has for suicide prevention for this year — and that money wasn’t nearly enough money to reach all the soldiers who need help. Now we are hearing about bureaucratic technicalities at the Pentagon that are preventing them from acting. This is unconscionable,” Rep. McDermott said. “The Pentagon is funded to help soldiers and needs to do much more on the epidemic of suicides."  

But the Department of Defense contends that anti-suicide programs installed throughout the armed services soon will curb military suicides — and that such initiatives already have helped douse mental-health stigmas.

"We have seen several programs that we are optimistic are going to start making a dent in this issue," said Jackie Garrick, acting director of the DOD suicide prevention office. "We’ve asked all of the services to use the same messaging, the same talking points. So the Army, included in that, is trying to adapt and promote those same messages because we realize that this is an across-the-board problem."

The Army could not provide a suicide-prevention officer to comment, but an Army spokeswoman did forward NBC News a link to the “Army Suicide Prevention Program.”

Within that initiative, soldiers are taught to “Ask, Care, and Escort” any Army buddy who mentions considering suicide, to usher them to behavioral-health provider, chaplain, or a primary-care provider, and to “never leave your friend alone." The U.S. military also installed a prevention “lifeline:” 1-800-273-TALK.

What's more, soldiers are assured that seeking mental-health counseling will not harm their chances at gaining a security clearance. And on that website, a videoshows Sgt. Maj. Raymond F. Chandler III, the Army's top non-commissioned officer, speaking to other NCOs: “Know your soldiers. Know the resources available to them when they are in crisis ... Encourage your soldiers to seek help ... Seeking help is a sign of courage.”

The anti-suicide strategy was rolled out in April 2009 by Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli.

In July 2010, the Army released a report that sought to explain its suicide epidemic. Some Army families were irked by one of the key findings: Loosened recruitment and retention standards — due to the furious pace of repeated deployments — had allowed more than 47,000 people to remain in the Army despite histories of substance abuse, misdemeanor crime or “serious misconduct.”

Chiarelli further frustrated many Army families who had lost members to suicide when, amid the release of that same report, he added: “I think it’s fair to say in some instances it would be a soldier that’s possibly married, couple of kids, lost his job, no health care insurance, possibly a single parent.” Those types of soldiers, he added, are “coming in the Army to start all over again, and we see this high rate of suicide.”

Two days before Charielli’s comments, 28-year-old Army soldier Brandon Barrett showed up at his parents' home in Tucson, Ariz. The family believed he was on leave following a brutal, year-long deployment in Afghanistan with the 5th Stryker Brigade during which he saw several buddies killed or wounded by bombs and did some killing himself.

During that visit, Barrett’s family thought his Army experience seemed to be helping him to mature, recalls his brother, Shane Barrett, a detective with the Tucson Police Department.
In August, Brandon Barrett left his parents’ home and drove — for unknown reasons — to Salt Lake City where he donned his combat fatigues, boots and helmet, grabbed his AR-15 rifle, went to a hotel and told an employee to call the police. As he waited for the officers, Barrett paced the hotel parking lot as if he was on patrol, a hotel video showed. A police officer arrived. Barrett shot him in the leg. The officer returned fire and killed Barrett with a bullet to the head. His family believes Barrett intended to commit “suicide by cop,” his brother acknowledged. 

Courtesy Barrett family

Brandon Barrett confided to a chaplain within his unit, the Barrett family learned since his death, revealing that his year of combat in Afghanistan had left him depressed and anxious.

“He’d been home for nearly a month,” Shane Barrett told NBC News. “We had no contact from anybody in the Army until my brother’s incident. And then, after the fact, it was: ‘Your brother was AWOL (absent without leave).’ Really? We didn’t know that.
“If a guy goes AWOL, the Army is supposed to notify the family immediately. We never received phone calls, letters. We were blindsided. At the police department where I work, they ran all kinds of record checks on him. But they found absolutely nothing (about an AWOL report).
“My mother has always believed he was declared AWOL after the fact just so the Army could get him off the rolls and not have his suicide count against the Army,” Shane Barrett said. “To just discard him, like he never existed, is just wrong. And there’s no paper trail, no nothing to back up the AWOL claim.”
The Barrett family later learned that Brandon had confided to a chaplain within his unit, revealing that his year of combat in Afghanistan had left him depressed and anxious. And possibly mulling suicide.
“From talking to a couple of other guys in his unit, he didn’t want to come forward (to seek mental-health help) because you’d be red-flagged. It would be your exit out of the Army,” Shane Barrett said. “The guys in the Army are just flat-out afraid to come forward.”
At the Department of Defense, anti-suicide chief Garrick was asked if the Army is indeed clinging to a culture of “suck it up" and handle your own problems,” as some Army families contend.

Andrew P Johnson / The News Herald via AP file

In an Oct. 10, 2012 photo, MaKayla Merritt holds her brother William Busbee's uniform with her mother Libby Busbee, right, and sister Tiffany Merrit in the family's living room in Panama City, Fla. U.S. Army Spc. William Busbee committed suicide in March of 2012. Busbee is one of 177 Army suicides in 2012 -- more than the number of soldiers killed in combat for the year.

“No, I think all of the services have done a pretty good job of trying to get a message out. The Army ... they’ve done the 'shoulder-to-shoulder,' (approach, and have said) ‘no soldier stands alone.' That’s been some of their messaging, now going back a while,” Garrick said.
“The Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta), this past year, issued a statement talking about how our service members are our most valuable resource and that we need to do everything we can to take care of our people. So we’re doing everything we can to prevent suicides in the military, recognizing that it’s a complex and urgent problem.”
More content from NBCNews.com:

• One inch: Death in combat hinges on the tiniest of margins
• From war with love: Christmas letters home span centuries but hit same notes
• After firing soldier in 2000, USPS ordered to rehire him — and pay him $2 million
• Same-sex wife of Army officer banned from joining military spouses club
• Military cracks down on alcohol abuse amid age-old bingeing habit 
• Fewer homeless vets 2012, but advocacy group sees 'alarming' trend
• Florida guide uses hunting as rustic therapy for combat veterans

Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook