To The Government Of Israel



Israel has announced that it’d investigate the deadly raid on a Gaza aid flotilla on its own. Israel has rejected a UN proposal for an international probe.


This is a laconic note for the Government of Israel:

If you’ve nothing to hide from the world, then allow an international investigation. It’s that simple.

Choosing The Right Words For Condemnation



Today was indeed a bad day when Israeli Defence Forces attacked on Freedom Frotilla which was bound for Gaza to provide aid to the stranded people there. Well, nearly everyone is aware of today’s catastrophe so I’d not go into much of the details. However, I condemn the perennial barbarity of Israeli Government, in today’s case too.


My sole concern of now is that when we condemn such acts of barbarism, we need not be ambiguous with the words. It, at times, give a wrong impression to the people we’re strangers to. However, sometimes one lack the right words to express, and even in such case the reader shouldn’t jump to a conclusion too. Asking for a clarification is fine as well. Though one must be careful with his/her words while criticizing. Bombing on Israel is no solution. A horde of Israelis condemn the act of barbarism by Israeli Defence Forces. It’s fine to condemn the act of the particular source rather — and in this case the Israeli Government — than condemning the whole country. In the same way, one can always condemn the unethical behavior of American Government, but it’s not fine to abuse or blame or condemn the whole America. Why to talk about killing or condemning a common American person — be it a Jew or a Christian? The Freedom Flotilla carried 750+ people from 10’s of different countries with different religions including Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc.


I prefer to choose my words carefully, but at times I do make unintentional mistakes. In any case, and to be sure, my intentions are neat. God knows that. But the other person totally stranger to me and reading my posts or listening to my words may not know what my intentions are.


I don’t doubt the intention of many other people condemning the state of Israel. But I’d suggest them re-again to avert from ambiguity — be precise and particular rather than general.


If at anytime I’m found using ambiguous words — anyone can feel free to correct me.


Thanks to one of my friend who brought my attention towards this matter.

Book Review — Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths


Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths -- by Karen Armstrong

Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths -- by Karen Armstrong


This is a review of the book “Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths” which I’m reading these days. The book is sure interesting and written unbiasedly by Karen Armstrong.


Karen Armstrong is an Oxford Graduate in Literature. She has served as a Nun for 7 years in Roman Catholic Church. The best thing about her way of explaining things in the book is that it’s completely free from any favoritism or bias in regards with any religion which are the subject of the book — Islam, Christianity and Judaism.


Karen Armstrong, in her book “Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths”, rejects the idea of Jews who claim that Jerusalem is more holy for them than it’s in any other religion. She argues, which is rightly so, that it’s difficult to trace who were the real inhabitants of the city when it was populated thousands of years ago. On the other hand, she highlights the significance of the Jerusalem in regards with all three religions — all of them asserting that the city is more holiest to them than any other religion.


To be sure, Karen Armstrong suggests that the book is merely an attempt to find out what Jews, Christians and Muslims have meant when they have said that the city is “holy” to them and to point out some of the implications of Jerusalem’s sanctity in each tradition. You might feel to be one from the ancient times while reading it.


At one place she argues that she understands why the city is holy for Christians, because it’s the place where Christianity was born, and it’s the place where Hazrat Esa AS was crucified. Then she argues that Islam was born a thousand miles away from the Jerusalem in the deserts of Arab; whereas Judaism was born a thousand miles away from the Jerusalem in the deserts of Sinai, in Egypt. She raises the question that why Jews believe other mounts as more holy than the Mount Sinai where the holy book was bestowed on Hazrat Moosa AS. Later, she argues that the city is equally holy for the Muslims and for the Jews like it’s for the Christians. The Prophets sent to the Jerusalem — Hazrat Suleman AS, Hazrat Dawood AS, Hazrat Esa AS and so on — are equally respectable for each of the three religions.


To learn more about the history of Jerusalem and the historical facts on it regarding all three religions, this is a good book to read.

Obama’s Speech In Cairo: Variety Of Hypocrisies, Mixture Of Truths & Lies



Obama's speech in Cairo
On the name of Islam and with Islamic greetings – Obama started his speech. There was a round of loud ovation. People across the globe and specially Muslims must have turned on their Television to heed to his diction.


He spoke incessantly for around an hour. Nonetheless, his speech was eloquent as good as it could be and a set of brilliant metaphor – that has turned mind of a lot of those people who previously possessed an anti-US opinion. That’s what I saw all across Internet and amongst my acquaintances as well.


Obama started to talk about 9/11 which he iterated is done by al Qaeda. According to Obama, this has bred mistrust and fear amongst the people against Muslims.


Protest in New York for 9/11
The questions to raise are: how many of the people in United States assume that al Qaeda was behind it? And who’s responsible for hyping and breeding the mistrust for Muslims? The American media has a immense role in building this mistrust along with Bush’s administration — so why Obama feels remorse about ‘mistrust’?


Although he talked about the eradication of this mistrust, but he never shed a light on the fundaments of the mistrust.


Obama talked about nuclear weapons. As per him, if a new flu infects one human-being, the other human-beings also fall in to the risk of getting affected by the flu. The same way when one nation pursues for nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises on all countries.


My strong objection, Mr. Obama. How hypocrite of you. Your analogy is wrong to a commensurate extent as your own country holds nuclear weapons, not? Israel – whom you say your country US has excellent relations with – having a bond which is unbreakable – is a non NPT country and ascertains nuclear weapons. Analogically, did Obama mean to say that heavenly human-beings can’t be infected by a flu, but the normal human-beings. US is a heavenly country, Mr. Obama meant. Within the speech, at places where he should’ve orated elaboratively, he orated abbreviatedly – to blot out his hypocrisy.


Mr. Obama also narrated the barbarity of Talibans saying they killed 3000 innocent men, women and children in 9/11 attacks. But he deliberately ignored the updated figure of 687 innocent men, women and children who died in drone attacks so far. Why being two-faced ahead the whole world? Moreover, he should’ve reviewed the whole history of Talibans ahead the whole world – of course he can’t.


Citing one of the verse from Quran, Obama said that if a man kills an innocent, it means he has killed whole mankind. Well, United States will take a lead if the number of dead innocents of last 65 years or so are to be counted.


Talking about Iraq, he again demonstrated his hypocrisy when he iterated that US troops moved to Afghanistan because of necessity, not by choice. And war in Iraq was a war of choice, not a necessity – unlike Afghanistan. Mr. Obama didn’t go in to much of the details relevant to former US Secretary of State Mr. Collin Powell who was one major supporter of war in Iraq. Mr. Obama shortened this particular piece of section as well – under a pretext that Iraqis are better off without tyrannous Saddam Hussain. Good Mr. Obama. You again proved of being hypocritical.


Moving forward, I had this chance of being dumbfounded when I heard Mr. Obama accepting for the first time that diplomacy should be preferred rather than using a force by citing an example that US fighting war in Iraq reminded United States of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve the problems whenever possible.


I don’t think United States yet will learn this lesson. These are more of words than a sincere opinion and beliefs, I believe. To get its feet struck in every act is one durable and distinguishing quality of United States.


Just like Mr. Obama reiterating incessantly about 9/11 catastrophe, the same way I believe our President/Prime Minister should be vocalizing in International summits and conferences. Before it could happen actually, our leaders will die of gut-ache. Pakistan will be a true sovereign country if they successfully manage to escape from gut-ache and vocalize what’s necessitated, anyway.


Mr. Obama also talked about closing down of Gitmo by saying that use of torture is prohibited. Now again, a top-notch hypocritical statement. Talk about Abu Gharib, and other detention cells in Afghanistan, Iraq and US itself. However, just lately I read this news about Mr. Obama and administration asking a New York federal appeals court to halt the release of disturbing images of detainee abuse since Mr. Obama and his administration believes that it’d endanger US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Moreover, it could also incite Pakistanis, Afghanis and Iraqis against United States to further more extent than today — The other way, may be under a pretext of Pakistanis, Iraqis and Afghanis getting provoked by those pictures, he fenced the publication of those pictures. Deviously, he didn’t want to endanger his deceitful speech he aforethought to deliver to the Muslim World.


Now moving towards the part of speech where Mr. Obama said that United States has infrangible relations with Israel. The bond amongst both countries is an epitome of (sympathy) consensus – which he described in a way that Jewish homeland came into being in a tragic history which can’t be denied. The way Mr. Obama was vocal in favor of Jews, the way he never was vocal in favor of Muslims in his one hour oration. It can very well be distinguished from Mr. Obama’s words that go like: Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.


Further, Mr. Obama talked about Palestine issue. He admitted the fact that Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered a lot in last 60 years or so and that’s intolerable. Mr. Obama, as expected, again gave the hope of solving this issue – saying that United States won’t turn its back in regards. Mr. Obama and all former Presidents of United States have been saying this invariably. These elegant and empathy-words have no worth now, Mr. Obama.


A unilateral statement in against of Palestine was also iterated by Mr. Obama – who started showing his wispy colors after few minutes by saying that Palestine should abandon violence. He never addressed Israel when he talked about violence and abandoning it. So how sincere Mr. Obama is, do you wonder?


Talking about Nuclear Weapons again, regarding Iran – Mr. Obama also expressed that some countries possess nuclear arms and some don’t – and people often protest on it. That’s Right. Further, Mr. Obama said that the world must be free from nuclear weapons, but a peaceful nuclear power. So Mr. Obama, why not start diminishing and then relinquish & wrap up nuclear arms from United States first. Do good, and care not to whom — I callback this idiom for Mr. Obama. Or may be a wise suggestion would go like why not a treaty be made amongst all countries possessing Nuclear arms or underway in achieving nuclear arms – to make this earth free from nuclear arms – in a very serious way just like Mr. Obama has put a stress in his words the world must be free from nuclear arms.


Anyway, Obama’s speech was really like a poetry of imagination, and an eloquence of diction — which must’ve inspired and influenced a lot of minds in the Muslim world. The commitments Obama expressed to the Muslim countries and for the Muslims — will prove his visuals of talking about a new beginning – in sometime to come. Till then, let’s not get inspired — all those who had the chance to listen to his long diction.