Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald examines how enlightenment has always come to Islamic nations:
If democracy is on the march in a Muslim country, there will always be more primitives in the population than the enlightened. If the Bush Administration, or others waiting in the wings, would carefully analyze where any moral progress has been made in the Muslim world, it has always been not from below, but from above, from enlightened or quasi-enlightened despots. Ataturk systematically limited the role of Islam and tried as much as he could to diminish its social and political influence. If Kemalism is coming undone, slowly, it is not because of pressure from the top, or from the beneficiaries of Kemalism, the Turkish middle and upper classes, but from below. In Iran, whatever progress was made came from the two-man short-lived Pahlevi dynasty. The Shah, that corrupt and vain and not terribly intelligent man, predicting that Iran would become the "second industrial power of Asia" (after Japan), who was allowed to let that OPEC money go to his head, seems in retrospect to have been a lovable fellow, deserving of all our support (for compare him to what came after).His court and courtiers were similarly lovable. Teheran still had a French lycee, and the Goethe Institute. Then there was the mayor's daughter who could grow up to teach "The Real Life of Sebastian Knight" -- or was that someone else? -- and even reappear in the United States, as the most unrepresentative representative of Iran it is possible to be, with those Tabatabais as air-force generals, who now have the glow of old Czarist generals, and Hoveyda, and all the others -- corrupt, but not unduly so. Corrupt, but how good they seem in the Iranian context compared to what followed. They seem like the greatest statesmen who ever lived.
Remember also what happened to those who first threw in their lot with Khomeini, because they misunderstood both him and their own country and the power of those primitives, and thus the power of the main animating source of those primitives -- Islam itself, and what it inculcates. Think of what happened to that former member of the French Resistance, Shahpour Bakhtiar, the last prime minister under the Shah. Think of Mehdi Bazargan, and think of all those others who had never been enthusiasts of the Shah, had been in the Mossadegh line, and yet were murdered not only under Khomeini, but under Khatemi, with impunity, in broad daylight, in the full light of history.Here's just a bit to remind you:
Dariush Foruhar, the 70 years old veteran Iranian politician and a leading opponent of the ruling Islamic Republic was stabbed to death Sunday alongside his 54 years old wife, Parvaneh, also an outspoken critic of the regime, according to official, family and friends sources.Leader of the Iran People's Party (IPP), one of the country's oldest political organisation fighting for a Western type parliamentarian republic, both husband and wife were executed in Islamic tradition, with Mr Foruhar's head and one of Mrs Parvaneh's breasts cut off. Both had been stabbed several times with a long knife by unidentified but professional killers.
An opponent of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Mr. Foruhar was jailed several times under the former regime. After the revolution, he briefly took charge of the Labour Ministry in the first government of the Islamic Republic led by the late Mehdi Bazargan, but resigned in protest against the new constitution based on Islamic Sari'a, or Canons by calling for a secular republic. Outlawed by the ruling ayatollahs, his party was nevertheless tolerated. Despite several threats to their lives and attacks of the meetings of the party by Islamic thugs operated by the Information Ministry they were among the very few adversaries of the Islamic Republic who refused to leave the country.The savage double murder that took place in broad daylight at the couple's residence in the Iranian capital Tehran bore the landmark of execution of political dissidents by the regime's agents, including that of Dr Shahpour Bakhtiar, the Shah's last Prime Minister who was murdered in his Parisian residence in August 1992 by 4 agents of the Islamic Republic's Information (Intelligence) Ministry employing almost exactly the same method, his head and hands cut off.
Both Mr. Foruhar and his wife Parvaneh were outspoken critics of the Islamic regime they would describe as anti-Iranian. In declarations and interviews with foreign-based Iranian media, they denounced publicly and from Iran itself devastation the ruling ayatollahs have caused to the economy of the nation, the violations of the basic rights of the Iranians, particularly the women, the ostracism of Iran in the world, the shame they have caused to the Iranians because of terrorist activities of the state or the support given by the ruling hard liners to terrorist organisation.
The barbaric assassination of the dissident couple, a first that takes place under the government of the of the ayatollah Mohammad Khatami, the so-called Iranian reformist president is the most sever blow to both his personal prestige and political programmes he promised during his electoral campaign 17 months ago, including the restoration of the rule of law, limited political freedoms and the implementation of a civil society.
So that was Iran, where it was the Shah and his court, as in Turkey it was Ataturk and his collaborators, who made the place semi-decent precisely by limiting the power of Islam.
And the same could be said for those two protectors of the local Jews, Mohammad V of Morocco (himself less vulnerable to Islamic charges because of his own descent) and Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia. The latter, of course, also limited the power of Islam. His successor, running what necessarily has to be an authoritarian regime, has continued in the Destour Party line.
It is not "democracy" that will undo Islam. It is the enlightened or semi-enlightened ruler, and if not a single ruler, then it will be up to the quasi-secular or secular beneficiaries of some enlightened despot's rule.
Which brings us back to Egypt. Does Mubarak qualify as one more "enlightened despot" because he is opposed by, and opposes, the Muslim Brotherhood? No Mubarak is simply a thuggish and corrupt man who has no desire whatsoever, and has shown it, to make a real peace with the Infidel state of Israel, has done nothing to encourage any fulfillment of the solemn commitments made by Egypt in order to repossess the Sinai (most of which became "Egyptian" only in 1922), and has done the absolute minimum to protect the Copts, or to end the campaign against them in the Egyptian press, radio, and television. No, he is not an "enlightened despot." He and his Mena-Island jockey-club crew deserve no aid, no further jizyah, from any Infidel power. It is grotesque that the Americans cannot see that a country as poor as Egypt, which in the most recently published list of buyers of foreign arms stood third, after India and China, is not an "ally" (as the press routinely calls it -- "America's ally"), but is part of the problem. A big part of the problem.
Let the Egyptians go hat in hand to the rich Arabs for all further funds. It will use up Arab money that might otherwise go to pay for mosques in the Western world, and madrasas, and propaganda, and for the army of apologists in every walk of American and Western life. Let the rich Arabs turn them down, or not. Let the Egyptians mutter, and rage, over those same rich Arabs. Let them begin to feel, as Nasser did when he went to war to support the so-called "Marxists" in south Yemen against the Saudi-supported "Royalists" (as they were called), that the rich Arabs should begin to shell out to their fellow Muslims far more than they have -- really shell out.
And that will cause all kinds of things to happen, things which from the standpoint of the Infidels, will be good. The shelling out, or the other kind of shells if the shelling out does not take place. All to the good -- not of the Muslim world, but of the Infidel one. Which should be the one we care about.
Great piece Hugh.
Sometimes economics and environment also contribute to a change for the good.
Sometimes the glass is really half full (and on its way to being filled).
Hugh,
What is the goal of this ideology? What is it's purpose? I don't understand an ideology, belief system or group that seeks to chain people, to encourage the most deplorable, anti-human behavior, to kick people when they are down, to not ever forgive but to destroy when transgressions are committed, to rejoice over someone else's pain, to smile when it inflicts terror. These things we see day in and day out in the Middle East, now Europe and sometimes in the U.S. I can't believe that the worst kind of oppression would lead people to seek that kind of revenge, unless they are taught revenge as a virtue.
Some of the trawlers on this site express disdain for Christianity when we point out why we don't like Islam, i.e., the way people are treated under this so called religion. But they never answer the questions or admit that their belief system is what encourages and strengthens their bad behavior. They don't like when we pull the rock back and expose what they believe for the world to see but they don't condemn that behavior either. They merely change the subject and point fingers at the Christians and scream about all the sins that they've committed. That seems to be an effective strategy with some people, yelling the loudest to drown out what the opposition is saying, which really is another form of mild terror. And we as Americans who were brought up in a Christian society, no matter what we've become, and how post Christian our society is, we were brought up on the "It's a Wonderful Life" mentality. While there are always some abberations, we as a people do not believe in ever, ever, ever, cutting off people's hands, stoning someone to death, (when was the last time you heard of someone being stoned to death in the U.S.?) killing our daughters for disobeying a command to marry or for falling in love with someone unsuitable. Where is Islam's unconditonal love? It doesn't exist, and while that is a hard gift to offer constantly, it is a gift offered in the ideology of Christianity and it is not offered in Islam.
In another thread from a few days ago I pointed out to Ispanan, (which was a waste of time, I know) the difference between how women are treated in Islam and in modern, sometimes Chritian, sometimes not, society. He enjoyed going through every thread and denouncing what I had said about how he can't beat a woman just because he disagrees with her, he can't kill her for adultery, etc. His response was that women only get beaten when they are disobedient to there husbands and that the Christians used to do that too. Please. We have laws in our country to protect us from that kind of mindset. If I go into a post office with a machine gun and take everyone out are you going to say it's because I'm a Christian? No, you'll say I'm an exception to the rule and you won't find anything in the Bilbe or the church that says I'm allowed to or even encouraged to behave that way. But as you have pointed out, Islam encourages suicide bombing, assasinations, prostitution, terror, intimidation, decapitation for enemies, slapping around your own wife, and these from the passages that Mohammad gave the Moslems.
The frustrating thing that I see as I come hear everyday is how the Moslem apologists know this, but they just keep spinning and spinning and saying it louder and louder and we as a conquered people, conquered in the sense that many of us believe every word that the news media sends out, no matter how ridiculous, well, most of us buy it hook line and sinker. The people at this site stand up day after day and say, "Hey, Mr. Islamic Emperor, you don't have any clothes on!!" And that is the reason they hate us so much.
On another thread I read Orian Fallaci explain that people don't want to know about this truth because then they would be obliged to do something about it. Well, now I know and I can't go back to not knowing. So the Islamic apologists can scream all they want, but the genie is out of the bottle.
One more thing, Ispanan asked me if I even knew any Moslems and then called me an idiot. I found that amusing because yes, I'm embarrassed to say here, I used to date a Moslem man. And many of the things I saw while in his company only confirm what you say here. Disrespect, intimidation, disregard for my beliefs and feelings, constantly telling me I should convert to Islam because I would really like it, (Hello?) I had to ask God for help to get away from him. Luckily we were both well known in our business community and my siblings are prominent in their field and this guy did a lot of business with them, so I don't think he would ever want to drop the facade of being a wonderful guy. That was part of my protection. God was the biggest part. I also worked with many different Moslem families but about five years ago told my family that I wouldn't work with them ever again because of the way they behaved. I could lose my license for saying that but it's true. Now that's not to say that some of the people weren't ever kind or were nasty all the time. It's the idea that they don't have to play by the same rules as everyone else that drove me crazy. After a while you have to get away from it or allow yourself to be placed in Dhimmi status with them (mentally) or simply go nuts. I just got away from them.
As far as Ispanan calling me an idiot, it's interesting because he KNOWS I'm not an idiot. He's simply engaging in wishful thinking. If he can get me to believe I'm an idiot then my posts are worthless and I will wither away and you'll never hear from me again. But the truth is, I, and women like me, are a force to be reckoned with, and he knows it, and he's scared. We value ourselves and the freedom we have enjoyed and have been entitled to since birth, and will never give up except in death. But Ispanan, and I mention him because his mentality is symbolic of what Islam stands for, cannot silence me except through killing me. And that doesn't say much about his or their ability to discuss things rationally and to negotiate a win-win situtation. It's kind of like trying to negotiate with a two year old. if they don't get their way in the game you're playing they will simply throw all the pieces around the room. Very primitive.
If there is one thing we need to learn from this site is that we can never stop telling the truth about Islam. We have to fight words with words, because that is where the enemy appears to be winning right now.
To say Democracy will not work with Muslims, is taking the humanity away from them. you have to look at Japan, to see it can be done. patience, and a big stick!
This reminds me of a personal experience during the late 1970s. I knew many Persians (or Iranians, if you prefer) who came to the States to study. Most seemed naïve and I assumed, given their wealth, that they were regime-friendly. However, some became indoctrinated by the radical-left and became opponents of the Shah.
However, what amazed me was the naiveté of the Marxist-left. I vividly remember, as a precursor to the Khomeini regime, the time when devout Muslims blocked the doors of an Iranian movie theatre and burned it to the ground with all the women and children inside. My Marxist friends (living in NYC, some of my best friends are …) shrugged it off with full confidence that come the revolution they would jettison the devout Islamic faction in the typical manner used in the past elsewhere.
They didn’t understand Islam.
Nor did Edward Said, who only a year before embarrassingly wrote in this monumental rant, Orientalism, how the Islamic religion is a peripheral factor in Muslim lands (see Martin Kramer). Today, unfortunately, the benign view of Islam has spread across all political camps with few exceptions. The example of Attaturk is one I often use as a factual benchmark of what it took to build a sustained (so far) secular society from the unsuitable stock of Islamic timber. It's the only data point that we have.
That link to Martin Kramer's selection from "Ivory Towers on Sand" is fixed here.
lulu:
I agree. One factor that is underestimated by Hugh and others is the impact of satellite broadcasting and the internet. While there will always be a core of "true believers", many, many more Muslims are envious of Western civilization and loathe the totalitarianism, secular or theocratic, that enslaves most of the Muslim world.
FYI, I read this morning in the Canadian Jewish News of a BC based Iranian organization that has put on an exhibition about the 2,500 years of connection between Jews and Persians to show their solidarity with the Jewish community that still exists in Iran (about 150,000!)and around the world and their opposition to the Islamic Republic.
One of the exhibition's proponents, who spoke under conditions of anonimity because he still has family in Iran, also warned that many of the Islamic Repubic's "officials" owns property in Canada these days, instead of Argentina, as they anticipate the fall of the regime and see Canada as a better safe haven than Argentina.
"One factor that is underestimated by Hugh and others is the impact of satellite broadcasting and the internet."
--- from a posting above
Repeated reference has been made here to technological advances by the Western world that have been exploited by the Muslim one. Those advances have made possible the spread not only of Islam itself, the real and full Islam, to humble, possibly illiterate, villagers who, nonetheless, can be whipped up by audiocassettes, videocassettes, and satellite television. I have mentioned, for example, many times how valuable the existence of audiocassettes sent by Khomenini's agents from Neauphle-le-Chateau to Iran, and then distributed through a network of bazaris. And the Internet is full of Muslim websites, and has been used, according to reports, is being used, by terrorists as the ideal means of communication.
No, these technological advances have not been "underestimated." Perhaps you mean that they have been "underestimated" as means to be used by Infidels to divide and demoralize, and perhaps win away from Islam altoghether, Muslims. It is not I who underestimates that possibility. It is the entire Western world, and its people, and its governments, who have done almost nothing to support the shoestring operations, practically volunteer operations, that are doing what should be done, and in the past would have been done, by an Office of War Propaganda. I understand why governments are afraid. But foundations? Individuals? How extraordinarily little is being done in this regard. The Western world produced all that technology, but so far governments have been inhibited, and private support most limited, in this matter.
Care to help change things?
Start with this impoverished website.
"...where any moral progress has been made in the Muslim world, it has always been not from below, but from above, from enlightened or quasi-enlightened despots." from posing above.
The most enlightened despot ever was General Douglas MacArthur. This is the model we should follow, not the Shah of Iran or Ataturk of Turkey. People forget how fanatically nationalistic the Japanese were. I would suggest you read Michele Malkins "A Case For Internment" to understand how deeply embedded the cult of the emperor was even with Japanese Americans. The kamakazies were far more effective than these nit wit muslim suicide bombers. They took out whole aircraft carriers, not just checkpoints.
It could very well be that democracy is untenable in countries overwhelmed by the cult of Mohamed. We cannot be certain though, because it has never been tried. Nowhere in the Middle East has democracy ever been attempted (with the exception possibley of Turkey) So how can we be sure that it will not work?
Early results from Iraq are encouraging. How many Americans have ever had to go to the polls with fear of being shot at? Yet the Iraqis went en masse. How many votes did Al Sadr get? Not too many. It would appear that they are getting it.
We shall see what happens. History is not preordained.
Hugh,
Where can I send my check?
"Early results from Iraq are encouraging. How many Americans have ever had to go to the polls with fear of being shot at? Yet the Iraqis went en masse. How many votes did Al Sadr get? Not too many. It would appear that they are getting it."
-- from a posting above
The Sunnis refrained from voting, or voted for Sunnis, in order to protect Sunni rule. The Shi'a marched off, mostly, to vote together for DAWA and SCIRI, and in the next round, in two weeks, let's see what happens -- if anything -- to the los-de-abajo supporters of the glowering troglodytic Neanderthal-mannish Moqtada al-Sadr.
The Kurds marched off to vote for Kurdish interests, and in a separate Kurds-only referendum, for independence. You say that "they are getting it." What is the "it" that they are "getting"? To vote their own ethnic and sectarian interests, which are the product not of the American intervention, but of decades of persecution and murder, and behind those decades, more than a millennium of Arab supremacist ideology (from which the Kurds have suffered) and of Sunni hatred of Shi'a?
And what's in for us? Explain to me, please, why the "dawn of democracy" in Iraq is good for Infidels? Why is it better than the non-dawn of democracy, with Iraq becoming the endless source of Sunni-Shi'a hostility, enmity, fighting, the place where a proxy war between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two greatest beneficiaries so far of the removal of Saddam Hussein (along with the Shi'a of Iraq), can be fought, using up their men, their money, their material, their attention -- and be a lesson in violence for all the rest of us, as we, the entire Infidel world, bone up on Islam, and the history of Islam, and just possibly perhaps, on our own civilizations and the legacy we are so prodigally throwing away, out of laziness, indifference, and of course stupidity.
Isabella
Paypal button on home page, left hand column.
IsabellatheCrusader:
I am glad that you have become enlightened. However, please be aware that revealing as many personal details about yourself as you have is very dangerous. For your own safety, I beg you to never again reveal as much personal detail about yourself as you have.
No one is safe from these fanatics. People like Robert Spencer who actually write under their own names and even allow photos of themselves to be published are being tremendously courageous.
Please be careful Isabella. On the other hand, if you feel compelled, despite the risks, to go public, in person, with your opinions, more power to you. I can't because I have promised my family that I would not endanger their lives.
BTW, I appreciate your thoughtful post. Did you check out Phyllis Chesler's auto-biographical recounting of her marriage to an Afghani man on Frontpage Mag? You should read it. It blew my mind. She, also, is being very courageous to not only write what she does but to reveal all these details about her youthful indiscretions.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20373
Lulu, it’s true that the Japanese radically changed their ways ... after we (how shall I put it?) softened them up with a couple of atomic bombs that capped off a fire-bombing campaign and protracted war (that they started.) Lulu, I hope you’re not suggesting we soften up the Iraqis in a similar manner to make them amendable to such a radical transformation of culture.
However, the one thing that does puzzle me is the current state of the Iraqi Shiites. On almost a daily basis, Sunni jihadi target and kill Iraqi Shiites civilians going about their daily business. Yet, we’ve seen almost no reprisals of a similar nature from the Shiites against Sunni civilians.
Could the Shiites be so demoralized from the decades of Saddam’s repression that they lack a strong identity and are open to change? Or do they merely defer to our military to protect them and ultimately pave the way for their rule? What do people think? Hugh, what do you think about the lack of Shiite terror attacks (at the present time) on Sunni civilians?
I saw Senators Warner (R) and Biden (D) debate Iraq the other night on the NewsHour. Both gentlemen and about as bright as any in the Senate. No mention of Islam, of the cultural baggage and inertia. Typical of the entire Western elite. There was an almost colonialist disdain or indifference to the psychology of the locals (if I may indulge in a bit of tongue in cheek Said-like hyperbole). It was just a minor disagreement over how resolutely we must 'stay the course', i.e it was about our own 'virtue' and not the (psychological) reality on the ground. A bit narcissistic, in my opinion, but very American. I think this website is just about the only place in the Western thinking world where the deeper issues of culture and cultural intertia are raised.
"To say Democracy will not work with Muslims, is taking the humanity away from them."
-- posted by Lulu
Democracy will not work with Moslems. There. I said it.
But I didn't take away their humanity. They did, and do, five times a day and all afternoon on Fridays. This includes youthful Moslems, who strip away their own freedom by not renouncing Islam and converting to atheism, at least.
Islam is more than inherently incompatible with freedom, it is inimicable to freedom, and is actively operating a global program to see to freedom's total and permanent demise.
What more can we expect from a religion that names itself Submission? (Or, Surrender, if you prefer that translation from the 7th century Arabic.)
Yet, we’ve seen almost no reprisals of a similar nature from the Shiites against Sunni civilians.
Not quite, JasonP.
Here's an article from the NYT:
http://tinyurl.com/9umm2
Basically, there will probably be a mutual vengeance bloodbath and power struggle, no matter what, regardless of when we leave.
By the way, I forgot to mention that your site is the other place in the Western thinking world where the deeper issues of culture and cultural inertia are discussed. :-)
They merely change the subject and point fingers at the Christians and scream about all the sins that they've committed.
I recognize that Christianity is dramatically more enlightened than Islam, especially today. I just wish that missionaries wouldn't tell my Hindu friends that they are devil worshippers and can't be saved without Jesus. Neither of these statements is polite.
Hugh:
You're great at acknowledging how the Islamists use technology to their advantage, which they most certainly do, but are awfully disparaging of the "born Muslims" who turn to the same technology to unite and spread their competing message(s). Strange, considering your considerable admiration for Iranian-Canadian Ali Sina, who, so far as I know, uses the Internet to do battle and has never published on paper or done public speaking.
Start with this impoverished website.
Good grief! I can't stand this anymore. I'm sending $100 in now, even though I'm in the poorhouse from Christmas presents (mostly for myself). Ask and ye shall receive.
'I just wish that missionaries wouldn't tell my Hindu friends that they are devil worshippers and can't be saved without Jesus.'~ Benjamin
You've got me wondering, Benjamin. I have to believe that there are some out there who do that, just wondering which ones. My uncle is a Maryknoll Missionary and travels in those areas from time to time (but mostly in China- he works out of Hong Kong); I am quite certain he, for one, would not treat people in that fashion. But I might be able to find out from him what groups do.
"What is the goal of this ideology? What is it's purpose?"
-- posted by Isabellathecrusader
Looking at Mohammed's conduct from 610 AD through to his death, by all appearances the express purpose of Islam is expansion.
Thus the name Submission, as in "Submit (surrender) to Islam." The perpetual anger and deplorable behavior appends the phrase "or else" to the surrender demand in the ideology's name.
All of which raises an interesting question. If the Moslems are able to take over the earth, what then? With no infidels left, who will be left to surrender?
My guess is a Sunni vs. Shiite extravaganza. It'll be just like the good old days during the Iraq-Iran War.
Waterdragon says about Hugh "You're great at acknowledging how the Islamists use technology to their advantage, which they most certainly do, but are awfully disparaging of the "born Muslims" who turn to the same technology to unite and spread their competing message(s".
Ameen to that WD. I love reading Hugh's text's but too often it's like reading a book. Facts, figures but devoid of base emotion or "base" opinion.
It is without doubt that he is well read and an able narrator....but and it's big but... I am wondering whether Hugh has ever MET or talked to a muslim. It's like he's read about them in books & over the internet.....formed his opinions, theories BUT has never met one. I find that quite amusing really.
The other thing is that Hugh finds the worst in a person if they have a muslim name. That is even more amusing?
Anyone else get that feeling?
A lot of literacy problems do exist. In Pakistan, children those who have time go to many a madrassa and know only what the Imam tells.
Some of the more modern ones, registered with the government, teach science...IT and provide internet access (slow that it is). I have seen some children using MSN and love the technology. Others have used SKYPE for telephony over the Internet (which I ocassionally use to talk to friends in the UK).
The problem comes in pointing people to the right places to look, and ofcourse I am always careful who to point out JW as I post here, (many times on disagreeable bits of Islam, and there are enough to count on the fingers of 1 hand). But that is life...even though it is disagreeable with Hugh.
Naseem the mohammadan apologist writes:
" I am wondering whether Hugh has ever MET or talked to a muslim."
Nice try. I can't speak for Hugh, but I am guilty as
charged. Met and spoke to quite a few. I was convinced long before 9/11 that mohammdans were a
menace to civilization, that your borders are bloody, that infidels must live as second class citizens in your countries, subject to routine terror.
Is there ever a situation where large numbers of
Westerners want to move to a mohammadan country?
No, there isn't. Consider why that is the case, and
why large numbers of mohammadans want to move to the West. Because the West is better, and mohammdan culture is awful.
Naseem, l like many other know enough from just causual meeting of Muslims to know the cult of the Muslims is
inhuman and evil. when l see woman covered up from head to toe, or just covering up their heads, my emotions are from rage to sadness, that you chose a doctrine to make yourselves ashamed of your bodies, the control you give over to this is sad and madning
cult. l am not saying you go around naked, but just showing your hair can get you arrested in Iran or Saudia Arabia is mind boggling. you have been so surpressed by this cult of submissions, you lack the joy of life, the spark to go out and be free is so
alien to most westerners, and that is most likely why many westerners cannot undertand the evilness in this cult. the post above by "American" is quite correct...the West attracks others from the Middle East because "the WEst" is superior as we do enjoy freedom. but with freedom come responsibility. you have to keep fighting for it!
benjamin said "It was just a minor disagreement over how resolutely we must 'stay the course', i.e it was about our own 'virtue' and not the (psychological) reality on the ground. A bit narcissistic, in my opinion, but very American."
I agree that it is the height of cultural imperialism when Islamic apologists (including those in the current Administration) make sweeping grand statements, without the slightest whiff of evidence, that "they are just like us". They (the Ummah) want peace, freedom, democracy, civil rights, material comforts. Maybe it comes from the apologists study of the Bible (where all people were created equal in His eyes), maybe it comes from a desire to appear open-minded and inclusive. Maybe it comes from a fear of having to deal with a very large and very messy problem (the violence that is associated with the spread of Islam).
But whatever the reason, we need to just stop talking for/over them, listen to what they are actually saying, and form a sensible response. The jihadists make their point clear enough. So what is the response of the "moderate" Islamic world to the jihadists? What can we infer from their response, or lack thereof?
That is the important point, and the one that is not being addressed by either political party. Warner and Biden think they appear high-minded by avoiding mention of Islam in regards to Iraq. One day (soon?), we will watch re-runs of these type of statements/discussions and wonder how they could have so completely missed what is so completely obvious?
Naseem says: “I am wondering whether Hugh has ever MET or talked to a Muslim.”
The reason I find this amusing is that the opposite is often stated to someone who say’s “I’ve met Muslims and I dislike what I see.” Often, you’ll hear in response, “but you can’t generalize from a few – that’s prejudice.” How many Muslims must we sample, Naseem, to understand Islam? And which ones embody the ideals of Islam? Perhaps we need to know what Islam is, first!
I used to know communists. As a matter of fact, I shared an office with a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. He was a pleasant and polite fellow. Indeed, I never saw him raise his voice let alone froth at the mouth. However, should that change my mind about communism, which has killed over 150 million people? Or maybe communism was just hijacked by an evil one (Stalin) or two (Mao) or ...?
Oh, by the way, living in New York City for over 50 years has given me the opportunity to meet a greater cross-sample of Muslims than in any other place in the world. Where do you live?
JasonP said "Lulu, I hope you’re not suggesting we soften up the Iraqis in a similar manner to make them amendable to such a radical transformation of culture."
I'm sure that Lulu, and no-one else here, would ever suggest that military force might be required to stop the violence that is emanating from the Islamic world. Not while we still have the Saudi programs that attempt to discuss Islam with the jihadists to get them to change their mind while simultaneously offering them money and goods. Not while we can continue to deny that there is violence in the Islamic world, or that the violence (if it did exist) is somehow related to the teachings of the Qur'an.
Surely we have much more wisdom and humanity today, 60 years later, and now know how easy it would have been to change the Japanese societies' behavior without resorting to violence. We know that the roots of anti-West hatred lie in poverty, lack of education, and in humiliation. We just need to open our hearts and reach out to them. If only our grandads were as wise as we are...
special_guest: LOL! Touché!
naseem said "The other thing is that Hugh finds the worst in a person if they have a muslim name. That is even more amusing? Anyone else get that feeling?"
Actually, no, I have never gotten that feeling about any of Hugh or Robert's writings. That is why I admire this site as much as I do. Their writings are based on cross-referenced and checkable facts, not on emotion or prejudice. That is why it is so hard for Islamic apologists such as yourself to engage them in any sort of factual discussion. But, thanks for sharing your underhanded cheap shot just the same.
special-guest l almost fell over my chair laughing at your post...perhaps you should join those peaceniks in Iraq who got kidnapped... where you can try to reach out, and be nice to those islamofacists. did ya get a peek at those who committed 9-11? they were not poor and uneducated.. do you work for the U.S. State Department? LOLOL
"What is the goal of this ideology? What is it's purpose?"
-- posted by Isabellathecrusader
This is a question I have been thinking about a lot lately and the only conclusion I can come to is that Islam does not exist to lead men to God in any way whatsoever. Islam exists only to propagate itself. This in turn leads to the circular reasoning: Islam is superior because it is successful and it is successful because it is superior.
IslamicRapper:
Here's a nice rhyme,
Up, is your time.
Contribute to the thread or see the hat girl's associate.
American says "Is there ever a situation where large numbers of Westerners want to move to a mohammadan country?"
Eh...didn't take any history in school then American,...where have you been these past 2000 years.
Ever heard of the Roman, Portguese, Spanish, French, British, Dutch, Germanic, empires.
Ever wondered why they speak French in Congo and Spanish in Mexico and English in India etc..
For the past 2000 years the West has been exploiting, stealing, etc wherever they can. Your grandfathers have been enjoying themselves at our expense for 100s of years....but they have shafted you.
Where have you been American!!!!!!
Special Guest certainly has had the lessons. He says "If only our grandads were as wise as we are..."
Perhaps you two should bang heads....like your grandfathers did. Make the people of the world sterile in nature ...bloody natives...don't know what's good for them...cannot appreciate our slavery programs (yes I know the Arabs gave you a helping hand) because you made it an art form.
They will never understand politics and democracy so lets keep them under our foot.
Look at what's happening now America....you are trying to teach us democracy again ...only this time it is for your own survival.
Yes, American your childern will learn
"Hum-da-dilla" and "Inshaallah" and "Allah-u-Akbar" because your grandfathers couldn't teach us democracy.....
Well you and your childern had better do a better job this time because if you cannot let me remind you of a little English saying....
If you can't beat them...join them....Insha-Allah
Naseem:
Thanks for being patient enough to stick around this site. It took a while for me to understand where you are coming from, and perhaps some of your understanding of some issues has changed as well. (I know you changed your views on Bush and the invasion of Iraq in the wake of 7/7.)
As you note, with well over a billion people identifying as Muslim in some way, shape or form, and living in virtually every county in the world (homogeneous they are not). There's nothing realistic about thinking "the west" can isolate itself from "the Other", anymore than it is to think Muslims can think the same.
My not very well educated assessment of the situation is that, for a variety of reasons, the reactionary element in Islam is experiencing a revival, and is able to do so because of petrodollars. However, this element so reactionary, that it will self-destruct just as other totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century have, causing great bloodshed as they do. And possibly sooner rather than later.
FYI, I read this morning of a group of Iranian Muslim ex-pats in Vancouver (BC, CAnada) who are hosting an exhibit that celebrates 2,500 years of Jewish life in Persia to help signal their support of Israel and opposition to the Islamic Republic's regime. (There are still about 150,000 Jews living in Iran.) One of the groups leaders advises that there are many members of the "ruling class" who have bought property in Canada as a place they can escape to if the regime falls. My uneducated guess is the number of Muslims in the west who oppose totalitarianism and sectarianism outnumber the Islamists and they need our support to regain ascendency at home and abroad.
I disagree with Hugh's rejection of the Iraq War project.
Yes, he is right that nurturing democracy will fail in this Moslem nation. It's like trying to plant a flower in a bed of wet concrete. The only real question is along what lines the population will divide itself up (i.e., which combination of Islamic sect, ethnicity, and tribe).
My disagreement is that this failed project was entirely necessary.
Our JudeoChristian tradition means that we must morally justify our actions. In order to respond to Jihad properly in the future, we need to be able to honestly say to ourselves that these animals can't be civilized.
They can't because they won't. We must because they will have left us no alternative.
Naseem,
"Look at what's happening now America....you are trying to teach us democracy again ...only this time it is for your own survival".
No Naseem, we're giving you one last chance before we get fed up with your caveman antics and send the lot of you to the hellfire where you're going to end up anyway. Silly mobot.
Naseem,
On with the claptrap.
Keep taunting Westerners.
It is unlikely a long time sport.
At best you are a slave(wife) of a slave(Islamist). Your only chance for elevation is to say you are better than the kuffar.
Small comfort when you reject being free.
oh Naseem, you have failed the test..lol..you have selective memory.. you need to read Robert's book again....where your cult killed, enslaved all of areas out of Saudi Arabia..yeah your ancestors chose the yoke of the cult of islam..you wear it well...
naseem, I'd love to respond to you, but I'm kind of in the middle of banging the sterile heads of my slaves that I'm exploiting and stealing from. And stuff.
"has Hugh has ever MET or talked to a muslim..."
--- from a posting above
Oh, for god's sake. You can't tell? Remarks about the danger of "filial piety" for example? Remarks about Muslims I have talked with who will themselves be the first to mock the Infidel belief that Islam is a "religion of peace and tolerance" (these are people who spend much time, and have many homes, and are at home, in the West) but who immediately switch into taqiyya-vein if any Infidel in their audience dares to agree, or even to add his own two-bits. You have been unable to pick that up? You think it's all book-learning?
dgene,
It is narrow minded thinking like yours that does my head in. What makes you think that "I am a slave(wife) of a slave(Islamist)". You don't know me or my husband....how dare you!
I am the free in what I do & when I do it. The shackles are not on me...certainly they are around me which is somewhat disappointing...but that is not the same thing. But it pisses me off to read one after the other that Islam is to blame for all of your ills.
And when people like you & America show their ignorance....then I write what I write.
You don't think that we know how to think..., that we don't want a better life ....like sending 8 year olds to sweat shops to sew footballs which your grandson may kick a couple of times after christmas...while a pakistani 8 year old's hands have been blistered sewing.
Wake up dgene.... I grant you that Islam has it's problems...it's just that we don't wash them in public....does that mean we are stupid....don't make that mistake dgene...it will cost you.
Wake uip dgene...do you not think that the West is fighting for survival....why are you here then? It's true...& I don't like it.
Is that what you wanted to hear?....
I DON'T LIKE IT......I DON@T LIKE IT........
I LIKE DEMOCRACY.
Naseem the mohammdan apologist writes:
"Eh...didn't take any history in school then American,...where have you been these past 2000 years. "
Plenty, thanks, islamomouthpiece. I haven't been around for 2000 years (that would be 400 years before the pedophile prophet you worship appeared,
right?) but I've tried to keep well informed.
Lets see, which of those countries that Westerners move to are mohammdan? India? Try harder. Actually, just give it up now, your rant is spining wildly out of control and off topic.
As proven by Ali Sina, (and to which your fellow mouthpiece here Mohideen Ibramsha agreed) you mohammdans have no notion of a Goldne Rule, so there is no possibility of a relationship based on reciprocity between the West and worshippers of the pedophile prophet. Maybe you and Mohideen should bang your heads together (as hard as possible please) until you realize that we aren't
fooled by your lying cult anymore.
Democracy without clearly defined and energetically enforced minority rights is tyranny and is every bit as worthless as religious conversion at the point of a sword. There will never be a truly democractic Muslim population until the people, the great unwashed, understand that. It doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon.
Naseem,
We in the West are in a fight for survival.
If you want democracy and freedom, then ditch the Islam and get your family or yourself over here.
You are, sadly, not free.
Good luck.
"Wake up dgene.... I grant you that Islam has it's problems...it's just that we don't wash them in public...."
Funny, after reading the article below, it looks to me like that Islam is willing to "solve" it's problems both publically and privately. However, the result is the same.
IRAN : CONVERT STABBED TO DEATH
Secret police crackdown results in the torture of 10 other Christians.
November 28 (Compass) – An Iranian convert to Christianity was kidnapped last week from his home in northeastern Iran and stabbed to death, his bleeding body thrown in front of his home a few hours later.
Ghorban Tori, 50, was pastoring an independent house church of convert Christians in Gonbad-e-Kavus, a town just east of the Caspian Sea along the Turkmenistan border.
Within hours of the November 22 murder, local secret police arrived at the martyred pastor’s home, searching for Bibles and other banned Christian books in the Farsi language. By the end of the following day, the secret police had also raided the houses of all other known Christian believers in the city.
According to one informed Iranian source, during the past eight days representatives of the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) have arrested and severely tortured 10 other Christians in several cities, including Tehran. All the detainees have since been released.
One of the arrested Christians was reportedly interrogated about his involvement in relief work after Iran’s deadly Bam earthquake in December 2003. Another working with a legal organization defending human rights was accused of using it as a “cover” for church activities.
In addition, MOIS officials have visited known Christian leaders since Tori’s murder and have instructed them to warn acquaintances in the unofficial, Protestant house fellowships that “the government knows what you are doing, and we will come for you soon.”
A former Muslim of Turkmen descent, Tori had converted to Christianity more than 10 years ago, while in Turkmenistan.
After he returned to his native Iran in 1998, Tori began to share his new Christian faith with friends and relatives. Within two years, a small fellowship of 12 believers was meeting in his home.
But not all welcomed his message; at least one relative attacked Tori, scarring his face. In the past year he received several threats from Islamic extremists vowing to kill him if he did not stop sharing his Christian faith.
Tori is survived by his wife and four children, ages 3 to 23.
He is the fifth Protestant pastor assassinated in Iran by unidentified killers in the past 11 years. Three of the five were former Muslims, under Iranian law subject to the death penalty for having committed apostasy.
Tori’s murder came just days after Iran’s new hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called an open meeting with the nation’s 30 provincial governors. During the session, an Iranian source told Compass, Ahmadinejad declared that the government needed to put a stop to the burgeoning movement of house churches across Iran.
“I will stop Christianity in this country,” Ahmadinejad reportedly vowed.
“This was apparently a green light from the president of Iran to go out and start killing Christians,” the source said.
Naseem,
"Ever wondered why they speak French in Congo and Spanish in Mexico and English in India etc.."
Ever wonder why Devnagri script disappeared for a time where most Hindus did not know how to read the language of their ancestors until the independence of India and were forced to use Persian script before the advent of the British? Answer: Islam persecution of our Sanskrit Devnagri Language Script.
Before you even comment about the sacred soil of the Indian subcontinent, how dare you mention India and English without mentioning the darkest chapters of Indian history which took place because of an intolerant expansionist Islamic empire with the worst type of colonial attitude which was bent on the annihilation of the oldest living civlisation known to man.
You stole from us, raped our wealth, destroyed our monuments, killed our children and still have the nerve to deny it, try to point the finger to others without even one drop of regret for what your people did.
The Genocide of the Sikhs and their Gurus, the Genocide of Hindus, the Genocide of Buddhists, Jains, Zorastrians etc etc.
Amir Timur or Tamerlane (1336 - 1405) Turkmen Mongol conqueror wrote:
"My principal object in coming to Hindustan… has been to accomplish two things. The first was to war with the infidels, the enemies of the Mohammadan religion; and by this religious warfare to acquire some claim to reward in the life to come. The other was… that the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the infidels: plunder in war is as lawful as their mothers’ milk to Musalmans who war for their faith.”
While studying the legacy of Muslim rule in India, it has to be constantly borne in mind that the objectives of all Muslim invaders and rulers were the same as those mentioned above. Timur or Tamerlane himself defines them candidly and bluntly while others do so through their chroniclers.
(source: The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India - By K S Lal).
To start with he stormed the fort of Kator on the border of kashmir. He ordered his soldiers "to kill all the men, to make prisoners of women and children, and to plunder and lay waste all their property".
Next, he "directed towers to be built on the mountain of the skulls of those obstinate unbelievers". Soon after, he laid siege to Bhatnir defended by Rajputs. They surrendered after some fight, and were pardoned. But Islam did not bind Timur to keep his word given to the "unbelievers". His Tuzk-i-Timuri records: "In a short space of time all the people in the fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground."
By now Timur had captured 100,000 Hindus. As he prepared for battle against the Tughlaq army after crossing the Yamuna, his Amirs advised him "that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolators and enemies of Islam at liberty". Therefore, "no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword". Tuzk-i-Timuri continues: "I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death."
(source: Kashmir Islamic Atrocities in India).
Negationism and the Muslim Conquests - by Francois Gautier
"Muslims invaders did record with glee their genocide on Hindus, because they felt all along that they were doing their duty; that killing, plundering, enslaving and razing temples was the work of God, Mohammed. Indeed, whether it was Mahmud of Ghazni (997-1030), who was no barbarian, although a Turk, and patronised art and literature, would recite a verse of the Koran every night after having razed temples and killed his quota of unbelievers; or Firuz Shah Tughlak (1351-1388) who personally confirms that the destruction of Pagan temples was done out of piety and writes: "on the day of a Hindu festival, I went there myself, ordered the executions of all the leaders AND PRACTITIONERS of his abomination; I destroyed their idols temples and built mosques in their places".
(source: Negationism and the Muslim Conquests - by Francois Gautier).
Hindu Kush Mountains - " Slaughter of the Hindus "
Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists have also suffered a terrible holocaust, probably without parallel in human history. Take the Hindu Kush for instance, probably one of the biggest genocides of Hindus. There is practically no serious research ever done about it and no mention in history books. Yet the name Hindu Kush appears many times in the writings of Muslim chroniclers in 1333 AD. Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, said the name meant 'Hindu Killer,' a meaning still given by Afghan mountain dwellers. Unlike the Jewish holocaust, the exact toll of the Hindu genocide suggested by the name Hindu Kush is not available. 'However,' writes Hindu Kush specialist Srinandan Vyas, 'the number is easily likely to be in millions.'
Afghanistan was a full part of the Hindu cradle up till the year 1000, and in political unity with India until Nadir Shah separated it in the 18th century. The mountain range in Eastern Afghanistan where the native Hindus were slaughtered, is still called the Hindu Kush (Persian: "Hindu Slaughter").
(Note: To the Hindus, this mountain range was known as Paariyaatra Parvat. But when the last Hindu king of Kabul was killed Muslims ruled this land and then called these mountains the Hindu Kush -- "Slaughter of the Hindus" ).
It is significant that one of the very few place-names on earth that reminds us not of the victory of the winners but rather of the slaughter of the losers, concerns a genocide of Hindus by the Muslims.
A few known historical figures can be used to justify this estimate. The Encyclopaedia Britannica recalls that in December 1398 AD, Taimurlane ordered the execution of at least 50,000 captives before the battle for Delhi; likewise, the number of captives butchered by Taimurlane's army was about 100,000.
The Britannica again mentions that Mughal emperor Akbar ordered the massacre of about 30,000 captured Rajput Hindus on February 24, 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod, a number confirmed by Abul Fazl, Akbar's court historian. Afghan historian Khondamir notes that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, which used to be part of the Hindu Shahiya kingdoms '1,500,000 residents perished.' 'Thus, 'it is evident that the mountain range was named as Hindu Kush as a reminder to the future Hindu generations of the slaughter and slavery of Hindus during the Moslem conquests.'
(source: Where's India's holocaust museum? - By Francois Gautier - rediff.com).
American Historian Abraham Valentine Williams Jackson (1862-1937) wrote:
"At Muhamud's blockade the defenders "fell to the earth like sparrows before the hawk." Immense stores of treasure and jewels, money and silver ingots, were laden upon camels, and a pavilion of silver and a canopy of Byzantine linen reared upon pillars of silver and gold were among the prizes of the Holy War. The booty was displayed in the court of the palace at Ghazni, "jewels and unbored pearls and rubies, shinning like sparks or iced wine, emeralds as it were sprigs of young myrtle, diamonds as big as pomegrantes." The Eastern chronicles tell of seventy million silver dirhams, and hundreds of thousands of pounds weight of silver cups and vessels; and, with every allowance for exaggeration, the spoils must been colossal. All the world flocked to Ghazni to gaze upon the incredible wealth of India. Such rewards were incentives enough to carry on the pious work. Year after year Mahmud swept over the plains of Hindustan, capturing cities and castles, throwing down temples and idols, and earning his titles of "Victor" and "Idol-breaker," Ghazi and But-shikan.
Zeal for Islam was the dominant role of the tenth-century Turks, as of most new converts. The great missionary creed of Mohammed, which to the Arabs and Persians had become a familiar matter of routine, was a source of fiery inspiration to the untutored men of the steppes. To spread the faith by conquest doubled their natural zest for battle and endowed them with the devoted valor of martyrs.
Mahamud was a staunch Moslem, and he vowed that every year he would wage a Holy War against the infidels of Hindustan. The sack of Somnath had made Mahmud of Ghazni a champion of the faith in the eyes of every Moslem for nearly nine centuries, and the feat, signal enough in itself, has been embellished with fantastic legends."
Mahmud died in 1030 A. D. and his tomb and two lofty minarets, stand to show Ghazni's life. On one of the minarets one may still read the resonant titles of the Idol-breaker, and on the marble tombstone an inscription entreats "God's mercy for the great Amir Mahmud." Soon India was to witness something very like a repetition of his swift irresistible raids. For more than a century there was peace, at least little war. Probably the Hindu troops and Hindu officials had to some extent Indianized them, and the last descendants of Mahmud made their home at Lahore without difficulty... Mu'izz-ad-din, commonly known as Mohammad Ghori, led a series of campaigns in India which recalled the days of the Idol breaker nearly two centuries before.
For thirty years Mahmud had ravaged Hindustan from Indus to the Ganges; and for thirty years Mohammed Ghori harried the same country in the same way...full of religious zeal, and eager to send the "groveling crow-faced Hindus to the fire of hell."
(source: History of India - By A V Williams Jackson volume 3 p. 17 - 28 and 52 - 54).
Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in his Discovery of India:
"In Kashmir a long-continued process of conversion to Islam had resulted in 95 per cent of the population becoming Moslems, though they retained many of their old Hindu customs. In the middle nineteenth century the Hindu ruler of the state found that very large numbers of these people were anxious to return en bloc to Hinduism.
The Moslems who came to India from outside brought no new technique or political or economic structure. In spite of a religious belief in the brotherhood of Islam, they were class bound and feudal in outlook. In technique and in the methods of production and industrial organization, they were inferior to what prevailed in India. Thus their influence on the economic life of India and the social structure was very little."
(source: The Discovery of India - By Jawaharlal Nehru Oxford University Press. 1995. p 267).
If Christians are facing their past. Even in religion class in Catholic schools in Belgium, we gave attention to the gruesome part in Church history. In Latin America, the 500th anniversary of Columbus' arrival has sparked some serious reconsideration both within and outside the Church, about the role of Christianity in the wholesale destruction of all the cultures without exception in the entire New World. But in India, we find the unbelievable situation, that not only Muslim historians and public figures refuse to face the truth about Muslim history : neutral secular historians are also covering up and denying the crimes which Islam has systematically committed, and even many Hindus are denying the crimes committed against their own society.
(source: Ayodhya and After - By Koenraad Elst).
The famous iron pillar in Delhi belonging to the fourth-fifth century A.D. is a metallurgical wonder. This huge wrought iron pillar, 24 feet in height 16.4 inches in diameter at the bottom, and 6 1/2 tons in weight has stood exposed to tropical sun and rain for fifteen hundred years, but does not show the least sign of rusting or corrosion. Evidence shows that the pillar was once a Garuda Stambha from a Vishnu temple. This pillar was plundered by Islamic hoards from a temple dedicated to Vishnu and added as a trophy in the Quwwat al-Islam mosque in Delhi. Made of pure iron, which even today can be produced only in small quantities by electrolysis. Such a pillar would be most difficult to make even today. Thus, the pillar defies explanation.
"One does not need to be communally-minded to infer that desecration of Hindu holy sites was held to be meritorious activity in the entire Muslim world, which is why the writers in question felt the need to glorify such acts, whether they actually took place or not."
(source: Sanitizing Temple Destruction by Islam - By Meenakshi Jain).
Muhammadan Architecture in India
The Arabs were, indeed, themselves aware of the immense superiority of Indian cultural and artistic achievements over their own. Al Beruni, the famous philosopher and contemporary of Mahmud of Ghazni, familiar with the splendor of Bagdad at its best, was amazed at the excellence of Indian architectural monuments. “Our people”, he says “when they see them wonder at them, and are unable to describe them, much less construct anything like them.”
Even the iconoclastic fanatic, Mahmud of Ghazni himself, could not restrain his wonder at the triumphs of Indian art he discovered at Mathura.
Farishta records a letter of the raider to his lieutenant at Ghazni, in which he says:
“There are here a thousand edifices as firm as the faith of the faithful; nor is it likely that this city has attained its present condition but at the expense of many millions of dinars, nor could such another be constructed under period of two centuries.”
The first Mussalman conquerors, in India just as much as in Persia and the provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire, adapted to their own use the structure of the conquered. The continuation of the tradition thus involved led easily to the perpetuation of all the builder’s conventions, - himself a fresh convert, if not a persisting alien in faith, - in the architecture that came into vogue after the Muslims had been established in the countries of their conquest. Iconographic ornamentation, or sculptured splendors of the converted Hindu temples, were thus excluded from the mosques, architecturally designed on the same principles as the temple it had replaced. But in the spirit and the essence, in conception and design, the building remained the same, even if it came to be called by another name.
There is, indeed nothing surprising in this consummation. The Muslims who came with the conquerors were soldiers, not artists. When, therefore, they had to plan work of art, like a Jami Masjid or Cathedral Mosque, they had of necessity to employ the local artists; and the latter unavoidably took at their model the achievements they were themselves most familiar with. Besides, in the countries across the north-western frontiers of India, from which the first Muslim invaders came, Buddhist or Hindu influence had penetrated long ages before, thanks to the missionary zeal of the Buddhist. Now these people, accustomed for centuries to those conventions of building which had satisfied their urge for a thousand years, could not discard their cultural skin merely because they adopted a new creed. Hence we find the conquerors themselves imperceptibly adopting the Indian rules and conventions of building, in their most solemn and stately structures of public worship or royal habitation. Even those features of the Muhammadan monuments of architecture of India, which have been considered to be peculiarly Saracenic, seem to be, when closely studied, Indian – Hindu – in origin, conception, and execution. The ornamentation by arabesques was no doubt a Muslim contribution in public buildings, as also the intricate geometric patterns, or the ogee curves. But the pointed or trefoiled arch, and the ribbed or spherical dome, - commonly considered to be distinctive features in Muslim architecture, - were in reality of Indian – Hindu origin.
Naseem, thank you for the atrocities against the Hindu people, and thanks for your denial of what happened, but then again, thanks to your historians the accounts were recorded.
-Cheers
Jai Nepal, Jai MahaKali, Ayo Gorkhali!
Wow Gorkhali, thanks for posting that.
Simply amazing that some mohammadan can refer to a
Hindu temple as an abomination after slaughtering
so many innocents. Islam removes the natural empathy
that people have for each other and makes men into violent beasts. Hopefully, mohammadans in India will
return to Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism, or
nothing. Anything but that awful cult.
So many Indians in the states won't speak up about
the evils of this cult, I'm glad you do.
Cheers to you too!
"the hat girl's associate..."
-- from a posting above
The bouncer's been busy.
Nasseem, at the begining of the Industrial age in Europe and N.Amer. many children died and or had very difficult dangerous lives working in mines, factories etc. with the passage of time, laws were made to stop this practice. your country has to make these same laws and enforce them. dont blame it on any other country or company, but your government and people allow this to happen...
Naseem, compromise: we'll convince Pakistan to adopt our child-labor laws, and you convince Pakistan to stop killing non-Muslims in India and Iraq.
But then that would be imposing our values on their Muslim nation, leading to their humiliation, leading to more terrorism, etc. etc. etc.
Dear Jihad Watch:
It would be wonderful wouldn't it if we could democratize the Islamicized nations!!
Alas, Islam is ALREADY its own political system--theocracy and bloody brutal theocracy at that. The Qur'an actually has passages that FORBID the establishment of political platforms. Islam as well enforces its own political establishment with the sword. It has gone so far as to establish a ruling class: the clerics. A mosque can be seen as a political building as well as a religious structure. A mosque can also double as a fortress quite well and even we suspect an executioner's block.
Islam has no need for the intrusion of democratic reforms. It can get by on its own and Islamic leaders are betting they can block out interference from the western democracies.
As muslims have their own political system it may be a trifle tough to get them to look at someone else's. They will likely resist democracy even if we CAN get through to them. After all, didn't GOD set up Islamic politics?????
What must change and IS capable of overthrowing Islam as a political system is its malignant devaluation of human life. This aspect of Islam is inherently repulsive and nothing can hide that fact.
Once Moslems know that there are ways to end the horrors perpetrated by Islam and something far, far better awaits outside without the use of suicide bombers-- THEN we will have something to dethrone Islam as a (murderous) political entity with. But first Muslims must be made to understand how sweet life is WITHOUT Islam.
After all, if allah is so wonderful, how come the infidels live SO MUCH BETTER lives than they?? Flying body parts are unheard of in America, but not in Lebanon or Iran or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or any number of other Islamic hellholes.
Muslims may then some day destroy the Islamic shackles that now enslave them when they discover that life is is worth living -- and never more so than when it is free of tyranny and bloodshed (eg Islam). Democracy can help us to that end as it enables mankind to reach the stated goal of a life free of tyranny but by itself it may not be sufficient. Muslims are too brainwashed to believe accolades for democracy. Islam has made short work of arguments for democracy from a Muslim point of view. I think we just have to keep working harder at communicating to the Muslim world that life is grand all by itself. And never more so than when the lies and brainwashing and genocidal violence of Islam are exposed and banished.
But not until then I suspect will they believe us about democracy.
Mentat,
Thank you for your words of warning. I will take them with a grain of salt. I will also read your suggestion.
I appreciate your sincere concern.
But Islam in the 21st century, does not advance alone. It has long been helped by both the Communists, originally called Bolsheviks, and by Western imperialists, especially British govt officials. And there are several foolish [or deliberately foolish?] ideas that help to advance Islam control and expansion.
First, the Bolsheviks came out for defense of Islam with a manifesto called: An Appeal to the Muslim Toilers of Russia and the East. It was issued in Nov or Dec of 1917, shortly after the Bolsheviks took over the Russian Empire, by Stalin's Commisariat of Nationalities. This manifesto overlooked what Muslims were doing THEN to others, such as the Armenian massacres. About half of the text can be found on the http://ziontruth.blogspot.com site. Once having entered the site, you can search for "bolsheviks."
Second, the notion of "3rd World" led people to imagine that these countries called "3rd World" were a harmonious whole, only separated, if at all, by some Western imperialist plot. This overlooked all the conflicts within and between "3rd countries" before Western imperial conquest. One such conflict was in India. Ironically, Nehru, quoted above by Gorkhali, did much to promote that simplistic 3rd world notion.
Thirdly, various Western business interests have promoted and enriched Muslim tyrants and fanatics, such as ARAMCO and persons in Washington, London, Paris, etc. Then, certain influential people in the British media have for many years been flattering and building up Arabs and other Muslims [& besmirching Israel], while the UK even placed non-Muslims under Muslim control [as in the Sudan]. Since Naseem mentioned European imperialism over the last 2000 years, well, nearly 2000 years ago, when the Roman empire was suppressing Jewish revolts in Judea [Israel], Arab auxiliary forces joined with the Roman legions [Tacitus, Histories, 5:1]. So somehow the Arabs are not "anti-imperialist" by nature as the Bolsheviks and British media would have us believe.
"...but who immediately switch into taqiyya-vein if any Infidel in their audience dares to agree, or even to add his own two-bits"
--from a post above :)
quite strikingly true in reference to Naseem, eh?
Naseem
Personally, I would much rather worship a god who teaches love for your fellow man than the one you worship who teaches only hate. But then, I guess, it just comes natural to people, such as yourself, who are programmed from birth not to think for themselves, only obey without question. Ever ask yourself why would a god, who is supposedly all powerful, give life to a people who obviously don't appreciate what they have been given and can't wait to die. How ungrateful!
Naseem,
You said:
“Wake up dgene.... I grant you that Islam has it's problems...it's just that we don't wash them in public....does that mean we are stupid....don't make that mistake dgene...it will cost you.
...I LIKE DEMOCRACY”
In democracy, in principle, important issues are discussed openly in public. One of the major problems of Islam, insofar as it is based on the Koran, is that it forbids criticism. The Koran could not withstand the onslaught of free criticism. Do you really think that the Koran is worth defending?
Naseem, I am curious, exactly which parts of the Koran do accept, and which do you reject?
1. The Koran’s policy of opposition and antagonism toward non-Muslims.
The Koran says Muslims must _________ the Non-Muslims: fight/oppose/shun/strive against/regard as the enemy/never help/never befriend/sever family ties with/never compromise with/never obey/never forgive/chastise/curse/hate/be ruthless toward/be stern toward/etc. (not in order) 3:118; 3:28, 3:56; 3:87-88, 4:50, 4:63, 4:101, 4:139-140, 4:144, 5:54, 5:57, 8:65, 9:14, 9:23, 9:29, 9:73-74, 9:123, 25:52, 28:86, 31:7, 33:48, 45:7-8, 48:28-29, 53:29, 58:5, 58:22, 60:1, 60:4, 60:10, 60:13, 63:6, 66:9, 68:8-9, 76:24, 84:24.
2. Slavery, which is permitted by the Koran (4:3, 4:36, 23:6, 24:58, 30:28, 33:28, 33:50).
3. Disbelief of Islam.
The Koran says that worst possible sin is disbelief in or denial of Allah (10:17, 11:18-19, 18:15, 32:22). Disbelief or turning away from Allah is a persecution worse than warfare (2:217) or slaughter (2:191).
4. Women. How the Koran treats or views women.
Treated very badly/unfairly/as inferior (2:228, 2:223, 4:3, 4:11, 4:14, 4:15, 4:19, 4:20, 4:24, *4:34, 4:176, 24:31, 63:9, 64:14-15, 70:10). *4:34 does say “beat” her (or hit, or scourge) if she is disobedient. A discussion of 4:34 and the word “beat” can be found at http://answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm
Women are unclean. If a man has touched a woman at all before prayer time, he must wash up before doing the prayer. If he can’t find water, he should wash himself with dirt (5:6; 4:43).
Woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s (2:282).
Women (and children and the “feeble”) are unable to devise a plan (4:98).
Wives who are false (i.e., show the slightest sign of disbelief in Allah) to their husbands are to be killed by Allah (66:10). The wives of disbelievers will also be doomed with their husbands (37:22-31).
Allah (Mohammad) may replace wives who criticize their husband (66:5).
No intermarriage allowed between Muslim men and idolatresses, nor between Muslim women and idolaters, unless the idolaters/idolatresses convert to Islam (2:221); (idolaters/idolatresses would tempt the Muslim spouse toward the Fire of hell).
Women guilty of lewdness must be confined to the house until death (4:15).
Women must wear covering veils except when they are with their immediate family (24:31, 33:59).
On the Last Day, pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, and nursing mothers will abandon/forget their infants (22:2).
Mohammad says menstruation is an illness (2:222)
A Muslim man’s wives are a “tilth” to him, so he can go to his tilth as he wishes (2:223).
Disbelievers name the angels with female names (53:27). They invoke in His stead only females (4:117), also see 37:150-153. (Why does Allah/Mohammad consider this bad?).
Allows Muslim men to take female-slaves for sex. (23:6, 33:50)
Also from the Hadith or based on Hadith:
Marriageable age in some Islamic countries for females is nine years of age. This follows Mohammad’s example, because the age at which he consumated his marriage with Ayesha was 9. (He married her when he was in his fifties and when she was 6).
Ayesha said “I have not seen anyone suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” Bukhari. vol. 7, book 72, no. 715. The “green” adjective is in reference to the bruising from the beating.
“…He (Muhammad) struck me (Aisha) on the chest which caused me pain....” Muslim, book 4, no. 2127. Mohammad’s child-wife Ayesha tells of how the prophet struck her hard enough to cause pain (and an enduring memory of it).
"I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women....[because] they are ungrateful to their husbands and they are deficient in intelligence. " (The Prophet Muhammad) Bukhari vol. 2, book 24, no. 541
Dear Sehik Yer'Mami,
"The British should be proud of what they left behind in India. The railway-system and other infrastructure is nothing to be ashamed off."
Dude, not really, just don't go there. We were doing great but that is not a good arguement.
However, I'll say this, the British did not rule all of India. Nor were there many Britishers actually in India, instead they relied on the loyalty of their Indian mercenaries, Indian Civil Servants and the treaties that were honoured by Maharajas. The British never had absolute control and were discriminated against in many ways, which would be an insult to a colonial ruler, they were not allowed into certain religous areas, temples or even specific territories. And certain Rajput Kings were not made subordinates to the coronation of the British Crown in India, ie The Maharana of Udaipur or the Maharanas of Nepal (on behalf of the Maharaja of Nepal) are such examples.
It is a common misconception that all of India was ruled by the British, or that they had absolute control of every inch. They didn't rule Rajputana (Land of the Rajputs), nor did they rule Nepal, and many of the Princely states were free from direct administration. Burma was seperated from India in 1936, however the Maharajas of Burma had already been investing in Railways before the advent of the British.
The British came at a very opprotunistic time. The Hindu had defeated the Mughal Empire and now there was a power struggle within India between Marathas (Hindus), Sikhs (at that time Hindu, now an iffy topic), Rajputs (Hindu) and Muslim kingdoms scattered throughout the subcontinent whether it be the Nawab of Oudh (Avadh), the Nawab of Bengal, the Nawab of Hyderbad etc etc.
The British studied their history before they tried to take anything. And the first possession was Plassey 1757 after destroying Islamic rule in Bengal.
I guess I'll stop here since this is another topic altogether. However, I will say this, the atrocities committed by the British against the general public of India, whether it be the famine of Bihar, the Jallianwla Bagh massacre, Kala Pani (torture on the Andaman Nicobore Islands in and Island Jail), using the railways to speed up the looting of India, and so much more (they didn't do much good for India however I don't think we should get into here), however when compared to what the Muslims did, the British look like a bunch of school girls who came shopping and that is so scary. The Muslim atrocities actually made the British look good, that is really messed up.
However, if the British gave things to India, India also gave the Europeans a few things as well, one of those being the art of cleanliness:
"Smelling British sahibs learnt to bathe in India"
The first Englishmen who came to India as servants of the East India Company were bewildered by many of our customs. Many of them commented on, in their letters home, the habit, among certain classes of the Hindus, of taking a daily bath.
The early factory-hands of John Company in India may have been somewhat scandalized by the fact that Hindu men and women of good families should not mind taking their baths in full view of others, what they found even more strange was that they should be washing their bodies at all.
For the British, the process of washing the body entailed lying prone in a tub half full of hot water. And how many houses in pre-Industrial England could have had metal containers large enough to accommodate grown men and women, and, even more, the facilities to heat up enough water? The conclusion was inescapable. For most Englishmen of the 17th and 18th centuries, a bath must have been a rare experience indeed, affordable to the very rich, who perhaps took baths when they felt particularly obnoxious, what with their zest for vigorous exercise, such as workouts in the boxing ring or rowing or riding at the gallop over the countryside. What a sensual pleasure it must have been to lie soaking in a tub full of scalding hot water? But such indulgences were possible only during the few weeks of what the English call their summer. For the rest of the year, the water in the tub could not have remained hot for more than a couple of minutes, and from November through February must have gone icy cold as soon as it was poured in. Brrrrr!
Then again, even those who thus bathed their bodies a few times every summer seem to have been careful to, as it were, keep their heads above water. In other words, a bath did not also involve a hair-wash. Otherwise there doesn’t seem to be any reason why they should have found it necessary to coin—or adopt—a special word to describe the process of bathing hair: shampoo, which, ‘Hobson Jobson’ tells us is derived from the Hindi word, champi, for ‘massage’. Why a word which normally described the process of muscle-kneading should have been picked on to explain a head-wash, is not at all convincing. It seems that the Company’s servants used to send for their barbers every now and then to massage their heads with oil and then rinse off the hair with soap and water. So the head-champi, became ‘shampoo’.
Which may explain why G M Trevelyans’s English Social History does not so much as mention the word ‘bath’. In the pre-industrial age it was, at best, an eccentricity indulged in by exercise-freaks in the summer months, and a head-bath was even rarer. English royal court felt compelled to post in 1589: "Let no one, whoever he may be, before, at or after meals, early or late, foul the staircase, corridors, or closets with urine or other filth."
But, out in the tropics they must have gone about smelling quite a bit. In fact, the Chinese, when they first encountered the White man described him as "the smelly one".
According to William Dalrymple, in his book White Mughals: Love and Betrayal in Eighteenth-Century India
"Indian women, for example, introduced British men in the delights of regular bathing." And again:
"Those who had returned home and continued to bathe and shampoo themselves on a regular basis found themselves scoffed at as ‘effeminate’."
(source: Smelling sahibs learnt to bathe in India - by Manohar Malgonkar - tribuneindia.com).
**
The Muslims were well known in the Subcontinent to be even less hygienic than the Europeans, to the point that Hindus felt, and many still do feel, that a Muslim can pollute our food if he or she touches it.
The racist term "Paki" began with the immigration of Muslim Pakistanis into Engalnd, Canada and elsewhere. Their unclean standards, their lack of personal hygiene and body odour (a definite WMD) helped in the creation of the word "Paki" which actually means pure (however many Pakistani websites admit that Hindus considered the Pakis to be impure). Now since the Whites see everything as the same without any distinction, the Indians and Nepalese got dragged into the Paki group, now that totally sucked.
-Cheers
Ayo Gorkhali!
"His response was that women only get beaten when they are disobedient to there husbands"
Put a link to where I said that, please.
In addition to an idiot, a liar. I never said such things. Do you really need to get to the point of lying to discredit muslims?
"Those who had returned home and continued to bathe and shampoo themselves on a regular basis found themselves scoffed at as ‘effeminate’."
In some parts of northern England they still do!
That was fascinating, Ghorkali.
Matthew Parris (political commentator for the London Times) once went without washing his hair for weeks (in Peru, I think, or somewhere where it wouldn't really matter), and said that after a bit it doesn't get any worse. Quentin Crisp said something similar about dust. I'm not sure I believe either of them.
English royal court felt compelled to post in 1589: "Let no one, whoever he may be, before, at or after meals, early or late, foul the staircase, corridors, or closets with urine or other filth."
Often you learn more about a society by what doesn't need to be said than by what does. Years ago on very old buses - in Lancashire at any rate - there were signs saying 'No spitting'. Those signs are long gone, but I assume that does not give us carte blanche to spit. Now smoking is banned just about everywhere, perhaps spitting will make a comeback and the signs will re-appear.
Gorkholi,
Kaisa hai aap.
A couple other lasting British legacies that perhaps are not so prominent in the Western mind for you to chew over.
1) Many consider the Ghandi as the father of India, and some his Abhimsa theories were interesting. But really it was he who delayed kicking the British out with his non-violence tactics. There was strong movement in the 20s where the British could have been "persuaded" to go. His Barmy tactics caused the delay and then ultimately the partition. Had India got independence 10-20 years earlier, the muslim league would have been no-where and India would have been one today (an idea that I am not so averse to).
2) When the uprising started, the British couldn't get their lily livered asses out fast enough. Oh and drawing a couple of line on a map to boot...which has led to three wars, a close nulcleur conflict (which may yet happen).
3) Where where they too when 10 million people got killed during the partition. Why safe on boats back to their beloved England.
4) Nehru's was no hero either, after promising the sikhs a homeland, he renaged on this when the time was right (typical hindu bramin behaviour).
The sikhs probably got the worst of everything after helping the British the most...having a lot of their most treasured monuments now in Pakistan...shame on the British really.
I have some sikh friends in the UK and have nothing but admiration for them.
So yes, the ultimately what the British may have given is rise to may wars.
I won't say democracy as sikhs already seem to have a very impressive and relaxed way to life.
Oh, wait, you mean this?
"Never have I said that loving one's wife was not ordered in the Bible. I see however you realize considerable effort in not judging a passage in the Bible only by considering this passage, but by considering the greater context -which you do not do with Islam, altough I have given enough verses who contradict the idea of Islam as a violent religion. I just said the woman was ordered to be obedient to his husband ***I WAS REFFERING TO THE BIBLE***, which is true, and there is no way you can get around that. And loving, in the mind of some people ***NEVER SAID I WAS AMONG THOSE PEOPLE***, doesnt mean you cant punish her if he disobeys you. Women submitted to men -that how it was not so long ago, and still today in many parts of the western world."
Next time read better before writing. Anyway Im off for a week
Gorkhali,
You are so funny! I very much enjoyed your post above on the history of taking a bath.
Mentat,
I read Phyllis Chesler's story from your link above and it is chilling, and not even as bad as what we are offered now. The interesting thing about it is the peak into the problems MEN have inside Islam. The layers and different forms of control were disturbing. First, Phyllis' husband, Ali's father's control over the entire family including three wives. When eating by himself in a European style room, his daughter from the third marriage had to bow as she entered the room to bring him each course and bow when she left. Everytime one of his many adult children met him they had to bow. Ali himself was looked upon as a rebellious son who had to be brought into line because he brought home an American and also Jewish wife. The father's obvious disdain for Phyllis.
There was a power struggle among the wives, so much so that the father had to provide an apartment for wife #2 because wife #1 treated her so badly. The father wasn't even living with either of them. Wife #1 was so bitter about it that she beat her servants, and instructed them to stop boiling Phyllis' drinking water which in turn caused her to develop hepatitis.
Ali talked about the benefits of having many wives, how in Islam if a wife was obedient to her husband she could expect to be financially cared for the rest of her life and have her children around her. But she was "married" in name only as the husband had gone to the house and the bed of someone else. Phyllis pointed out how lonely and lacking in physical and mental affection that was.
Phyllis also talked about being constantly watched, being told her every move would be watched and that there would always be eyes on her,everywhere she went watching everything she did. She said there was absolutely no privacy as when she would go in her room to read quietly and the entire household of woman and children would follow her.
She talks about how her western Ali who she knew in America, who used to hold her hand in public and carry her books to classes, turned into an indifferent, irritable automaton who was more concerned with his power struggle with his father than building a good marriage with his wife. Indeed, the only reason she was allowed to escape was because the father wanted her out of there and he basically paid to get rid of her.
Perhaps the most chilling aspect of the story was the fact that as Phyllis' plane took off she had a feeling of joy, not only because she was going home to America but because Ali and his family hadn't found out she was pregnant. She says if they had, and she says Ali was working overtime to impregnate her, she NEVER would have been able to leave the country.
The common thread throughtout this entire story is CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL. I thought communism was bad! Both Islam and communism appear to be two sides of the same coin. Communism controls every aspect of a person's exterior life except what they can hide in their minds. Islam doesn't even let you think for yourself, at all.
I keep thnking about the 1st wifes plight. She was an unbearable shrew, but how did she get that way? The father had total power over her, even though he no longer gave her the time of day. She was not the beloved wife but was relegated to 1st wife, cast aside for a younger model. She did not have the father's ear, she no longer had access to any sex, her children being her only comfort. She in turn took it out on her servants and controlled the lives of everyone around her, because she had no power to control he own life. What a vicious cycle.
Ali in turn, controlled his new wife's life because he couldn't control his own. Perhaps the father controlled everyone and everything around him because he was so controlled by Islam. Or perhaps he totally got off on controlling everone because his ego was the size of France and Islam allowed him to get away with it.
And what kind of fear or threats hung over Ali's head? What power did the father have over him? Why was he a kind and caring boyfriend in America and suddenly a cold and distant husband in Afghanistan? Why would a guy who had all the freedoms the world can offer and who had lived in the U.S. for fourteen years while he went to school voluntarily go back to and choose a life of such utter subjection? What is the fear or ambition that drives a man to commit emotional and mental suicide? And that brings up another question: does the misery of living as such a controlled person in Islam make the idea of suicide a welcome relief? Is it better to be dead than Moslem? Are these people driven to the brink of insanity and the only way to cope is to take themselves out. And even more disturbing on a spiritual level is this, that perhaps these constant suicides that we in the west have almost gotten used to by Moslems, is this some kind of perpetual human sacrifice, feeding the god of death and destruction? How is this any different than the human sacrifices made to the serpent god in Mexico 500 years ago? It seems like the same thing, different day to me.
Phyllis talks about how now, many years later, Ali lives with his second wife and children near her in New York as an extended family. How interesting. She can live near and be part of a family with Ali, on her terms, in America, but she could not LIVE as part of his family in Afghanistan.
Thank you for that important link, Mentat. Everyone on this site should read that article. It is the best thing I've ever read to illustrate the different dynamics going on inside the sad and pathetic, and dangerous world of Islam.
Naseem,
You said: "(many times on disagreeable bits of Islam, and there are enough to count on the fingers of 1 hand)."
You must have a lot of fingers! There are not just many problems. There are major problems. They arise from the Koran, that book which you cannot bring yourself to criticize, even on the internet. (Perhaps you are not free to comment on posts about the Koran? Neither am I--at least, not publicly).
BTW, in taunting and insulting the non-Muslims on this site, you may believe that you are doing your Koranic duty (or maybe that's just your own personality showing through--I'm not sure). That's why I didn't ask you if you approved of the Koran's insults of Non-Muslims--I already have my answer from your posts. It does not reflect well on you, but you confirm the stereotypes. Is that what you want?
Ispanan, Ispanan, Ispanan,
What are we going to do with you, honey? Your above post states:
'His response was that women only get beaten when they are disobedient to their husbands.'
"Put a link to where I said that, please.
"In addition to an idiot, a liar. I never said such things. do you really need to get to the point of lying to discredit Muslims?
Okay, here we go. Follow me on this. On November 26, 2005, in the thread "France: Extremism on the rise while intertwining with foreign terror group," I said:
"To love your wife you cannot beat her...You cannot...beat her if she doesn't cook your dinner right."
You with me?
Then you said:
"I just said the woman was ordered to be obedient to his husband, which is true and there is no way you can get around that. And loving, in the mind of some people, doesn't mean you can't punish her if she disobeys you."
Now here is where it gets tricky. I was discussing how just because you are a Moslem, you can't treat woman like crap, including you can't beat them. You come back with the above post rationalizing that it is okay to "punish" a woman, even if you "love" her. You did not say that it is wrong to beat her. You did not deny that in your religion you are allowed to beat your woman. You said they are allowed to be punished. Punishing them or beating them, what's the difference in your mind? None.
Everybody else on the site, am I off here? I think his meaning was pretty clear.
Oh, and thanks for confirming over an over again, with every fresh posting that you cannot discuss things without a) getting very loud when you don't like something said here, b) calling people names when you don't like something said here or c) getting really nasty and ugly (my main complaint with your ilk) when you don't like something said here.
Oh and BTW, I will answer one other thing you said in that same November 26th post. I said:
"God is the author of our birth and death and to take it out of His hands through suicide is evil personified."
And then you said:
"And a Christian supporting the death penalty isnot doubting that control of birth that God has?"
Sorry Ispanan, but your logic falls flat on that one. It was just released this week that the 1000th person to be put to death via the death penalty was to die this week. That's 1000 people since the death penalty was re-instated in 1983. That's 1000 people in 22 years. How many people have Moslem suicide bombers blown up in the last month? Go back and read Robert's posts for November and you will see many more than 1000 people were put to death by your religion of peace and none of them even had a trial. They were chosen at random where there were a lot of them and where your belief system could further it's aim of world domination by making the biggest impact and inspiring the most terror to cow people into submission.
When you point out the atrocities that (we) your opposition commit you site cases like the KKK. The KKK has to follow our laws against oppressing black people or they are punished severely. We used to have a problem with the KKK in this country but we put a stop to it. We made laws to stop it and we enforce them. What have you done in your country to stop abusing woman, to encourage freedom of thought for all people, to treat all people equally, no matter what their belief system? Nothing, you've done nothing and you never will as long as the book you believe in tells you to do these things or tells you you may do these things. Judging from you arrogance and vicious responses I'm sure you have no problem with these things, whatsoever.
P.S.
On the subject of the death penalty, a society has the right to curb dangerous crimes committed on innocent people by administering stern punishment. I can't believe that you equate someone like Timothy McVeigh being sentenced to death because he blew up a building full of people with the systematic, terminal and bloody atrocities committed in the name of your religion of peace. Ever heard of a guy named Zarqawi? Mr. "I do everything in the name of Allah?" You are comparing apples to cumquats.
I wrote this huge letter, and poof its gone
I HATE COMPUTERS
Gorkholi says I HATE COMPUTERS.
Better that than hating muslims eh! Pity, I wanted to read what you said, especially about your hero Ghandi.
Yermami....what have I done now? and where is the party?
Isabellathecrusader:
As I read you account of the experiences of Phyllis, a could not help but remember reading the book "Not Without My Daughter" years ago. I started reading it and simply could not put the book down, as it was so riviting. I stayed up all night reading it and finished it the next morning. They even made a movie of it and I believe Sally Fields(?) played the lead.
It is the story of an American woman who married an Iranian doctor who was practicing in Michigan. He seemed the successful, intelligent, decent fellow. He persuaded her to take their daughter to Iran (after the revolution) to visit his family.
Once in Iran, he changed dramaticly. Like the husband of Phyllis, he became a complete control freak and kept her as a virtual prisoner. It is a very dramatic story as she makes her escape with her daughter through the mountains and into Turkey. Her life was in constant danger.
I would urge you to read it if you have not done so already.
Gorkhali, you still there?
That was a nice long post on Muslim predations in India. India is an open and shut case. The Muslim historians BOASTED about all they did and were sure it was Allah's work. Not like the Nazis who tried to cover up the concentration camps.
India is an open and shut case. The Muslim historians BOASTED about all they did
Which is available free online here
http://voi.org/books.html
and especially these ones
http://voi.org/books/siii/
http://voi.org/books/tlmr/
Naseem,
Are you Sunni, Shia, Ahmadi, or another sect? If Ahmadi, which sub-sect?
What is your opinion of the treatment of Ahmadis in Pakistan? Of the treatment of Bahais in Persia? Thanks for your help.
del
I believe our resident mobot is an Ahmadi muslim who lives in the land of the pure. In or near Karachi I think. But hopefully she can confirm it for you.
Yes, GFB, yes, I have read that book, maybe twenty years ago. It was almost incomprehensible back then but I stowed it away in my memory. I was thinking about it when I read Phyllis Chesler's story.
One of the things that struck me in Phyllis' account is how the woman are so stuck inside their homes, with absolutely nothing to do to occupy their minds. That may explain a few things. If they don't read much, they don't get out and their husbands go to the doctors when they are sick, (huh?) then the mind atrophy must be astonishing. Isn't their news censored, too? If I had to live my life like that I might consider suicide too.
The other thing I was thinking about was that the men feel obligated, according to the Koran, to make women feel inferior, to remind them that they are stupid, that their opinion or even eyewitness accounts need more than one woman to be counted. I suspect that that is why Ispanan keeps calling me an idiot in his rants. But the thing that struck me is that there are layers and levels of control in Islam and woman have been relegated to Dhimmi status, and if infidels are below that status, whoa!
But the big question is who is the master control in all this? Who is behind this, really. If anyone would answer that question we would go a long way to seeing what we need to do and taking care of it.
Just when I thought “Oh hell, I lost the message I wrote, screw it, it took too long to write and I am exhausted”……out comes a snooty comment from Naseem who can’t even spell Gorkhali, yet comes from the Subcontinent. What got me riled was:
“Gorkholi says I HATE COMPUTERS.
Better that than hating muslims eh! Pity, I wanted to read what you said, especially about your hero Ghandi.
Posted by: Naseem”
Who said I hate Muslims? Did my people invade your lands? Did my people force yours to convert? You have the typical attitude which shows that you do not have even a shred of humanity when it comes to facing the atrocities committed by your community and instead simply wish to act as if you are the victim when in fact you are the guilty ones. Horrible, simply horrible. I list evidence recorded by Muslims, and you simply imply that I hate Muslims, nice tactic, but it doesn’t work with me. It just shows me how the Muslim Psyche works; Deny everything and scream foul.
Ghandhi was not our hero, he was our Benedict Arnold, our traitor, Hero to Pakistan and the Muslims, because he catered to all your causes and needs at the expense of the Hindu people. He championed the cause of the Caliphate in 1921, he went on hunger strikes to stop the rioting against Muslims but remained silent when Hindus and Sikhs were butchered in 1947, instead telling them not to escape but remain in Pakistan and die. He forced the Nehru/Indian government to give Pakistan millions of Rupees in support of a new nation which Pakistan used to finance its invasion of Kashmir. Kashmir, whose very name means “The land of Kashyap”, clearly indicates that it was stolen from the Hindus.
Nehru, who ate beef, was no Brahmin, and he sympathized greatly with the Islamic cause, as well his daughter Indira converted to Islam and married a Muslim named Feroz Khan, whose name was changed to Feroz Gandhi to svae the Nehru dynasty from a scandal. Nehru who had an inferiority complex and could do nothing but sing praises for the British, reminiscing in the nostalgia of the British Raj was nothing more than a House Paki (aka House N*gg*r). He also cheated the royal houses into joining India in 1949 (yes people, in 1947, only the British controlled regions were Independent Republic of India, not the Kingdoms, they had a right to choose their destiny, thus my point of Brits not having absolute control of All India). The Hindu and Sikh Royal houses were willing to join India if India had become a Hindu state, which Nehru said it would be since Pakistan was an Islamic state. Instead he declared it a Secular nation, which is not bad. The only problem is that INDIA IS NOT SECULAR AT ALL, instead it is a Demoncracy, completely corrupt and catering to the Muslim minority by recognizing Sharia Law when in fat there should only be one law for all the people, regardless of faith, race or creed.
If anyone deserved to be the father of the nation, then it was Maharana Pratap, the King of Mewar and Hindu Emperor (Symbolically) of North India. He stood against the Mughals and never surrendered, thus Akbar had to accept defeat and not claim the title of absolute rule in India. During one of the darkest periods of Indian history when most Rajput kingdoms had joined the Mughal empire as vassal states, Mewar alone stood against the Mughals and its king the great Pratap refused to bow in front of the Mughal Empire. It was June 18th, 1576, the muslims, 200,000 strong with cannons, cavalry, elephants, mercenaries both foreign and domestic, came to crush Mewar. They offered Pratap one last chance to surrender and accept Akbar as he overlord, to which Pratap replied “Piss off”. Pratap had only 22,000 Rajputs (Hindu Warriors, “Samurais”, Knights), very little cavalry, no elephants and no artillery of any kind.
The battle took place on the fields of Haldighati. The battle of Haldighati has gone down in the annals of Indian history as one which showcased the great valour of the Rajput troops led by their scion Rana Pratap. The result was indecisive, but the battle was truly symbolic of the raw courage, spirit of sacrifice, and loyalty of the Rajputs in their heroic defence of their motherland. Maharana Pratap remained free and the Muslims were morally defeated. Out of 22,000 Rajputs, after a four hour battle, less than 1,000 survived.
Why such a great sacrifice? As Pratap put it, nothing is above freedom and honour. Oh yes, which comes to another point, Islam keeps claiming this thing about it having the first Women warriors, that is a load of Bull-kaka. Read history, Queen Victoria herself said in 1857, after hearing reports that the British forces had to fight female regiments led by the Hindu Queen of Jhansi Laxmibai, “Europe had only one Joan of Arc, India has had many.”
And the list of Women warriors goes back into antiquity, even to the time of the Mahabharata and beyond. Muslims simply feed on the ignorance of others and wish to mislead.
___________________________________________________
Okay, now to my dear buddy Sheik Yer’Mami, as if I were gonna let you off ;)
“And where are the Brit's today? Are there any left in India or did Indians follow their former masters to the British Isles? No false accusations here, no emotions. Just facts.”
Why do you do this to me???? Why do you drag me in at the last statement, just when I thought “Okay, he has a point”?
Yes there are still Brits living in India who refuse to leave, I don’t blame them, there are some absolutely beautiful places in India, which were developed, not by the Brits, but by Maharajas, one of those places being Masuri (Mossurrie), which was developed by my maternal grandmother’s cousin HRH Maharaja (Maharana) Dev Shumsher Jung Bahadur of Nepal after his exile to Masuri.
Okay the little “former masters” thingy was a bit bugging, since Indians should go to England if England felt it had a right to come stick its nose into India. There is an old Indian joke about India’s revenge upon England, it goes like this, “The British didn’t realize the Indian form of revenge, the Brits came to India, looted it, destroyed many things, stole artifacts and even caused famines and made slaves. One day they simply got up and left. The Indians were like “What? You think you can leave without saying goodbye? We are coming with you.”
However, my dear Sheikh Yer’Mami (I love that name!), you mentioned you have Indian friends who get all nostalgic about when the Brits were in India. I guess they also get nostalgic when they also recall that certain clubs fro Europeans read “No Dogs or Indians allowed” in India. You see, if you want a friend you can count on when the moment of truth is near, then you want a friend who sees you as an equal, not one who looks up to you and praises the British for everything without a sense of self respect for themselves or the truth. Believe me, you would want the great great Grandchild of the famous Sri Teen Maharaja Maharana Jung Bahadur of Nepal at your side (the one who saved the Brits in Lucknow during 1857 with his Gurkha army of 35,000), nephew to Maharaja Bhupinder Singh of Patiala (Sikh Kingdom), one of the direct descendants of the line of Pratap at your side, instead of someone who says “Oh, colonialism was a good thing, thank you master”. A man without self respect is a man without a spine, a man without a spine won’t stand by you when the battle begins.
Cheers to you my friend.
___________________________________________
Back to Naseem:
“Gorkholi,
Kaisa hai aap. “
I am fine, how are you? And thank you for asking.
You cannot blame the British for Pakistan, if the muslims did not want it, there would never have been an issue for it. Yet more muslims live in India, thus it is a crime that Pakistan even exists, since every muslim should have left India and gone into Pakistan for a proper division to have taken place since it was the Muslims who divided our nation on the basis of religion and brought into existence the “Two-Nation Theory” which is still in practice today (Muslims vs Kafirs). If there was any sense of justice in the Muslim psyche, they would have opted to move to Iran or Saudi Arabia, instead of stealing land which they invaded and occupied. An interesting article written by an enlightened Muslim journalist sheds light on this matter and psyche of the Pakistani/Indian Muslim:
Irfan Husain, a freelance columnist from Pakistan has observed:
”While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan.
The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after they were buried.
Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster. Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful.
These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage. When these warriors settled in India, they ruled as absolute despots over a cowed Hindu populace. For generations, their descendants took their martial superiority over their subjects for granted. "... And a substantial number of Pakistani Muslims are secretly convinced that they are inherently superior to the Hindus. One irony, of course, is that contrary to their wishful thinking, the vast majority of Muslims in the subcontinent have more Hindu blood in their veins than there is Arab, Afghan, Turkish or Persian blood. Many of the invaders took Hindu wives and concubines."
(source: Demons from the past - By Ifran Husain - dailytimes.com.pk).
Mr. Husain, wherever you may be, on behalf of myself and my enlightened muslim friends who admit the truths about what has and is happening “This Bud’s for you”.
When the British left India, it wasn’t because of Mahatma Gandhi, that I agree with, they ran out of there when they realized they lost control and a second mutiny was stirring in the ranks (you learn about all this from White professors in University who tell you “This is the truth, but everyone prefers the Gandhi story because it makes the Brits look good.” Hats off to my White professors for teaching me the truth.) However, if the Muslims were not so damn fanatical, then no one would have pushed for a Pakistan, secondly, every war with India has been caused by Muslim aggression and attempted invasions. Its kind of like the Pakis are trying to live out “The good Ol’days”, except every time they cross the border the Indian military unleashes a can of Whoop-ass and shows them how we do things downtown.
The reason why so many people died during the partition of India is because of the riots that were instigated by the Muslims which is referred to by Muslims as “Direct Action Day”.
“4) Nehru's was no hero either, after promising the sikhs a homeland, he renaged on this when the time was right (typical hindu bramin behaviour). “
Nehru was born into a Hindu family, but he wasn’t a Hindu.
“The sikhs probably got the worst of everything after helping the British the most...having a lot of their most treasured monuments now in Pakistan...shame on the British really. “
I would say shame on the Muslims who claim they are so tolerant and peaceful, yet quite literally wiped out the Sikhs in the 1700s. It was an official practice of the Muslims to hunt down Sikhs as animal game. And shame on any Sikhs who consider themselves closer to Muslims than to Hindus, since it was the Muslims who killed several of the Sikh Gurus along with the Sikh martyrs.
“I have some sikh friends in the UK and have nothing but admiration for them. “
That’s great, but why do you admire them? Is it because of their fierce resistance and war against Islam? Or is it because many of them have forgotten why they had to adopt the five Ks as a symbolic identification separating them from Muslims in physical appearance and also to show that they stand against Islam.
“So yes, the ultimately what the British may have given is rise to may wars.”
The British didn’t tell you to start invading my lands and killing my people since the 8th century until now. We didn’t invade you, you invaded us. Yet, you just think that “Oh they hate muslims”. Instead of asking yourself “Did we Muslims do something wrong, perhaps the mass raping of women and children made them a bit upset, poor Hindus.”
My first letter was so much better, but I lost it, damn.
Jai MahaKali! Ayo Gorkhali!!! (Glory be to the Divine Mother! Here come the Gurkhas!!!)
Gorkhali,
You said:
“These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers.”
Thanks for posting this material.
Here are some additional links focussing on Islamic doctrinal support for the imperialist jihads.
Andrew Bostom
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14578
Andrew Bostom, 4 pages, contains an example of 100,000 Hindu POWs executed.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14964
Spencer cites more doctinal support for such jihads.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18732
Dear Sheik Yer'Mami,
Actually, British Colonialism did bring some good things, but I believe one should criticise it where it did wrong, and praise it where it did good, not simply worship it without a proper look at the context in which things were done.
So you were flying with late Maharaja Birender Bir Birkram Shahdev. The last time I saw him was in 1979 when we had dinner in Naryan Hati Palace, during a cousin's wedding, I was but a child playing hide and seek in the palace. The last I saw of Crown Prince Dipendra was in 1995, during one of my visits.
I was born and raised in North America, but have done some of my schooling in India, the United States (God bless America, love that country) and have spent some time in other parts of the world as well.
The Anti-British/Anti-West sentiment is promoted by the Secularists in India to hide the crimes committed by Muslims. I always say "If you're going to blame the Brits and bitch about them, why not bitch about the Muslims who did much more damage and still haven't left." Sonia Gandhi is doing a lot of damage to India and weakening the Hindu resolve to resist Islamic invaders. Rajputs are losing their identity and slowly becoming "Westernised Babus" without a sense of the Warrior spirit we are so famous for (or what Col. Tod wrote about).
In India and Nepal, a lot of people have no clue what the Muslims did unless they start reading a history book that hasn't been censored by the Congress Government.
You see in many ways I admire the Brits, but I do not consider them my "Former Master" or someone I should have felt inferior in front of, because I know of the dynamics of how the families were involved with the Brits and India and why this relationship came about, one of the main factors being the Islamic threat. Also, when the Brits had their coronation done in India, my Grandfathers were not made to sit with the other "Native Princes" as subordinates, instead we were given places of equality and treated as equals.
I guess this all explains why I know about things others don't or my inside info about Canada.
Oh yes, I love the Queen (your Queen), from what I've heard she's lovely and very compassionate.
-Cheers to you my friend.
Thank you Benjamin, Interested, IsabellatheCrusader and Archimedes
Isabella,
If anyone of those fanatics calls you an idiot, all you have to retort back is:
"Mohammed married Aiesha when she was 6, screwed her when she was 9, that makes him a pedophile, right? And you follow him like a prophet? So whose an idiot?"
Great postings, Gorkhali.
BTW, here is the link to the entire article of Irfan Husain (Demons from the past, Pakistan's Daily Times) that Gorkhali quotes from:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-8-2004_pg3_4
Regarding the Brits, if there are any of you on this discussion board, when does your Queen plan to return the world famous Kohinoor diamond that she stole from us?
Sheik Yer'Mami asks: And yes, I heard about the 'Indians and dogs' too, but then, it was over when I was there, and I didn't hear anyone express much resentment about the Brit's during my time. Perhaps the younger generation is brought up with more resentment. In this case I wonder why and by whom this view is promoted and what is the purpose of it?
Interesting observation, and I would say you are right to some extent. Though there has been always resentment against the Brits by all generation of Indians, it is the younger generation which is slowly realizing how deeply pervasive and demeaning was the influence of the colonial rule that India was subject to, and hence its greater degree of resentment. Far worse than the fact that the Brits looted India of its riches, was the creation by the Brits of a class of Indians totally cut-off from their cultural and religious roots. The term used by Indians for this is Macaulay's Children.
Thomas Babington Macaulay in his speech of Feb 2,1835, British Parliament:
"I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem,their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation"
He is credited with the term Macaulay's Children, which is used to refer to people born of Indian ancestry who adopt Westen Culture as a lifestyle. The term is usually used in a derogatory fashion, and the connotation is one of disloyalty to one's country and one's heritage. The passage to which the term refers is from his Minute on Indian Education, delivered in 1835. It reads:
“To sum up what I have said, I think it clear that we are not fettered by the Act of parliament of 1813; that we are not fettered by any pledge expressed or implied; that we are free to employ our funds as we choose; that we ought to employ them in teaching what is best worth knowing; that English is better worth knowing than Sanscrit or Arabic; that the natives are desirous to be taught English, and are not desirous to be taught Sanscrit or Arabic; that neither as the languages of law, nor as the languages fo religion, have the Sanscrit and Arabic any peculiar claim to our engagement; that it is possible to make natives of this country thoroughly good English scholars, and that to this end our efforts ought to be directed. In one point I fully agree with the gentlemen to whose general views I am opposed. I feel with them, that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.”
To a large extent, the British did succeed quite well in creating this class of Indians (Macaulay's Children) who were more British than the Brits themselves. Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister, is a perfect example of this.
The younger generation is slowly shedding its colonial mentality and is rediscovering its own rich cultural and religious moorings. The resentment by this generation is not so much against the Brits per se, but against their own remaining class of Macaulay's Children.
Good Post Gorkhali,
Actually I was interested in how much we actually agreed with. Nice to see that everybody here doesn't hate muslims.
Certainly I feel closer to Indians than Arabs.
By the way, I did talk to my sikh friends agian..they told me to ask the "British" when they can have Maharajah Ranjit Singh's chair back from the Albert Victoria Museum.
Razdan,
Thank you for reminding me about the "Macaulay boys", my father would always go on about that, and its also the reason my parents have been trying to stop my cousins from receiving a "Convent Education".
I was pulled out of Private school for the same reasons when my parents told me that they noticed my thoughts being "out of line" with myt identity. My mother and father immediately began my "deprogramming", then sent me to India and Nepal where I stayed with my Paternal Grandfather and was educated as a "proper Rajput" with private tutors. I began to see the difference between my two sets of cousins, the ones who were brainwashed, and the ones who had a brain.
Thank you again Razdan.
Gorkhali,
I love you!!! I was going to tell you how much I enjoy your posts from above, and then you give me that little nugget about idiots. Thank you. :)
That guy wouldn't call me an idiot unless I'm
getting to him. And me, just a poor dumb woman.
I've been thinking about this one...it takes four witnesses for a woman to be able to prove she was raped. Very convenient. Maybe they mean she can only prove it when she was gang raped, but then the guys doing the raping could all lie. Or just kill her.
The more I read and assimilate this stuff the more it makes sense that Islam would have to force people to convert because who would ever want to be a Moslem? Except maybe some deviant men who can't get a date so they made up this B.S. religion to keep a steady supply of Stepford wives around for their physical pleasure. Okay, now I'm getting really mad. I feel a rant coming on. (I'll bet Mohammad was butt ugly, too.)
See, if I wasn't born into the Catholic faith and all the religions of the world where set before me to choose from, I would still choose Christianity because as an ideology it's the one that if you put in practice has the best opportunity of making people happy. Not like Islam. In Christianity, the goal is to love God and our neighbor and to serve God in this life and the next. Islam seems to be all about what you can acquire, having power over the weak, the men enjoying lots and lots of sex while the women aren't allowed to enjoy it at all, kicking people when they are down, killing them when they disagree with you, having absolutely no mercy for their own kind or for any of us. It's crazy.
Now I know the Moslem will say that the Christians did all kinds of terrible things through out history. You know what, we've all done terrible things at one time or another, to one degree or another. But the goal is to improve, to learn, to get along better with other people. Any moron can see that if he treats his neighbors badly he's always going to have to watch his back, he won't get invited to the block party and people will throw dog doo on his lawn. At which time he will have to make a decision as to whether he will continue to live in the chaotic strife that his unreasonableness or big mouth created or he can make nice with his neighbors and they can get along and live peacefully together.
The reverse seems to be true in Islam. "Me want your land. Me want your woman. Me take and me kill you." Problem solved. Except there is a reality to what permeates the air. People can feel terror when it hangs in the air, and it brings everybody down. And there is also the problem of divine retribution. It has been my experience in life that what goes around definitely comes around. People who do bad things really do set up bad ju-ju for themselves. But that also goes for doing good things. Jesus said that everything we do will be repaid to the last farthing. (That makes me nervous!)
The point is, Islam doesn't teach you to love your neighbor. Christianity offers a higher goal to aspire to, no matter how flawed our human nature is. And many people can and have attained it. And no matter how much the trawlers on this website lie about it, there are many Christians who do turn the other cheek, who are good Samaritans, who would give you the shirt off their back.
If I had to sum up the difference between these two ideologies in one word it would be mercy. Jesus teaches his followers to be merciful. Mohammad teaches his followers not to be merciful. In the big scheme of things, that one concept tells us a whole lot.
Naseem,
I am glad that you are realising that no one here hates Muslims, however we do have a right to defend ourselves if Islam is bent on the destruction of our people.
You are one of a very few muslims who states that they feel closer to Indians than Arabs.
Yet most Muslims, except the ones I am having a tea with, always claim "Actually my ancestors are from Arabia" or "I am Turkish by descent" or the best one "I am a Mughal". Most of them look like they came out of a Pan shop and converted to Islam rather than invaded, to top it off "I am a Mughal", so what? The Rajputs survived, not the Mughals.
Furthermore, there are many Iranians who are elightened enough to tell you that Persian culture and civilisation was wiped out with the advent of the Arabs, thus they do not look upon the Arabs kindly. It is too bad that most Iranians have no clue of their history as so many Indians don't have an iota of knowledge of their own.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh is related to the Kangra Royals through marriage, this is my Maternal Grandfather's family, his Chief Rani was he Katoch Princess who committed Sati on his funeral pyre (he was very Hindu in practice, something a lot of Akhalistanis hate to admit).
He was a great ruler, but very intolerant towards Muslims because of the history of persecution done against the Sikhs and Hindus of Punjab by the Islamic regimes.
The British did not steal "Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Throne", like Nadir Shah stole the Peacock throne in 1739. There are many reasons why the Sikh Empire fell, many things that Sikhs have no idea about, and after their Akhalistan stint, I really don't feel they have a right to know the truth of why the Empire fell since they are hijacking history for political purposes. The British could have looted the Sikh aristocracy living in Lahore after the fall of the Empire, but they didn't. What the British did loot from India, they should return, but they didn't steal the throne, they won it fair and square. Nadir Shah on the other hand was a thief and a plunderer, he not only took all the Mughal treasures he could steal, but also captives and slaves, destroyed temples and other architectural wonders. The British never destroyed temples and other monuments. They stole what they could, but they didn't steal that throne, that was fair. WHat they did steal should be returned, but they can keep the Hope diamond, we don't want it, however I believe that's in the Smithsonian.
-Cheers
Ayo Gorkhali!
Dear Isabellathecrusader:
Because of your name I always picture you with a sword in one hand and a flagstaff in the other, kind of like a Don Quixote style but better. I love that stopry, the Man from La Mancha, one of my favorties, tried reading the original in Spanish, pero mi espanol es muy mal, pero yo traito siempre.
Okay, I couldn't agree with you more about the stern differences between Christianity and Islam. Although Christianity had it share of crimes, but Christ never taught those things, Jesus taught love and compassion. And today, Christians will try to make amends and admit what they did was wrong or what they are doing is wrong.
Compare that to the Muslims and all you get is "No we're not wrong, Allah said I could kill you, so there..." or "We're persecuted, well lets forget about the last 1300 years of killing other people, but right now I have a right to kill the Hindu and Chrisian minorities of Pakistan, because being a Muslim in Pakistan, I feel persecuted".
Buddha taught benevolence.
Christ taught compassion.
Krishna taught kindness.
Mohammed taught "M is for Murder, B is for the bomb, C is for cruelty, K is for killing....."
-Cheers
Gorkhali,
You crack me up! Wow, me with a sword in one hand and a flagstaff in the other, sounds really cool! Actually, if it ever comes down to it, I'll probably be more of a machine gun kind of girl.
Yes, your point is well taken and I know you understand me. Christianity as Christ taught it and what He embodies is love, love, love. And He did conquer with love. And the concept that I think is so interesting is that when Christ came something like 75% of the world lived in slavery and he came to set them free, but not neccessarily physically free. He came to teach people how to be mentally and spiritually free, so that no matter what your situation, you can have peace and live well. I think that's why black people in America have such a strong Christian background. When they were enslaved they had to find a way to survive and not give up until they could be freed. I know many a black lady who has a deep, deep faith in Jesus and I'm sure it comes from strong believing ancestors.
I NEVER hear Moslems talking about love when talking about their religion. And that is as equally sad as it is disturbing. They want us to not think, to not have peace, to be enslaved. They don't care how we feel about anything. And people don't like to talk about this in our post Christian age but the attributes that Islam has are all in line with what we know has to do with Satan. Hatred of man, the father of lies, encouragement of every filthy sin that could destroy a person, especially sexual sins, killing, torture, enjoying someone else's misery. Satan loves to attack us and have us die in a state that doesn't allow God to get near us. He thinks he wins because everytime a soul is lost to God it hurts Him so deeply. When you look at Islam, and things like that post earlier today in DhimmiWatch
that talks about the three Hindu girls who supposedly converted to Islam (they were probably kidnapped) and the parents can't get them back and it's destroyed the whole family, well, the devil totally gets off on this. What better way to get back at God for not allowing Satan to be God?
Now there have been Christians that have committed the above sins, but they were Christian in name only. Jesus said that you will know they are Christians by their love. Mohammed said treat your woman like she's a field and til her whenever you feel like it (Nice!) and make sure she knows she's subservient to you. And if she ticks you off, feel free to starve her to death. Jesus forgave the woman who was taken in adultery. He didn't put her down. He didn't tell her what a loser she was. He basically told her that this lifestyle didn'twork for her and she needed to go and do it no more. Again, mercy. Love. Forgiveness. No matter what the screeching feminsts say, Christianity is the best thing that ever happened to women on the face of the earth.
I'm going to take nap but I'll check in with you later!
Gorkhali,
"I happen to like cucumber sandwiches." (From another thread.)
It's okay. I still love you. :)
Dear Sheik Yer'Mami,
You made some very good points. And in many ways we agree, that’s why I am enjoying our exchange of ideas where we slightly differ.
I studied for a while at Doon School and many of my cousins did their schooling there. Dehradun is filled with cousins studying from Nepal and even those who were exiled there in the early 1900s from Nepal, as well as many of my cousins from the Indian side.
Goa is beautiful but the history of how it was established by the Inquisition isn't. Some great atrocities were committed to eradicate the Hindu population after the Portugese had "liberated" it from the Muslims. However, the Portugese were aided by Hindu princes and their armies to defeat the Islamic ruler. After that, the persecution of Hindus started along with the destruction of temples by St Francis Xavier. It was a very nice way for the Portugese to show their gratitude to the Hindus.
Dear Sheik, I already said that where the Brits deserved to be praised, they should be, and where they were naughty, they should be spanked. I agree that they stopped the custom of “Sati”, which was being abused, but do you know how it started becoming common practice?
Well, when the Islamic hordes were ravaging the Indian countryside, they would kidnap women for their harems. Especially young widows were a huge target, so the old warrior custom (which was practised even by the Vikings, go figure)of a widow willingly ascending the funeral pyre and joining her husband in heaven was reestablished, this way she would perish with her dead husband without the chance of being captured by Muslims. However, this practice was abused and many people forced women to ascend the pyre against their wishes for many reasons (ie economics, dowry, etc), that is why it is good that the British stopped this practice. Yet, we should go to the source of why this custom came about, and it was Islam, since people preferred death instead of being a sex slave in the harem, this ancient ritual came back into existence. It comes to show you that when people are faced with such terror, they may go to extremes to survive.
The “Class system” you are referring to is the Caste system, and yes, the Brits did not introduce that, however, the Brits had their own class system, and this brings about memories of Dr. Turner’s Anthropology classes during my undergraduate years in University, where he discussed the fact that the Caste System and British Class system are very similar, however the Caste System was fluid and not static until the 8th Century AD, and is based on merit and actions, whereas the Class system of the West is based on materialism and monetary wealth. The Caste system belongs to the Hindus and the Class system belongs to the Brits and other Westerners. Both have their good points and their bad points. It makes me recall a lecture where Dr. Turner told us the Noble Laureate Rabindranath Tagore’s response to a question during his visit to the United States, this helped put things in perspective since everyone brings up the Caste system when discussing India. A reporter asked “How do you feel about the Caste system in India and the treatment of Untouchables?”, to which Tagore replied “How do you feel about the treatment of Blacks and other coloured minorities in Western nations?” Every society has its Caste/class system, its just that the Hindus have theirs in the spotlight.
However, the Muslim caste/class system is much worse than anyone else. You can rise to a point, but unless you are an Arab, you will always be a part of the lower strata and considered inferior. This can be seen by the treatment of Pakistan from Arab nations.
Rule of Law in India? What rule of Law? There is nothing but corruption, and government officials who have no concept of how to rule a nation. The British left and gave the power to their Babus as a farewell gift. The only thing that keeps things running in India is an immense amount of spirituality that does not exist in such magnitude elsewhere. Tagore once said “Faith is the bird that feels the light and sings when the dawn is still dark..”
This brings to mind a comment from Victor Malstev, former ambassador from Russia to India. While he was travelling with an uncle of mine (now a retired General of the Indian forces), he said “Before I came to India, I did not believe in God. After the seeing the chaos, corruption and disregard for law, I truly believe that there is a God who is holding this place together.”
Administration did exist in India before the advent of the British, however, the British improved the concept and execution of Central Administration, that I agree with.
You wrote:
“Anyhow, I am not British. "Our masters"- when I use that term, I usually do so tongue in cheek. I used to live under "US-occupation" and it didn't hurt one bit. Our "masters" were very generous and when they left a lot of people felt sorry. I suspect that a lot of people felt lie that in India too”
There are those who do probably miss the Brits, especially the Anglo-Indians and other henchmen, but in any case no one wants to be ruled by a foreign power.
Ho Chi Minh stated “Nothing is more precious than Independence and Liberty. It is better to sacrifice everything than to live in slavery.”
You wrote:
“I'm sure there are lots of Indians in the UK that refuse to leave, too. So, somehow perhaps you need to rethink your position....?”
*Smile* Not really Sheik. Its not about rethinking my position, I never said there weren’t any Indians who don’t wish to return to India. You see, I know there are many Indians who would refuse to leave the UK and go back to India, and I don’t blame them, since there are many Indians who did not have anything in India and they now have a better life in the West, so why should they wish to go back? They shouldn’t since one will stay where the grass is greener for them, and to each person that’s an individual concept and opinion of what is best for them. Many of their children are Indian only in colour and ancestry, but completely Westernised otherwise, thus they wouldn’t be able to fit in when they go back, the same way I have to adjust whenever I visit India since I was born and raised in the West.
Every individual has the right to decide whether staying in one country as opposed to another is best for them since everyone personal economic situation is different. I don’t expect a factory worker, whose children were able to become doctors in America, wishing for them to return to India, if he had nothing their. In the same token, I don’t expect an Englishman to leave India if he has found spirituality and peace of mind among the Ashrams and Buddhist retreats after leaving the materialistic realms of the West. Everyone has their reasons for staying or leaving.
And I do agree with you, that the Islamic world should return everything that they stole from India, including their admission of false claims and distortions of history and false claims to discoveries and advancements that scholars state are actually Hindu achievements and not Islamic.
-Cheers
Dear Sheik Yer'Mami,
I am glad that you posted the second post and cleared up the fact that you sounded a bit too harsh. You really did and I was puzzled where it came from.
I never said that Whites shouldn't live in India, I don't have a problem with it at all, its not even an issue, because that wasn't the issue.
We were discussing the whole "Colonialism" and Indians migrating to the British Isles, etc. What I meant by the fact that there are some Brits who refuse to leave, is because they love India, not because someone told them to leave, no one ever does, just as there are many French still in Pondicherry, they are very much a part of the parcel and beauty that makes India so special. They feel safe because they are surrounded by Hindus, at least that’s what they tell me when I have drinks with them in the Four Seasons restaurant in Masuri or at the Lion’s club. One of my favourite Indian Brits is my Grade 10 science teacher, Mr. Andersen, who was born in Masuri and we would often reminisce about India, he from a colonial view and I from the view of a Indo-Nepali born in the land of the Maple Leaf.
I don't play the race card, since most of my friends in the west are not Indian, nor are they Hindu. And I don' think I did throughout my post, of course if it came off that way, then I am sorry, I didn't mean it. You see, when I am with my group of friends, you are talking about everyone from around the world (in ancestry, whether its French, Scottish, American, Dutch, Chinese, Japanese etc.), it’s the way I prefer since every culture they bring to me will enrich my life.
Its true, I come from a privileged class in India, however we didn't get there by sitting on our laurels, we risked our lives and did exceptional things and eventually gained political power. And many times we made huge sacrifices and went beyond what was expected of us to stand by our morals, beliefs and to do our duty. A lot of which is recorded in history books written by Brits.
The discrimination I talk about experienced in the West is about being physically attacked, told that I have an Indian accent, when I don't, having a group of Whites telling us they don’t want my family living in their neighbourhood. The rough experiences with outright discrimination from the police and other issues are things that I discuss because either I have experienced it or my parents.
Education and wealth do take you past discrimination, I agree with you, but how about when you refuse to beg for that advancement through privileges and instead decide to do things on your own. The road is hard and you experience things that would otherwise have been never experienced if I had chosen to use my family connections, however I didn’t.
If whites wish to live in India, power to them, I never said they should leave, I simply said that they refuse to leave, what I meant by that was, they love it so much that they wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
About servants, I am one of the cousins who doesn't keep them, I do everything on my own even in India, the most I would have done was the floor to be swept and the room dusted, only because I am allergic to dust (it really sucks). I have kept several jobs part time while I finish up my studies. I don't tell people who I am since it means nothing unless a discussion like this comes up. Also, I work closely with a Catholic priest who is involved with Mother Teresa’s mission, as well as a Hindu Mission for the upliftment of the poor and underprivileged in India. Most of my cousins are idiots who do nothing with their lives, get pathetic useless degrees in Basket weaving in University only to say they are educated, and then they have tons of servants only to say life is hard. I am from the other group, who can do dry walling, landscaping, drive a pick up truck, open beer bottles with a Sikh bracelet and cook while I listen to opera and swing back a bottle of red.
I would love to live in India or Nepal (except the Maoist Uprising which is funded by China and Pakistan), but then I miss North America, and when I am here, I miss India. Let’s not even start about how much I miss Latin America and the life that lived there. So I guess I am screwed because I will never find my place, I just love where I am, but miss the friends and places I have to leave behind. The one place in the West where I felt really accepted was in the United States, whether it be Manhattan, North Carolina, Miami etc, I really loved the times I lived there. And people got along with me really well both professionally and socially.
I guess what it all comes down to is that I don’t really belong anywhere, except wherever the winds take me.
-Cheers