Indian jihad update: "HUJI terrorists planned to blow up Hanuman temples," from the Press Trust of India, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
Six Harkat-ul-Jehad al Islami (HUJI) terrorists, including the mastermind behind the Varanasi blasts, had hatched a conspiracy to blow up the two Hanuman temples' in the city on Ramnavami, state police's Special Task Force sources said.A map of the city had been recovered from the possession of terrorists, who were arrested on Wednesday, marking the spots, which they had planned to strike, the sources said.
They said terrorists had planned to blow up the old Hanuman temples at Aliganj and the one near Lucknow university in the city Ramnavami day on Thursday as a large number of devotees pay obeisance there on this day.
Sources said some Pakistani passports had also been recovered from them.
In the book Shame, by Taslima Nasrin of Bangladesh, the author exposes the murder and expulsion of the Hindu population, and the destruction of Hindu temples was a consistent part of the Jihad. If you want to see a fascinating account of the ideological cleansing aspect of the global Jihad as practiced in the Indian subcontinent, and so many other places, this book is a good place to start. For writing openly about this, she is living under the threat of death, and had to feel the country. What's new?
For those who dont know, "Ramnavmi" is a Hindu festival. If i'm not mistaken today is Ramnavm.
For writing openly about this, she is living under the threat of death, and had to feel the country. What's new?
I think Sweden granted her asylum and her applcation for Indian citizenship was turned down by dhimmi Delhi.
The Islamists wouldn't do these things to Hindu temples if it were not for the US invasion of Iraq, the Jewish cruelty to terrorist bombmakers in Palestine, and global warming.
On a related note, at Aligarh, there was a clash between Hindus and Muslims over Hindu preparations for Navratri. Note how in the story, all references to Hindus and Muslims are euphimistically replaced by the phrase "two communities", but reading the description, how difficult is it to guess which is which, and who did what?
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1668496,000900010004.htm
From the article
Looks like another potential entry for Dhimmiwatch
Ram Navami is the birth date of Lord Rama. Actually, it's tomorrow - April 7th. (I'm not sure whether it is the same as Navratri - I think it is.)
http://www.hindunet.com/onps/showarticle.php?ph=&ag=&a=22395
There is a Lucknow University in Varanasi? That sounds like the University of California in Pennsylvania.
Anyway, thankfully, further slaughter of innocent Hindus tomorrow has hopefully been prevented. Happy Navratri to one & all.
Vikrant:
I remember an India-pak cricket match which south asian students at my univ together paid a subscription to watch live. When pak was winning, some overzealous pakis actually brought out prayer mats in the common room to thank allah with. When the tables turned, the Indian students led by a vocal troupe started singing 'bhajans' in chorus. Whatta sight...(:-D)
And yes, I think what they were singing then was the Hanuman Chalisa, after hanuman, the God of valor. Fitting tribute, eh?
I have been listening to Amartya Sen on a not-very-good NPR show (the host is not quite an idiot, but close) offer some pretend-general observations on the need for a "multiplicity of identities" in this tragically torn old world of ours. If you listen closely you will see that it is special pleading for Islam, and for those of us who insist on seeing Muslims not as "British" and members of (insert any of Burke's "little battalions" here) and also as "Muslims" but just as "Muslims." Funny thing is, however, that is what Muslims are taught to think of themselves as -- not first, not first and foremost, but only as Muslims. Not all do so. But many do.
Ibn Warraq once observed (private communication, 2004)that whenever an Indian becomes famous in the outside world -- that is, a Hindu or someone of Hindu background -- he takes great care, in that outer world, to show that he has no truck with "communalism." By that is meant no special sympathy for Hinduism, no special antipathy for Islam. In practice it means ignoring the real nature of Islam, pontificating about it without having studied its texts or tenets or attitudes, and thereby to assume all kinds of good things about it, a way of distancing oneself from any smack or supposed taint of Hindutva.
'
Sen's performance was not completely disgraceful, but it was one more example of someone who, made much of in one field, cannot resist the temptation to spout off in another. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you learn enough to have an opinion worth having in that other field. See George Wald, not on retinas but on world politics. See Albert Szent-Gyorgy. See Linus Pauling. And see Amartya Sen.
He, Sen, should not have invoked Akbar without also noting that Akbar was, as a gentle syncretist, the ONLY Mughal ruler to remove the JIzyah once it had been imposed. He should have noted that Akbar was the exception, Aurangzeb the rule, that Hindus revere Akbar because of his relatively gentle rule, and Muslims cannot stand to mention him -- except for the purposes of apologetics in the West. And when Sen talks about how Maimonides "found refuge" in the court of Saladin, and fails to mention Maimonides's Epistle to the Yemen (google that for more), in which the cruelty of the Arab Muslims, and their fantastic mistreatment of Jews, was put down, is not something that Sen apparently knows about -- and even the host managed to mention something about that (which surprised me -- perhaps Ashbrook is becoming just a teeny-tiny bit more informed).
This is not the first time Amartya Sen has disappointed. He wrote an article on why democracy and Islam are, in his view, completely compatible, an article declared "brilliant" early on in the Iraq venture by that enthusiast for the Light Unto the Muslim Nations Project, James Woolsey (I can't remember if this was in an article co-signed by Bernard Lewis).
Sen is entitled to speak about Islam all he wants, just as long as he has read Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, has studied the history of Jihad-conquest, and the history of the treatment of non-Muslims under Islam. The books of Bat Ye'or, and the scholars (Muslim jurists and non-Muslim students of Islam) whose works on Jihad-conquest are collected in "The Legacy of Jihad," are the minimum reading he should demand of himself.
Maria Rosa Menocal's "The Ornament of the World" and simliar gush will not do. Nor will it do to inflict on unwary Americans the special need of famous people of Hindu ancestry to prove that they are not especially parochial (i.e. Hindu) in their views, and to misstate, to others, the nature, and menace, of Islam.
Amarta Sen is a Communist sympathizer. Bengalis lionize him, since he is one of the few people to crow about, having won the Nobel Prize, which people assume is what it was when Rabindranath Tagore won it. In his analysis in INDIA TODAY magazine recently, he praised two Marxist run Indian states - West Bengal & Kerela - for implementing "Land Reforms", ignoring the fact that these two are two of the poorest states in India, and are nowhere near the tech giants of India, such as Bangalore.
I don't know what it is that makes one a great economist, when they can't recognize what makes one part of a country a dazzling success, and another part a dismal failure.
I guess any aspiring economist should instead strive for business school.
Can't famous people of Hindu ancestry prove that they are not parochial by also being pro-Christian, pro-Jewish, pro-Confucian, pro-Shinto, pro-anything else, but sensibly drawing the line at Islam? One can only be parochial if one (like Bal Thackeray) is pro Hindu but anti everything else; otherwise, the term parochial doesn't fit.
Oh, absolutely. Here's the Archquisling of Canterbury:
Don't even start me on the self-satisfaction embodied in the notion of global warming not "discriminating". But bury our heads in the sand when it comes to the Jihad.
More sense here:
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/index.html
http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=DEL254760
Reuters has a more straightforward story:
"LUCKNOW, India, April 6 (Reuters) - Two people were killed and several injured on Thursday when groups of Hindus and Muslims clashed over prayers at a Hindu temple, officials said.
The rioting erupted in a crowded neighbourhood of Aligarh town in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh after Muslims objected to the use of loudspeakers overnight by Hindus, who were celebrating the birthday of the Hindu god-king, Rama."
I generally donot support the disturbance of public peace in name of religion but knowing Muslims, they should STFU. No one i repeat NO ONE raises objection when their muzzein blurt out the shahadat using loudspeakers 5 times a days (starting at 5 am).
Btw infidel pride, did the riots start because of the loudspeakers or the removal of temple decorations. Looks as if Reuters is trying to "sanitise" the story.
Bengalis lionize him
Knowing Bengalis they lionise every Bengali remotely famous.
@voletti:
I'd been to an India Pakistan cricket match at the Lords's once. I turned out to be two-way abusing melee.
From the PTI story, looks like they were trying to remove the diyas from the temple. No mention of loudspeakers.
P.S. To be fair to Bongs, we lionize Mother Teresa as well. Granted, not to the extent that we lionize Sourav Ganguly.
P.S. To be fair to Bongs, we lionize Mother Teresa as well. Granted, not to the extent that we lionize Sourav Ganguly.
Lol yea one Bong (actually a Bang (Bangladeshi)) in my area i doing a brisk business in Sourav Ganguly biographies.. and hell this is just a backwater hah-penny-two-penny place.
The BBC story on Aligarh doesnt mention the causes.
P.S Infidel check this article on Bongs
http://dhoomk2.blogspot.com/
Eliyahu,
The Islamic Indians(Pakistanis) have been violent towards the Hindus for decades.
The Hindus were quite happy for the Islamic part of their population to join in the independence of India, at the time the country was considered whole.
But it is the Islamic Indians that wanted a separate state from the Indian Hindus, somehow living together with their fellow Indians was just too much.
But what transpired after the separation was even more violent and Pakistanis have blown up indian airliners, destroyed temples all through the 70's 80's and 90's, their record is appalling and it differs not from their middle eastern couterparts.
Ahmartya Sen can be criticized for his readiness to discuss the distrubing nature of Islam as if it were merely one example of a general problem. But it would be unfair to go from that and call him a Communist sympathizer; neither Harvard's Economics Department, nor Trinity College, Cambridge, where he served as Master, are hotbeds of Bolshevism. Praise of the State of Kerala can be directed, and has been directed by many, at the level of education attained, and other praiseworthy features of a state where, despite the old Communist names (for example, "Joseph Stalin" as a first and middle name); quite a few of those "Joseph Stalins" haven't any interest in or even the faintest idea of Marxism now.
Many of Sen's colleagues seem as much interested in technical topics, where things can be formulaically expressed, and do not question the assumption that man is a rational economic actor, when he may be irrational, or may find the sources of his happiness in what, rationally, turns out to be different from what many economists have assumed. Sen was never like that, even if his Nobel Prize was for work that could be described as technical, and the idea of homo mensura (man as the measure of all things) and that man naturally being homo economicus as well -- is not the kind of thing that Amartya Sen ever accepted. This has made, and makes, him attractive -- economics with a human face. There are many others who have treated economics in the same way - including Adam Smith himself, though some of his writing is overlooked.
What is irksome is Sen's desire for a good outcome has led him to make statements about Islam that do not reflect the kind of study one has a right to demand of him. His statements on how Islam and democracy are compatible are unconvincing, and in the case of the Bush Administration's messianic belief that "everyone wants freedom" and "it is racist to claim that Arabs can't have democracy" (a false charge, since no one said "Arabs" can't -- the claim was always abou the nature of the belief-system of Islam). One does not know all about Islam simply by being born in India. And as a world-famous Indian of Hindu extraction, Sen may be less, not more forthright in his description of the treatment of non-Muslims under Islam and the nature of Muslim rule. Invoking the unique Akbar as a representative Muslim figure, albeit of the "tolerant" school, and ignoring Maimonides's horror at the treatment of Jews (in both Spain and Morocco) and mentioning only his finding a safe haven in Ayyubid Cairo, at the Court of Saladin, do not inspire confidence).
He's a good speaker at Commencements. A gentle manner. Stands for the proposition that economic considerations are not the only ones. This wins him admiration. That shows only one thing: Man wants but little here below.
The Islamists wouldn't do these things to Hindu temples if it were not for the US invasion of Iraq, the Jewish cruelty to terrorist bombmakers in Palestine, and global warming.
Posted by: Eliyahu at April 6, 2006 12:15 PM
___
and ingrown toe nails.
According to rabbinical sources (which unfortunately I do not have available at this moment), Maimonides and his family (wife, father, other relatives) attempted to settle in the Holy Land (Israel). They were there for six months, and a plague wiped out much of Maimonides' family, including his wife. I think at that point he went back to Egypt. The family had actually fled Spain. Further, his brother, David, a diamond merchant, was killed in a sea disaster. Prior to this, Maimonides (Moshe ben Maimon) had been the Torah scholar of the family, and his brother David had supported him (not uncommon in Jewish families). After is brother's death, Maimonides was forced to find a profession to support the remnants of his family, and turned to medicine. He also became the leader of the Jews in his part of Egypt (Fostat). Nevertheless, he continued his work in Torah.
Jewish physicians were not uncommon in the courts of both Christian and Muslim rulers at that time, but the bottom line was that they performed. If they did not perform, well, they were not kept around.
Some of Maimonides' writings were condemned by contemporary Jewish scholars because he adopted the stances of Greek and Muslim philosophers. This is not the case with all his writings, but in fact several prominent rabbis attacked his viewpoints. He was defended by (among others) the Ramban (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman), a highly respected closely contemporary Spanish scholar and judge.
The bottom line is that Jews acknowledge that the second Temple was destroyed (70 CE) and they were dispersed because of their sins, primarily against their fellow Jews. Please note that most cultures/nations/states/groups do not acknowledge their own mistakes so readily. The sojourns among the Arab Caliphates, some cruel to a fault, others relatively kind, were still in toto a punishment and prison for all Jews. Also note that it was always the intention of Jews to return to the Holy Land (Israel)as can be discerned by the actions of fellow Jews of the Middle Ages such as Yehudah HaLevi and Avraham Ibn Ezra.
Although Maimonides did not die in Israel, his remnants were carried there and he was buried in Tiberias, where the Sanhedirn (Supreme Jewish Court) was located after the Roman dispersions.
I think you can see that the normative Jewish path (of the religious) is to go along the right way and correct every wrong no matter how long it takes. Therefore when observing Maimonidies' sojourn as the physician to Saladin, one must consider the circumstances. The Jews neither belonged in Egypt (Saladin) nor in England (Richard Coeur de Lion) but is Eretz Yisrael.
Now that a large percentage of us are (B"H) there, we will not be moved. Nor will history be rewritten to serve special interests.
I am doing nothing but apologizing. Sanhedrin.
The Jews long for their homeland, Eretz Israel, as the salmon fights to go back to its place of origin.
I am saddened that the people of Hindu belief are crushed by a cruel conqueror.
Cheer up, and make that "were" - their rule was terminated in the 18th century. In fact, it is interesting to speculate what might have happened had the Europeans not discovered India. While 100m Hindus and who knows how many million Jews were slaughtered, the important thing is that we are all still standing strong. Particularly Israel, given 4 victoies over the Mohammedans, deserves real admiration.
There are strong parallels between Israel and India. In Israel, the Temple Mount, and more recently, Rachel's tomb were demolished to make way for mosques. This was the fate of thousands of temples in India. As a result, when orthodox Jews, or Jewish "extremists" demand the return of such religious sites, I fully understand where they are coming from, and endorse their demands.
As a Hindu, Israel, Judea, Samaria have never had religious significance to me. As a result, from a purely ethical perspective, given that the Jews were the original inhabitants who never voluntarily relinquished control, I have always supported their claim on all of "Palestine" (meaning all terretory west of the Jordan river and Dead Sea, and then some). While it's up to Israel and the Jews to determine what and how much they wish to share with Christianity, one strong suggestion - don't give the Muslims an inch.
Given that Islam is a global threat, "extremists" from various infidel lands, such as Israel, India, Greece, Phillipines, Thailand etc. should come together and form an alliance aimed at eradicating Islam from their lands. That might be a good way of avoiding the label "Parochial" - how can one be parochial when one is so international?
Last night I began to read "Lajja" ( Shame), by Taslima Nasrin, and was going to recommend it here...
Shame, Shame, Shame on the muslims.
They are forever whining and begging for respect, but do not respect anyone else's right to even breathe.
Amartya Sen's family must have been driven out of what is today Bangladesh, just like my ancestors were because they refused to convert. We are Hindu bengalis. (As it happens, I share my birthday with Amartya -- and Tibor Skitovsky (as Amartya himself told me saying "that we are in good company.:))
Anyway, I am sorry to say that although I respect the man for his contributions to economics and public choice theory, I feel sad that he is in some sense a dhimmi. Funny, I am a generation younger to Prof Sen, and I am more removed from Islamic oppression than he is, and yet he is a dhimmi.
Oops, "Scitovsky" and not "Skitovsky." Sorry to screw up the name of a man I admire.
Atanu
www.deeshaa.org
A quote from Maimonides' Letter to Yemen [referred to above] is at the link below. Maimonides said that the Arabs/Muslims treated the Jews worse than any other nation.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/12/jewish-sages-in-islamic-lands-identify.html
To Infidel Pride,
I'm a Brit Hindu. Born and bred here in Britain. I agreee with everything you have said about Israel and making a global stand against the Mohammedans. However it should be expanded to include the UN and any international agency especially the aid agencies, squeeze them financially until they disappear.
Related development:
JuF Terrorists Released, Deported from Canada Wednesday
For a plot to bomb a Hindu temple and East Indian movie theatre in Toronto in 1991.
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2006/04/juf-terrorists-released-deported-from.html
About Saladin, we should remember that he was regarded as absolutely exceptional among all Muslim rulers. He is the only one who gained the respect of Christian opponents, and the only one whom Dante saw fit to place in the beautiful castle of Limbo among the glorious unbelievers. (He underlined the fact: Saladin is "alone, apart" - while all his other unbelievers cluster in groups, discussing lofty topics of virtue and philosophy.) That Maimonides, after all his misfortunes, found refuge with him, says absolutely nothing in favour of Islam in general; that one chivalrous and merciful ruler, and that one a Kurd, should happen in seven hundred years of tyranny, does not exactly do much to disprove tyranny.
Vishant
If the US decided to withdraw from the UN, inshallah, that would be a big enough blow in and of itself, given where the bulk of the funding comes from. It could then persuade Japan to join it out of the UN. Two reasons that'd work - Japan's bid to become a permanent member is being hamstrung by China, and given that situation, it wouldn't want to be the UN's largest donor. Get Israel and a few other countries, such as in Eastern Europe, out as well, and one would have started a trend. Once Israel is out of the UN, the UN would automatically be out of the quartet, (just as they have no role in the talks with North Korea, since Pyongyang isn't a member.) That would reduce its relevance in a way that would be obvious not just to US observers, but observers the world over.
In that scenario, the UN will be populated by Old Europe, the OIC, a whole bunch of African dictatorships, and a motley group of members of the Non Aligned Movement. Doesn't matter. With its top 2 donors gone, it will be as influential as the Non Aligned Movement is today. Same goes for Amnesty International, UNHCR, UNESCO, et al.
atanu,
Stop showing off.
Yeah, right! And what did Satyajit Ray tell you?
Infidel Pride,
From your mouth to God's ear!
But it's not likely to happen. Anyhow, people should ask their governments why they stay in cooperate with the UN or --even worse-- finance it.
Eliyahu
Thanks for the compliment.
However, I don't think that this one is that inconceivable an idea. Already within the GOP, there are enough people who say "US out of the UN, UN out of the US". And these aren't J/W fans - they are mainstream enough to be taken seriously, and the same sort of people who've backed John Bolton when his nomination was being screwed by the Dems. And while Bush & Rice may not be on board on this, enough of the GOP is to the extent that a future candidate could include that in his platform.
Like I described above, losing the US and Japan would be a mortal blow for the UN. If that happened, the presence of all other countries in the organization would be worthless. I don't know what opinion in Israel would be about such an idea - despite Kadima & Labor being the top 2 parties, would Israelis choose to stay in the UN even if the US left (when it would be easier for Israel to be expelled just on a whim), and what is the average Israeli (even dhimmi) opinion of the UN?
Infidel Pride,
The UN has been despised for many years in Israel, since the 1950s at least. Ben Gurion made the famous contemptuous wisecrack: "Oum Shmoum." [Oum = the Hebrew acronym of UN].
It is generally agreed here that Israel cannot get a fair hearing at the UN.
If the US would leave, then I'm sure Israel would leave. However, I see little likelihood that the USA will leave the UN. If the USA does not leave, then Israel would not either.