Tourist Jihad in Jammu and Kashmir -- the mujahedin may be taking a page from the Egyptian jihad playbook. "Grenade kills three Indian tourists in Kashmir," from Reuters, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
SRINAGAR, India - At least three Indian tourists, including a child, were killed on Thursday when suspected Islamist militants threw a grenade at their bus in Kashmir’s main city, Srinagar, police and witnesses said.The attack, which also wounded seven tourists, came as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wound up two days of talks in the city with local political leaders over the fate of the Himalayan region, split between India and Pakistan and claimed by both.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov on Friday reiterated Moscow's commitment to supply Iran with sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles, local news agencies reported.
"If there are no extraordinary circumstances, it (the contract) will without doubt be fulfilled," Ivanov was quoted as saying.
Defense Ministry officials have previously said Moscow will supply 29 sophisticated Tor-M1 air defense missile systems to Iran under a $700 million (€565 million) contract, according to Russian media reports.
The move was likely to upset the United States which last month called on all countries to stop all arms exports to Iran and to end all nuclear cooperation with it to put pressure on Tehran to halt uranium enrichment activities.
http://www.jpost.com/
Just two days after PM Olmert called him a "very decent human being" who is "opposed to terror," PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas call Palestinian terrorists "our heroes."
While Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, takes on the position of "moderate" and attempts to convince Hamas to accept Judea and Samaria for now, his words to audiences at home present a different picture.
Palestinian Media Watch, an organization that monitors and reports on anti-Israel hatred in the PA media, reveals that Abbas twice this week referred to Arab terrorists serving "tens of life sentences" in Israeli jails as "our heroes." PMW's Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook report that the terrorists referred to are "arch-terrorists who have personally killed tens of Israelis and are sentenced to one life sentence for each murder."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=104342
What the Hindus need right now, is a hardliner like Bal Thackeray or Narendra Modi, firmly in the PM's seat. These gentlemen will claim the entire pakistan and bangladesh. After all, they were seized from Hindus by muslims. All we have are dhimmi leaders who just think of filling their Swiss and Cayman accounts while Hindus die by muslim hands daily. The U.S. senate is making a law, I heard, that would legitimize the illegit. The present leaders of India are no different. We have 20 million illegal bangladeshi muslims in here and the government does not throw them out. Now and then, some are deported, but, they are largely left untouched. Seems that politicos are made from the same fabric everywhere.
Arjun, our representatives are beginning to realize that this would be a huge mistake. After all they are elected. But our illegals are mostly from Mexico and are Catholic. While I don't relish the idea of 20 million illegal immigrants and their families, I would prefer someone living next to me who names his child "Jesus" rather than "Mohammed".
Bohemond,
Yes, the Hindus are in more trouble than the Americans. 20 mill. Gosh. And most of them so poor they don't have anything but sacks on. We see a lot of them dying on the streets. And they are fed and treated until they die in hospitals at my tax money. What we need is a nationwide sweep and chucking all out at one go.
I answered your question on that thread. You can see it.
" More than 100 radical Islamists affiliated to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) gathered on Thursday in Tehran’s most famous cemetery vowing to blow themselves up in suicide attacks to kill Americans, Britons, and Israelis."
The most famous cemetery in the world will one day be the Moslem Mid East. There is an internal logic in this saga that must ultimately lead to a nuclear attack on Israel and a massive retaliation by Israel that will vaporize Medina and Mecca and the lands of Islam in the region. Islam dictates that.
We are watching an out of control Islamic train, engineer dead at the switch, overheated engine roaring, smoke billowing from its stack, and as we watch we know that sooner or later the speeding train must reach a sharp bend in the track and derail. There is simply no way to stop the catastrophe. All cool headed people (deep in their heart) know the final outcome of this madness. We watch.
Arjun, yes, got it. I also replied. Nice to find kindred spirits even so far apart.
Bohemond,
Same here. :)
Just goes to show that truth and reason know no boundaries.
Islam wages Jihad on innocents. Can anyone doubt that heinous Muhammad did the same and set the example Islamic Jihadists have emulated ever since?
Was watching last season's 24 on DVD and sure enough Islamic terrorists were triggering nuclear reactor meltdowns here (USA) as to make their Jihad. On DVD you can zip right through that show. No advertisements. Once again mass murder of innocents in their vile Jihad
Muhammad said:
"I have been made victorious with terror" - Bukhari Hadith 4:52:220
According to hinduhumanrights,
the Vice-Chairperson of the Conservative Party, Sayeeda Warsi, says that terrorists in Kashmir are not terrorists but 'freedom fighters'.
___
the BBC’s “Politics Show” on the Sunday that ended that tragic week of 7/7, Warsi made the following comments:
“We have a community in Britain, a Pakistani and Kashmiri community, who holds a very, very strong view about Kashmir and the scope of freedom-fighting in Kashmir …..It would concern me if ... the definition of terrorism was to cover maybe (the) legitimate freedom-fight in Kashmir.''
arjun.sevak l am always surprised at how week governments are to illegals in their country. you have it worse with muslims, we have them pouring into Canada, and they all say they want a better life, yet they still cling to their cult islam that causes all their grief. Indian government has to get serious, and kick out illegals, take back their Jammu and Kashmir provinces now. these so called muslim warriors are so brave they throw grenades at weaponless civilians, such a pack of cowards!
Elephant,
sayeeda warsi is a muslim. It has been muslim strategy to breed in host countries and when in sufficient numbers, to embark upon terror to make one more islamic state. pakistan was born this way only in 1947. So was bangladesh. I have posted about it before, so I will not repeat myself. Lulu, they have given no quarter to man, woman or child throughout history. If they had cought these tourists, they would have been tortured and beheaded. You can follow this link to see the muslim carnage in India.
www.voi.org/books/negaind/ch2.htm
Arjun, are you familiar with Ravi Zacharias?
http://www.rzim.org/ravi.php
Arjun, this may serve you better, this is their India website:
http://www.rzimindia.org/
Bohemond,
No, I have never heard of him. Went to his site. He seems to be a Christian Missionary.
Yes, from India. His bio and credentials:
http://www.rzim.org/apologetics/apologetics.php?personid=1
For thirty-four years Ravi Zacharias has spoken all over the world and in numerous universities, notably Harvard, Princeton, and Oxford University. He has addressed writers of the peace accord in South Africa, President Fujimori's cabinet and parliament in Peru, and military officers at the Lenin Military Academy and the Center for Geopolitical Strategy in Moscow. He has been privileged to bring the main address at the National Day of Prayer in Washington, DC, an event endorsed and co-hosted by President George W. Bush, and at the Pentagon. Additionally, Mr. Zacharias has spoken twice at the Annual Prayer Breakfast at the United Nations in New York, which marks the beginning of the UN session each year, and at the invitation of the President of Nigeria, he addressed the delegates at the First Annual Prayer Breakfast for African Leaders, held in Mozambique.
Mr. Zacharias was born in India in 1946 and immigrated to Canada with his family twenty years later. While pursuing a career in business management, his interest in theology grew; subsequently, he pursued this study during his undergraduate education. He received his Masters of Divinity from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois. Well-versed in the disciplines of comparative religions, cults, and philosophy, he held the chair of Evangelism and Contemporary Thought at Alliance Theological Seminary for three and a half years. Mr. Zacharias has been honored by the conferring of a Doctor of Divinity degree both from Houghton College, NY, and from Tyndale College and Seminary, Toronto, and a Doctor of Laws degree from Asbury College in Kentucky. He is presently a Visiting Professor at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University in Oxford, England.
At the invitation of Billy Graham he was a plenary speaker at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam in 1983, 1986, and 2000. Mr. Zacharias has been a visiting scholar at Cambridge University, where he studied moralist philosophers and literature of the Romantic era. While at Cambridge he also authored his first book, A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism (Baker Book House, 1994, 2nd ed.), which in 2004 was updated and republished by Baker as The Real Face of Atheism. His second book, Can Man Live without God (Word Publishing, 1994), was awarded the Gold Medallion for best book in the category of doctrine and theology. Deliver Us from Evil (Word, 1996) followed with an accompanying video series. Cries of the Heart (Word, 1998) was his fourth book. His first children's book, The Merchant and the Thief (Chariot Victor), was released in 1999, followed by The Broken Promise (Chariot Victor, 2000). Jesus Among Other Gods (Word, 2000) was nominated for a Gold Medallion. The first in a series of great conversations, The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha was released by Multnomah in 2001, and the second, Sense and Sensuality: Jesus Talks with Oscar Wilde, in 2002. Mr. Zacharias' very personal response to the September 11th tragedy is Light in the Shadow of Jihad (Multnomah, 2002). Recapture the Wonder was released by Integrity Publishers in 2003 and I, Isaac Take Thee, Rebekah, a book on marriage, in February 2004 by the W Publishing Group. His latest work is Walking From East to West: God in the Shadows (with R.S.B. Sawyer) published by Zondervan (2006). Several of these books have been translated into many other languages including Russian, Arabic, Korean, and Thai.
Mr. Zacharias is listed as a distinguished lecturer with the Staley Foundation and has appeared on CNN and other international broadcasts. His weekly radio program, "Let My People Think," is broadcast over 1500 stations worldwide, and his weekday program, “Just Thinking,” began airing in November 2004. He is president of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, with additional offices in Canada, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United Arab Emirates. Mr. Zacharias and his wife, Margie, have three grown children; Sarah, who is married to Jeremy; Naomi, who is married to Luke, and Nathan. They reside in Atlanta.
Updated 9 March 2006
http://www.panunkashmir.org/
Elephant
I didn't see any references to Sayeeda Warshi in the link you provided.
More details about the explosion available here. Question - why do any hindus risk going to Kashmir? I can understand Jammu and Vaishnodevi temple, or Ladakh, but why commit suicide by terrorists in Kashmir?
I don't think it is all that much better to have Mexican Catholics any more than having islamic iranians in America. During the protest marches, those same catholic mexicans marched with islamic groups denouncing the US as racist. Cohorts, really.
If those Mexicans view islam as a religion of the oppressed,and Christianity as the religion of the white man, I wonder how many would convert to islam. Islam already suits their political bent.
Those mexicans are part of the fifth column. If islam would dominate, they would convert easily. I don't think putting burkas on the latin americans would be that diffiuclt. Don't forget that racially the latin americans are still very much native indian in their genetic make-up. And those native indians were converted easily by the Church. Very quickly white Spain made the whole native indian continent Catholic. I predict that the arabs could make it islamic just as fast. It would be best if those people were not in the US when this war with islam comes.
Arjun and Infidel Pride,
Yes, I know that Warsi is a Muslim, and of course I disagree with her calling terrorists in Kashmir 'Freedom fighters'. I put that to show what peril the UK is in if that's the sort of person that the Conservatives choose for their Vice -Chairperson.
You will find the story about her on that site.
I think the precise location is:
http://www.hinduhumanrights.org/articles/warsi.html
I'm sorry that I didn't make my first post clearer.
Infidel Pride,
I wanted to ask you something. I want you to mail me so I can ask.
As far as 20m Bangladeshis go, India ain't seen nothing yet. Ocean levels are almost certain to rise over the next few decades as a result of global warming, and a lot of Bangladeshis live at or close to sea level. Add to this the cyclones and accompanying storm surges that come of the Bay of Bengal evey season and the size of future population movements doesn't bear thinking about.
Arjun, IMO your government should send in the Gurkhas with their swords drawn.....
'Freedom' is a dirty word for the slaves of Allah.....
They terrorize us to whack us all into submission!
What the Hindus need right now, is a hardliner like Bal Thackeray or Narendra Modi, firmly in the PM's seat.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 26, 2006 07:27 AM
I agree. Narendra Modi as the Home Minister and Bal Thakare the Defence Minister.
somethingaboutislam, I am in Texas and I know that there is a small percentage of Mexicans who are pro-Communist and anti-US. However there is a much larger percentage of Hispanic Americans who are here legally and are very embarassed and angered by the actions of these illegals and want no part of them or their politics. The Hispanic Americans fear these small but vocal minorities will taint the perception of them as good Americans that they have worked so hard to earn. My wife works with a Mewxican American woman whose brother was killed in Vietnam. She hates the protesters. I work with a Viet Nam vet who was on a swift boat. He hates them. Don't make the mistake of thinking that all Mexicans are the same. Like Americans, Mexicans come in all colors, shapes, sizes, religions and political persuasions.
Like Americans, Mexicans come in all colors, shapes, sizes, religions and political persuasions
I can appreciate what you are trying to say, but again, this is like the "tiny minority" argument that islam uses. I don't buy it. I let the protestors define the people. If we don't see counter protests, then that speaks volumns.
Shapes and sizes, yes, those vary. Color? Not so much. Religion? No. Catholic 99%. Political persuasion? Well, let them prove their loyalty to law and order and denounce the illegal aliens as criminals. That won't happen. Just like muslims never denounce the jihad.
arjun.sevak ( and any other Indian posters who would like to comment)
here is my query to you that I mentioned on another thread and you kindly offered to take on board.
I travelled all over India as a low budget /grass roots traveller from 1977-82 from Ladakh in the far north to Rameswaram on the southern tip , from Calcutta/ Darjeeling to Karala. I've seen far more of India than I have of my own country (Australia)
All this travel was done by public transport; train or local bus. I met people from all walks of life. At that time I was one of the many westerners who thought all religions were vaguely equal ( except that of my own country , which I placed lower)
During that time I didnt hear any anti-muslim sentiment from any of the (mainly Hindu) Indian people I met. This seems curious to me now from the snatches of info I've seen posted on the site from Indian posters indicating a growing backlash.
I'm trying to recall any hints of disquiet that I remember but cannot. Even in Varanasi where I pased through a dozen times or more and once spent 6 months.
Even in the history books in which I read about the Moghul conquerors their takeover is not depicted in the bloodsoaked manner that undoubtedly occurred. Its like they waltzed in and set up shop with kind of a "hi -we're here" and thats all (??!!)
The only reference to Muslim barbarity that I recall reading was the story that Shah Jahan, after the completion of the Taj, had all the skilled artisans who worked on it hands cut off so that no one could repeat it. Even that was depicted as kind of his individual eccentricity and not part of a larger picture of Mohammedan depravity.
As for the modern era, the book "Freedom at Midnight" about Ghandi and independence which we all read then as the definitive text also depicted the partition of India and Pakistan as kind of an equal-fault-on-all-sides massaccre placing no extra proportion of guilt on either side.
Yet my subsequent education tells me that Mohammedans were far more violent than depicted in both these eras.
I guess my question is was PC around even then ? (I thought it was a 90s invention)
Is the average 21st century Indian non-muslim citizen as blase about Islam as the average westerner? They certainly seemed that way in the 70s. I would have thought their direct experience , from *Aurangzeb (who is depicted in the history books as no more than a "naughty boy playing pranks" type- as he put millions to death ) to Jinnah would have caused a more negative impression.
* I think Aurangzeb was the really psychopathic one ?( if there are degrees of Muslim war lords?!) tho one of his successors was "moderate" by comparison.(also with a name beginning with "A' I read all this nearly 30 yrs ago and the names blur with time)
PS what do you think of the "Taj not built by muslims " conspiracy theory ? (cant find the link to that story) Much as I'd like to believe that aren't the minarets, general Persian design hard to explain ?
Back in the 70s it was open to the public till midnight around the time of the full moon. I spent my 26th b/day night with 3 other western tourists and just a handful of Indian tourists wandering up close and marveling in the moonlight. Incredible.
thats "Kerala" not "Karala" . oh for an edit button.
And Benares = Varanasi ( anglicised )
"one of his successors was "moderate" by comparison.(also with a name beginning with "A'"
presumably Akbar, who reigned 1556-1605: he was in fact a predecesor of Aurangzeb who reigned 1658-1707) - the following from passage on Akbar in Wikipedia 'Moguls' entry:
" Akbar introduced a policy of reconciliation and assimilation of Hindus (including Jodhabai, later renamed Mariam-uz-Zamani begum, the Hindu mother of his son and heir, Jahangir), who represented the majority of the population. He recruited and rewarded Hindu chiefs with the highest ranks in government; encouraged intermarriages between Mughal and Rajput aristocracy; allowed new temples to be built; personally participated in celebrating Hindu festivals such as Deepavali, or Diwali, the festival of lights; and abolished the jizya (poll tax) imposed on non-Muslims. Akbar came up with his own theory of "rulership as a divine illumination," enshrined in his new religion Din-i-Ilahi (Divine Faith), incorporating the principle of acceptance of all religions and sects. He encouraged widow re-marriage, discouraged child marriage, outlawed the practice of sati, and persuaded Delhi merchants to set up special market days for women, who otherwise were secluded at home."
-protestcat,
Hagia Sophia wasn't built with minarets, either. They were added after the mohammedan savages stole Constantinople. Typical of those barbarian's desecration of the holy sites of other cultures.
Protestcat, your observations are quite interesting. Not much has changed in the general Indian attitudes and viewpoints. since when you last visited India; most Indians still do try hard to maintain the facade that there is no problem with Islam. The uneasiness against Islam is externalized by putting all the blame on Pakistan without trying to get to the root cause of the problem (i.e. Islam). As you have noted what is taught in Indian schools completely white-washes the crimes committed by the Islamic invaders who plundered India. Even "Akbar the great" who is passed off as the paragon of tolerance in Indian textbooks (wallyUK's excerpt is typical of what you find in Indian textbooks on Akbar) turns out, on closer examination, to have been quite brutal. As an example, after the capture of Chittor, Akbar exasperated by the obstinate resistance offered to his arms, treated the town and garrison with merciless severity. The 8000 strong Rajput garrison having been zealously helped during the seige by 40,000 peasants, the emperor ordered a general massacre which resulted in the death of of 30,000 (even though the struggle was over). There are many more incidents that show Akbar was not all that great or tolerant. Some of these incidents are highlighted in the following web site:
http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/akbar_ppg.html
In general, there is a tendency within India of concealing the barbarity of the Islamic rule under which over an estimated 40 to 80 million Hindus lost their lives . An interesting study on this phenomenon can be found in the excellent book by Koenraad Elst in his book, "Negationism in India: Concealing the record of Islam":
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/negaind/
Arjun
What's your question? You are welcome to ask.
Arjun
Don't know whether you were wanting to ask this (no, I'm not trying to be telepathic) but yes, I did visit Kashmir in 1987, before all this trouble started. Liked Jammu, particularly Vaishno Devi, but hated Kashmir. Everybody there were stalking tourists like vultures, and for us, what was worse was mocking us in Bengali. Some of those Muslim vendors who wanted to attract our business tried it by reciting Bengali poetry - it was just creepy, since we had no sense of privacy when discussing things amongst ourselves, say, on the shikaras.
I hear what you are saying about Hindus visiting Kashmir, but it's worthless; the only people who can claim it are local Infidels - Kashmiri Pundits & Sikhs, Jammu Dogris, Ladakhi Buddhists et al. Already the Kashmiri Pundits have largely left, and in the absense of security back-up in terms of Mohammedan fanatics, I fear for the others as well. As it is, every government in New Delhi, including the BJP led regime that was allied with the National Conference, has viewed this as an Indo-Pak problem, rather than a Muslim-Infidel problem, thereby ostensibly protecting Indians from Pakistanis, but doing nothing to protect Infidels from Muslims (I use the "I" word to capture all of the above Infidel groups, not just the Kashmiri Pundits). This mirrors the same problem Israel faces that was discussed in another thread - where they fail to view it as a Jihad, and only view it as an Arab-Israeli conflict.
In the absense of such a recognition, let alone support, it is unreasonable to expect J&K Infidels to stay there and get blown away. I haven't read the Vedas, but I'll bet you that Suicide by Jihad is not in it. And if J&K Infidels cannot live in the Valley, that trend is not going to be negated by Hindu tourists going there. What's worse is that it is Jiziya - Hindus spending money better spent elsewhere on Muslims. I didn't get to block my parents when they took us all to Kashmir, but I'd avoid visiting any place where I'd end up paying Jiziya.
If they want to see mountains, visit Nepal. I'm a tad disappointed that they have declared the world's only Hindu nation a secular country, but since Buddhists are the 2nd largest religious group there, I don't worry about them going Islamic. I do hope they destroy the Maoists, and send them off to join Chairman Mao, wherever he is.
somethingaboutislam, you said "Color? Not so much. Religion? No. Catholic 99%." Color? I know black Mexicans, blondes with blue eyes and redheads with green eyes. The Indian influence is strongly present, but you are stereotyping if you only think of them all as brown skinned. If by Catholic you mean they are predominately Christian, yes, thank God, they are, but there are also large numbers of Mennonites, Mormons, B'Hai, Protestants, Jews and every race, tribe, creed and religion you can think of. There are Mexicans of Syrian, Lebanese, middle Eastern and Chinese descent. The Hispanic Americans I mentioned before refused to take May 1 off to counter-protest reasoniong that missing work might somehow be interpreted as support for the illegals. Making the mistake of lumping them all together is narrow minded and unfair, just as Naseem seems to think all Americans are either rednecks or cowboys. I've read a lot of your posts, and IMO you're smarter than that.
TO protestcat
Answer to your question; YES. The general stigma is that if you state anything against islam, you are branded as a fascist hindu.
You will not find opinions on the surface. Hindus all over India have reservations over the behaviour and excesses of islam, but are afraid of stating so because of the fear of not being seen as secular.
Even amongst Hindus,it is difficult to get them protest when their rights and emotions are being trampled upon. Only in extreme events such as a massacre in Kashmir or a bomb blast somewhere in India does anyone express anger, only to compensate it later with overflowing dhimmi talk about how islam is peaceful. Our history mentions nothing of the genocidal onslaught on hindus by muslims. Politicians bend over backwards to ensure muslim rights are championed. Hindus can only silently endure this humiliation.
I DO NOT wish to preach my views and opinions on hinduism. But the lack of true understanding in its values,and moreover a corruption of its messages has created a hindu society divided amongst itself, and unable to resist a serious threat to its survival such as all prevading fascist islam.
regarding the taj even I wasn't totally aware of the issue. As i haven't studied the same, I am not coming to any conclusion now. However given the true history of islamic barbarism, it is highely likely. A poster on JW named Varma posted this a while ago. My thanks to him. Check this site for review. It seems convincing.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/was_the_taj_mahal_a_vedic_temple.htm
BUT YES IT IS A BEAUTIFUL MONUMENT ALL THE SAME
for a free world
thehindu
protestcat
I completely agree with Razdan above. All Indian history books underplay what Muslim rulers did in India, and only mention the "foreign" invaders, such as Mahmud of Ghazni, Mohammed Ghouri, Timur, Babur, Ahmad Shah Abdali, in order to fit in the PC template that encouraged Indians to be proud of all Indian rulers, but resent foreign invaders like the above. The implications being that once localized, Muslims were Indians. But that completely ignored the fact that these rulers belonged more to the traditions of those invaders e.g. Aurangzeb had more in common with Timur or Babur, than with local Hindu rulers, except that instead of starting out on his expeditions against Hindus from Samarqhand or Kabul, he started out from Agra.
Razdan is also largely correct about Akbar; in addition to the things that Akbar did in the cited article, it's noteworthy that it was he who initiated the ban on Moghul princesses marrying. Some of the barbaric acts that Akbar committed were rationalized by attributing some (like Hemu's murder) to his advisor Behram Khan, while some others, where he posed as a prophet, were cast as him starting his own religion. Note that he had only 40 followers in that religion, of which 39 were Muslims, and only 1 - Birbal - was a Hindu. It is reasonable to assume that that religion was something very similar to Islam, probably Sufi Islam, since Akbar was a follower of Moinuddin Chisti, and a declared Shia. And his massacre of Chittor was something that historians have universally condemned him, since there was no masking of that.
Reason for this PC was 2 people - Gandhi and Nehru. The first was the ultimate appeaser, who'd make Neville Chamberlain or Ehud Barak look like Winston Churchill, the worst being his 1918 support of a movement of Muslims to restore the Sultan of Turkey as Caliph (to this day, India still has a Khilaphat committee, "honoring that Gandhian tradition", whatever that is.) The second was Nehru, a self described cultural Muslim, who pretty much re-wrote history (read his published letters to Indira Gandhi, his daughter, on world history, where his bias against Europeans and Jews, and pro-Islamic and pro-Soviet bias stands out, and is passed on by him as history.) Since he was India's prime minister from 1947-1964, he had enough time to make sure that history books cast his Congress party in the most favorable light, thereby necessarily impugning the entire 200 year history of the Brits in India. (Incidentally, protestcat, while I honor Hugh's request to keep our hobby-horses firmly tethered in our stables, I make an exception of that when it comes to Gandhi, and don't let anybody in this fine forum shower him with ill deserved praise.)
Only problem here - what the Brits did didn't come close to what the Muslims did, or India would have been a country with the Anglican church as the official religion, just as the Aztec and Inca empires had converted to the Roman Catholic church. The Brits didn't come close even to the Portugese colonizers in Goa, Daman, Calicut or Diu, let alone the Muslims. So what did Nehru do? He pretended that Muslims were a part of India's heritage, despite what they did to India's non-Islamic heritage. So by no means was this PC recent - in fact, when the BJP came to power, they tried correcting some of this PC attitudes, and got into loggerheads with the entire educational establishment, that has had too long an association with this revision of history.
Aurangzeb's successors? His immediate successor - Bahadur Shah - tried to undo the damage he had done by repairing relations with Rajputs, but he died just 1 year after he became Emperor (his lesser known name was Shah Alam I - is that why you remember a name with an "A"?). From then on, it was all downhill, and in the interval between the Moghul empire coming apart and the Brits entering, most of India was dominated by the Marathas.
On the Taj Mahal, however, I part ways. This was built by Shah Jahan, and doesn't resemble Hindu architecture in any way, so PN Oak's theory that it was a Hindu temple called Tejo Mahalya lacks any credibility. My big beef about such claims is that it throws into question Hindu complaints about the thousands of temples throughout India that had been destroyed - it wasn't just Somnath, Ayodhya, Mathura and Varanasi. However, I just don't have any emotional attachments towards the Taj, since it is a part of the legacy of the Moghul empire, and Islam. If it got demolished like Akbar's tomb Sikandra was by the Jats during Aurangzeb, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
If you are further interested in an Indian history that is unbiased, I highly recommend Dr RC Majumdar's "History & Culture of the Indian People". It's an 11 volume series of books covering the entire history from the Vedic Age to India's independence in 1947. It isn't endorsed by Indian educational authorities because it documents the activities of all political organizations during India's independence movement (not just Congress), exposes the Communists as traitors during WWII, when they stopped supporting India's independence movement the moment Operation Barbarossa started. It also debunks the myth that Hindus and Muslims got along well throughout history, and shows how every Muslim ruler that India had was a bigot. Also, in the volumes that deal with Muslim rule (5 to 7), they have separate sections on Hindu-Muslim relations, that are worth the read. Once one reads that, one who's familiar with the political inclinations of Indian politicians will know why it isn't officially endorsed.
You mention that you were in India from 1977-82. When I was in the 4th grade in 1977, we had a chapter in our history book on Mohammed, where he was portrayed as a victim of persecution by idol worshipers, had one wife Khadija (no mention of her age), how his persecution by the Meccans led to his fleeing to Medina, how the Medinans rallied to his support and helped him recapture Mecca. No mention of his broken treaties, his murders of his critics or anything about what he taught (other than the shehada line about there being only one God and Mohammed being his prophet). Talk about revisionism (I learnt what I know about Mohammed recently, on Jihad-Watch, FaithFreedom.org, Islam-Watch and some other referred sites.)
Protestcat,
You might find some information here
www.voi.org/books/negaind/ch2.htm
Historians put the count of Hindus butchered in muslim agression of 1200 years between 200 million and 600 million. I go with the latter. What is taught in schools, and the info readily available to all, are radically different. As for taj mahal, there are a few links on posts this week only, you can see the proof that this was not made by muslims.
Sorry about the delay, it is the time factor. When you posted, it was night over here. Infidel pride, what I want is an email, since this site has trolls. I can send you my email id but you will have to decipher it.
Arjun
It's 2:00AM out here (subtract 3 hours from the time stamp, which is Eastern Standard Time). You can e-mail me at unixfidel@yahoo.com.
Protestcat,
The link to the taj story is at the end of thehindu post. I also go with Infidel Pride, what he has stated about the situation. Overseas, gandhi is projected as a saviour of peace. It is not uncommon in India for one of the gardners to come to one of the innumerable "gandhi parks" and "nehru parks" in the morning and take off the garland of shoes from the statues of gandhi and nehru. The Hindus have been sold down the river by everybody, including their own people.
The amazing thing about the Hindus is that they have survived the onslaught of Islam for over a thousand years. They were objects of special hate for Muslims, being the ultimate Idol worshippers and thus deserving of severest of punishments. On the other hand, their own religion was the ultimate in rational tolerance, a fact the muslim scholar Alberuni also observed: the Brahmins were essentially monotheistic and believed in an abstract universal consciousness called Brahm, but the common people worshipped idols. Rather than changing the way of everyone around them, they accepted the tribal and village idols as a symbol of what they saw as the ultimate reality.
These Hindus, smug with their own rational thinking and inclusiveness that they could never conceive of a way of life that was so intolerant of another that it would kill to make the others submit to a particular point of view.
In my opinion, what really saved them was their much derided caste system, which gave them a killing machine in their warrior caste, the Rajputs. However, these warriors were again hampered by a code of chivalry in conduct of war, which was exploited again and again by the Muslims. Their resistance was heroic and although the Mughals found it advantageous to neutralise this threat by giving them senior rank in their courts and marrying into their royal families, there were many who chose a life of penury, fighting for liberty. Eventually, it was the Marathas of western India, and the Bundelkhand Rajputs in north, who broke the back of the Mughals led by Aurangzeb and checked the tide of Islamic expansion.
The Hindu in India today has seen traumatic events like the partition where millions of Hindus and Sikhs were butchered in the newly formed Pakistan. Their own leadership, oblivious of even the basics of Islam,was telling them to stay back "else, how do you expect the lawbreakers (sic) to be punished?" The Hindus and Sikhs of Punjab eventually retaliated, when the trains from pakistan arrived carrying only the massacred bodies. The Indian leadership condemned and suppressed this retaliation and incredibly went along with the "it takes two hands to clap" theory, an approach it has built-in as a reflex action, whenever there are Hindu-Muslim riots.
If you think about it, the westernised leadership of India was and continues to be, as uneducated about Islam as the western leadership. Thus there is an unspoken understanding between the government and the media to downplay any "untoward incidents" involving Muslims. For instance, no one should talk in public about the extraordinary consistently high crime rate among the muslims. If someone does dare to point out to the statistics, even to propose a course of corrective action, s/he is immediately smothered in opprobium. "It's due to their poverty" (yes? and everyone else is rich here?); "It's due to their lack of education" (do you have any evidence? and what prevents them to go for education like the rest of the people?)etc.
This self-censorship has bought India a reasonable amount of uneasy peace, but it is always tenuous, liable to be broken at the first perception by a mob of an opportunity to do some civic damage with a good chance of getting away. Most of the Indians have accepted this state with a sense of resignation. But, and this is crucial, most of them, without public access to any information in this regard, continue to be oblivious of the true nature of Islam and its history of atrocities.
They have forgotten the lesson that their forefathers had learnt, at a great cost.
but there are also large numbers of Mennonites, Mormons, B'Hai, Protestants, Jews and every race, tribe, creed and religion you can think of.
No, I would disagree that there are large numbers of those people. You are talking about the exceptions to the rule and I'm talking about the rule. Mexicans are primarily of native indian stock and they were easily converted by the Church, often under threat of death.
That will be the situation facing them with islam. And I predict they will be the first to convert. That is why they are not good partners in the fight against islam. That and the fact that they use 'gringo' in the same way that islamics use the word 'infidel'. I see no difference between the Mexican population as a whole and those hundreds of thousands that protested. Who knows how many others would have protested if they could have gotten off work, or away from their responsibilities.
Let's not make excuses for them based upon anecdotal experiences.
Arjun and anybody else of Indian origin,
I don't think we should let this warsi's comments go by.
We need to make sure as many wealthy Indian business people who are politically active know, get her comments to the Indian High Commisssion,
all Indian newspapers etc.
The moslems have the numbers in the UK, but "WE" have the brains and money.
Can all Indians who post on this site contact me, some people put their faith in the BNP in the war against islam, I think the Conservative party is our best bet.
Does any body know if "Tikoo" is a Kashmiri name ?
if it is then great Ravi Tikoo is a very wealthy businessman in the UK.
Regards
AI
AI, Ravi Tikoo is, indeed, a Kashmiri Hindu (Pandit).
somethingaboutislam you claim "No, I would disagree that there are large numbers of those people." Fine. It's a free country, you're entitled to have your own opinions. Disagree all you like, but it won't change the facts. But what is your belief based on? I live on the border and have close personal contact with many of these people every day, both Mexican nationals and Hispanic Americans. My knowledge is based on my first-hand, personal experience gahered over the last 30 years living here, not prejudice and misinformation spread by the liberal leftist MSM, the same MSM, BTW which claims that "Islam is a religion of peace". We had some demonstrations here on May 1, but they were much smaller than the media had predicted. That was not reported. The counter protests that day were as large as the pro-demonstrations, but were not reported to the extent that the anti-US ones were. FYI "Gringo" is hardly ever used anymore, having originated during blackjack Pershing's punitive hunt of Pancho Villa just before WWI. The 3d Cavalry's regimental song was "Green Grow The Rushes, Ho", and the Mexicans would hear the soldiers singing it as they marched along, hence they were nicknamed "Gringo" for the "Green Grow".
The media also wants you to believe that most of the illegals from South of the border are crossing over on foot across the desert. That is only the ones who can't afford a plane ticket and a visa. The majority of illegals are flying or taking busses to their destinations and then simply vanishing and overstaying their visas. Moral? Don't believe everything you get from the media, my friend. But if you've already made up your mind on this issue, don't let the facts get in your way. Now let's get back OT and continue the fight against the Mohammedans.
Dunk,
Your post is remarkably accurate. However, I must say that you can substitute "Kshtriya" in describing the warrior caste of Hindus. The Rajputs are the Kshtriyas of Rajasthan province. The Marathas are the Kshtriyas of Maharashtra province. The Kshtriyas of Bundelkhand call themselves Bundelas. Regional identities are maintained, but they all are, the warriors of Hindus and none shirked from their duty to rid India from the muslim scrouge. There were very rare, and few, who married into muslim families. They were, subsequently, branded as traitors.
"Opportunity to do some civic damage.............. resignation".
We have not resigned.
apostate islam,
You know that our plea is going to fall on deaf ears. Read the posting by Dunk. It is just over your posting. Nobody is going to listen to us. Nobody is going to take our cause. However, if you create a new id, and put it on your typekey profile, I shall contact you.
Dunk,
Another thing. You mention the chivalry of Kshtriyas. Yes, they were hampered by the high value fighting system that called for the sparing of all who dropped their arms. Then they let them go. This happened for the most part of the invasion. Then the Rajputs realized that this is their undoing, and only the latter campaigns led by the Marathas and the Bundelas were successful because they did not spare any. They executed all fighting men, even if they dropped their arms. This was also adopted by Sikha, the warrior people made especially for muslims.
But even these campaigns were not 100% successful because these warriors always spared the women and children. All the great warriors seek their legions from common people, people like you and me. And while we may go to the extent of executing the unarmed, we shirk at even the thought of killing a child or a woman. And this is our undoing against muslims. If we, even after knowing the carnage islam has inflicted on the Civilized everywhere, rebel from killing the women and children, how can we expect that those who fought them centuries ago had the ruthlessness to do so. And then these children grow up, read the kuran, and there is another battle to be fought. Our Humanity, our rationality, our failure to treat islam like a virus, is our Achilles heel.
Anyways, Dunk, nice to meet such a well informed person as yourself. Looking forward to more of your posts.
Regards,
Arjun
Arjun
Thanks for your kind comments. You are right - all Rajputs are Khshtriya but all Khshtriya are not Rajputs.
But it was the Rajputs in northern India who faced the first scimitars and the true significance of their heroic sacrifices has not been understood.
Islam ran into its first major resistance in central Asia against the tough Sogdian fighters. So rather than take them head-on, the Arab-Iranian legions of Islam "married" the captured Sogdian women (1 soldier:4 women), raised their children and waited for twenty years (yes, that's the long-term thinking islam has) for these children to grow up and become a sizable army of Islam, before breaking the treaty they had signed with the Sogdians, attacking and defeating them with their own blood.
Evidently, the muslims used the same viral strategy in India. To counter this the Rajputs came up with the custom of Johar, in which all their women and girls immolated themselves in a fire, if their men were defeated. This prevented the women from falling into the muslim's hands and also provided an even greater motivation to the warriors against islam. [It is possible, but this is just a conjecture, that even the practice of Sati is a relic from that era]. The Rajputs were truly heroic fighters: well-trained, clever and courageous. Above all, they were willing to sacrifice everything, so that the remainder of the people of India were not killed by their own blood,later.
I must add that the term Rajputs includes their extraordinary women: women who killed themselves, rather than become a muslim. It would have taken incredible courage - there was no one to force them to do this, when their men were already dead. They could easily have opted for a comfortable life in the harem, adding to the armies of islam. It was the honour of their caste and the name of their clan that was more important. Truly amazing.
Dunk,
Yes, you are right again. In all the castles of Rajputs, there was always a "Johar Kund" (Well of Johar). It was a dry well. Before battle began, dry wood was filled half-way. When the news of defeat reached the castle, the womenfolk would start the fire and immolated themselves. This included young girls.( the mos also raped young girls). The practise of muslims to rape young girls is what led to child marriage in India. Girls were married when they were young. Of course the husbands were children too. They lived as man and wife only after 10 years or so, but, in occupied cities, the mos avoided them since they wore the signs of the married.
The practise of Johar was last seen at the time of creation of pakistan. When muslim mobs surrounded Hindu villages, and defeat seemed imminent, the womenfolk either killed themselves by hanging or consuming poison. In fact, for the last 500 years, fatal poisons became a part of every Hindu household. Families upon families drowned their daughters and sisters and wives in village wells. (Some British soldiers who were vacating territory took photographs of these wells.) After the womenfolk were killed, the men went to fight the last battle of their lives with the invading muslim mobs. muslims had pakistan. The Hindus were vacating. But even then they had to kill one million Hindus.
Arjun,
I am afraid I cannot agree with your pessimistic outlook.
people do listen, we must make them understand.
The one thing that the islamists have done is turn any criticism of islam into a racial issue in order to automatically surpress freedom of speech.
we can change that the stakes are to high, already in the UK we have been threatend with a
"racial and religious hatred law"
contact me
to arjuna, Wally UK, eizenhund,razdan, Infidel Pride, thehindu, dunk ( and anybody who I left out)
Thankyou all guys (and gals?) for your wealth of information. I can tell by your responses that its a sobject close to your hearts.
After reading through several times I'm going to print them all out to study at my leisure. Many salient points and info in there.
Infidel pride; I dont think my brain can absorb 11 volumes of history. I did have one book once which every page was dense with dates and names and my brain rejected it. however I currently have a book by an Australian academic which I think has the main eras covered in more pedestrian form for my tired old brain. Must reinforce your statement on Kahmir vs. Nepal as a tourist destination. I went to great efforts to see Kashmir after reading all the hype. Nepal beats it on every count. and the Nepalese are much nicer. Kashmiri hard sell merchants interupt your every minute there. the famous gardens are dry, weed infested ruins and the Pokhara lake in Nepal is far less spoiled.
I know its a cliche but India is in my blood and it is only fatherhood and mortgage which has kept me from going back.
I've read that the life cycle of a hindu male after fatherhood responsibilities are over is to travel and wander the continent. I can relate to that.
late question,
how do you feel about the British Raj years? if I spoke to anybody over 30 in 1977 they had experienced to some degree life with the british and many old codgers ( of the Indian variety) expreesed a kind of benign affection. they seemed to do some good things. ( hospitals, the incredible railways, govt. agriculture, lawmaking etc,)
to protestcat
Sorry for the delay i hardly get time during the weekends to check JW.
My personal opinion of the British rule is mixed. On one side the British Raj showed little mercy in dealing with opposition to their rule. They used a combination of shrewd politics and armed might to gain power over India.
Having said that, I really admire them for their contributions to India in terms of infrastructure and development. Like you said railroads, buildings,administration etc.
Partition was albeit partly in their hands, but largely directed by fascist mos and politically greedy leaders such as Nehru.
But I believe that whatever will be my or any other Indian poster's personal thoughts about the British Raj, we will all agree that "IT WAS DEFINITELY BETTER THAN ISLAMIC RULE"
I definitely don't hold any grudge against any Brit.
my regards friend
for a free world
thehindu
protestcat
Just read 3 from a library if you can - volumes 5 to 7. The rest are about other periods in Indian history, but Muslims play a less significant role there. Of course, volume 8 has the invasions of Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali, but the bulk of the savagery you'll find in just those 3 books.
protestcat
I agree with thehindu above. Unlike the Mohammedans, the Brits spread the Industrial Revolution to India (far more useful than that stupid Taj) and also, they helped abolish practices like sati, child marriage, female infanticide (items that Hindus were forced to adapt to keep themselves from Islamizing, as Dunk and Arjun pointed out above.)
Actually, I am a tad resentful about the Brits arrival in India, since it interrupted a Maratha takeover of much of India, and a de-Islamization process there. Otoh, Warren Hastings, the second Governer of the East India Company, abolished Farsi as an administrative language. That was a nail in the coffin of Islamic rule, since Farsi, rather than be a bridge between India and Persia, was more a linguistic vehicle of Moghul imperialism. Other administrative measures taken by the Brits were good, although their treatment of Hindu rulers left much to be desired.
No comparison between the Brits and the Mohammedans. But these days, I prefer the US influence in India, particularly via the tech boom.
Dunk
On the question of the caste system saving Hindus, I disagree. In Rajputana, the Rajputs were forced to carry the whole weight, with no military contributions from Brahmins, Vaishyas or Shudras. Given that many Rajput kingdoms were overrun by the likes of Alauddin Khilji, Akbar and Aurangzeb, it was an unwise decision.
However, the fact that India consisted of several hundred kingdoms at the time of Muslim invasions saved it, since every Muslim ruler, when they weren't infighting, had to undertake endless campaigns against different kingdoms. Imagine if Prithviraj Chauhan, instead of being the raja of just Delhi and Ajmer, was the samrat of all India, India's fate would have been identical to Iran. In Persia, their capital, Ctesipon, was situated near what is today Baghdad; once that fell to the Arabs, the whole Sassanid empire folded. Contrary to conventional wisdom, had India been one monolithic country, it would have gone the way of Persia.
thehindu,
no apology necessary.(under any circumstances- but particularly in this instance )as it is I who was lax in posting my thanks to you guys. In fact my query re the British was only posted a few hours ago !
Once again I am overwhelmed by your mine of information. My sincere thanks to you all.
Your opinion seemed to tally with my theory that the Brits, while still being guilty of being colonialists , did some good things for India.
Infidel Pride, I shall look for those books.
ps is my memory playing tricks or is there a newspaper in India called "the Hindu"? I seem to remember that.
protestcat
The Hindu is indeed a daily from Madras/Chenai, but the names a misnomer - it's a leftleaning paper. Nothing to do with Hinduism.
InfidelPride
Actually it was the caste system which allowed India to be a thoroughly decentralised country, thus allowing village India to remain immune from the centralising influence of Islam. As Sir Charles Metcalfe noted in 1930, India's village communities were little republics having nearly everything within themselves. "They seem to last where nothing else lasts.." . Marx also admiringly noted the fixed form of division of labour and self sufficient nature of the communities. "The structure of the economic elements of the society remains unaffected by the storms in the political weather"(Das Kapital)
The system was not hopelessly rigid and allowed flexibility during emergencies. So it's likely that the other castes pitched in with arms alongwith the Khshtriya, in final battles.
I think the caste vs islam hypothesis is worth a closer look.
Protestcat,
I agree with what thehindu and Infidel Pride state. The Brits, though did have their negative points, cannot be compared with islam. My only regret is, they came at a time when the Hindus were just starting to buck the muslim invasion.
Dunk,
Yes, it is a part of recorded history. The Brahmins, Vaishayas and the Shudras did fight with the Kshtriyas. Though it must be understood, very few of them did. Reason being that the warrior castes were drilled to be warriors from birth. Emphasis was on physical training and arms. Therefore when it came to leading an army, only the Kshtriyas had the physical and mental prowess. We must keep in mind that those battles, man to man combat using swords, are the worst type of warfare. There are very few people who can go to such a battlefield after the battle is over, and not be sick.
Indian friends. You are upset over a false version of history --whitewashing the Muslim aggression. You ascribe this false history to such as Gandhi, Nehru, the Congress party, and the so-called Left. I believe that problem in India is part of a more widespread pro-Muslim bias. Influential Britishers, such as Arnold Toynbee of the Royal Inst of Int'l Affairs, promoted this whitewash Islam attitude. So did the Communists, for whatever reasons. This Communist pro-Muslim policy was announced as far back as November or December 1917, not long after the bolshevik coup d'etat in Russia.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10/bolsheviks-for-jihad-genocide-stalins.html
It is significant that here bolshevik policy converged with British policy as it shaped up in the 1920s through 1940s under the guidance of Toynbee. A related problem for you [and for us in Israel] is the notion of a Third World, which would exist in natural harmony if not for the colonialists. Now, I do believe that Western powers have sometimes deliberately encouraged conflict among so-called 3rd World countries, but there are a lot of long-standing antagonisms among and within the so-called 3rd World lands [China, Japan, Korea; Arabs-Black Africans; Arabs-Jews-Eastern Christians; Hindus-Muslims, and so on]. If the 3rd world notion continues to hang on, it can only continue to justify the false history that you rightly deplore.
Eliyahu,
Most of the Hindus know the truth. Reason being that the daily life in India is so different than what is described in the textbooks. There are no "friendly neighbourhood muslims". The atmosphere in any city in India where there are muslims is always tense. Riots break out at the drop of a hat. And the Hindus are controlled, always controlled from retaliating. In case anyone wants to know, muslims do not live with Hindus. They have their own ghettos that surround their mosques. So, if you are travelling in India and see a minaret, understand that the population surrounding it is muslim. Most of them are poverty struck, they don't go to school. Those that do, choose teachining in madrasas over a decent job. .01 % actually have a job with a bank or a corporation. And NONE is a corporate head. Save for one muslim who owns a (what else) leather company. He buys the skins of all the sheep and goat slayed by muslims in mosques all over India. So, here is one more way of contributing to our cause. Don't buy leather. Most of it is from India.
Eliyahu
This thread is right now at the bottom of the pile, and should disappear in the next 6 hours. I'll try and make it short and sweet, and hope to resume it at some future thread.
Regardless of what the Brits, and even Communist Revisionists have written, you have to note that they haven't controlled the school curricula in the last 60 years. That has been under the control of Nehru's Congress in the last 55 out of those 60 years, of which 39 years had some member or another of Nehru's family as Prime Minister. But Arjun is correct when he says that the population knows better when what they learn in text books doesn't match a bit what they see with their own lying eyes. My parents both left East Bengal in 1946, and my father actually participated in the riots (something he regrets today, much to my disagreement). I've heard horror stories about Hindus who fled East Bengal (this is different from the ones who fled East Pakistan in 1971), which made me cringe: none of that was in our textbooks, but we knew better. There is a danger that as that generation dies out, future generations would be completely uninformed about that aspect of Indian history, since there wont be the word of mouth involved.
This history revisionism was something that the BJP led government that India last had tried to correct, but after it lost, the Congress led government, which this time does include Communists, reverted to that whitewashed version. But the Communist motivations here are driven more by a hatred of Hindu political forces (just as they oppose Christian potlitical forces in the US and Jewish ones in Israel). You may be fully correct about the Brits, but it would be self-deceiving to assume that they are driving this, since they have had nothing to do with Indian education for the past 60 years.
If you ever get a chance to read Nehru's "Glimpses of World History", which is a collection of his letters to his daughter Indira Gandhi, you'll see what I mean. Since you are erudite about Jewish and Israeli history, read what he had to say about the Jews and Israel. Then consider the following facts:
- He was Prime Minister from 1947-1964, while his daughter was Prime Minister from 1966 to 1984, with a brief interval in 1977-1980.
- He was one of the closest allies of President Nasser;
- His daughter was one of the closest allies of Arafat;
You'll then begin to understand why Indian foreign policy has been so viciously anti-Israel for the last 50 years, with some refreshing exceptions, such as the Durban conference on Racism, that took place shortly before 9/11. Note that India had a BJP government at the time.As a Hindu, I've always been outraged by India supporting the Jihad against Israel, when we weren't treated any better, and I suspect you'll see a lot of this among other Hindu posters here. None of this was ever the fault of the Brits; Gandhi, Nehru and their scions were/are among the biggest anti-Semites: you probably saw that for yourselves during Arun Gandhi's self serving visit to India.
Too bad Nathuran Godse doesn't have descendents today to take care of these vermin.
Oops, make that Arun Gandhi's self-serving visit to Israel and Palestinian-occupied terretories
arjun
like infidel pride here, i want to keep this short
your assessment of muslim participation in the growth of the Indian economy is minimal. Those particularly associated with poverty and violence are usually sunnis.
Most of them attend Madrassas, where there is a majority focus on islamic teaching.
However deviating from this stand are certain muslim communities such as the bohra shia muslims, a business community with fairly modern views. Business leaders such as Azim Premji (amongst india's richest businessmen and chairman of Wipro), Hameed of Indian pharma giant Cipla. Even the tanner you are talking about is probably Mirza from Mirza tanners.
While I condemn fascist islamic stance and I consider the Koran as a highly racist propagnada for evil, I nevertheless accept the contributions of these people as individuals.
While Sunnis are known to be violent,bohras have more peaceful reputations. The problem is that the moderation they claim to progress has no real effect on the Sunni majority which holds steadfast to a suspicious, complaining bully image
for a free world
thehindu
p.s to protestcat ..yes there is a newspaper with
the name "the hindu" noted for unbiased views. although i haven't used it as a connection for my posting id.
Arjun
Aren't there Hindu owned tanneries? Also, animals do die of natural causes, such as aging; they don't have to be slaughtered to get leather. So isn't this something that Hindus can do as well?
thehindu,
I didnt think there was any connection with your id. I was more marvelling how things can reappear from the darkest recesses of unconscious memory. ( I googled the n/paper and it was the masthead (logo) that had stuck in my mind ) Interesting that its left. ( tho neighbouring state Kerala is or was communist, no? ) I went through Madras 2-3 times. Nice town.
thehindu,
The Bohras you are talking about are not the muslims I am referring to. The Bohras are but a minority. In the entire state of MP and UP there are but a handful of Bohras. There are, however, teeming masses of mechanics, cycle repair, meat shops, refrigeration and air conditioning people. They choose all the menial occupations which give them time to bang their heads 5 times a day.
Infide Pride,
Yes, animals die of natural causes. But, you realize, that all that muslims love is meat. When they are killing for meat, the skins can obviously be sold. It is just a by product left over from eating. In every mosque, at least 20 -30 goats and sheep are butchered daily. This, in a mosque in my city where there are comparatively lesser no. of muslims than, say, Agra. And my city has over 30 mosques. That means a total of at least 600 skins.
thehindu,
I believe Azim Premji is a Zoroastrian. Enlighten me to the otherwise.
Infidel Pride,
There is also the factor of reverse trends. You must remember that we cannot enter Vaishnav temples, that means all of VishnuJee temples if we are wearing leather belts. The new generation went for leather in the 80's and the 90's. But now they are the members of PETA, and I see Tshirts with logos like "leather is dead skin, think about it" and "did your food have a face Go Veg". So increasingly youngsters are laying off leather. I myself do not wear leather and use soaps which are made from 100% vegetable oils. I am not absolute vegetarian. I like pork and fish. But that is occasional since the nearest pizza hut is 130 km away and I don't eat halal. And somehow bathing using soaps made from TFM, animal fat, revolts me.
arjun
This is news to me. I remember visiting Mathura, Vrindavan and Dwaraka temples several years ago, and no one checked us for belts. And I was so thin that I always wore one. Don't recall whether or not it was leather - think it was.
I see your point about the volumes involved, but any enterprising Hindu could run a leather business involving only animals that die of natural causes. That way, those who want to boycott Muslims can still get their belts, shoes and bags (although with international brands penetrating, I doubt that boycotting Muslim businesses is such a problem.)
I had no idea that PETA had such a following - how do people then have dairy, given the vegan fetish amongst this bunch? Actually, I am a non-vegetarian and a believer in the food chain, but I'm all for killing animals as humanely as possible (yeah, that sounds like an oxymoron to some, but ensuring that an animal doesn't feel pain while being killed is certainly better than halal, which makes anyone cringe.)
Infidel Pride,
At the Krishna Janmbhoomi temple, we have to take our all other leather items. Same for all the Vishnu temples in my city. Actually it was the standard norm before we were hit. We can wear belts in all the Shiva temples. I think you understand the reason. And the point about Hindus making leather. There are several synthetic substitutes for leather. The shoes that I wear for formal occasions look like leather, shine like leather, but are actually a variant of pvc. They are better than leather because I can wet them. And they last longer. Same case with jackets. There are leather look jackets. Some with dull finish and some with shine. Thanks to PETA, the leather market is on the decline. You must know that Bata is sustaining losses for the past 10 years.
Dairy and butchery are different over here Infidel Pride. Dairies are exclusively for milk. And you know what is going to happen to a guy who walks into a dairy and asks for beef.
arjun
hi yaar. azim hashim premji-bohra muslim according to my info. please check and let me know if you get info to the contrary..
thehindu,
Even if he is, I see these 2 examples as the exceptions that prove the rule. The wild eyed, bearded, skull capped, sack wearing muslims that I meet on the streets are the problem. You have given 2 examples, and the mirza tann. are rabid sunni, you only have to look at what they are dealing in to understand that. Tell me thehindu, if we can classify these entrepreneurs with these zombies. And premji has, according to my sources, never donated for construction of minarets. In other words, he is not a muslim. thehindu, I meet a lot of rabids on the streets nowadays. I am afraid sometimes.
Dear Arjun
You ask a difficult question. and I wish I had more time to answer your question. Can we classify these entrepreneurs with these zombies. First of all these zombies are easier to read, they are straightforward fascists.
Business leaders such as Azim and Hameed may be on the moderate side but there are many muslim businessmen, legal and illegal, who maintain a pleasant demeanour and yet maintain activities core to fascist islam. It is these individuals who, in my opinion, pose the greatest threat because they privately support or carry out acts of terrorism and yet manipulate democratic societies to label them as "good lawful people who are woefully misunderstood". They use "secular minded" individuals to create a protective cocoon around themselves and thereby render themselves immune to both criticism and opposition.
Our role is to keep on informing every infidel until he or she will not take taqiyya at face value. One soul awakened will spread the message. This is the way we fight to preserve our identity, so that we prevent ourselves from being subverted by such beasts again.
for a free world
the hindu