Sorry, CAIR: Hate crimes against Arab-Americans down since 9/11

HooperCBN.jpg
Time for Honest Ibe to call out the fiction writers

Of course, most Muslims worldwide are not Arabs, and most Arabs and native Arabic speakers in the United States are not Muslims, but this story is still extraordinarily significant in light of CAIR’s repeated claims that “anti-Muslim hate crimes” have risen sharply in the U.S. since 9/11. They know well that victimhood is big business: insofar as they can claim protected victim status for themselves, they can deflect unwanted scrutiny and any critical examination of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism.

That’s probably why CAIR and others have not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes.” They want hate crimes against Muslims, because they can use them for political points and as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad threat.

“Arab-American hate crimes down since 9/11,” from Reuters, December 4 (thanks to Axel):

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — Hate crimes against Arab Americans have decreased steadily since the September 11 attacks but are still more common than they were before the hijackings, a civil rights group said on Thursday.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said it received an average of 120 to 130 reports of ethnically motivated attacks or threats each year between 2003 and 2007, a sharp decrease from the 700 violent incidents it documented in the weeks following the 2001 attacks.

But that figure is still higher than the 80 to 90 reports it received in the late 1990s, the civil rights group said.

Incidents tended to increase after other terrorist attacks, such as the 2005 London subway bombings, the group said. Many incidents did not begin with a clear motivation of bias, but assailants would use racial or ethnic slurs as the situation intensified, the group said.

Incidents range from harassment and vandalism by neighbors to death threats from co-workers. One Arab American man in Alabama was shot by a customer who had been yelling racial slurs at a Middle Eastern restaurant in 2006, the group said….

They said.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Just heard on NPR Jamie Tarabay describe this report, and single out for mention two “attacks” on “Arab-Americans” — the shooting outside a restaurant in Albama, and an attack on a pregnant woman (I can’t remember where). Tarabay notes that the “FBI investigated” both “crimes.” But curiously, she doesn’t tell us what the FBI found out as a result of its investigations. Could it be because the FBI decided these attacks were not quite as the Arab-American group — now taken over by Muslims and a handful of willng islamochristians, to the great dismay of many Lebanese-Americans who realize how that organization has been…what’s the word? Hijacked. — claimed, perhaps did not occur or if they occurred were not really considered “hate crimes”?

    I’d like the full story on this. Can anyone supply it?

  2. says

    Unfortunately it is the Sikhs of India that are continuously mistaken as Muslims because of the beard and the turban. If you see a man walking down on American streets wearing a turban, there is 99.9% chance that he is a Sikh, a follower of a monotheistic religion that started in the 15th century in India. Sikhs proudly wear the turban as part of their religious and cultural heritage. Sikhs are often mistaken for Muslims or Arabs. They are neither — not that being Arab or Muslim is a justification for making people targets of hatred. However, Sikhism is an independent religion and does not recognize Islamic law.

    Sikhs do not cut their hair and live the way God made us. The way God made us is the most beautiful of all. Our hair and turban are the symbol of our love towards God and the respect for everything He gave us. To Christians, even Bible says, “God loves us and cares so much about us that even all the hairs of our head has well counted” (Matt.10:30). If one look carefully at FBI statistics they are more likely to find attacks on this Indian sect than on actual Muslims in America.

  3. says

    Mackie,

    Nice to meet you and find out you are Sikh. Yes, there have been a number of attacks against Sikhs in America as they are often mistaken as Muslims…the motivation for the attack however remains, they intend to assail Muslims only because they are Muslim.

    I heard of an unfortunate case, I think it was in Texas, where a Sikh was shot and killed in a filling station because the attacker thought he was a Muslim.

    I was accosted once by an arguementative author who brought up the fact that he thought Sikhs held the opinion that they were not compliant with their faith unless they were carrying a knife.

    Is that true? Do you have to carry a knife at all times?

    I knew about the sacred nature in which you view your hair, but does that extend to nails as well…it is after all hair folicle of another sort.

    Interested, please respond.

    Peace
    Abdullah Mikail

  4. says

    Does anybody else see the irony in “Hezbollah-Gate” Reuters reporting this? There had to be a reason for them to have reported this. Reuters would normally try to hide this kind of thing. They’re the news agency that fabricated all kinds of destruction in Lebanon, from claiming that Israel had bombed an ambulance to having the same eyebrowless woman in front of multiple houses that were supposedly hers which had supposedly been destroyed, and of the “Green Helmet Man” at 15 or so disaster sites all over the place. They of course showed none of the destruction in Israel, who were of course only defending themselves.

    http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2006/08/10/meditations-on-reutersgate-whats-going-on-in-the-msm/

    http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

  5. says

    It’s the Five K’s.

    From a Sikh site:

    Kesh – uncut hair and beard, as given by God, to sustain him or her in higher consciousness; and a turban, the crown of spirituality.

    Kangha – a wooden comb to properly groom the hair as a symbol of cleanliness.

    Katchera – specially made cotton underwear as a reminder of the commitment to purity.

    Kara – a steel circle, worn on the wrist, signifying bondage to Truth and freedom from every other entanglement.

    Kirpan – the sword, with which the Khalsa is committed to righteously defend the fine line of the Truth.

  6. says

    Unlike your kind, slave to “allah” (that doesn’t exist) – Sikhs aren’t mass-murderers.

    Your kind, slave to “allah” (that doesn’t exist), Mohammedans, are mass-murderers.

    So shut up trying to compare your Barbarian self to Sikhs. Nice try, Barbarian abdullah.

    Lies, War, Mass-Murder, Hate, and a pagan moon god that doesn’t exist, Abdullah Mikaaeeellelelle.

  7. says

    Since the subject of the Sikhs has arisen: let us remember that they eventually came to be some of India’s fiercest and bravest resisters of Jihad.

    Sikh posters: it might be very useful if you can link us to a range of images depicting typical Sikh men and women, in modern and in traditional Indian dress, so that those of us western Infidels who haven’t met Sikhs face to face, or have only met a few now and then, may have a better chance at distinguishing them from the Mohammedans, if occasion arises.

    It seems to me, sometimes, that as the Knights of St John or the IDF (among others) in the West, so the Sikh warriors (among others) in the East: the antibodies, so to speak, that are eventually produced by a peace-preferring Golden Rule civilisation, if it manages to survive the initial onslaught of the Jihad.

    Such societies *must* produce, and go on producing, such antibodies if they mean to prevail.

  8. says

    CAIR is in trouble and they need to move all of the attention off of them and get ‘islamophobia’ back in the media.

    I anticipate some new ‘fabricated attacks’ on muslims in 5,4,3,2,1.

  9. says

    Isn’t it amusing how the slave to “allah” (that doesn’t exist) is trying to insinuate himself with the Sikh? LOL! That’s hilarious! Nice try, Slave to a Mass-Murder “religion.”

  10. says

    A “vile cretin” as RS called AM the Islamic Barbarian a few threads ago.

    Vile (and Bile) cretin, abdullard the slave to a vicious and repellent pagan moon deity that doesn’t exist!

  11. says

    CAIR should learn from the muslims in one British town.

    In 2001 when the local police chief went public about the number of whites being beaten up by “Asians” a cheering meeting in the Asian community centre demanded his resignation. You see while the statistics supported his statement that “whites are being so badly and so frequently it is only a matter of time before one of them is killed”. That was only because his police were so racist “Asians” had stopped reporting attacks on them!

    Got that? If statistics show more “Asians” are being attacked than whites that islamophobia and bad. But if the statistics show more whites than Asians are being attacked that’s islamophobia AND police racism and very, very bad.

    BTW the police chief was “retired”.

  12. says

    Damn typo

    “whites are being beaten so badly and so frequently that it is only a matter of time before one of them is killed”.

    BTW I was at a lecture a few years ago when a leading historian said,

    “The Sikhs began as a pacific faith but it was attacks by muslims that compelled them to become warriors to defend themselves”

    Any comments?

  13. says

    From the Quasi Apostate AM……’the motivation for the attack however remains, they intend to assail Muslims only because they are Muslim’.

    Playing victim again AM? Poor picked on Mohammadans…

    Nice try…but you have to do better than that…
    It’s a little more complicated than that…

    If Mohammadans are attacked at all, in the US, it is because of Islams lousy reputation, and that more and more kufrs are catching on…Not all kufrs are as nice as those posting here…
    Much to your dismay…

    Of course, there are street punks who attack people just because they are there.
    Mohammadans take their chances with these demons in training like everyone else does.
    It’s nothing personal, just Saturday night entertainment…

    Does Typepad offer retirement benefits for a lifetime of signing in?

  14. says

    I worked with a Sikh when I started my career 20 years ago. He wore western dress and would go drinking with us after work. He was a contractor and he moved on as contractors do in my business, but we kept in touch by phone for a while. He moved to be closer to his extended family, and when he did he gravitated back to traditional dress and custom. As he said, “Oh, you would not recognize me now”.

    So I have recognized turban wearing fellows as Sikh ever since knowing this man. For a while I was buying my beer at a 7-11 staffed by Sikhs. One fellow there had a beard so long, he parted it in the middle and tied the halves together at the top of his turban. Ya just gotta love LA, we have at least one or two of anyone you can imagine.

    On Hughs 5 K’s: I thought the bangles worn by Sikhs were silver, not steel. But I could be wrong, I’ve demonstrated that capability before. Hah!

    One God, Ten Gurus
    Richard

  15. says

    Several years ago, where I described Muslim aggression as in my view explaining the origins of so obviously a fighting faith as Sikhism, one poster put up an excerpt from Wikipedia:

    ” Guru Tegh Bahadur became Guru in 1665 and led the Sikhs until 1675, when he sacrificed his life to save the Kashmiri Hindus who had come to him for help.

    In 1675, Aurangzeb publicly executed the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur. Guru Tegh Bahadur sacrificed himself to protect Hindus, after Kashmiri pandits came to him for help when the Emperor condemned them to death for failing to convert to Islam. This marked a turning point for Sikhism. His successor, Guru Gobind Singh further militarised his followers”

    Then “Infidel Pride,” whose comments I always look forward to, gently corrected me:

    “The Sikh of the warrior-religion that was founded mainly as a defense against Islam (the kshatriya or warrior caste of the Hindus not being fierce enough)” – Hugh

    “Hugh

    Sikhism was founded in the 1500 by Guru Nanak, who triangulated himself equally between Hinduism and Islam, stating that both were paths to God, as well as the modern American mantras you mention above: “”Everyone Is the Same” and “Everyone Wants the Same Thing” and “All Religions Mean the Same Thing””. That was the assumption of his followers, and he as well as the initial Gurus who followed him maintained that equi-distance.

    Fast-forward 200 years later, when the war between the Moghuls and Afghans were settled, and the Moghuls were done conquering Northern India, and then, the persecution of Sikhs started. As stated above, it came to a head when Emperor Aurangzeb reversed a policy of limited tolerance that had started under Akbar, and progressively declined under the next two emperors. That was when the ninth Sikh Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur. Guru Tegh Bahadur sacrificed himself to protect Hindus, after Kashmiri pandits came to him for help when the Emperor condemned them to death for failing to convert to Islam.

    Following that execution, his son – Guru Gobind Singh – made the Sikhs a martial lot, and started a war against the Moghuls. It had little to do with Kshatriyas not being fierce enough. As the Moghul aggression continued, the Kshatriyas i.e. first the Rajputs, then the Marathas – retaliated, and by the mid 1700s, the Moghul empire was history.

    Thus, the Sikhs, who started out equally distant from Hindus and Muslims, figured out who was willing to live and let live, and more importantly, who wasn’t.

    [Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 21, 2006]

    Despite my being corrected (and chastened) by this posting, I still wonder if indeed the warrior aspect of the Sikhs developed only as a response to the execution of Guru Tegh Bahadur. And one other thing occurs to me. It is the thought of the 400,000 Kashmiri pandits who in recent decades were driven out by Muslim persecutors and tormentors, but this time, no new Guru Tegh Bahadur was allowed to come to their aid, and I still do not understand why the Indian government did not intervene.

    Perhaps, if “Infidel Pride” is reading this, or someone else with a close familiarity with Indian politics, can explain that to me.

    In any case, when I used to travel more, it was always a relief, at Heathrow, to see those turbans and not, as I do now in some American airports, hijabs, on women doing security checks.

  16. says

    One could look at this report in different ways. Are the tiny number of attacks on Muslims post 9/11 a sign that Americans are extremely decent people who desire legal justice rather than vigilante justice? Or are Americans simply so indoctrinated, effete and deluded as to be sleepwalking (sleeprunning, more like) into a much worse situation, that of being controlled financially, culturally and spirtually by a sharia-friendly UN and Saudi owned multinational corporations who have bought our government and business world lock, stock and barrel?

  17. says

    From the Quasi Apostate AM……’the motivation for the attack however remains, they intend to assail Muslims only because they are Muslim’.

    Playing victim again AM? Poor picked on Mohammadans…

    Nice try…but you have to do better than that…
    It’s a little more complicated than that…

    If Mohammadans are attacked at all, in the US, it is because of Islams lousy reputation, and that more and more kufrs are catching on…Not all kufrs are as nice as those posting here…
    Much to your dismay…

    Of course, there are street punks who attack people just because they are there.
    Mohammadans take their chances with these demons in training like everyone else does.
    It’s nothing personal, just Saturday night entertainment…

    Does Typepad offer retirement benefits for a lifetime of signing in?

  18. says

    If you examine statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice, you will see that there has been a general decline in violent crime, including hate crimes. The last figures I saw were for 2006, and they showed hate crimes against Jews outnumber hate crimes against Muslims, in terms of both raw numbers and normalized for population.

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

  19. says

    I have come to respect the Sikhs significantly the more I have become familiar with their faith. That’s why I was all the more offended by reading Abdullah Mikhail’s post above, which had as its intention the achievement of a false solidarity between Sikhs and Muslims.

    On numerous occasions I have had the opportunity to speak with Sikhs here in America. I would like to narrate two such times.

    One I spoke with in New Jersey last year told me directly that Sikhs had no quarrel with Christians, Jews, Hindus or Buddhists. When I asked him about Muslims, he paused and then said that Americans were beginning to find out about Muslims what Sikhs have known about them for centuries. He said this with regret and sadness in his heart.

    On another occasion when I was in New York City (this year), I found myself in a taxi driven by a Sikh. He was most kind and animated after I expressed an interest in his origins in the Punjab. We talked on many subjects, including his great admiration for America. I asked him, as I had the Sikh I met in New Jersey, about relations with those of other faiths. He first of all expressed admiration for Mother Teresa and for her Catholicism. He spoke warmly of Buddhists and Jews. But he then went on and indicated that Sikhs have had significant difficulties with Muslims for innumerable years, going back to Sikh origins in the sixteenth century. I sensed that he sensed that I knew that he knew that he could trust me to reveal some of his innermost thoughts to me about the Islamic faith. The taxi cab ride closed with his proudly showing me a picture of his very young daughter, for whom he obviously had deep love. Memorable.

    Abduallah Mikhail, you are a liar. There was, to my knowledge, only one attack on a Sikh and that was in Arizona shortly after 9/11 by an ignoramus who didn’t know the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim (and let me state here unreservedly that an unprovoked attack on a Muslim in America should be punished to the full extent of the law). Provide other examples of Sikhs being attacked in this country. I say you can’t. And consider well what I’ve written above. That is all.

  20. says

    Abdullah,

    I wonder how you grapple with 25 centuries of vacant proto-Islamic history regarding Ishmael and absence of pre-Mohametan vorlages of the distinctive Islamic narratives.

    Is it true?

    I knew about your disdain for jahiliyya, but does that extend to the lineage of the “prophet” as well…it is after all a pivotal point. If Islam cannot produce any archaeology to substantiate its claims to truth, then perhaps Islam will just cease to exist, and your imagined hate crime epidemic will evaporate.

    Interested, please respond.

    Peace
    Concerned Citizen

    P.S. Allah is not YHWH.

  21. says

    darcy sez:

    “Isn’t it amusing how the slave to “allah” (that doesn’t exist) is trying to insinuate himself with the Sikh? LOL! ”

    Isn’t it amusing how the slaves of Allah claim that they are the ‘new Jews’ when it suits them?

    Hugh,

    I travelled around India many years ago and visited Amritsar and the Golden Temple. I talked with many Sikhs at that time who told me that the warrior caste of Sikhism and the 5 ‘K’s were all based on resisting Islam. I remember going to some kind of museum where the horrors of Islam against the Sikhs were depicted in great murals.

    Much later there was a revolt from a fundamentalist Sikh group hiding out in the golden temple which was put down by Indira Ghandi. I believe she was later assassinated for that.

    Unfortunately, the history of Sikh resistance against Muslims doesn’t seem to be well documented and searches on the web don’t yield much..

    Just my 5 cents…

  22. says

    no new Guru Tegh Bahadur was allowed to come to their aid, and I still do not understand why the Indian government did not intervene.

    Hugh,

    The reasons for Indian government inaction are manifold. State of Jammu and Kashmir consist of 3 distinct regions, Jammu, Kashmir valley and Ladakh. Nerhu, himself an anglicised Kashmiri Pandit, enshrined into Indian constitution something an article called Article 370. Which gives Kashmir a special status in the Indian Union. Of 28 states within Indian union, only Kashmir has its own constitution and a non-Kashmiri Indian does not have right to domicile in Kashmir ensuring that 65-35 (Muslim non-Muslim ratio) is now 85-15. Kashmir valley itself now is 99% Muslim from 88-90% in 1989. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370 ).

    So Indian federal government itself has less effective power over the state than it does over other states in the union. The state government of Kashmir itself is filled with soft-Islamists and Islamist sympathisers. And it is little known fact that India had almost lost Kashmir when the jihad started in earnest back in 1990. Then the governer (New Delhi’s representative there) in Kashmir did something what the federal government in Delhi didnt have balls to do… He fired the state parliament and called in the army. By that time it was already too late for the Pandits. Most of them had been driven away. But the reign of terror Indian army unleashed under his direction effectively stopped the Jihadists from driving away Hindus from Jammu and Buddhists from Ladakh. For all his efforts, he was branded an Islamophobe in Delhi and sacked. The gentleman’s name was Jagmohan Malhotra and he wrote a book about his time as a governer of Kashmir and start of Jihad in Kashmir. Its called “My frozen turbulence in Kashmir”. ( http://books.google.com/books?id=CWjLtfi-ssIC&dq=My+Frozen+Turbulence+in+Kashmir&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=_vqrPf5XGs&sig=F2kpYlmOoC1Ep6xftKTS67C9L4U&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPP1,M1 ).

    He could be regarded as the Teg Bahadur for the Hindus of the state. As for Kashmiri Pandits they continue to live in their refugee camps in Delhi with very few tears shed over them. Indian government doesnt even class them as refugees of war. They are officially and in the the media, referred to as “Kashmiri migrants” like in this story from an indian newspaper ( http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Oct262008/national2008102697373.asp?section=scrollingnews ). Their treament is partially due to the fact that they are Brahmins. Indias Marxist historians have successfully managed to brand Brahmins as feudal caste oppressors with no right to public empathy or state help. As for Jagmohan his legacy has been reviled as Islamophobic and he remains largely unkown even in India.

  23. says

    Also since the beginning of the Jihad, Indian government has stopped collecting taxes from the people of Kashmir while billions of dollars are wasted on the state to win hearts and minds. Local municipal councils across towns and cities in Kashmir arent required to fly Indian flag unlike rest of the country.

  24. says

    SHIEK: “Much later there was a revolt from a fundamentalist Sikh group hiding out in the golden temple which was put down by Indira Ghandi. I believe she was later assassinated for that.”

    I remember it well…1984 I believe. Ghandi had pursued the old divide-and-conquer strategy vis-a-vis the Sikhs and the electoral challenge presented by the moderate Sikh ‘Akali Dal Party’ (sic?). She did so by secretly funding the Sikh extremists led by Bindhrawali (sic?), hoping the community would divide, with Congress winning the spoils.

    To Ghandi’s dismay, Bindrhawali developed a massive cult following and eventually seized the Golden Temple. Indira was compelled to use force against Sikhism’s holiest shrine, and the cause of an independent ‘Khalistan’ (Punjab) became an overnight sensation among Sikhs around the world.

    Because of the Sikh’s martial philosophy, they were/are over-represented in India’s armed forces (2% of the population, but 12% of the military). Indira’s body-guards were Sikh, and they sought revenge for the attack on the Golden Temple by ruthlessly gunning her down.

    In the aftermath, over 1000 Sikhs were killed in nationwide rioting. As is often the case in communal violence, many Sikhs were sheltered by their Hindu friends.

    Thankfully, the dream of an independent Khalistan has waned, and the two communities have largely buried the hatchet. They’ll need to be in solidarity with one another as the Muslim demographic/immigration rise continues to alter India’s identity.

  25. says

    Abdullah is a reminder of the more scurvy elements mingled amongst us all peaceful and sentient beings, globally.

    His defense of his own mindset, and those of his Muslim brethren, also his child-raping, murderous prophet, always falls far short of its intended Dawah target.

    Shocking, I know.

    Abdullah is merely a slave, devoid of a true soul that you and I recognize.

    He is one that believes in and defends, a “deity” that demands ultimate suffering and sacrafice in life, only to be rewarded with endless hedonistic pleasures in the afterlife, of course after killing non-Muslims as a pre-requisite.

    Muslims are not to be taken as rational human beings. They are simply “kings” in the world of the duped.

    Now, how to segregate them into their own personal pit of misery?

    That is indeed the $64,000.000 question.

    Whatever anyone does, don’t ask Auster, for he has no concrete answers.

  26. says

    Thanks for that, Corni.

    Its really unfortunate that there is no comprehensive history of Sikhs vs Muslim colonization/oppression written.

    Is there no interest in the Indian community to take this up?

  27. says

    Thanks for that, Corni.

    Its really unfortunate that there is no comprehensive history of Sikhs vs Muslim colonization/oppression written.

    Is there no interest in the Indian community to take this up?

    Actually I think many people knows it. We are taught as part of history lessons. Sometimes the uglier elements of Islam are glossed over but the message gets through alright.

    Vikrant,

    Kashmiris are brahmin because Kashmiri Shaivism does not permit caste system, thus everyone is a pundit ( brahmin ). I don’t think that is a reason why they have been glossed over, it is due to the blind spot when it comes to Islam that prevents them from acknowledging the plight of Kashmiri pandits or many unfortunate regions in the north east.

    I did know about Jagmohan Malhotra before coming to this site, but it is an exception – many people do not even know about the cleansing of the Kashmiri pandits from the valley. It is not something regularly brought up on TV or news when talking about how oppressed the Kashmiri muzzies are and why they want Pakistan.

  28. says

    I once had a Sikh student, a delightful young man who probably taught me more than I taught him. He was quiet and somewhat reserved but friendly, and eager to share the history of his people with me and the class when he realized how interested we were. He was also extremely bright, probably the best student I ever had. When he talked about islam and muslims he became a different person; agitated, angry, resentful, and sometimes his hands would tremble, but he never raised his voice or used abusive or profane language. Considering the graphically violent, cruel, inhuman behavior of the muslims depicted in his narratives, I don’t know how he managed to maintain his composure as well as he did. He hated them with a vengeance but he never said that, although his body language and facial expressions made it obvious. He told me in private on many occasions that muslims were evil, treacherous, and could never be trusted. I already knew that but I couldn’t say it.

    I hope every student in that class remembers well what he told them about muslims in India and what they did to the Hindus and other non-muslims, what they are still doing. If they paid attention, they had a heads-up on 9/11 and are well ahead of most Americans in understanding the evil of islam.

    The horrors the young Sikh recounted have been repeated by muslim fanatics hundreds of times since 9/11, not only in India and Pakistan but throughout the world. Amazing what a “few radicals” are capable of doing.

  29. says

    Well, well, well: we’ve seized the ball from A. M. and run with it, and now every new person that comes to this site, and reads this thread, now or in the future, especially the non-Indians, will know a whole lot more about Sikhs, and about Indian history, and Kashmir, than they did before.

    Somehow I suspect A. M. is regretting he introduced the subject…

  30. says

    Correction to the above.

    On further reflection I see that Mackie introduced the topic of the Sikhs being mistaken for Muslims: and that slight change of topic was quite a good idea, since we have now all learned a great deal, especially from susanp and wellington’s memories of what they learned from their own encounters with individual Sikhs, and also from the valuable contributions of our various non-Muslim Indian friends.

    I have read my way slowly through much of the archives here, and I do not think that there has been any comparable discussion of this subject, covering such a lot of ground in such a brief space, at any time in the preceding four or five years.

  31. says

    Re the Sikhs: An aged couple living in a small house near my home often take walks nearby and occasionally sit on a low stone wall to rest. He wears a purple turban and she wears a sari. I’ve always assumed they were Sikhs and have waved as I’ve driven by. Immediately after the Muslim atrocities in Bombay, an American flag appeared, draped out of a window of that couple’s house.

  32. says

    It’s pretty easy to tell a Sikh from a Muslim. Sikh never have that characteristic dead-cow cult-member glare. They engage you and converse with you naturally and unassumingly, unlike Muslims, who are never able to actually talk *with* infidels, only at us, from behind their characteristic wall of narcissism and deluded supremacy and often with a saccharinity which is so extreme that they often use fake voices which they think we will find more appealing, but which are invariably quite creepy. Sikhs are human, whereas Muslims, not by a long-shot, not as far their dealings with infidels are concerned.

    As far as the way they look, Sikh turbans are much different, and if Sikh women veil themselves in any way, it’s always with a loose veil gently draped, not an airtight hijab that chokes them and makes that hideous bulge in the back of their heads. Sikhs almost always have ‘Singh’ somewhere in their names, too.

  33. says

    What is it with this childish nonsense about hate or “hate sites”!

    While “hate crimes” like all crimes are wrong, hate itself is not always wrong. Indeed, hate is positively the correct disposition toward things truly hateful, like Islamic fundamentalism and its evil seeds Islamic terrorism and Islamic oppression. Now I know Robert Spencer does not want his site to be regarded as a “hate site” – there is too much politically correct nonsense about “hate” – but if he were tomorrow to create another site named “HateIslamicFascism.org” with the avowed purpose of generating uncompromising hatred toward militant Islam, Islamic terrorists and their supporters everywhere, I would see nothing wrong in it. And I don’t see anything wrong in scathing criticisms of those morons who would, in this day and age, embrace such a fascist 7th century con concocted by such an obvious imposter and megalomaniac. Hatred of the hateful is to be recommended.

  34. says

    06/12/08

    Sikhs are great entreprenuers and will be an important productive section of any society. I quote a report on them in Canada.

    ” The extroadinarily delicious berries of the Canadian province of British Columbia beckon you Fraser Valley, just over 100km from Vancouver. Travel 400km interior and the blueberry and srawberry farms give way to orchards of plum cgerries and strawberry farms give way to plump cherries, apricots, apples- much of the fruit grown and harvested by Sikh farmers of Indian origin.”

    Here are some facts:

    Statistic Canada reported for the year 2008 that 20,000 of the 29,870 farm operators in British Columbia arwe Sikh. They own three fourths of the agricultural lans in the state.

    Farmland costs here $100,000 per acre.

    Sikhs grow strawberries, blueberries, rasberries the Fraser Valley and apples, apricots and cherries in neighbourhood Okanagan Valley

    150,000 Sikhs live in British Columbia. 100,000 are in the agricultural sector.

    Sikhs in India dominate in manufacture of automobile components and the related retail trade. They hard working and fun loving. You ask any Sikh cab driver in USA, what his children are doing; the answer invariably will be that they are going to be engineers or doctors.