Misunderstanders of Islam gather together and misunderstand the inner spiritual struggle. "Pakistani hardliners vow holy war to liberate Kashmir," by Sajjad Qayyum for AFP, March 23:
KOTLI, Pakistan -- Pakistani hardliners on Tuesday vowed to wage a holy war to liberate the disputed Himalayan state of Kashmir from Indian control.About 5,000 people attended a rally in the town of Kotli in Pakistan-administered Kashmir about 80 kilometres (50 miles) east of Islamabad, shouting: "We are ready for jihad (holy war), we are ready for jihad!" [...]
"Diplomacy, talks and negotiations spanned over several decades have not worked," said Syed Salahuddin, chairman of the United Jihad Council, which consists of 16 Islamist groups, militant outfits and political parties.
"The only way to liberate Kashmir is jihad," said Salahuddin, who also leads Hizbul Mujahedin, a militant group fighting Indian rule in Kashmir.
He denied that the jihadi groups were behind attacks within Pakistan.
More than 3,100 people have been killed in suicide attacks and bomb blasts across the nation since July 2007, which are blamed on Islamist militants opposed to the government's alliance with the United States.
Tuesday's rally was also attended by leaders of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), a charity widely viewed as a front for banned Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) which India and the United States blamed for the Mumbai attacks.
A resolution adopted after the meeting said: "Jihad will continue until India ends its occupation of Kashmir."
And beyond that, no doubt.
All things considered India has restrained itself up to this point. I think the Islamists are making a big mistake by putting Kashmir on the table like this. If they choose to pick this half formed scab they will see a very different India in the days to come. I doubt India will play the same game as the Allies in Afganistan - regardless of the political balancing act with Pakistan.
Nothing that Indian politicians do will surprise me. They are so busy kissing muslim ass for vote bank politics that they do not even recognize that there is a problem. Only a truly nationalist party can deal a lethal blow to jihadis.
http://www.avraidire.eu/2010/03/bloguer-le-coran-sourate-2-la-vache-versets-141-210/
BLOGUER LE CORAN EN FRANCAIS
BLOGGING THE QUR'an in french
And don't misunderstand. If India gives in on Kashmir, that will simply whet Muslim appetites, and next will be the rest of India, possibly beginning with a takeover of West Bengal by all those Muslims who have been moving in from Bangladesh, hoping to enjoy a better life, with the rule of quasi-law, under Indian rule, but also, like Muslims everywhere, determined to kill their local host because they don't understand that it was really Islam, Islamic everything, that made their lives so unpleasant and difficult in Bangladesh.
Yes, today Kashmir, tomorrow the rest of India. I don't know why so many Indians, especially of the supposedly educated class that for too long has been sedulously aping so-called British and American intellectuals in their inability to think through the ideology of Islam -- what is it that keeps them from it? Bollywood Muslim stars which must mean that Islam is just fine. Embarrassment over anyone thinking they might be -- horribile dictu -- too "communal" (this word means, in Indian terms, too Hindi-centric or Hindu-solicitous. God, can't they read Nirad C. Chaudhury or V. S. Naipual, rather than Paul Nizan and Edward Said? Why do Indians have to be as dumb, given their long history of horrors under Muslim rule (no, Akbar does not count, and William "Okkidental" Dalrymple has no right to claim the syncretistic and superior Akbar for Islam), about Islam?
Possibly the temptation to appease Muslims, to give in to their demands, varies greatly from state to state -- the individual states that constitute India have much greater autonomy, and vary much more, than outsiders, who know of French departements,or Swiss cantons, or English counties, or even American states in the Federal system, appear to realize.
Today Kashmir, tomorrow all of India. At least that is what the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis and not a few Indian Muslims, will think.
From Wikipedia
“The region is divided among three countries in a territorial dispute: Pakistan controls the northwest portion (Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir), India controls the central and southern portion (Jammu and Kashmir) and Ladakh, and China controls the northeastern portion (Aksai Chin and the Trans-Karakoram Tract). India controls the majority of the Siachen Glacier area including the Saltoro Ridge passes, whereas Pakistan controls the lower territory just southwest of the Saltoro Ridge. India controls 141,338 km2 (54,571 sq mi) of the disputed territory, Pakistan 85,846 km2 (33,145 sq mi) and China, the remaining 37,555 km2 (14,500 sq mi).”
I don’t think that the Islamist will declare Jihad on the Chinese for their control of the Aksai Chin and the Trans-Karakoram Tract of the Kashmir territory.
Kind Regards, Farside
Diplomacy, talks and negotiations spanned over several decades have not worked," said Syed Salahuddin, chairman of the United Jihad Council, which consists of 16 Islamist groups, militant outfits and political parties.
Translation from Islamspeak: The infidel Hindus have failed to capitulate to our non-negotiable demand to hand over Kashmir as a Muslim waqf, accept Shari'a, Muslim supremacy, and pay jizya. Therefore, we rescind our benevolent offer to allow Kashmir to be ceded to us bloodlessly, and we will resort to qital - full-blown armed combat - to achieve this.
Hugh, most Indians have been brainwashed by the media, history books, politicians, the entertainment media, and even their religious leaders that the Muslims and Hindus are like brothers (Hindu Muslim bhai bhai). That Islam and Hinduism are compatible. That Muslims want what Hindus want, peace, love, stability, kindness, etc. That past moghul rule was benign, that only the British were evil people who stole all the wealth of India. In addition any thing deemed to be anti Islamic or anti Muslim is banned because it is communal,( hurts Muslim feelings). However the 500 lb gorilla across the border in Pakistan is fair game. what the Indians don't realize is that there is another 500 lb gorilla on their side.
A little history about Kashmir, The British wanted the partition to take place according to the numbers of Hindu or Muslims in the state. It was up to the ruler of that state to join with either India or Pakistan depending on the wishes of their people. Kashmir has a vast north which is mostly Muslim and a small south mostly Hindu and a smal east which is Buddhist. The people didn't want to join with either countries but wanted independance, to be the Switzerland of the east. As the Hindu ruler pondered this decision, the newly created Pakistan got impatient and invaded anyways from the west. The ruler quickly decided that the Kashmiris will never get independence from Pakistan agreed to join India. India sent in it's troops to fight the Pakistanis to protect it's state. the fighting stopped but Pakistan occupied the western and upper northern parts of Kashmir or POK( Pakistan occupied Kashmir). Pakistan demanded a plebiscite to decide which side Kashmir wanted to join. India agreed as long as their whole state of Kashmir voted on this. India waited for Pakistan to leave POK. Pakistan never did. so there was no plebiscite. This is where it stands today with Pakistan occupying large parts of Kashmir. They even gave permission for china to take a part of eastern Kashmir for road construction without the approval of kashmiris. As far as I know the USA has never asked Pakistan to leave POK.
as for the kashmiris in POK, they hate paki rule. pakis rule POK with an iron fist. They send in paki settlers. They train and send terrorists across the border to kill Indians and those kashmiris they don't like.
Hindus are extremely nice people, and therein lies the problem. As Leo Durocher put it: "Nice guys finish last".
As long as liberal governments rule in India, USA, Europe, etc, Islam will keep slaughtering us non-muslims in a wholesale manner because leftist ideology (unless its communist) abhors warfare and violence to secure our safety. Actually Hindu ideology is largely liberal as well. Liberals think killing terrorists/evil people is immoral and makes us just as bad as them. Hence this moral contradiction (as they see it) forces them to be pacifists.
Its why Obama has undone a lot of the measures Bush put into place to protect America. Also they believe if someone hates us its always our fault-never mind that they follow a fascist totalitarian death cult which teaches conversion, subjugation or killing of non-adherents, we're to blame for their anger and violence against us.
So while us right-minded people can see the enemy as clear as day and know they must be eliminated, we're powerless to stop these religion psychopaths until the right wing/nationalists parties gain power. Even some of them don't fully understand what is patently obvious to us-that Islam is in a global war to conquer all of humanity.
I don't have a lot of faith in the Indian government doing anything about this. They did NOTHING after the Mumbai massacre, except stamp their feet a lot and whine to Pakistan to do more. They also have not adequately prepared to fight the muslims either within or without India (who want to reconquer it) nor face the Chinese threat.
So its more likely many thousands or millions of people will pay with their lives for government ineptitude, incompetence and fecklessness until they're forced to take action. Frankly such leftists are just as dangerous as the jihadists because they enable them to carry out their attacks rather than stop them.
I believe in the end Good (civilized free world) will eventually triumph over Evil (Islam)-the leftists will get booted out of power in the West and perhaps India, but not until things get much worse and a lot of innocent people will have died needlessly.
To see proof of this, just look at the incredible chasm between the people who are very astute about Islam who post on boards like this and youtube, versus the mainstream media and our ruling elites (and the masses), who still have absolutely no clue and think we're at war with a handful of smelly bearded men in caves with ak47s. We're in for some rough times but freedom-loving people like us must rise and demand a world without Islam.
As Kashmir to India, so the Arab Muslim-occupied Judea, Samaria and Gaza, to Israel; as Kashmir to India, so also the southern provinces of the Philippines, with their dangerous, sullen and violent Muslim population, to the rest of the Philippines; and the southern provinces of Thailand, to the rest of Thailand.
One encounters the same meaningless 'talks'; the same futile 'peace processing'; the same sham temporary 'agreements' that are made (in which the non-Muslim side always gives up more than the Muslims ever do, and is always betrayed).
The Southern Sudanese and the Christians and animists of southern Nigeria should know, too, by now, that any 'peace accord' or arrangement that is made with Muslims, is a snare and a delusion.
The Buddhist, Christian and Hindu tribes of the Chittagong Hill Tracts made an 'accord' with the (Muslim-dominated) government of Bangladesh, in 1997. I doubt that particular 'hudna' - which is all that it was - lasted even ten years; but certainly today, the jihad has resumed in full force.
Frankly, all non-Muslim entities everywhere in the world that have 'agreements' of any kind with Muslims, should take a long, cold, hard look at those 'agreements'; and if, as will most likely appear from such scrutiny, the advantage turns out all to have accrued to the Muslim side, and the non-Muslim side has already suffered, or is going to suffer, material harm, and what is more, the Muslims appear to be breaching the agreement in all sorts of ways great and small, subtle or blatant, then: cancel the damn thing, and don't get inveigled, by the Muslims, into entering any more such dangerous liaisons.
Best to proceed from the grimly realistic assumption that pretty much everything the Muslim ambassadors, negotiators, etc., tell you and every 'agreement' they might offer is intended, only and always, to obtain advantage for Muslims - for the Ummah, or Mohammedan mob - and to cause harm to the non-Muslim you and yours.
We are reaching, I think, a point where the entire non-Muslim world would be best to respond to Muslim offers, no matter how apparently tempting, with stony silence; where all official military and monetary 'aid' to Muslim entities, should be cut off; and implacable, overwhelming force in response to each and every act of Muslim aggression.
How else does one deal with a human gestalt - the Ummah - that at macro and micro level repeatedly behaves like a combination of a con man and a serial killer?
Great!!!...India vs Pakistan....two Nuclear armed teams with skewered agendas, each drawing lines in the sand....
'Kashmir: "We are ready for jihad, we are ready for jihad!"
HMMMMM,might be why they keep dying....
Let me guess.Jihadi groups aren't responsible for attacks in
Pakistan.Uh!Let me think.Not jihadi groups.That's odd!Did you say Jews? Come on Syed. Stop joking around.Oh!You are not joking.
Who's going to liberate Pakistan from Islam?
The fact is this is not the first time pakistan has vowed a jihad on India or Kashmir and this is not the last time they will again loose and loose big time.
Historically, the Muslims and Islam have attacked Hindus time and again and won some and in time lost it all. Even after all of their genocidal brutality, gross, total destruction of Buddist, Zoroastrian and Hindu culture, temples, libraries, religion, art and the indigenous people by the millions for over a 1,000 years, Hindus have not perished like some or merely survived but thrived to equal them in numbers, fought muslims invaders handily and prospered. Unlike the muslim savages, Hindus are very patient and most persistent.
Each time it attacks, Pakistan has bled badly in Kashmir for the past 50 years with zero success. It has lost more Jihadis (and territory) in Kashmir then India has lost troops. This time it will be no different. In the past Pakistan had tacit US CIA & DIA support, (that has changed since 9/11) and still suffered a shameful fatal loss of East Pakistan in the 1971 war when (in Barcode's words) "the little people - Hindus" took 93,000 of "the more bigger and powerful Muslim soldiers" captive POW. This after paki Gen. Niazi and his henchmen summarily killed most of the Bangladeshi lawyers, doctors, teachers, nurses, judges and businessmen in cold blood as a last ditch desperate effort to destroy Bangladesh or former East Pakistan as a nation.
India has the capacity and ample resources to put Paki-Jihadis or their regular military on a leash. What remains to be seen is what "moral" and weapon support is given by Washington to Pakistan when this conflict begins in Kashmir. After Mumbai, I agree with Blue-Raven, it will be hard for the Indians to "submit" to the State Dept's Hillary or Rasool Obama to "back off" after a paki terror attack is launched on India, once again, this time in Kashmir.
Hugh,
You are right on "today Kashmir, tomorrow India". I hope we Indians are not as "dumb" as we appear when push comes to shove.
I believe Indians act as they do because parts of us have, unfortunately, become sort of "dhimmified" as muslims ruled here for centuries. You are again right when you say Indian response and thinking varies greatly from state to state. It is good to see that kind of insight into India in an American.
The ruling party's heading family - Nehru/Gandhis, were literally servants of the Moghuls till almost 1857 when they saw that British were winning and turned coats. Likewise, a whole subculture developed especially in Delhi and north India that was basically tuned to serving Moghul interests and servile to a muslim dominated culture.
While it's power waned with the decline of Moghuls and rise of the British, they found ways of entering new power structures and do their best to subvert it to serve the interests of the same culture. Indian masses are to a great extent uneducated and do not sense these angles and end up voting for them without realizing how it is going to hurt them in the end.
However, if you see the mega trend in India since Indpendence, you will notice that the ground has shifted considerably in favor of a nationalist, right thinking, unfoolable kind of Hindu. The progress is not always uniform but certainly long term trend favors this.
Right thinking people in US and elsewhere should support us as much as you can.
Sanjay
Bangalore, India
These mohammedan b****rds are also waiting for the opportune time to "liberate" Indian states like U.P,Bihar,West Bengal,Assam from Infidels.The opportune time is near as mohammedan population in these states has already reached 20% and in some cases 30%.Indian government should start thinking about these states and stop worrying only about Kashmir which is already 90% muslim.
Ban islam in Infidel Countries
Sanjay - The ruling party's heading family - Nehru/Gandhis, were literally servants of the Moghuls till almost 1857 when they saw that British were winning and turned coats. Likewise, a whole subculture developed especially in Delhi and north India that was basically tuned to serving Moghul interests and servile to a muslim dominated culture.
When I said Hindus were a servile nation I was dubbed a racist; are you people going to say the same to Sanjay, who is a hindu himself?
From the early 1940s at political meetings, Jinnah started to take out his hankerchief and told the British "even if I have this much land and I can call it Pakistan, I'm happy". He was a born leader and laughed at 1st, but he knew what he wanted.
The events leading upto 1947 saw the partition and the birth of Pak. Millions got displaced and upto 5 million people got killed.
Compare Jinnah to Ghandi's instilled servitude (as Sanjay himself freely admits. Despite millions killed, he begged muslims to continue to live in India, he added the green colour to India's flag, he simply could not let go. Jinnah asked Tara Singh of the Sikhs to join him, but the sikhs great distrust of muslims would not allow him to do so.
Perhaps, Ghandi was interested in sainthood , but got it wrong. He let slip out of his slimy hands the opportunity that arises once in 1000 years.
Had he said "OK, I'm not in favour of breakup, but if you want Pakistan, then all Indian muslims must go there, and at that time, in those circumstances - they would have, and today he really would have acheived the sainthood that he so craved for.
But Sanjay, who would have fulfilled the servitude aspect, that is so endemic in you. Ghandi was the fall guy, but really another million hindus could have filled that position with same result.
One recalls the "make you bed and lie in it comes to mind".
I don't need to say anymore!
Alex
Had he said "OK, I'm not in favour of breakup, but if you want Pakistan, then all Indian muslims must go there, and at that time, in those circumstances - they would have, and today he really would have acheived the sainthood that he so craved for.
The so-called "Mahatma" gandhi was responsible for so many mohammedans in India. Had he not stopped muslims from going to pakistan,the muslim problem in India would not have been there. In fact the partition was not that bad had it been done in a proper way in which mohammedans would have gone to pakistan and infidels would have remained in India.But that "Mahatma" gandhi was such a big fool who loved muslims so much that he made sure that so many muslims remained in India even after the partition.
Sanjay
I'm with you. I hope the de-dhimmifying process speeds up, in India.
As an Australian, I would *much rather* that we sought alliance at every level - cultural, political, economic - with India, our Commonwealth sister across the Indian Ocean, rather than pursuing the dead-end liaisons we currently have with Muslim Malaysia and Muslim Indonesia and our imitating of the Americans by proposing to pour resources into the bottomless pit that is Muslim Pakistan. And I would much prefer to focus on India rather than on the nasty dictatorship that is today's China.
I'd rather sell Australia's coal and iron and uranium to India, than to Indonesia *or* China.
If I had my druthers, I'd cut off all Aussie aid to and investment in the Muslim countries like Indonesia, and redirect the aid and investment to India first of all, then some of it to our poorer non-Muslim neighbours such as the Philippines, East Timor and Papua-New Guinea (all of whom need shoring up so they can withstand the Jihad that is being, or will be, waged against them). And I'd be looking to strengthen the relationship with Singapore and Thailand.
I'd much rather our Aussie soldiers were helping Indian troops guard Kashmir against jihad incursion, and/ or helping Filipino and Thai troops crush the jihad being waged against *them*, than that our men and money were being burned to no purpose in Afghanistan's hell-pits.
Roll on the Grand Kafir Alliance. Oh for the day when, for example, NATO ad EU ships and Australian ships and Indian ships - and, too, Russian ships - work together to obliterate the jihadi pirates infesting the approaches to the Suez Canal!
In the meantime, Sanjay, keep on pointing your Anglophone friends to Jihadwatch...
Question - have 'Fitna' and 'Islam: What the West Needs to Know' been dubbed or subtitled into Hindi and other major mother-tongues of India? The latter could be easily retitled, 'Islam: What All Non-Muslims Need to Know'.
Thanks for giving me a good idea. Let me see if I can translate these (at least subtitle) and post on youtube.
Thanks for your support too. I too believe that all unfoolable people in all countries should come together against "liberal" politicians/ mediapersons / researchers etc. India faces some problems identical to west. I have seen articles written on American and British situation regarding Islam and those could be as well about India with minimal changes.
In our case, though, the problems are more serious and more difficult because the "unfoolable" constituency is smaller compared to west. But let us believe and hope that truth will prevail in the end in spite of all difficulty.
Barcode (or Alex, whatever),
I won't be responding to your posts, this one being the last response.
"Diplomacy, talks and negotiations spanned over several decades have not worked," said Syed Salahuddin,
With Muslims they never do. The only thing that works with Muslims is force.
Sanjay - I won't be responding to your posts.
That's too bad, sometimes the truth can be so unpalatable that one can feel like that.
Don't worry about me Sanjay, I'll be OK, but as a hindu do you want to tell the rest of the people here what a hindu like you thinks about Ghandi.
Alex
The Chinese had no qualms greasing the tracks of their tanks with the guts and blood of their own students.
The bloodbath would be of epic proportions.
islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.
I'm worried about India weaponizing a food. This could be bad. (Not to make light of two crazy peoples armed with nukes facing off on the world stage.)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534416,00.html
The country's defense researchers are looking for ways to use the spicy items as ingredients in hand grenades that could be used in riot suppression and counter-insurgency operations, Asia Times reported.
The "hotness" of peppers is rated on something called the Scoville scale, which measures how much pepper extract has to be diluted before no more piquancy is detected.
An ordinary bell pepper rates as zero, a jalapeno rates about 5,000 and a habanero at roughly 400,000 — but India's naga jolokia strain, also called the bhut jolokia, comes in at a whopping 1,000,000.
That's the one India's defense researchers want to use.
"It will be useful in forcing militants out of their hideouts," R.B. Srivastava, director of life sciences in India's Defense Research and Development Organization, told Asia Times.
Srivastava added that the chili pepper might also serve to deter a constant threat to Indian Army jungle encampments: marauding elephants.
"India's naga jolokia strain, also called the bhut jolokia, comes in at a whopping 1,000,000.
That's the one India's defense researchers want to use."
-posted by AlaskanInfidel
Excellent!
Hot Indian curry; what's not to like :)
Y'know Sanjay...I don't blame you a bit. This guy...what a clown. Just full of deceit and lies. An amateur in the big leagues.
This twit...he was searching for some quote from me that indicated that I was, "all about peace and harmony" and that carrying a piece made me a liar. Some stupidity like that...
He found one of my tag lines at Belchspeak...
"No islam...Know Peace.
Know islam...throw up". and edited it. He took off the "No islam" on the front and took off the "throw up" on the end and got..."Know Peace. Know islam" and used that as evidence that blah blah blah.... I 'bout died laughing. Creative editing? I call it lying...deceit...desperation.
they guy makes my day every day with some incredibly stupid move...this one is the best so far though.
It just goes to show the lengths that this troll will go to to push buttons and piss off the grown ups. But clumsy? My goodness, what a clod!
what a punk...but an entertaining punk for the most part.
Fairly good at finding the sore spot and poking it. Probably learned that torturing those younger than he whilst in whatever passes for a school where he came up. Maybe he tortured his siblings. He's just not very good at it. He was never intellectually challenged on that particular battlefield. No practice in the real world.
Oh...and...is "Hindu" a "nation"? Is Hindu a race? Did I miss something? Is barcode boy retarded? (rhetorical question, and my apologies to Sarah Palin for using the "r" word.)
No islam...Know Peace.
Know islam...throw up!
(I'm gonna chuckle every time I use that tag line now...)
I think there's Youtube video of this little Indian gal eating a BUNCH of these peppers. A search and...51 a world record and then grinding them up in her hands and rubbing them in her eyes. Completely immune to their effects. Amazing what you can get used to.
The video is here if you can get it to load.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4f1_1239381563&c=1
Hi,
Hindus are a distinct civilization. We have been very weak for centuries and are finding our feet only now for the last few decades. We have been told (by more serious commentators) that we are weak hearted and that is why we have been overrun and ruled by outsiders for centuries.
However, an examination of history does not support this theory. We believe a fair view of history is that under pressures which resulted in the demise of Persian, Egyptian and Byzantine civilizations, Hindus survived and in fact recovered most of India from Muslims before European civilization arrived here.
All that struggle with marauding muslims, however, sapped a lot of energy and the British, with their perfidious ways, did whatever they could to destroy India's self esteem.
We are, however, recovering from all those traumas (a section of us believes so). Since we all Hindus on the subcontinent have a shared experience as Hindus, I think it is fair to say that we are a nation. A Hindu nation.
To the extent that people on the subcontinent are racially distinct, we are a race too but we share genes with other religions too. So I don't think you can call Hindus a race.
I suppose that answers your questions.
dont worry Sanjay, the barfcodes of the world are self imploding in countrys like the pak. where not being a pious muslim is very dangerous.
lkeevy1 - the barfcodes of the world are self imploding in countrys like the pak. where not being a pious muslim is very dangerous.
It Mr. Barcode, anything else is just plain rude, note how I address your handle without misuse.
I think we have seen that America has always favoured Pak in pref to India. Even after the dreadful Mumbai incident, America is talking to the Pak to supply nucleur material for peaceful elec generation.
I think that America should go further and persuade American companies to use Pakistanb for back-office functions.
Pak has a lot going for it - give them a chance.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,
Don't you love the smell of napalm, er, uh, global jihad in the morning?
Barcode,
One of your parasite friends punched you in, but you only have about 20 minutes to get to your bag boy job.
I suggest getting off mom's computer ... do the "delete cookies" thingee, put the laptop back EXACTLY where you found it.
Bathe ... that's always important ... in other words ... GO.
Sardar Patel, the deputy prime minister of India, at the time of Pakistan's invasion of Kashmir was the one who wanted to send in Indian troops immediately to secure Kashmir. He advised Nehru against going to the United Nations for arbitration and justified that it was Pakistan aggression of a princely state that had acceded to India. Therefore it is an Indian defense matter from a foreign invasion.
The United Nations is a farce. It is run by the 53 Islamic nations.
The sad part of this is because of the criminal and violent nature of Islam and Mohammedans many nations have to divert so much of their resources to protect themselves from Islamic Jihadis. In the case of India, she has a major force stationed in Kashmir and along the Pakistan border.
Mohammedans know nothing else but violence and slavery. Look at the economic states of Muslim countries except for the Oil States, they are in utter misery and chaos. Islam and Mohammedans are a sorry excuse for humanity.
In doing some basic research, I found out that Jinnah was actually a Gujarathi, Kutchi from the Khoja Ismaili sect (very liberal Muslims) from the state of Gujarath in India. According to the highly respected American historian and professor of UCLA, Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah (which means "scrawny lad" as he was fondly teased by his own family when he was young) was a brilliant opportunist who is made out to be an angelic, saintly type in Pakistan was very different. In reality, Wolpert says Jinnah was a complex man, quite the opposite. In fact he enjoyed the finer things in life such as aged excellent whiskey, expensive cigars and loved English pork sausages,(all three are haram in Islam by the way) so much for sainthood, right?
He also enjoyed the immense wealth showered on him by the wealthy Parsi in Mumbai (who were ethnically cleansed out of Persia by Muslim Jihadists when Persia fell to Islam to ran to the land of little people - Hindus to save their souls).
The creation of Pakistan is not all Jinnah's effort and wisdom either. Both the Britsh and Americans wanted a banana republic which would be pro American, allowing American spying on Russia and China, so they were more than happy to help create a Pakistan and also pay the jizya aid which is still carried out today. Indians were simply way too idealistic and fresh with anti-imperialism attitude, would never allow Brit/American bases in India at that time. Jinnah's partition of India certainly was not very wise as it ripped both Muslim and Hindu/Sikh families apart and some 5 million people mostly women and children were killed in communal violence mostly by Muslim gangs attacking Hindu families leaving various cities/villages from Pakistan.
God bless America and victims of Islamic violence.
"Pakistani hardliners vow holy war to liberate Kashmir,"
Pakistan has had over sixty years to get it's 'Islamic Paradise on Earth' act together...Why is Allah dragging his feet?
Jihad will continue until India ends its occupation of India.
"...(no, Akbar does not count, and William "Okkidental" Dalrymple has no right to claim the syncretistic and superior Akbar for Islam)..."
I guess something happened on the way to the art supply store five years ago... you were going to be back in a New York minute with some darker paints for the reputation of Akbar.
The British wanted the partition to take place according to the numbers of Hindu or Muslims in the state. It was up to the ruler of that state to join with either India or Pakistan depending on the wishes of their people. Kashmir has a vast north which is mostly Muslim and a small south mostly Hindu and a smal east which is Buddhist. The people didn't want to join with either countries but wanted independance, to be the Switzerland of the east.
Who were these "the people"? They included the majority of the Kashmir Muslims? Have we found at last a large concentration of "moderate Muslims"?
Or are there other, more logical explanations for these apparent historical facts? Such as: an internecine hostility between Kashmir Muslims and Pakistan Muslims, rather than some kind of more "moderate" Islam by the former compared with the latter?
Or: it wasn't really a matter of "the people" dictating, but rather what the Hindu ruler decided?
The rule of thumb, when seeking explanations for why this or that Muslim, or this or that Muslim society, seems to be less virulently supremacist (= less virulently Islamic), is not to assume they really are less virulently supremacist, but that other factors militate against their ability to flex their full Islamic muscles. Too many even within the still inchoate Anti-Islam Movement ignore, or even consciously reject, this rule of thumb. Such an ignorance, or rejection, has already cost us lives, and will continue to do so, in escalating numbers. How many of us will have to be mass-murdered before we rationally prejudge all Muslims as dangerous and demand rigorous proof before proving any of them harmless?
When was I going to come back to paint Akbar in darker colors? I have no memory of this. Please remind me where and when.
Hespardo, Kashmir is a unique state, with many natural resources. But it’s main draw is that it’s a tourist haven for people all over the world.. mixed with it’s own traditions, culture, and a sufi type islam, the people were proberly the most moderate and accommodating of the muslims in the Indian sub continent. There really was very little if any religious violence at that time. In an ideal world an independent Kashmir would have become the Switzerland of the world with its people who are Muslim, Hindus, and Buddhists. Unfortunately independence was not an option on the table. That's something Pakistan would never have tolerated they would have sent in their jihadis anyway.
I wonder how long this present (re)incarnation of 'Naseem' will last. I'm guessing the current troll's lifespan will be somewhere between that of Hindenburg and Yom al Juma, depending on how Hugh and Marisol weigh his trolling against any pedagogical value he might seem to offer.
Awwww....poor barcode boy. He demands respect! You must address him properly...and I shall.
barcode boy...punk...
Come on punk, get some backbone ya weenie.
I put up with one of your muslim apologist scumbag brethren calling me Mr.Shitface for months. You should be able to withstand a little thing like that...pussy....punk.
islam is a lie and
Truth and the barcode boys of the world, are killing it.
Poor Mrs.barcode boy...he's upset...heh....
desidude,
Sorry, I can't for a minute believe that any concentration of Muslims anywhere in the world can be, or ever were, moderate and lenient. They only have seemed to be, due to their inability, for various reasons, to fully flex their Islamic muscles.
Hugh,
It was October 8, 2005, at 11:33 a.m.:
After a commenter named "iqbal" disputed the rosy Akbar of legend, you wrote:
My reference to "syncretistic Akbar" is one I am willing to withdraw if more information can be supplied. He did suspend the payment of the jizyah. Ibn Warraq, who is a little closer to the theme, and not exactly a friend of Islam, does not share this grim view of Akbar, and has told me so. But I am certainly willing to believe that I might have erred, and that if I did so, it would necessarily have been in undrestimating the oppressive nature even of Akbar's rule, not in overestimating it.
So give me time to look into it.
The more one studies, and then attempts to limn, the history of Islamic rule, the more one keeps discovering the need to add dark colors to the original palette. I'm heading out to the art-supplies store right now, and will be back in a New York minute.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/10/fitzgerald-a-brief-mesa-nostra-taxonomy.html#comment-84702
Perhaps on the way to the art-supplies store on 47th street, your eye caught the marquee of a matinee on Broadway & 8th avenue featuring a double bill of Double Indemnity and The Two Mrs. Carrolls, and the time just got away from you. Or did you find solid evidence substantiating that legend? (The Hindu historian Oak, by the way, claims that Akbar never in fact abolished the jizya, though his online book on it doesn't seem to provide any evidence for that.)
At the time of partition they were moderate. Maybe they were the bad Muslims. This was a unique region. This was a land where the Hindus and Sikhs/ and Muslims lived side by side. This was after all a state heavily dependent on tourism, they couldn't afford to be seen as a violent unfriendly region. This was a region visited by scores of Indians and they spent a lot money sightseeing the Kashmir valley and visiting various hindu holy sites temples and other attractions. They could enjoy all the winter sports they weren’t possible in the rest of India. There were Hindu temples along side mosques and so on. I know this cause I visited Kashmir in the 80’s.
Over the years as Pakistan trained jihadis entered into Kashmir , and Saudi funded wahabhi mosques appeared the Muslim population were radicalized. So when the call was given by the leader of pakistan benezir bhutto (remember her?) she , the darling of the west, loved by feminists, She gave a call to drive away the Hindus and Sikhs from the Kashmir valley, the Kashmir is complied, forcing hundreds of thousands of mainly Hindu pundits to be refugees in their own country. Only recently with more enforcement of the borders with Pakistan and reduction of the jihads entering Kashmir has the violence subsided, and tourism has picked up. Many Muslim Kashmir have called for the Hindus to come back to the valley but the Hindus don't fully trust them.
What is the solution for the Muslim problem in India? something I know the politician and the lib media would not do. that is to educate the public about India’s rich history. about the Hindu kingdom of Kashmir before the Muslim invasion. about the millions of Hindus massacred by the Muslims, about the forced conversion to Islam and taking of women and children as slaves and booty. teach the truth about Islam as violent intolerant religion, teach about Muhammad as power mad tyrant, murderer, rapist, and pedophile. Sites like this and others should be widely shown to all Indians including school, children.
"I guess something happened on the way to the art supply store five years ago... you were going to be back in a New York minute with some darker paints for the reputation of Akbar." --- from a posting above addressed to me
"When was I going to come back to paint Akbar in darker colors? I have no memory of this. Please remind me where and when." -- from a posting by me requesting a bit more information from that same poster
"It was October 8, 2005, at 11:33 a.m.:
After a commenter named "iqbal" disputed the rosy Akbar of legend, you wrote:
"My reference to "syncretistic Akbar" is one I am willing to withdraw if more information can be supplied. He did suspend the payment of the jizyah. Ibn Warraq, who is a little closer to the theme, and not exactly a friend of Islam, does not share this grim view of Akbar, and has told me so. But I am certainly willing to believe that I might have erred, and that if I did so, it would necessarily have been in undrestimating the oppressive nature even of Akbar's rule, not in overestimating it.
So give me time to look into it.
The more one studies, and then attempts to limn, the history of Islamic rule, the more one keeps discovering the need to add dark colors to the original palette. I'm heading out to the art-supplies store right now, and will be back in a New York minute."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/10/fitzgerald-a-brief-mesa-nostra-taxonomy.html#comment-84702"
--- from the same poster, quoting back the passage he had relied on and then adding the following:
"Perhaps on the way to the art-supplies store on 47th street, your eye caught the marquee of a matinee on Broadway & 8th avenue featuring a double bill of Double Indemnity and The Two Mrs. Carrolls, and the time just got away from you. Or did you find solid evidence substantiating that legend? (The Hindu historian Oak, by the way, claims that Akbar never in fact abolished the jizya, though his online book on it doesn't seem to provide any evidence for that.)"
So that's it? That I said I'd be looking into it, and then, because boys just want to have fun (see "Having Fun With Metaphors" by Drs. Ilk, Gesell and, oh yes, George Lakoff) I put in the bit about the art supplies store, and you have been patiently waiting all these years for me not only to return with the Winsor & Newton tubes, full of browns and dark greys? Oh, dear, I'm sorry. Sometimes I just like to have fun, and a book that I had as a child -- or rather, my parents had it but I borrowed it and studied it carefully, as I would the Kinsey Reports (Male and Female) just a few years later -- was called "Fun With Metaphors For Your Child" and was written, I recall, by Drs. Ilk, Gesell and -- oh yes, George Lakoff.
Okay, I admit it. I did go out to Utrechts, but I got confused, ended up in Utrecht, and it's been a long time getting back, what with the ocean and all, but now I am back, with some gesso, and some canvas stretchers, and some really wonderful brushes that for some reason can only be found in stores in the Netherlands and France, and nowhere else (but why?), and I didn't bring back any of those darker colors in order to touch up the portrait of Akbar because, as it turns out, he didn't need any darker colors. He was fine just the way he was.
"We believe a fair view of history is that under pressures which resulted in the demise of Persian, Egyptian and Byzantine civilizations, Hindus survived and in fact recovered most of India"
When you look at Indian history, you notice a consistent pattern. If Hindus won a battle, they generously allowed muslim men and women safe passage, according to their norms and hoping for peaceful relations. Muslims generally came back better prepared within a year, to satisfy their jihad bloodlust. And when Muslims won, they gave no quarters. Conversion or death. And of course the 'religiously permitted' rape of captured women.
This is how bit by bit, they chewed on parts of Indian sub-continent. 1000 years of conflict. And they have still not succeeded. And we will not let them !
...nd I didn't bring back any of those darker colors in order to touch up the portrait of Akbar because, as it turns out, he didn't need any darker colors. He was fine just the way he was.
I don't know; I fear it's something of a monstrous portrait of Dorian Grey -- for those who prefer greys to black and white.
The appalling and meretricious "Mr. Barcode" is back—just a British bloke named "Alex", apparently—who knows nothing, really, about Islam except what the lovely Muslim ladies on the registers happen to mention in passing...
And yet, he has a suspiciously Muslim hatred and contempt for Hindus, and affectionately refers to Pakistan as "Pak", or even "the Pak"...
Perhaps Naseem is back, after all.
Hesperado & Huge
This is the real deal on Akbar. Note that while the site may be regarded as polemic, the references that they cite are mainstream historians who had nothing to do w/ any Hindu 'communalism' - imagined or otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT
Akbar is considered as the great Mughal emperor who put the Mughal empire on a firm and stable footing, with a reliable revenue system and with expansion of its borders deeper into Indian heartland. There is a belief prevalent in the present day India that Akbar's rule was secular and tolerant of the native Hindu faith. This belief is fostered by the Indian history texts, Hindi movies like Mughal-e-Azam, a TV serial on Doordarshan and the fictional tales of Akbar and his Hindu court jester Birbal. Although Akbar did abolish two obnoxious taxes on Hindus namely the pilgrimage tax in 1563 CE and Jizya (A tax stipulated in the Koran to be paid by Zimmis or unbelievers) in 1564 CE, his rule was better compared ONLY to the other Mughal and Turko-Afgani rules. This article illustrates this with two specific historical events. First, Akbar like all Mughal rulers had the holy Muslim title of GHAZI (SLAYER OF KAFFIR - infidel). Like Timur Lane and Nader Shah, AKBAR HAD A VICTORY TOWER ERECTED WITH THE HEADS OF THE CAPTURED/ SURRENDERED ARMY OF HEMU after the second battle of Panipat. Later, AKBAR AGAIN SLAUGHTERED MORE THAN 30,000 UNARMED CAPTIVE HINDU PEASANTS AFTER THE FALL OF CHITOD ON FEBRUARY 24, 1568.
This article also relates another historical event which shows the true dubious nature of Akbar's religious beliefs which he used merely to suit his convenience.
10 REFERENCES, The Cambridge History of India, Encyclopedia Britannica and other works based on Akbar-nama by Abul Fazl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MUGHAL ANCESTRY
Akbar's grandfather Babar founded the Mughal dynasty. Babar was a direct descendent of Timur Lane from his father's Barlas Turk side and of Chengiz Khan the Mongol from his mother's side. The name Mongol had become synonymous with barbarian by the 16 th century CE, hence Babar was proud of his ancestry from Timur, whose descendents were regarded as 'cultured Turks'. In a twist of poetic justice, the dynasty founded by Babar became known through out the world as Mughal - an adaptation of Mughul, the Persian word for 'Mongol'(1). In Marathi also Mughals are referred to as 'Mongal' which is close to Mongol.
Babar's son Humayun was defeated by Sher Shah Sur, an Afgan at the battle of Chausa on 26 June 1539. But Humayun later defeated Sikandar Shah Sur in 1555 to regain Delhi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECOND BATTLE OF PANIPAT AND HOW AKBAR BECAME GHAZI
On 24 th January 1556 CE Mughal ruler Humayun slipped while climbing down the steps of his library and fell to his death. The heir to the Mughal throne, 13 year old Akbar was then campaigning in Punjab with his chief minister Bairam Khan. On February 14, 1556, in a garden at Kalanaur, Akbar was enthroned as emperor. The other rivals for the throne of Delhi were the three Afgan princes of Sher Shah. However the main threat to Akbar's future came not from the Afgan princes but from a Hindu. Hemu, the Hindu chief minister of Afgan prince Adil Shah led a surprise attack on Delhi in October 1556 . The Mughal forces under its governor Tardi Beg Khan panicked and went into a sudden ignominious flight. This was Hemu's twenty second consecutive victory in successive battles. After the capture of Delhi, Hemu set up himself as an independent ruler under the Hindu title of 'Raja Vikramaditya'. At this juncture against the advice of most nobles, Akbar and Bairam Khan took a courageous decision, to press forward against Hemu's undoubtedly superior forces. On November 5, 1556 the Mughul forces met the army of Hemu at Panipat.
In this second battle of Panipat, the Mughals were saved by a lucky accident after a hard fight which looked more than likely to go against them. An arrow hit Hemu in the eye and although it did not kill him it had pierced the cerebral cavity enough to make him unconscious. In any battle of this period the death of the leader meant an end of the fight, and the sight of Hemu slumped in the howdah of his famous elephant Hawai was enough to make his army turn tail. Shah Quli Khan captured the Hawai elephant with its prize occupant, and took it directly to Akbar. Hemu was brought unconscious before Akbar and Bairam. Bairam pleaded Akbar to perform the holy duty of slaying the infidel and earn the Islamic holy title of 'Ghazi'. Among much self-congratulation AKBAR THEN SEVERED THE HEAD OF UNCONSCIOUS HEMU WITH HIS SABER (2,3,4). Some historians claim that Akbar did not kill Hemu himself, but just touched the infidel's head with his sword and his associates finished the gory 'holy' work. However the latter version seems inconsistent with the events that followed. After the battle Hemu's head was sent to kabul as a sign of victory to the ladies of Humayun's harem, and Hemu's torso was sent to Delhi for exposure on a gibbet. Iskandar Khan chased the Hemu's fleeing army and captured 1500 elephants and a large contingent. THERE WAS A GREAT SLAUGHTER OF THOSE WHO WERE CAPTURED and IN KEEPING WITH THE CUSTOM OF HIS ANCESTORS TIMUR LANE AND CHENGIZ KHAN, AKBAR HAD A VICTORY PILLAR BUILT WITH THEIR HEADS. Peter Mundy, an Englishman travelling Mughal empire some 75 years later (during Jahangir and Shah Jahan's rein), found such towers were still being built. (Reference 2 gives pictures of a sketch by Peter Mundy, and Mughal painting of the tower of heads during Akbar's reign). Hemu's wife escaped from Delhi with the treasure and Pir Mohammad Khan's troops chased her caravan without success. HEMU'S AGED FATHER WAS CAPTURED AND ON REFUSING TO ACCEPT ISLAM, WAS EXECUTED (3). This is the 'glorious' history of Akbar's victory at the battle of Panipat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FALL OF CHITOD AND SLAUGHTER OF 30,000 CAPTIVE HINDU PEASANTS
Despite nearly five centuries of Muslim occupation of India, Rajasthan in 1567 CE was still almost entirely Hindu. Akbar infiltrated the area by marrying into Rajasthan's ruling houses and by steadily capturing various forts on the eastern fringe of Rajputana. But the senior house of Rajasthan, Rana of Mewar proudly refused any alliance with Mughals. Akbar's army started a campaign for Chitod in 1567. Rana of Mewar, Uday Singh left his capital, the great fort of Chitod to be defended by 8,000 Rajputs under an excellent commander, Jai Mal, and took himself and his family to the safety of the hills. Akbar arrived on October 24, 1567 and laid a siege of Chitod. Akbar's huge army's camp stretched for almost ten miles . Akbar planned two methods of assault -mining and building a 'sabat', a structure which provides the invading army a cover of a high wall as it progresses 'infinitely slowly' towards the fort wall and tightens the noose around the fort. The mining proved disastrous since an explosion of a mistimed second mine claimed Akbar's nearly 200 men including some leading nobles. As the noose of 'sabat' tightened, Akbar forces lost nearly 200 men a day to musket fire from the fort. Almost four months after the siege, on February 23, 1567, a musket shot fired from the Mughal army killed Jai Mal. Some chroniclers claim that this shot was fired by Akbar himself. With the death of their leader Jai Mal, the Rajputs for a while lost heart. That night flames leapt to the sky as THOUSANDS OF RAJPUT WOMEN PERFORMED JAUHAR (act of self-immolation, the term is a corruption of Jay Har - meaning Hail Shiva). They preferred jumping into a roaring fire, to being captured by Mughal Akbar. Later events do lend credit to their astute judgement. This was the THIRD JAUHAR IN THE HISTORY OF CHITOD.
Next day the Rajputs under a new young leader Patta Singh donned on the saffron robes - Kesariya, in preparation for a fight to death, flung open the gates of the fort and charged on to the Mughal army. Patta Singh, his mother and his wife duly died in the ensuing battle as did many Rajput warriors. Later, the victorious Mughal army entered the fort of Chitod. At the time there were 40,000 Hindu peasants and artisans residing on the fort besides the Rajput army. AKBAR THEN ORDERED A MASSACRE OF ALL THE CAPTURED UNARMED 40,000 HINDUS, some artisans indeed were spared and taken away but THE SLAIN AMOUNTED TO AT LEAST 30,000 (5,6,7,8,9) Akbar was particularly keen to avenge himself on the thousand musketeers who had done much damage to his troops, but they escaped by the boldest of the tricks. Binding their own women and children, and shoving them roughly along like new captives, the Rajput musketeers successfully passed themselves off as a detachment of the victorious Mughals and so made their way out of the fort (5,6,7,8,9).
The MASSACRE OF 30,000 CAPTIVE HINDUS AT CHITOD BY AKBAR has left an indelible blot on his name. No such horrors were perpetrated by even the brutal Ala-ud-din Khilji who had captured the fort in 1303 CE. Abul Fazl, Akbar's court chronicler is at pains in trying to justify this slaughter. In the later period of his rule, Akbar later had statues of Patta and Jai Mal, riding on elephants, installed at the gate of his imperial palace at Agra. Although probably intended as a compliment for their heroism, it was open to misconstruction since in the earlier history Jai Chand had placed a similar statue of Prithvi Raj Chauhan at the gate of his palace (as a Dwarpal) at the Swayamvar of his daughter Sanyogita.
Sir Thomas Roe, an Englishman who visited Chitod some fifty years later, found the fort deserted. In fact, it remained a firm tenet of Mughal policy throughout the next century that fortifications of Chitod, which till then was the capital of the then strongest Hindu Rana, should remain unrepaired, perhaps as a lesson to Hindus who dared to take on the Mughals (5).
Rana Pratap Singh of Mewar, son of Rana Uday Singh, kept the Rajput resistance to Akbar alive and tried to reclaim the glory of Chitod.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKBAR AND RELIGION
In the later part of his rule Akbar founded a new religion Din-e-Ilahi in which he vaguely tried to combine practices of Islam and Hinduism. He observed Muslim, Hindu and Parsee festivals. He had Jesuit priests in his courts. However, this founder of Din-e-Ilahi was practically illiterate. Till the end of his rule only seventeen nobles yielded to Akbar's wishes (and pressure) and converted to his new religion, among whom Raja Birbal was one. None of Akbar's children adopted his religion. To top it all, Jahangir, Akbar's son from his Hindu wife Jodhabai, later killed a Kaffir (Hindu infidel) and gained the holy Islamic title of Ghazi. It is indeed true that Akbar drifted from orthodox Islamic practices and became more tolerant of other religions. However, more often Akbar used and twisted religious principles to his own advantage. Let us look at one such example.
Akbar used marriage alliances with various royal houses as a way of expanding his empire. The political advantages of this steady stream of presentation of princesses were incalculable. In the end Akbar had more than 300 wives. The actual number of women in the harem was nearer to 5,000. Many of these were older women, but there were also young servant girls, or Amazons of Russia or Abyssinia as armed guards, all with the status only of slaves. It was these who, if so required, were the emperor's concubines. The three hundred were technically wives, even though the Koran limits the number to four. Akbar wanted religious sanction of all these 300 wives. Now as per the Persian Shia interpretation of Muslim scriptures (and also by the present day 'Mohammedan Act of India'! ) a Muslim can have a 'Mutta' marriage with a free women of OTHER religion. A 'Mutta' marraige involves no ceremony , but is a private pact between a man and a woman for, officially, 'a limited period time (as short as one night)' agreed between them. As per Shia interpretation, 'Mutta' constituted a legal Muslim marriage. Akbar used 'Mutta' principle to justify his300 wives. But the Sunni Ulemma (Islamic scholars) from his courtdisagreed. The The arguments between Akbar and Ulemma raged back andforth, until -completing the parallel with Henry VIII- Akbar dismissed the Kazi, the highest religious officer from his court, aSunni, and replaced him with a Shia who did agree with him! (10)
Later, Akbar had effrontery to decree that 'it was best for ordinary men to to have only one wife'! (10)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Akbar killed an unconscious Hemu (a Hindu) to become a 'Ghazi' at the second battle of Panipat, he later ordered slaughter of all the captives from Hemu's army and had a victory tower built with their heads. Similarly, Akbar later on ordered a massacre of 30,000 plus unarmed captive Hindu peasants after the fall of Chitod on February 24, 1568. Are these the characteristics of a truly 'secular' and 'tolerant' emperor ? These events reveal Akbar's true nature during early part of his reign. Should Akbar be called 'Great' and 'Secular' only because he was a lesser despot than the rest of the Mughal emperors ? In the entire Indian history of thousands of years NOT A SINGLE HINDU KING EVER SLAUGHTERED THOUSANDS OF PRISONERS OF WAR. In fact the Hindu virtue of generosity to the surrendered (SharaNaagat Vatsal Bhav), came to haunt them later. Prithvi Raj Chauhan defeated Mohammed Ghori several times and generously let the loser free each time. This generosity of Pritviraj was paid back by Mohammed Ghori who after having finally defeated Prithvi Raj in 1193 CE, blinded him and carried him to Afganistan in chains where Prithvi Raj died an ignominious death. The Mughals were the descendents of brutal Mongol Chengiz Khan and the Turk Timur Lane. The above incidences clearly show that MUGHAL EMPERORS WERE FOREIGN AND NOT INDIAN, AND AKBAR BY HIS ACTIONS WAS NO EXCEPTION. Thus to call Akbar as 'The Great' is nothing but an insult to all civilized societies. This article also has shown Akbar's dubious use of religious principles.
If we are to take example from the 20 th century, then even the Nazis did not kill 30,000 prisoners of war in cold blood during the second World War. However scores of Nazis were sentenced to death during the Nuremburg trials for their War Crimes against POWs.
Readers are encouraged to read more about the true brutality of Mughal empire.
The readers should ponder upon following questions:
If Akbar 'the epitome of secularism' was so cruel and brutal, what must have been the extent of brutality of Timur Lane, Babar, Aurangzeb and Nader Shah?
Why don't the Indian School texts give these details of Akbar and What else are they hiding?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFERENCES
The Great Moghuls, By B.Gascoigne, Harper Row Publishers, New York, 1972, p.15
Same as ref. 1, pp. 68-75
The Cambridge History of India, Vol. IV, Mughal India, ed. Lt. Col. Sir W.Haig, Sir R.Burn, S,Chand & Co., Delhi, 1963, pp. 71-73
The Builders of The Mogul Empire, By M.Prawdin, Barnes & Noble Inc, New York, 1965, pp. 127-28
Same as ref. 1, pp. 88-93
Same as ref. 3. pp. 97-99
Same as ref. 4, pp. 137-38
An Advanced History of India, by R.C.Majumdar, H.C.Raychoudhury, K.Datta, MacMillen & Co., London, 2nd Ed, 1965, pp. 448-450
Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 th Ed, Vol.21, 1967, p.65
Same as ref. 1, p. 85
Infidel Pride - FALL OF CHITOD AND SLAUGHTER OF 30,000 CAPTIVE HINDU PEASANTS -
(After Patta Singh got clobbered), At the time there were 40,000 Hindu peasants and artisans residing on the fort besides the Rajput army.
IP, why didn't the 40,000 Hindu peasants go and fight with Patta Singh wearing his fancy saffron Robes.
They must have known that the worst could be awaiting them, so might as well fight...that's FORTY THOUSAND souls who could have made a difference.
Don't know; well I'll tell you - it's the hindu caste system mate. The rules made by the "elders" thousands of years ago held them in the unseen chains of their caste.
"How can I fight? I am only a sanitory worker, and I am only a laundry man, it is up to Patta to save us, that is his job, I am doing mine here in the fort!
Well matey, how about the fact that in 36hours you may die anyway; Is that not a good enough reason for you!
Their women ofcourse saw this as cowardice and couldn't wait for the superior muslim forces to come and take them - real men - fighting virile men who can take care of them and satisfy them.
I don't think the women minded all that much to see the back of the caste system, they readily chose their circumsied muslim man and became muslims to start a better life.
Ignore 'Mr Barcode'.
It's just the latest incarnation of 'Naseem'.
Thanks Infidel.
I think I've palpated the, or at least one, precise nodus of Hugh's otherwise elusive asymptoticism. Nearly everyone in the still inchoate anti-Islam movement seems to have one, in one way or another: a way out of the full horror of Islam and of all Muslims. The nodus in a queer way becomes more curious the more that the asymptoticist approaches the holistic realization -- for the increasing proximity leaves less and less room for continuing to hold back and find comfort in some exception to the full horror; and yet, conversely, this increasing proximity arouses an aversion to getting sucked down the slippery slope toward a "totalism".
" Their women ofcourse saw this as cowardice and couldn't wait for the superior muslim forces to come and take them - real men - fighting virile men who can take care of them and satisfy them.
I don't think the women minded all that much to see the back of the caste system, they readily chose their circumsied muslim man and became muslims to start a better life."
Apparently, barcode aka Naseem from Canada has a fantasy about and brags about becoming a muslim, to be taken care of and "satisfied" by virile men, who might or not have been circumcised, smelly desert dwellers who have never bathed obviously, are uncivilized, blood-lusting butchers....she idealizes and fantasizes being "satisfied" by this lot....says volumes about barcode/Naseem.
I wonder if Naseem was "circumcised" or will have her young daughter be "circumcised" via the brutality of the muslim practice of Female Genital Mutilation, since that seems to be so high on Naseems agenda as "having a better life"
Taqiyya practicing Barcode said:
"I don't think the women minded all that much to see the back of the caste system, they readily chose their circumsied muslim man and became muslims to start a better life."
This again proves that he is a Taqiyya practicing muslim. Why do muslims like him continue to pretend that they are not muslims even after their cover has been blown so many times? Funnily Barcode who doesn't have the balls to admit that he is a muslim is talking abt Virile & circumcised muslim men! In fact this muslim talked about this same crap of infidel women getting attracted to circumcised muslims in the past under different aliases.
Hindu women hated these hairy, circumcised & uncicilized muslims so much that they would rather kill themselves rather than become their war booty. This practice known was known as "Jauhar" .According to wiki article on Jauhar, "it was considered proper for the men to fight to the last breath when defeat became certain in a war but Jauhar was committed to avoid capture and dishonour of royal women. When defeat at the hands of a more powerful enemy was imminent, the women, dressed in wedding finery, immolated themselves, then the men, bearing Kesariya Bana (saffron coloured dress), attacked the enemy. For men who had been raised their whole life as warriors, nothing was considered more honourable for the Rajput male than to fight and die on the battlefield."
There were many well documented examples of this practice in the past, especially during the wars with Islamic rulers like Ala-ud-din Khilji, Tughlaq & Akbar. The best known cases of Jauhar are the three occurrences at the fort of Chittaur (Chittaurgarh, Chittorgarh), in Rajasthan, in 1303 CE, 1535 CE and in 1568 CE. Jaisalmer has witnessed two occurrences of Jauhar. Another occurrence was in Chanderi.And there were many more!
DDA
I am ignoring Mr Barcode, but this one statement of his, I had to correct - not so much for his sake as much as others who read this:
I don't think the women minded all that much to see the back of the caste system, they readily chose their circumsied muslim man and became muslims to start a better life.
Uh, no, when the commanding general in question Jaimal was killed by a lucky shot from Akbar himself, the Rajput women lit pyres throughout the city and started the process of Jauhar, where women would intoxicate themselves and then cremate themselves while numb but alive so that their bodies didn't become playgrounds for the circumcized beauties of Islam. So all the women in question voluntarily cremated themselves rather than fall into the hands of those vile, er, virile circumcized beauties that you so praise. Even the caste system - bad as it was/is - was preferrable to being raped by Muslims simply b'cos they could.
Note that this was the third and last Jauhar that the women of Mewar commited. Since then, Mewar did go to war, in the 18th century w/ the Hindu Marathas, and even there, when the cities risked capture, the women then did not engage in Jauhar. Why? B'cos they knew that invading Hindu troops would abide by shastric rules of warfare and not do what invading Muslim troops would do. So contrary to believe, this self cremation was something that Hindus only did when they fought Muslims, not when they fought other Hindus, be it before or after the Islamic periods (no double entendres here).