The BBC actually printed this comment...

It may be worth noting that the time when these blasts happened roughly coincides with sunset in Delhi, the time for Muslims to break their Ramadan fast. So, if these were Muslim terrorists, they may have calculated that they will miss conservative Muslims who would be at home to break their fasts instead of shopping in the markets. Nadeem Jamali, Saskatoon, Canada

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4388352.stm

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 30, 2005 7:52 AM

The lack of strong comments after these major jihad actions by leaders of other infidel nations contributes to our failure to gradually form an Infidel Alliance.

Yeah, I know: George W. is pro-Islam, and the Hindu "leadership" in India has been terrified of Moslems for centuries, but somebody could say something.

The Moslem Maniacs are never shy about speaking up, nor are their hirelings.

Posted by: Chaz MarteL 732 at October 30, 2005 7:58 AM

Historian N.S. Rajaram has explained how the wounds inflicted by centuries of Islamic rule on a large segment of the Indian intelligentsia and the political class have been so debilitating that they continue to live in a state of constant fear. Muslims in India make up about 150 million people, and their growth rate exceeds those of Hindus and Sikhs. Combined with the populations of Bangladesh and Pakistan, non-Muslims could be a minority on the Indian subcontinent by mid-century.

Muslims still consider India to be “unfinished business”, which is why the Saudi royal family has cleared plans to construct 4,500 Islamic madrasas in South Asia. This dhimmi-fear of Islamic unrest explains why non-Muslim India was the first country to ban Salman Rushdie’s book “the Satanic Verses.” It is important that Indians get to know the full scale of Islamic atrocities on their continent, through books such as "Negationism in India - Concealing the record of Islam" by Koenraad Elst and "Indian Muslims - Who Are They" by K.S. Lal.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/WolfgangBruno51027.htm

Posted by: leavingtheleft at October 30, 2005 8:00 AM

India is slowly becoming to Indias. The moslems are ghettoized to a large extent and from what I hear, despite politicians pandering for the moslem vote, the average non-moslem in india (yup, that includes christians and sikhs as well) are mistrustful of moslems in general. Many housing societies, private employers etc are quietly opposed to moslem presence in their midst. Why, some housing societies insist on a vegetarians-only policy, I hear!

After the Gujrat riots, land prices in Ahmedabad changed to bear a striking negative correlation to the presence of pockets of moslem concenration. What society will try to deny, the market will first recognise and act upon, seems like.

Posted by: voletti at October 30, 2005 9:19 AM

As these attacks by Islamic terrorist continue around the world, the number of people touched by them is growing. Who has not been in London or New York, or know someone who lives there or travels there?

In this case it is New Delhi and I hope the MSM picks up on this: the world needs to know the extent of the threat by Islamic terrorists. (This incident can't be discounted by references to the war in Iraq.)

My own two daughters were both in New Delhi this year on business. One daughter stayed there twice for several weeks at a time. My thought of course is "She could have been in that market!" And so, terror is brought closer to home. Is that what will finally make the difference in the attitude of those who control the MSM? When one of their own is a victim, or could have been a victim in a specific incident? If that's the case, then an attitude change may be pending.

Of course for this to happen it's important that the terrorists be identified as Muslims and their motives revealed. It's no good to merely refer to the generic word "terrorists." How can anyone defend themselves against "No Name Terrorists"? -- refusing to identify them thwarts the world's need to know and makes the enemy that much more elusive.

And does anyone know what happened in the case of that suspicious demolition truck which came very close to New Delhi Airport a few months ago? It would be interesting to know the outcome of that. If it were really just a stray truck on a routine run, the police became very nervous.

Posted by: Jen at October 30, 2005 9:22 AM

As you (Robert Spencer) don't have a strong understanding of the varieties of terror groups in India you might have doubts about the source of these bombings as the BBC and NPR and other media have had.
I was listening to the radio and heard some supposed expert saying that it could be many people including Maoists.

Actually this type of attack specifically targetting civilians with a large number of women and children as the primary targets is specific to the jihadis.

Maoists would not choose this type of target.

Sikh separatists are also extremely unlikely to go for this type of targeting also.

This has all the hallmarks of one of the plethora of Muslim fundamentalist groups (many names similar ideology) like Lashkar-e-toiba.

The use of multiple blasts within the space of minutes also is a familiar tactic of al-Qaeda style Jihadi groups.

Here is a claim of responsibility:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1279928.cms

Inquilab group claims responsibility for blasts

[ Sunday, October 30, 2005 02:45:57 pmPTI ]
SRINAGAR: A hitherto unknown militant outfit, "Inquilab group" on Sunday claimed responsibility for the three serial blasts that ripped through the capital killing 61 and injuring nearly 200 people.

A caller identifying himself Ahmad Yaar Gaznavi, a spokesman of "Inqilab group" claimed that the activists of the outfit had carried out the bomb explosions in Delhi.

"Our activists are involved in the three explosions", he said adding that it was in response to the activities of Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir.

-------------------------------------------------

With this type of attack you can be pretty sure who it is and I wouldn't recommend being too cautious about pointing fingers.

However with the killing in New Jersey of the Christian you did get that one quite wrong. That killing had a lot more possible interpretations than this bombing in Delhi.

Jihadis have enormous form for bombing India and specifically civilian targets and are the only logically responsible group.

Kisan.

Posted by: kisan at October 30, 2005 9:27 AM

Let's see....

This was coordinated with an infidel holiday. It occured in a busy marketplace. Lastly, this is a time when all of Kashmir is in a flux because of an earthquake.

Sounds like jihadis to me.

Also, in a throwback to Soviet days, Tajikistan banned youths under the age of 16 from mosques without parental permission.

Courtesy of StrategyPage

Posted by: Itachi at October 30, 2005 12:16 PM

Speaking of Ahmedabad, what is the real story about who raped whom during this famous religious riot?

Posted by: Chaz MarteL 732 at October 30, 2005 12:29 PM

Sad to hear about the loss of lives. Maybe if Indians converted to Islam, they wouldn't be a target any more. After all, all faiths are the same and lead to God. If adhering to Islam keeps one's family and friends safe, maybe it's the sensible thing to do. The ancestors of most Muslims on the subcontinent accepted Islam precisely for such reasons.

Also, it would remove the rationale for Kashmiris to seek secession since they'd be happy to be a part of an Islamic country.

I'm told that these blasts were set to coincide with sunset, when conservative Muslims are home breaking the fast. So maybe the terrorists were counting on Muslims not being in the shopping areas around that time.

Posted by: kufr at October 30, 2005 12:54 PM

The commentary on contrasting traits of Jihadist terror and other groups interests me. A crucial difference, I believe, that is reflected in the way the mass murder is committed, is that Jihadist terror knows no political limits, because the attack does not have a specific political objective. Other so-called 'terror groups' typically attack with at least some political objective in mind, and these political interests place constraints on the kind of attack planned and executed. Jihadist mass murder is entirely different; the slaughter is motivated from religious obligation, and the objects of the attack, worthless, hellbound Infidels, are of absolutely no moral or political consequence. Since the religious goal is the domination of Islam, and such Infidels stand in the way of this goal, the more murdered the better. And women and children are actually desirable targets, since Infidel women are prevented from bearing Infidel children, and killing Infidel children not only rips Infidel society out by the roots, but demoralizes and terrorizes Infidel adults with the horrible destiny that confronts them: submit to Allah or die.

Enter Beslan.

Hence, utter disregard for human life, that is, Infidel human life, and indiscriminate, enormous slaughter, are hallmark traits of Islamic killers of Infidels.

Posted by: JTF at October 30, 2005 12:55 PM

Of course it had to have been Muslims -- a bomb in a market a few days before Diwali. Whether it was this group, or that group, or no group at all, hardly matters. The Indian government has got to stop defending Islam, apologizing for Islam, refusing to teach about the history of Islam in India and behaving as if that would on ly encourage those all-too-readily dismissed Hindutva "fanatics." Is V. S. Naipaul a "Hindutva fanatic"? Was K. S. Lal? What about Koenraad Elst, or Francois Gautier, or indeed any fair-minded outsider who, knowing initially little of India's history, but unwilling to simply accept the received opinions and all that delight in the local color of the Mughal princes (ah, and this is the Nizam of Hyderabad, I presume?) find out soon enough what Muslim conquest meant for India.

It is maddening that India's jeunesse doree and intellectuals have been aping, or perhaps they had it in them all along, the appeasement and denial to be seen in London and New York and of course, in Jerusalem and Paris and Madrid and Berlin about Islam. Indian civilization was all sorts of things, and among those things, it was famously tolerant and easygoing. Islam was not, is not, will never be. 60-70 million Hindus died over the 250 years or so of Mughal rule; a mere 250,000 per year, you will say -- and perhaps not be impressed or moved. But you should be. Tens of thousands of Hindu temples were destroyed, and you do not see them, those vast temple complexes, in your mind's eye -- it's just a phrase ("Tens of of thousands of Hidnu temples were destroyed"). The percentage of Hindus in the population of Pakistan, of Bangladesh, and of Indian-controlled parts of Kashmir, have gone steadily down. Hindus in Bali and elsewhere in Indonesia are the victims of Muslim terrorism, though Hinduism was there more than a thousand years before Islam arrived with traders from the Hadramaut setting up coastal trading posts in Java. In Malaysia, the Hindus are not terrorized but forced, like the equally non-Muslim Chinese, to pay the disguised jizyah demanded by the Bumiputra system, which benefits not "sons of the soil" as its name suggests, but only Muslims, whether "of the soil" or not.

Surely there are those in India who can take time out from reading that unpleasant, politically tendentious but, alas, good-looking Arundhati Roy, and others of that ilk, and without raising their voices, or becoming BJP or Hindutva figures of fun, look closely at the history of Islam in India, and come to their own conclusions.

And it would be nice to think that Indian-Americans would do the same, and contribute in this country, and in England, to waking up others. After all, they have a real history which they can adduce, and they may be able to convince those who need someone who can fit their image of the "Third-World" at least in outward appearance, in order to take seriously the Muslim menace which, of course, is a universal one, directed at all non-Muslims. Of all the lands menaced by Islam, India and Israel strike me as two of the most affected. What can be done to make Israelis comprehend the endless Jihad they face, when it is so upsetting to do so, is unclear. But Indians, not yet facing the kind of threat that Israelis face every day, may be emotionally readier to properly identify the impulse of Jihad, that has not been modified over time, and cannot be. It can only be held in check, by denying Muslims the wherewithal to pursue it, either locally or world-wide.

Posted by: Hugh at October 30, 2005 1:16 PM

And, Western media tends to look for some specific political goal in Islamic mass murder, and jihadist groups are quick to make up political reasons and or other excuses for the attack: retaliation for this or that, establishing a Palestinian state or whatever. But, these never satisfy. Islamic mass murder in Israel, for instance, betrays any political logic; the greater the attack the better. The nature of the attack seems to express in every nuance, from the vicious ideology of the attackers, to the exploitation of the innocent, to the nails and poisons in the bomb, the idea of 'eradicating Zionism', i.e. Jews, expressed in the Fateh constitution, in the Hamas Charter, and most recently by the President of Iran. The Islamic religious goal dominates: no Jewish Infidels in the hear of Islam period. They are worthless, and dare to stand up for themselves and fight against the ummah, hence, they deserve all the worst things the Qur'an has to say about them: they are subhuman, monkeys, pigs, and must go. That's it. No more justification necessary.

Likewise, in the global jihad, anywhere and everywhere, the indiscriminate slaughter says it all. Infidels go away. You have no right to live. Islam must dominate. And whereever you oppose, wherever you stand in the way, you will be overcome in one way or another. And it does not matter how many of you die, or how you die. It only matters that Islam prevails, and that you get the message that Islam will prevail no matter what you do.

Posted by: JTF at October 30, 2005 1:22 PM

I agree with not rushing to judgement but it really irks me that CAIR and thier ilk demand it from others and yet feel a special dispensation from this courtesy .

In Canada we had a fire bombing of a Jewish School for mainly children , in 2004 when a Mosque ( old business office converted ) was hit with a couple of raw eggs at about the same time as the fire , it was surprising to see how "Vandalism" and "Hate Crime" were applied
while not one arrest or witness was found .

CAIR's very own website (caircan.ca) still has them in the archives and while CAIR condemns both acts , CAIR posts the headlines as Jewish School vandalism and Hate-crime attack on Hamilton Mosque.
Note how CAIR knew the eggs were thrown by Islamophobes or non-Muslims , yet the School fire that had a note taped to a wall claiming it was for the oppression of Palestinians, had a call for calm by school board members to not look for a scapegoat without proof of who did it.
The paranoia and denial from Muslim leaders is tangible and Canadians are seeing more and more examples of the hatred for any non-Muslim , along with the list of "Alleged" racist vandalism to Mosques with not one arrest to date , CAIR has a track record of using "Islamophobia" to pre-suppose everyone must be a closet-bigot and ergo.... must be sent to anti-Muslim sensitive training .

It's becoming a real farce that we all have to see the media play the game of avoiding saying what we already knew or suspected in areas known for Islamists and overt hate speeches at Friday prayers in Mosques , but at the same time any perceived act of offending the Quran or Muslims is paraded out by CAIR as proof of Islamophobia in the post-911 era.

Hey , here's a thought , CAIR should tell those phoney mock-Muslim terrorists to stop citing the Quran and praising Allah in Arabic, this way people like me wont be swayed into thinking that Islam just might be linked to this terrorism by the deafening silence from Western Islamic org.'s that only denouce the "Act" of terror and not the actual "Terrorists" do the killing for Allah.

NO ISLAM - KNOW PEACE

Posted by: ala-sux at October 30, 2005 1:27 PM

With these blasts in India, maybe someone in GB can inform Prince Charles. He has been one of the apologist for this. He wants to come over and talk to Pres.Bush, and tell him how the U.S. should not be so mean to the Mullahs, and blame all these terrorist things on the Muslims. Perhaps he needs more information...instead of talking to his plants he should be reading this website!

Posted by: Lulu at October 30, 2005 1:52 PM

Kisan:

"However with the killing in New Jersey of the Christian you did get that one quite wrong."

That's surprising, since I never said anyone or any group was responsible.

What happened was this: I was approached by Copts who claimed to be close to the murdered family, and to have inside information. They gave it to me. I reported all of it to the police and posted some, but by no means all or even most of it, here. I never asserted that it was true or accurate, but only maintained that it should be investigated.

Why did the Copts approach me so persistently with such detailed and yet apparently false information? You'd have to ask them. But my conscience is clear: I never asserted it was true anywhere at any time.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 30, 2005 1:55 PM

So Kufr, are you trying to tell us that these blasts are the fault of Indians because they haven't converted to Islam, and that if only they'd just be good boys and girls and convert to Islam, then their lives would be spared? Converting to a wicked faith like Islam is the last thing they should do. Islam means no freedom. it means humiliation of women. It means no enjoyment (unless your idea of enjoyment is cheering the deaths of infidels). No music, no art, little education. All it means is sadism and misery, but living miserable lives seems to be what Muslims enjoy, and they want the rest of us to lead lives just as miserable, or else they'll blow up our cities and murder our innocents.

And lastly, not all faiths are the same. Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity and a multitude of other faiths don't outlaw entertainment and progress, and specialise in brutality and barbarianism in the name of God. Only Islam does. And nobody summed up Islam better than John Quincy Adams when he wrote the following passages:

"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force".

"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adams's capital letters)… Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant… While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men".

And last but not least, no Muslim on earth is going to tell me that I should convert to Islam, or else face the consequences of refusing to do so, and I refuse to live as a second class citizen simply because I was born a Christian.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at October 30, 2005 1:58 PM

the Islam and the people who kill under the Islam name are very closed to other and there wide spaces between them. you can not separete the Jehad from Islam but you can separete those people from Jehad. if you dont know about them then you wust not judge them.

i think that every bodey must not look tote Islam from the Jehad side. there are money sides in Islam which makes this religion as completley religioun. because this religioun have dealt with many cases

Posted by: Dena at October 30, 2005 2:01 PM

Invoking John Quincy Adams, let's add that he was one of the great Abolitionists, a founding father who can be judged by the standards of his and our own time. Why is this important?
Because, Islam is presented to the black community, in society and especially among its imprisoned, as an alternative to the "slave master's religion." Another great abolitionist by the way, the original Cassius Clay;

http://www.picturehistory.com/find/p/5412/mcms.html

Now as for the Muhammad Alis of history, not a single who could afford it did NOT own slaves, since slavery is perfectly legal in Islam, even presented as providing social harmony, just as it was justified by the planter's of the antebellum South.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_of_Egypt

Now, I love the grat American boxer and am happy however he finds peace and a connection to the Higher Power. The point that needs to be made over and over by those of us who know, however, is that the West is the only home to the concept of individual freedom that has ever existed and civilization is a fragile thing indeed.

Posted by: tokyobk at October 30, 2005 2:22 PM

To jsla - your last post was as thoughtful as your others - I'm sure it's true that we have no exact concepts or words for a number of concepts in Islamic theology. To some extent, every language mediates a unique form of consciousness, and opens the eyes to unique aspects of the world. And at any given moment some languages apparently permit the seeing of a larger, deeper world than other languages, even the seeing of specific things invisible to other languages. By 'languages' I mean both natural languages like Arabic and English, and cultural languages, like Impressionism, nihilism, Christianity, or Newtonian physics.

Your post suggests how Westerners tend to project their own mental and perceptual universe onto the Muslim world, and thus completely misunderstand it.

In particular, the ideal of universal human equality is a star so deeply nailed onto the firmament of our cosmos and our history (even though conservatives and liberals squabble about how far to go with it, and even though we implement the ideal imperfectly), that many of us cannot even conceive that a 'civilization' could actually be avowedly against that ideal. As you know, Muslim clerics and populations, so far, when they speak of this, seem mostly to disavow that all human beings have equal rights before properly instituted law. Muslims males are to have equal rights. Those of other religions, and females, become second-class citizens, insofar as the Koran, Muhammed, and sharia are followed.

The fundamentalism of Islam also appears to be more noxious than other fundamentalisms. While some Christian fundamentalists consider the Bible or the New Testament the literal word of God, they are in the minority among Christians and, more important, the Bible itself doesn't provide for literalism anything like the warrant provided by the Koran. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John claim to be describing what they saw with their human eyes, not what the infallible angel Gabriel dictated from God's mind into their ears, as Mohammed claims for his revelation, and as most Muslims accept implicitly. I don't know of any Christians who claim the Bible is 'uncreated' and existed in its precise form for all eternity. But most Muslim clerics evidently do maintain the 'uncreatedness' and eternity of the Koran and have maintained it for many centuries. This makes it a good deal harder for a Muslim to work out an individual response to the Koran, than for a Christian to do so with the Bible. Hinduism had no founding prophet or doctrine and emerged from a highly pluralistic syncretism of countless gods, so it is difficult or impossible to use Hinduism as a monolithic doctrine that would repress social pluralism. Jewish religious documents contain no plan, such as one finds in the Koran, to implement a worldwide theocracy. And even if there were such a plan, there are only about 15 million Jews in the world, and in general the Jews don't believe in proselytizing (again, unlike the Muslims). Buddhists, though they have been known on occasion to take up arms, are relatively pacifistic, certainly with regard to spreading Buddhism, and (unlike Islam) have no doctrine that Buddhism should politically dominate the whole earth and gradually eliminate all other religions.

Apart from these theological contrasts, in practice the template of human behavior and social organization provided by Mohammed -- the theocratic dictator -- has drilled a certain denial of individualism deep into Muslim culture and history. By contrast, fairly central to the formation of Western culture is the legend of Christ, who is reputed to have advocated separation of the things of Caesar from the things of God, and in that and in various other ways supported development of a culture where the individual qua individual has a place now deeply etched into Western consciousness. Obviously this emphasis on the individual stems from the ancient Greeks' influence as well, which penetrates right into the core of the Gospel of John, and through Aquinas thoroughly merged with Christianity. Interesting to me that Averroes, the famous Muslim Aristotelian of medieval Spain, denied the immortality of the individual soul, whereas Aquinas affirmed it. (to jsla, cont.below)

Posted by: eduardo odraude at October 30, 2005 2:33 PM

(To jsla, continued:)

Can't agree with you however that what I mentioned in earlier posts was just 'semantics,' if semantic disagreement means there is no substantive issue, but merely a disagreement about the meaning of terms. I don't say the matters I have been discussing are necessarily the most important matters to discuss, but I have been discussing substantive issues relevant, in whatever tiny ways, to the evaluation Jihad Watch may get in future from visitors to the site. The main charge opponents of this site make is that it is bigoted. To defeat those charges, I have been saying (not necessarily to you -- I have responded to a couple of others as well, and am also reminding myself!), two things could help.

1) prefer detailed facts to making universal generalizations. Universal generalizations may express the primary truth of a situation, but be careful before generalizing. Careless generalizing is perceived by many, correctly, as the province of the bigot, and we should do everything we can to be innocent of any appearance or reality of bigotry, because we abhor bigotry, and to maximize the number of our allies.

2) another way to get more allies, I have been saying, would be, without weakening our pugnacious vigilance, to learn to integrate compassion for the enemy into our words. This doesn't mean being pacifist, or denying that the enemy has totalitarian plans for theocracy, or that those plans are evil. But integrating compassion with vigilant pugnacity could mean getting more allies for Jihad Watch, since the accusation, however unjustified, of many of those who reject this site and its author, is that there is present here precisely the same lack of compassion evinced by the bigot, who lacks the ability to put himself in the other's shoes. One way of remedying the misimpression of some that we are bigoted, would be to keep in mind, when we are speaking, that those we may be forced to fight in our own self-defense, and whom we may seek to prevent from coming to our shores in future, are human beings, brothers and sisters, even if they carry with them the ethos of a cult with totalitarian political plans built into its core.

Grim determination, firmness, and compassion -- not hatred -- are called for. I think Spencer is usually a pretty superb example for us in that regard. We can be fiercely critical without denying whatever good is to be found in Muslims. Even if Islam itself is on the whole a totalitarian sort of cult, we should acknowledge any bits of it that are good, and thus behave with the impartiality that will win us the maximum number of allies.

Posted by: eduardo odraude at October 30, 2005 2:39 PM

"So Kufr, are you trying to tell us that these blasts are the fault of Indians because they haven't converted to Islam, and that if only they'd just be good boys and girls and convert to Islam, then their lives would be spared?"

That's the inescapable conclusion, isn't it? Indians are extremist pacifists, their country totally incapable right from 1000 AD of doing anything about this constant "call of the true faith". They also apparently believe that all faiths are the same and lead to spiritual enlightenment. So it shouldn't be too hard for them to pick the faith of least resistance, to keep the peace and safeguard future generations, however miserable they'd be making themselves. Hey, it would stop the constant religious violence they seem to suffer.

"And last but not least, no Muslim on earth is going to tell me that I should convert to Islam, or else face the consequences of refusing to do so, and I refuse to live as a second class citizen simply because I was born a Christian."

You can afford to fantasize right now because Islam thrust into America is recent. India battered on for a millenium isn't so sure of this anymore. I'm sure they're starting to see the benefits of the alternative. And if it's going to bring peace to that country even at the cost of extinction of a few outdated faiths, maybe it isn't such a bad thing. Read up on the history of Nuristan. Islam persists for generations till it holds supreme.

Posted by: kufr at October 30, 2005 5:29 PM

And at least the Indians wouldn't be taking our jobs anymore. They'd be too busy praying, making sure their women's skin isn't showing anywhere and shouting death threats against Israel and America, to have anything to do with computers, like the rest of the mideast.

Posted by: kufr at October 30, 2005 5:41 PM

I am nauseous and despairing that we allowed this filth stained, blood stained culture and religion into our homeland... I admire Robert's reticence to publish items such as the disgusting story of a Muslim poisoning infidels with his fecal matter -- but at this point, nothing that they do will surprise me... Their psychotic projections onto their victims, their readiness to excuse ANY transgression, their willingness to lash out at the slightest provocation -- their addiction to hatred, vengeance, and their fondness for barbarity and vileness, their tactics -- those of the coward, the liar, the BEAST....

WHO HAD THE IDEA THAT MUSLIM IMMIGRATION WOULD BE A GOOD THING FOR AMERICA? WHO THOUGHT THEY WOULD ADD TO THE COMMON GOOD? Nothing but a blight, a subtraction, a liability, a waste....

Islam is a disgusting, freakish nightmare, cloaked as a "religion" -- a filth stained, hate stained, blood stained embarrassment -- an abomination -- a mistake... How can one avoid coming to the conclusion that nothing short of the complete banning of this diseased ideology of Islam is in order for the well being of humanity, for the future of our children?

Posted by: jsla at October 30, 2005 7:55 PM

I should have added, their willingness to lash out, even on manufactured provocations, provocations which they themselves engineered -- 9/11, Beslan, Bali, London, and this latest act of barbarism in India -- If the infidel reacts -- then the Muslim automatically claims victimhood, and concocts another pretext for violence and terror which he can pluck from his bottomless bag of tricks --

Posted by: jsla at October 30, 2005 8:17 PM

Brief History of Kashmir - excerpted from a speech to Amnesty International

AD 1320 - Shah-Mir's usurps the throne of Kashmir. At the time Kashmir was mostly Hindu/Buddhist in nature.

AD 1381 - during the reign of the Sultan Qutuibdin, Sharia law is applied on the infidels and destruction of Hindu temples begins. He died early and is followed by his son Sikander Butshikan, (Destroyer of idols).

AD 1393 - Sultan Sikander But-Shiken: Rules for 26 years. Systematically destroys temples, prohibits playing and learning of Music and Dramatics, effectively annihilates institutions of Kashmiri Learning, Forces conversion and massacres those who resist. In one short period he killed about 80 thousand people. During his reign large scale conversions and migration of Kashmir's took place.

AD 1414 - Sultan Zain-ul-Abdin: His rule was the mostly benevolent for Kashmiri Hindus.

AD1501 - Malik Musa Raina: 24000 families are forcibly converted to Islam. 1,500-2000 infidels were brought everyday to the door steps of Mir Iraqi; who in turn would remove their sacred thread, administer Kalima to them, Circumcise them and forced them to eat beef. The forcibly Converted Hindus start going back to their old tradition. In AD 1518, 1000 leading personalities of the community, who had gone back to their old faith, were massacred in front of their families and their followers. The families and the followers were warned not to repeat the mistake of going back to their infidel ways. These leading personalities had an influence over hundreds of other families, and they all were coerced
back to Islam. These policies forced constant migration of Kashmiri Hindus out of Kashmir. However even to migrate out of Kashmir, they were forced to pay taxes along
with the humiliation and the abduction of their women folk.

Afghan Rule: Even after all that has been described, the Pathan rule was considered the most barbaric rule the community had to suffer. It is said that during this rule only 11 Kashmiri Hindu families were left in Kashmir.

From here, I will jump to period from 1948 to 1989. Thereafter this story of Kashmiri Hindus, also includes the story of the Minorities of Jammu and Kashmir state. These minorities are Dogras of Jammu, Kashmiri Hindus, Ladhakhis and the Sikhs.

Jammu and Kashmir (1948 - 1990)

Discrimination at the Governmental Level:

In 1948 State of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India and the Muslim conference of Kashmir renamed as National Conference came to power with separate constitution and the Judiciary. This period is the story of the absolute dominance by the Kashmiri Muslim, who arranged the stage, under the screen of Article 370, for the disproportionate representation in the State assembly as well as in the Parliament. They enacted laws, which would further disenfranchise Kashmiri Hindus.

By 1948 the Kashmiri Hindu population was 15 %. However, they had at most one representative in the state assembly (out of the 75 members) and hardly ever any representation in Indian Parliament. The organization of the voting precincts was such that it guaranteed that Kashmiri Hindus were in minority in each constituency so that they did not have their representatives in the state Assembly.

The state government enacted laws, which setup reservations in educational institutions and government jobs for the Majority population. (The Government is the main employer in the state.) Note that traditionally the main occupation for the community was secured through education (white collar jobs). The enactment of these laws removed the possibility of education for youth within the state. Thus, Kashmiri Hindus youth is systematically forced to leave the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Passage of the Draconian Land reform Act:

The land reform act was passed by the state government through which they took the land from the Kashmiri Hindus, gave it to the Muslim tillers without any compensation to the Hindus.

Kashmiri Hindus who left the state experienced insurmountable difficulties in claiming to be the state subject, both for themselves as well as for their descendents. Whereas the Muslims who had left India and adopted Pakistan are easily recognized as the state subject.

The Kashmiri Hindu woman, if she marries outside Kashmir, loses all rights to her ancestral property and cannot be a state subject.

Discrimination from Majority Populace:

Constant harassment and the humiliation of our community members by the Muslim is so rampant, that for a long time I thought that it must be normal to live like that. Regular desecration, destruction and the occupation of our places of worship never gets much press. And since the judicial system of the state is independent of the Central Government there is no recourse for Kashmiri Hindus.

Because of the past historical experiences of atrocities and suppression, our community tends to get on with life, without protesting the discriminations by the state government constituted of Muslim community. This lack of visible protest guaranteed that there is no open violence on the streets to draw the attention of media hence no riots. This lack of protest by our community is construed by many as the peaceful coexistence of the Muslims and Hindus in Kashmir.

The one message that is clear of to our experience is that religious bigotry was a constant theme for our community even during the period from 1948-1990. However some time around 1980 onwards a large number of Madrasas in Kashmir, (of Wahabi type) started appearing. There was at the same time appearance of large number of non-Kashmiri Muslim clergy population. This gave a serious twist to the existing but still not so extreme religious bigotry. It is during this period that religious fanaticism in Kashmir started becoming intense. By 1990 it had come to full boil, and could not be kept under lid anymore. Again notice the Influence of Madrasas and foreigners, a theme having resonance with past history.

Kashmir (1989 - Present)

In 1990 loud-speakers blurred from the Mosques of Kashmir, with the slogans Allaha-O-Aqbar, Musalmano Jago; Kaffiro-Baago; Jihad AaRahaa hai Translating as; (Allah is great, Muslims Wakeup, Infidel run-away; Jihad is approaching.)

"If it were truly a movement for the freedom of Kashmir the content of slogans would be entirely different." However this uprising based in transforming Kashmir in to an Islamic theocracy, is presented to outside world as freedom struggle.

Starting from 1989, the situation caused by the injunction of foreign elements, dominated by Pakistan caused: Killing of KP leaders; Murdering and raping of members of KP and other minorities; Mass migration of Kashmiri Hindus (Please note the parallel with the past history)

Even during these depths of despair Kashmiri Hindus have not picked up guns to avenge themselves through terrorism, but are struggling to some how provide education to their children, for that is all they are still certain about.

We have shown here that the intent of the foreign sponsored movement in Kashmir is to bring in Islamic law and to force the local minority population either to get converted to Islam or force them to leave Kashmir and not freedom. An objective in consonance with the objectives adopted historically.

Today, the Islamization of Kashmir is 100% complete and is the basis of the struggle for a country independent from secular infidel India. Like Pakistan or Bangladesh, it's a land lost for Hindus and Buddhists forever.

Posted by: kufr at October 30, 2005 9:47 PM

eduardo odraude -- excellent post, thank you.

Posted by: Zeno at October 30, 2005 11:00 PM

Kufr, thanks for informing about Islamization history of Kashmir. Hindus are fighting Islam for last one thousand years,this fight but it is not without succcess. India became independent on 15th.Aug1947, usual teaching at school level tells it's to be from British, a careful analysis of Independence movement in 19th and 20th Centuries cleary shows that only hindus were making efforts to liberate India apparently from British.(and not from the muslims) By the begining of 19th Century muslims were spent force and hindus realized that British masters were lesser evil compare to Islam, therefore readily learned from British the European Education including English. This proved subsequently to be a great binding force. Simultaneously muslims realized if British left India,they could not reimpose islamic slavery. Initially muslims were indifferent or opposed independence from the britsh rule and only lateron two nation theory was formulated for the creation of Pakistan. Till today hindus are fighting Islam. 6th Dec 1992 was another milestone when Babri Masjid was demolished which has given a clear message to Islam that Hindus are not a spent force. Further strategy to fight and defeat the Islam depends on the western powers'response to jihad, once they take a firm action against islamic jihad,hindus will also act decicively to crush islam for ever in India.

Posted by: iqbal at October 31, 2005 2:22 AM

Kufr, thanks for informing about Islamization history of Kashmir. Hindus are fighting Islam for last one thousand years,this fight but it is not without succcess. India became independent on 15th.Aug1947, usual teaching at school level tells it's to be from British, a careful analysis of Independence movement in 19th and 20th Centuries cleary shows that only hindus were making efforts to liberate India apparently from British.(and not from the muslims) By the begining of 19th Century muslims were spent force and hindus realized that British masters were lesser evil compare to Islam, therefore readily learned from British the European Education including English. This proved subsequently to be a great binding force. Simultaneously muslims realized if British left India,they could not reimpose islamic slavery. Initially muslims were indifferent or opposed independence from the britsh rule and only lateron two nation theory was formulated for the creation of Pakistan. Till today hindus are fighting Islam. 6th Dec 1992 was another milestone when Babri Masjid was demolished which has given a clear message to Islam that Hindus are not a spent force. Further strategy to fight and defeat the Islam depends on the western powers'response to jihad, once they take a firm action against islamic jihad,hindus will also act decicively to crush islam for ever in India.

Posted by: iqbal at October 31, 2005 2:23 AM

iqbal 6 th Dcember for me represents dashed hopes. 6th December was the focal point of the Hindu assertiveness. But the Saffron Wave of the 1980's has died doen. Hindus have gone back to their selfish and self centered ways. India is a broken land and a wounded civilisation as Naipaul puts it. The apathy Hindus display towards KP's and my very own Sindhis is shocking. It makes me wonder... it'd have indeed been better if my Sindhi ancestors had converted to Islam. Betryal by Muslims is one thing but betrayal by Hindus other thing. Why doesnt world know about Kashmiri Pandits... why did India fail to internationalise their cause? Kashmiri Pandits i've seen are a sad community drenched in self pity. Being refugees in their own country for 16 years. Its a miracle they still remain Hindus.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at October 31, 2005 10:10 AM

From Eduardo above:

1) prefer detailed facts to making universal generalizations. Universal generalizations may express the primary truth of a situation, but be careful before generalizing. Careless generalizing is perceived by many, correctly, as the province of the bigot, and we should do everything we can to be innocent of any appearance or reality of bigotry, because we abhor bigotry, and to maximize the number of our allies.

This is an excellent point, and one I will attempt to follow more vigorously... Tremors from this latest (and greatest) Jihad are beginning to shake the foundations of our world -- The success or failure of our endeavor WILL depend on whether the greater public (and that includes ALL non-Muslims, as well as those Muslims not wishing to be part of the fascism) begins to perceive its self interest as well as the morality of our positions.

As always -- your points are well made and thought provoking. Thanks for your excellent posts!

Posted by: jsla at October 31, 2005 11:26 AM