| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Dinesh D'Souza recommends the American conservatives ally with what he calls "traditional Muslims," who are actually cultural Muslims who have little acquaintance with or interest in violent jihad. The problem is that such people are always susceptible to the jihadist appeal, based as it is on the Qur'an and Sunnah. Here is an example of this happening in D'Souza's native India.
"Austere version of Islam finding a home in India: Migrants returning from the Persian Gulf with stricter views are altering the melting pot in an Indian province," by Borzou Daragahi in the Los Angeles Times, with thanks to Andrew Bostom:
VENGARA, INDIA — The change came several years ago for Maryam Arrakal. Her husband brought a black, all-covering abaya back to this steamy, subtropical town from the desert sands of Saudi Arabia.It contrasted starkly with the pastel saris she normally wore.
But in the 12 years that her husband, Kunchava, had been running a Saudi fabric shop, he had become detached from this melting pot of Muslims, Hindus and Christians, and more drawn to the Saudis' strict version of Islam.
"I used to dress much more colorfully," said Arrakal, standing amid diesel fumes and frenetic auto-rickshaw drivers in Vengara's one-street downtown, a 7-month-old baby in her arms and a black cloak shrouding her figure. "But my husband brought this for me and prefers me to wear it."
The migration to oil-rich Persian Gulf monarchies of as many as one in five men from India's Kerala province has brought an influx of money that pays for food, shelter and education. It also funds dowries for their daughters and gifts for their wives.
But like many of the world's millions of economic migrants, the men bring back more than money.
In this case, they brim with provocative ideas about the proper way to worship. And they pay for plain green mosques with minarets and Arabic writing that are far different than the ornate and bulbous temples where Muslims have long worshiped here.
In Kerala, where Muslims are traditionally the poorest residents, those returning from the Persian Gulf say they are building pride in their community and connecting its members to the broader Islamic world. But others see the growth of sectarian politics and scattered religious violence as warning signs....
From the moment they arrive, migrants from Kerala are introduced to attitudes unknown at home. Some housing is for Hindus only; some employers openly prefer Muslims over Hindus or Christians.
Some migrant workers are invigorated by living in a country with a Muslim majority. Others less enthusiastic about their new home cling to their faith out of loneliness and a sense of isolation. But they find a different interpretation of Islam.
Arrakal's husband, Kunchava, 49, had little to do in his free time in Saudi Arabia but attend prayers and read the Koran. He gradually changed his views about life and faith, including how his wife dressed.
"In traditional Indian garb, the woman's stomach is bare," he said. "Islamic dress covers up all the body parts."
In study groups and at prayer gatherings throughout the Persian Gulf region, men such as Abdul Rahman Mohammed Peetee hammer away at Kerala's traditions. For them, paying homage to local saints or anyone other than God is sacrilege: The Koran and the sayings of the prophet Muhammad contain all that any Muslim needs.
"You must study the Arab culture," Peetee, a Kerala native, told a gathering on the sixth floor of an office tower in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
The men howled in protest.
"Some Arabs behave worse than us!" one cried. "Why should we study them? We have our own practices and culture."
Peetee, a stout man with a collarless shirt buttoned to his neck, was relentless.
"These practices are established by society," he said. "Not by the Koran."...
"I am scared," said one moderate Muslim newspaper editor, who asked that his name not be published because it could harm his community standing. "The liberal Muslims, the moderate Muslims, are scared."
Identity politics
The religious awakening also has given rise to a new political assertiveness.
Critics say Muslim organizations have set up de facto political machines, forcing parties on the left and right to woo extreme Islamic groups funded by Persian Gulf riches....
"Social life has been politicized," Narayan said. "Muslim community organizations found that they could corner all the Muslim votes."
Many worry that the status quo has begun to unravel.
In January 2002 and May 2003, 14 people were killed in riots between Muslims and Hindus in Calicut. And in February 2005, suspected Hindu nationalists attacked a mosque in the town of Vallikunnam at the end of evening prayers, killing one and injuring two.
"Muslims themselves are worried by the rise of the militant Islamic organizations," said Ajai Mangat, Calicut correspondent for the Malayalam Manorama, the province's largest daily newspaper. "If they become more powerful, the Hindu nationalists become more powerful."
Posted by Robert at January 29, 2007 11:06 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I don't see any problems for India. Dinesh D'Souza says Muslims are no problem at all there. In fact, they virtually built India, so the Hindus have nothing to worry about. D'Souza knows all so all's well because he said so.
D'Souza should live a few years in a Muslim part of India. Perhaps his viewpoint will change a little.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 29, 2007 11:27 AM
Though D'Souza doesn't seem to understand the difference between moderate Muslims and (imaginary) moderate Islam, he does bring up a point worth focusing on: what are the best mechanisms and strategies to prevent the millions of moderate Muslims worldwide who know little about Islam (and/or are happy to ignore the negative aspects of Islam) from being radicalized as Islamic recruitment continues?
Is it controversial that honing in on the problems of Islam may, for many moderate Muslims, trigger a reflexive, defensive reaction because it will be seen as a personal affront to their identity?
Posted by: kamala at January 29, 2007 12:46 PM
You know, I've read that a grat many Israli soldiers - both male and female, just released from the military there, are so fed up and disillusioned from the ME conflict, that these ex-soldiers are migrating to India to settle there, and even intermarrying with the Hindus.
So, we see, 2 groups beginning to gather.
at January 29, 2007 12:51 PM
By "austere" could D'Souza really mean friendlier to terrorism and/or guerilla warfare and/or homicide bombing?
Posted by: pythagoras at January 29, 2007 12:57 PM
"Is it controversial that honing in on the problems of Islam may, for many moderate Muslims, trigger a reflexive, defensive reaction because it will be seen as a personal affront to their identity? - kamala
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.” (Herbert Spencer, 1820-1903)
at January 29, 2007 1:08 PM
"Is it controversial that honing in on the problems of Islam may, for many moderate Muslims, trigger a reflexive, defensive reaction because it will be seen as a personal affront to their identity?"
Posted by: kamala
Thats a problem that may not be solved! Why becuase any attempt to bring some "light" to them will bring the automatic "defensive reaction" becuase of the Quran. If we try to stop some girl from being stoned to death we are doing a "personal affront". If Christians (or other faiths) try to convert some it is a "personal affront". Alas we can't just keep ignoring it either becuase of the jihad concept that is part of the faith. Also with the internet and immigration etc there is no way to shield them from our culture.
The fact is this is a war that cannot be stopped in my opinion. They can't stop being who they are unless they just dump their whole way of life and religion or we dump our way of life and our religion. I would rather they dump theirs. Thats life and that is the way the ball bounces. We are who we are....and they are who they are.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 29, 2007 1:08 PM
Austere? You mean there's a fun version somewhere?
Posted by: Celsius at January 29, 2007 1:09 PM
If this article is true and somewhate of a trend, then this would mean a VERY REAL shift in the world as we know it. Pakis, Indians and Bengladeshis in Arab lands (particularly Saudi Arabia) are looked at as inferior and almost sub-human (in many cases black Africans are even treated better). When Americans and/or Europeans convert to Islam in KSA, they are literally showered with gifts (many times including an actual home). Yet Muslims from the other countries I mentioned are not worth the time of the average Saudi. So, if the Saudis are actually starting to pay attention to them, then we may be in real trouble here due to their sheer numbers.
Posted by: Qualis Rex at January 29, 2007 1:11 PM
D'Souza puts the cart before the horse...
I listened to the exchanges between Robert and D'Souza and the problem is that there is some truth in what D'Souza says re the role of "progressives" in creating an image of a decadent West that is used by radicals to incite Jihad. But "progressive culture" is only one means to incite Jihad and not the central motive of Jihad-which is to impose Sharia law on all.
Only after a very powerful and vocal stand by "moderate" Muslims against the dissonant sounds of Jihad will Muslims and non-Muslims be able to hear the harmony between non-Muslims and Muslims on cultural issues. Meanwhile, it does not matter to Jihadists that non-Muslims and Muslims have harmony on many cultural issues in the West or elsewhere because conservative non-Muslims are Kaffirs. Once "moderate" Muslims attack the Jihadists for their universal and self-serving desire for power over Kaffirs, their desire for power over all, will a bridge be built between Muslims and non-Muslims on cultural issues. Then the horse is placed in its right place and can pull Muslims and non-Muslims in a culturally conservative cart.
Posted by: Frank at January 29, 2007 1:23 PM
So. if I have this straight, Maryam's husband comes home from 12 years in Saudi Arabia, gives her a burqa, and tells her to wear it from now on, and she does so automatically, no questions asked. Maybe there's something to this islam stuff after all. Any woman I know would have had his ass on the first plane back to Arabia, taking the burqa back for a refund.
Posted by: ebonystone at January 29, 2007 1:36 PM
The exchange between Robert and D'Souza reminded me of two guys looking at the same car. D'Souza's argument has more to do with the style-veneer "sex appeal" of the car, while Robert's argument is more nuts and bolts, more to do with the car frame and the engine. Robert is looking at the car and addressing what makes it move. D'Souza deals with one surface of the car and says that's what makes it move.
Posted by: Frank at January 29, 2007 1:45 PM
ebonystone-
Somebody should do an Islamic-Stepford Wives movie. I can see it in my head. It could be a hoot.
Posted by: Frank at January 29, 2007 1:50 PM
"Muslims themselves are worried by the rise of the militant Islamic organizations," said Ajai Mangat, Calicut correspondent for the Malayalam Manorama, the province's largest daily newspaper. "If they become more powerful, the Hindu nationalists become more powerful."
Wow. Some Muslims are learning an unpleasant truth: what goes around comes around.
My advice to Muslims who are "worried" about these militants: do something. Discredit them. Refuse to donate to Islamic "charities" while this jihad goes on. Speak up loud and make the Muslim imams know you won't stand for it. Until you do, we "kaffirs" won't know which side you're on.
It's time for YOU MODERATE MUSLIMS to pick sides.
Then the fight can begin...and it will be to the death. Not because we want it that way. Because jihadist Muslims want it that way. People in the middle might get killed in the crossfire. It's the way of war and it's been that way throughout history.
at January 29, 2007 2:16 PM
Frank,
Have you seen "Idiocracy"? It's what the world will look like in the future if the muslims win.
If we win, the Saudis can watch Miss USA make-out with Miss Afghanistan on a live stage in Tehran from the comfort of their suburban digs in Riyadh via Time-Warner cable. D"Souza will provide popcorn and an adult beverage of their choice.
Posted by: Malinois at January 29, 2007 2:23 PM
"Is it controversial that honing in on the problems of Islam may, for many moderate Muslims, trigger a reflexive, defensive reaction because it will be seen as a personal affront to their identity? - kamala"
This like the child misbehaving and already with his act. AND the mother says:
"If you do that, I will no longer let you watch tv, I mean that!"
NOthing changes.
" If you continue doing that, I will go right over and turn it off, I REALLY MEAN THAT!"
Nothing changes. The provocation continues.
"I'm going to take you toys away. NOW I REALLY, REALLY MEAN THAT!"
at January 29, 2007 2:32 PM
Such a joyful belief system, Islam!
Posted by: Alex at January 29, 2007 2:33 PM
Why is this a suprise to anybody. The true essense of islam is fiqh (jurispudence). The four madhabs are the same in any muslim country (except shia). The four madhaabs are no differnt from anything whabbis taught, Ibn Tamiya, Ibn Kathir, ect. This is true traditional islam. This is the acid that disolves the localized folk Islam in the age of globalism. Globalization means the death of tolorent folk Islam all over the world. The localized Islam in India was a lie anyway and dangerous, because it let some legitimacy to the death cult.
Posted by: American_soldier at January 29, 2007 2:41 PM
Ah, I'll settle for a silicon street corner baby instead of that life style. I don't see anything holy or respectful in any of the teachings of the Koran, it's an idiot's dream for selfishness. Give me the true life, full of gothic and different women that I can enjoy; who wants a life of blackness discrimination ?
Posted by: Jeff at January 29, 2007 2:52 PM
American_soldier-
The Jihadists would kill Jerry Falwell, the Pope, D'Souza, and Robert as quickly as they would kill Madonna or members of planned parenthood. That's the problem. D'Souza would be beheaded by these bums. The bums are the problem and that's who the "moderates" have to deal with (by constant denouncements and vocal demonstrations) before anyone will believe in such a thing as "moderate" Muslims.
Posted by: Frank at January 29, 2007 3:05 PM
Kerala State is famous for its Communists, and for its Christians. It still has plenty of people named after Joseph Stalin, in the same vaguely admiring spirit in which Mussolini's father gave baby boy Mussolini the name "Benito" because he admired, from a distance, what he heard about Benito Juarez. Both are inimical to Islam. and Islam is inimical to both. In Kerala, as in Iran with the Tudeh Party, or in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt with some leftover Communis dinosaurs, to be a Marxist was often merely the only conceivable way ouf of Islam, by replacing one all-encomassing ideology, that of Islam, with the ideology of dialectical materialism. Among Iranians in European exile, some of the fiercest are the lady Communists, like those who hosted Ibn Warraq in Stockholm a few years ago.
When you hear about "Communists" in the Muslm world, do not be as fearful as you might once have been. They are much less dangerous, much less of a threat, than the Muslims whom John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles and Kermit Roosevelt and others used to favor as "a bulwark against Communism."
Posted by: Hugh at January 29, 2007 3:51 PM
"what are the best mechanisms and strategies to prevent the millions of moderate Muslims worldwide who know little about Islam (and/or are happy to ignore the negative aspects of Islam) from being radicalized as Islamic recruitment continues?"
Surely not to show we are willing to participate in a shared game with "moderate Muslims" (a term that must be examined and subject to constant evalutation and critical scrutiny) of "let's pretend" -- let's pretend that the Qur'an and Hadith and Sira don't say what they say, let's pretend Muslims have not followed the tenets of Islam over the past 1350 years, let's pretend that those who ignore parts of Islamic doctrine and thus are less of a menace to non-Muslims are less of a menace because they are observant, when they are less of a menace precisely to the degree that they are non-observant, refuse to take the duties of a good Muslim -- for example, to engage in Jihad - seriously.
at January 29, 2007 3:57 PM
Seems many of us are correct - Islam is a disease, and you can catch it. Put it into quarantine. Now.
Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at January 29, 2007 4:07 PM
The root cause of the export of the sternest type of Islam (Wahhabbi) from the oil-rich Arab states. This makes Islam more Arabo-centric than ever.
The way to counteract that is to to take away the oil that we gave them. They neither discovered nor extracted the oil. It was handed to the Arab Moslems by the West.
"How can we do that?" you may well ask (take the oil away from the Arabs). I leave you with Voltaire's "Everything is possible in this, the most possible, of allpossible worlds."
Posted by: unicorns62000 at January 29, 2007 4:29 PM
Hugh wrote: Kerala State is famous for its Communists, and for its Christians.
My compliments to you for your insight here. Yes, Kerala is very well known as the first freely elected communist government in the world. West Bengal state is also extremely communist. And while many Muslims find Islam as the only viable alternative at times, Hindus do as well. Hindus can be just as savage in their quest to control and/or consolidate their power in India. In Kerala, the Christians (roughly 20% as you mentioned) who were beheaded, raped, killed etc these past few years were done so by Hindus, and not Muslims.
I'm only bringing this fact up to potentially draw some parallels here and establish if there are any patterns of behavior we can learn from.
Posted by: Qualis Rex at January 29, 2007 4:31 PM
As austere as this new version of Islam is, it’s nothing by comparison as what I personal have encountered. I am not speaking of the knowledge based Islam, but an absurdity in my personal encounter.
Here in America, where I feel comfortable amongst Muslims, where I cannot be killed for being a kafir, while in college, a very pretty Lebanese girl, who noticed my academic potential, decided to ask me to help her with a subject. Being a Christian, I thought perhaps, she, being exposed to many Christians in my circle, might consider Christianity. We finished the semester together; while I finished well, she did better than a “C,” so she decided to linger with me a little longer, and signed up with me all the classes I took in the subsequent semester. Through her network, more and more Muslims came to buy my homework solutions. Slowly, I became popular in their circle. One day, while waiting in the hall, in the present of her friends, a Yemen man said boldly, “When will you guys get married?” I was agape--- all her friends laughed.
When the class was over, the girl and I were left alone to hurry to the upper campus to attend another class. On the way there, she said, “You know, you need to become a Muslim before you can marry me.”
Leisurely I replied, “I know,”
“That means, you must be circumcised,” said she emphatically.
“Oh, I don’t need that; I have been circumcised in my infancy,” said I
“No, no, no, you still have to be circumcised with Islamic ritual, in spite of what you professed to have been done in your infancy,” said she with great frustration.
“ Well, what good is it to marry you, if I have no plumbing left after the ritual?” said I.
Sexual mutilation! — The most austere version of all Islam.
at January 29, 2007 4:56 PM
So, did you marry her? Did she get her green card?
Posted by: Hugh at January 29, 2007 6:13 PM
No Hugh, I won't trade Christ for a mortal babe.
My sweetheart is a very godly Christian.
at January 29, 2007 6:45 PM
As of September 22, 2004 in Kerala:
KOZHIKODE, SEPT. 22. While the population of Hindus and Christians declined by 1.48 and 0.32 percentage points respectively, the population of Muslims increased by 1.70 percentage points in the State since the last Census in 1991, according to the First Report on Religion Data released by the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, J.K. Banthia, in New Delhi recently.
Hindus constitute 56.20 per cent, Muslims 24.7 per cent and Christians 19 per cent of the total population of 3,18,41,374 (females — 1,63,72,760 and males — 1,54,68,614) as per Census 2001 of the State."
And it is the same everywhere. Hindus and Christians and Jains and Sikhs down, Muslims everywhere up, up, up.
at January 29, 2007 7:34 PM
In Kerala, as in Iran with the Tudeh Party, or in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt with some leftover Communis dinosaurs, to be a Marxist was often merely the only conceivable way ouf of IslamHugh
I disagree with you here about Kerala Communists being anti Muslims in the same way that Tudeh or other Communist parties in dar-ul-Islam are. Like you point out above, Hindus are 56% of the Kerala population, so their choices aren't Islam or Communism. However, Kerala is one of the 3 indoctrinated states (with Marxism) in India (the other 2 being Left Bengal and Tripura), and Keralite Hindus, like Muslims, are evenly split between Communists and Congress. There were once two Muslim parties allied with each of them, but after the 1985 Shah Bano judgement (another eternal act of dhimmitude by PM Rajiv Gandhi), when the Communists chose not to appease the ummah by opposing calls for a uniform civil code, both these Muslim parties merged and have been electoral allies of the Congress ever since.
However, to conclude from that that the Marxists in Kerala (in India, there is a Communist Party of India (Marxist), and then, there is the Communist Party of India, from which the former broke away and outgrew) are a bulwork against Islam would be a mistake. The Marxists in Kerala are a part of the CPI(M), which is de facto a regional party in the 3 states mentioned, and dominated by West Bengal, where they have won a record #consecutive elections since 1977 (hence, my name for it - Left Bengal, along the lines of Left Coast used to describe San Francisco, Berekeley, Oakland, LA, Portland and Seattle). In West Bengal, the Left Front government has over the years encouraged the illegal immigration of Muslims from Bangladesh by the million, and have encouraged the communal balance in northern districts to shift heavily in favor of Muslims, to the point that Muslims are now 40% of the population in what was originally the Hindu part of Bengal. That has been a captive vote bank for them, and even the dhimmi champions of India - the Congress - has been unable to win them over. Hindus in Bengal haven't done themselves any favors by allying with Communists as well. End result - not only is Bengal - the non Bangladesh part of it totally screwed - but this infiltration has affected India as well, as a whole. And except for the last NDA government, no government in India has tried forcing that issue.
As for Qualis Rex above, I'd like to see reports of where that has happened. When Graham Staines was burnt alive several years ago, that made headlines throughout India. Just as the media there loves it when they can ding Hindutva activists, they'd do it for anyone at their receiving end - not just Muslims, but anyone. Besides, Hindutva parties are non-existent in Kerala and Bengal.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 29, 2007 8:01 PM
SSA good story. I can't tell you how many Muslim women I've dated, and how many Muslim men I've had drinks with during my College years. But yeah, when it comes down to appearances, they all never touched a drop of liquor and/or ever stepped into a car alone with a man who wasn't a relative. Fun...until things turn serious.
As for circumcision, I'm sorry to hear you had the procedure done as a child. The procedure is barbaric and un-necessary (unless you happen to be a desert-dweller with no access to water or a sense of personal hygene). As a Christian, you know the procedure is irrelevant given the "New Covenant". Yet, in the US, Canada and other countries with sizeable Jewish populations, mutilating a child's genitals is the norm, whereas in other cultures it is seen as barbaric and cruel (which is what it is).
If an 18-year-old man wants to mutilate himself, that's all good and well. But a newborn child?
Posted by: Qualis Rex at January 29, 2007 8:06 PM
"I disagree with you here about Kerala Communists being anti Muslims in the same way that Tudeh or other Communist parties in dar-ul-Islam are. Like you point out above, Hindus are 56% of the Kerala population, so their choices aren't Islam or Communism. However, Kerala is one of the 3 indoctrinated states (with Marxism) in India (the other 2 being Left Bengal and Tripura), and Keralite Hindus, like Muslims, are evenly split between Communists and Congress."
-- from a posting above
I agree with you. I was wrong, and I don't know why I didn't think clearly in distinguishing between the situation in Iran, and Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, where the handful of dinosaur-Communists left were trying to find some conceivable alternative to Islam, one cohesive and strong enough, and plausible as an alternative (Christianity wouldn't do), and that in Kerala, where of course many Communists would come from those of both Christian and Hindu background, and the Muslim attitude has been slightly different -- with not as much desperation, and therefore as much pressure, among the thinking elite of the Muslims, as there is in the Middle East.
So: sorry. Thank you for the correction.
Posted by: Hugh at January 30, 2007 12:40 AM
Indian posters, I need your help. I am gathering data on these so called "traditional muslims". Historical data that proves that these people were the reason that we lost nearly half our territory, starting from Kabul, and finally West Punjab and East Bengal. The Kshatriyas never stopped, (The word Kshtriya is all encompassing and is not limited to the Rajputs) but still they won Battles, while they continued to lose the overall War. I do believe that their Code that forbade them to kill the unarmed (including women and children) was responsible for this failure. The most extreme example was Prithviraj Chauhan who defeated muhammad gauri multiple times but released him when he asked for forgiveness. I do have details of some battles that took place in Central India involving the Bundelas and the Jats. But what I am looking for is some books that take up this point. Some help will be appreciated. Thanks.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at January 30, 2007 1:07 AM
Hugh
I am touched - I never dreamt I'd hear this from you. But don't worry - this is a very easy and understandable mistake to make, even for people who closely follow events in India. Reason being that the Marxists, while allied with Muslims vis a vis Hindutva forces, are different from Western Leftists in one very significant aspect. Whereas Western Leftists tend to ally with Islamists, even at the cost of brushing off their own constituents (think of Red Ken Livingstone brushing off his gay support by endorsing Qarawadi), Indian Marxists have generally taken sides in intra-Islamic controversies, siding with reformists against the mullahs. In other words, they don't let down their ideology when it comes to Islam, as long as the controversy in question is Muslim 'progressives' vs. Muslim clerics.
In a case in India 2 years ago, where a rape victim was ordered by the Muslim dominated village panchayat to marry her father-in-law who raped her (following the example of Mr Uswa Hassana himself), the Marxists sided with Muslim women's groups who took umbrage to this ruling. Whenever there are similar controversies within the ummah between clerics and the less fanatical faithful, the Marxists generally take the side of the latter.
A major exception to this has been Taslima Nasreen, and that's mainly because of the fact that when she first gained notoreity in Bangladesh several years ago, the BJP was quick to endorse her (that despite her statement that Hindu and Islamic fanaticism were 2 sides of the same coin.) As a result, the ruling Marxists in Bengal banned her book 'Lajja', which at the time, being written in Bengali, could only have had a readership in the 2 Bengals.
For this reason, there are those who perceive the Marxists to be genuinely secular on the grounds that they wouldn't endorse, say, stoning of adulterers, or honor killings. However, this progressive attitude of theirs ends when it comes to the ummah vs. others. There is no way they'd side with Hindus, or anyone else against Muslims. Not only did they oppose the invasion of Iraq (disguising their opposition to the US as a support for 'secular' Saddam) - they also opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, as well as India's nuclear tests in 1998.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 30, 2007 1:40 AM
Arjun
You could look up the Sikh history website, where the family friendly activities of these traditional Muslims is well documented. In particular, check out the section on Sikh martyrs. And if you aren't eating, read the account of Banda Singh Bahadur (object of Naseem's praise a few days ago). Be sure to read it on an empty stomach, especially when you come to the part about Banda's horrific execution, while you admire the value system of traditional Muslims.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 30, 2007 1:50 AM
Arjun wrote: I do believe that their Code that forbade them to kill the unarmed (including women and children) was responsible for this failure.
Spoken like a true Hindu nationalist. Actually, most historians agree the "failure" of the Hindus in the face of the Mamlukes was due to 2 factors: 1) The Hindu rules had become complacent and decadent (see the movie "Kama Sutra") 2) Hindus of lower castes were quick to convert and/or side with the Mamluk invaders as a way to gain social mobility and escape their deplorable conditions under the caste system.
But of course, you will "find" any "facts" which will help your opinion, which is clearly already made up here.
All one needs to do is look at the totals of Muslim AND Hindu dead on both sides during partition to see that one is just as savage as the other.
Posted by: Qualis Rex at January 30, 2007 2:51 AM
"When Graham Staines was burnt alive several years ago, that made headlines throughout India. Just as the media there loves it when they can ding Hindutva activists, they'd do it for anyone at their receiving end - not just Muslims, but anyone".
Infidel Pride,
The following writeups by Varsha Bhosle would be enlightening:
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/aug/09varsha.htm
Other myths to "internalise"
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/aug/12varsha.htm
Towards Balkanisation, Part I
Towards Balkanisation, Part II
Towards Balkanisation, III: Missionaries
Towards Balkanisation, IV: Catholics
Towards Balkanisation, V: Adivasis
at January 30, 2007 4:15 AM
The liberal Muslims, the moderate Muslims, are scared.
--- fearful Moslem
Hitch your wagon to an ideology that calls for the worst and attempt to be something better than the worst you can be, and worse men that you, devout Moslems, will do the worst possible things to you.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at January 30, 2007 4:37 AM
I just finished reading the rediff.com articles, which are the thinest of thinly veiled Hindu propaganda. In the first article, it states When you claim to protect minorities, you can perpetuate innumerable scams that make Muslims and everyone else a loss. In other words, if you try to protect Christians and other minorities from Hindus, you are really just helping Muslims.
Pretty twisted logic. I'm personally tired of all these "the cow made me do it" type excuses from Hindu nationalists. Violence is violence. Full stop. Hindus cannot hope to achieve the moral high ground against Islam if they are constantly lumping them in with other groups (i.e. Christians) who they want to erradicate from India.
Posted by: Qualis Rex at January 30, 2007 4:42 AM
Qualis Rex,
Hindus of contemporary India can claim to be "Hindus" but have not truly internalised what Hindu Philosophy/Vedantha enunciates. Add to that their shallow knowledge of Islam and its jihad, near absence of proper governance and the rampantly prevalent corruption. Where is the "moral ground"? Muslims are the most pampered here.
I don't agree that "Hindus want to eradicate Christianity". There are a lot of Westerners(Whites) who spend a lot of their time with focussed study of Vedantha and other scriptures. Some even take pains to learn Sanskrit,Tamil to study the original texts and translate them into English (certain European languages too) applying themselves very diligently to it. Majority of Hindus don't bother. Instead bother to rally behind some charlatan or misconstrue God as a Space Daddy who exists to be propitiated to fulfil one's desires and wishes.
Be it any name of "ism" or "ity" given, it is one's own abidance and adherence to proper values and ethics that determine one's destiny.
(Those rediff links were at least better than typical pavlovian pc media reports.Hence I chose to post them)
at January 30, 2007 6:05 AM
Qualis Rex,
Do you understand what the "caste system" which made people live under "deplorable conditions" was ? The caste system was occupation based, and one could change one's caste anytime one wanted to. And buddy, I've got news for you, you live in the caste system. Tell me, for whom would you have a high degree of respect, a university teacher or a janitor ? A soldier or a mechanic ? That's exactly what caste system was.
As for the "Kama Sutra" movie, do you think a two hour movie will cover all the aspects of a civilization which is ancient ? That your knowledge is shallow was apparent when you started posting about "thousands of Christians being killed." The last missionary who was killed was trying to convert tribals, (heard about the tribes of India, dolt) his killer was a tribal who also attack Hindus if they venture onto their territory. You realize I live in a city, just like most of the people here, and am not likely to fall prey to the propoganda of a sainthood seeking "holy man" and that is why these missionaries are targeting the tribes, who are forest dwellers for the most part, and are easy to convince and convert.
Well T. Rex, I won't be wasting any more time on you or your false rantings. You were called a bare faced liar by a Christian living in India on another thread, and now I accuse you of being shallow. Goodbye, dolt.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at January 30, 2007 7:03 AM
The Hindu said Do you understand what the "caste system" which made people live under "deplorable conditions" was ?
Yes, I understand quite well. I also understand that you are either a liar or a complete idiot to try and tell is there was mobility within the caste system. Do you honestly think a Dalit would not choose to be a Brahman if this were possible?
I have never been called a liar on this thread, but it wouldn't phase me a bit if I were called one by an ignorant cow-worshiping fool like yourself.
Posted by: Qualis Rex at January 30, 2007 2:00 PM
"If they become more powerful, the Hindu nationalists become more powerful."
Finally, some understanding. So let me re-itefate:
- Communists didn't defeat democracy. They defeated an absolut monarchy (Duma had an advisory role only) sliding into fascism ("Black Centuria")
- Nazis didn't defeat a prosperous democracy - they defeated Communists.
- they always come in pairs, each side positioning itself as the only solution against another.
- Islamonazi do need "kill towelheads, jews and eggheads" kind of Nazis to advance
- Any intellectual who refuses to support his or her country's identity, and instead supports Islamonazis out of fear of more traditional white Nazis, is it fact advancing the latter as well as former.
Posted by: Terry Crane at January 30, 2007 5:20 PM
"Yes, I understand quite well. I also understand that you are either a liar or a complete idiot to try and tell is there was mobility within the caste system. Do you honestly think a Dalit would not choose to be a Brahman if this were possible?"
Yes, dalits do become Brahmins. Those who want to have to go through a ceremony in a temple in the state of Maharashtra. And you were called a liar on another thread where you ranted about "thousands of Christians" being killed in India.
If I were to follow your procedure of arriving at a conclusion, by watching "Playboy", and reading about apartheid, I would arrive at the conclusion that the place where you are coming from is a brothel, and that there is a massive killing of blacks going on there as well. Loon, the original question that I had posed to Indian posters here was scholarly in nature, one that indicates that demographics were used as a tool in the jihad over here. Like I said, DOLT !
Posted by: arjun.sevak at January 31, 2007 4:16 AM
Also loon, you seem to be more bothered with "Hindu Nationalists" rather than the jihad. The kind of stuff you're spouting is just like what the communist leaders use over here. And they are also of the opinion that the Hindu rulers were, to use your language, "decadent" and the mughals were just, kind rulers. You seem to have caught hold of one such book written by a leftist "historian" and therfore you are "enlightened" and sharing your "knowledge" with us. Continue to enlighten in your beautiful language, please.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at January 31, 2007 6:15 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)