| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
By Sean Yoong for AP:
PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia - The cavernous pink Putra Mosque with its soaring minaret is one of the most commanding sights and popular tourist photo backdrops in the new city of Putrajaya.A house of worship for thousands of Muslims in the 8-year-old administrative capital of Malaysia, it is a showcase of the nation's dominant faith — Islam.
But the mosque also highlights the fact that Putrajaya doesn't have a single church or temple — a fact that minority Buddhists, Hindus and Christians see as one example of the second-class treatment other faiths get in this Muslim-majority country.
Religious minorities have long complained about obstacles in getting the government's permission to build places of worship in Malaysia. But their frustrations have grown amid recent accusations by religious rights activists that authorities are destroying non-Muslim shrines, heating up racial bitterness that has simmered for decades beneath a veneer of multicultural harmony.
"There is much disillusionment" among non-Muslims, said P. Uthayakumar, a Hindu lawyer who has launched a court battle to prevent authorities from demolishing temples. "Every time a temple is demolished, the people's confidence is shaken further."
The issue of churches and temples is part of a wider debate in Malaysia regarding racial and religious rights. Majority ethnic Malays, who are exclusively Muslim, enjoy a host of privileges, while other groups struggle with issues such as a perceived lack of recourse when they get into legal disputes with Muslims over religious matters.
"The debate and conflict over places of worship for non-Muslims is one of the results of the radicalized communitarian politics," says Farish Noor, a Malaysian Muslim political analyst.
"Thus far the Malaysian government has been talking about being a government for all Malaysians, but sadly we see that the Malay-Muslim agenda still dominates politics at a major level."
[...]
Malaysia has not seen major racial violence since May 1969, when hundreds were killed in riots between Malay Muslims — two-thirds of the country's 26 million people — and ethnic Chinese who are 25 percent of the population.
Most Chinese are Buddhists or Christians. Ethnic Indians, the smallest minority, are largely Hindus.
Racial harmony between the three groups is a fine balance, maintained mainly because the minorities have not made a fuss about Islam's primacy, and are accepting and thankful for the relative freedom they have to practice their faith.
But critics say that although religious freedom is a constitutional right, minorities are being indirectly victimized by laws and arcane rules.
Among them, religious conversion of ethnic Malay Muslims is illegal; authorities have strict guidelines that limit the number of non-Muslim places of worship, partly based on whether there are enough non-Muslims in an area to justify having a church or temple.
According to Town Planning Department guidelines non-Muslim places of worship can only be built after taking into account racial "harmony ... and not touch on the sensitivities of other faiths."
Laws also allow for the demolition of temples and churches built on sites deemed unsuitable by city officials.
In the past year, activists allege there have been increasing demolitions, especially involving Hindu temples. The Hindu Rights Action Force lobby group claims more than 70 Hindu temples were razed or threatened with such action in 2006.
Many Hindu temples were built by plantation laborers, without official approval, before the country's independence from Britain in 1957.
[...]
The main problem for Christians, meanwhile, is getting approval to build new churches; a Roman Catholic church, for instance, was held up 18 years. Many Protestant churches are forced to occupy commercial shop and office premises because they cannot obtain government consent.
The government rejects claims of discrimination, pointing out that the demolished temples were built illegally and that its policies allow for sufficient non-Muslim places of worship.
[...]
Such assurances, however, sometimes seem slow to be translated to action. Catholic Malaysians have been working since 2005 to set up a church in Putrajaya, but church officials say they are still awaiting the government's blessings for the church design.
The Rev. Julian Leow, a priest involved in the project, estimates hundreds of Catholics in Putrajaya, a city of 50,000, currently have to travel to neighboring districts for Mass.
Posted by Greg at April 1, 2007 1:09 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Ahh, just like the old daze, before the partition. There is little of India in Pakistan, in an obverse sorta way.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 1, 2007 1:50 AM
I think the Putra Mosque should be renamed. How about Putred Mosque? This is precisely why we should stop muslim immigration now before the devils do the same thing with our houses of worship of whatever stripe.
Posted by: TexasInfidel at April 1, 2007 1:58 AM
It is no secret that Malaysia's remarkable economic progress in recent decades is largely due to the efforts of its non-Muslim minorities, namely the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Christians and others. Whilst they got on with the job of building this nation, many Muslims spent their time playing a sort of Islamic trivial pursuit. Many Malay muslims go to Madrassahs, and spend the best part of their youth learning the Koran in Arabic as well as other similar useful life skills. Many of the TV programs I saw in Malaysia involved so-called Islamic scholars fretting over what is and isn't Islamic. I even saw one numbskull claim that it was Islamic culture that was in fact responsible for the information technology age because it was Muslims who invented the zero (but I was always under the impression that it was the Hindus who did this, much as our so-called Arabic numbers in fact came from the much more refined and subtle Hindu culture).
Anyway, what can one expect from a country that banned Schindler's list as "Jewish propaganda", that prohibits apostasy from Islam by law, and which felt threatened by a group worshipping a giant teapot (no April's fool: see link below).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/02/wteapot02.xml
at April 1, 2007 2:09 AM
The most galling aspect to this story is the association of Putrajaya (sankrit: Victory of the son) with a mosque. This, coupled with the disallowing of a Muslimah to convert out of Islam, not to mention Bhumiputra (another euphemism of an abomination) makes Malaysia worth the same boycott campaign that hit South Africa throughout apartheid. I don't recall South Africa as being as intolerant as the most benign of Islamic countries - and I'm not even White.
Stop usurping Hindu names. Call that city Mohammedabad - that'd be more like it.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 1, 2007 2:22 AM
Infidel Pride,
Reading "Putra mosque" hit me hard, too. But then we must keep in mind that islam devours cultures and languages. How many people really know that Persian (Farsee) was actually the language of the Zoroastrians ? That the Zoroastrian culture was wiped out completely in Persia, and its language was hijacked by islam ? The same thing is going to happen to the rest of us.
at April 1, 2007 3:47 AM
Ah, such ignorance.
Arjun.sevak, if you find the destruction of a Middle Eastern country notable you are foolish.
The Middle East has been the cradle of civilisation for thousands of years. Even before the advent of Islam it was constantly in a state of turmoil.
I could also go into European history, but I do not want to waste my time.
What is the point? Learn to get over it.
Posted by: thewayoftheright at April 1, 2007 4:48 AM
thewayoftheright,
I would like to "get over it", but obviously you don't understand Sanskrit. My post was about the hijacking of language, not about the Middle East. (I myself am fascinated by the history of this particular area and understand your post, kindly pay attention to Infidel Pride's post and mine before replying to me.)
at April 1, 2007 5:12 AM
The Middle East was inded the cradle of civilization for thousands of years - until being swept up by the Islamic tide of swords and arrows.
And by the sounds of it, thewayoftheright is simply another of those posters who uses moral equivalence to excuse the violence of Islam.
Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at April 1, 2007 7:47 AM
Someone tell John Prescott! Britain's premier statesman of the past 150 years (towering above Gladstone, Disraeli and Churchill) recently praised Malaysia as an example of a tolerant multifaith society.
He'll sort out this misunderstanding (probably caused by islamophobia anyway).
Posted by: Celsius at April 1, 2007 9:23 AM
"Malay Muslims — two-thirds of the country's 26 million people..."
-- from the article above
No doubt out of a willingness by the writer simply to accept the "official" statistics of the government of Malaysia, which is of, by, and for the Muslims, he accepts this figure. There is no basis for it. The real figure is a little more than half, because of over-breeding, and economic favoritism enjoyed by Muslims at every level, the the inability of Muslims to leave Islam whreas there are official campaigns to target, for example, the real "sons of the soil" -- the tribes that had resisted Islam and remained animist or been christianized, to force them, more and more, to forcibly accept, with carrot and stick, Islam.
Never accept total census figures, nor the "breakdown" by religion, of any Muslim government or polity. It is the same when the Saudis grossly and deliberately put out much larger figures for the Saudi population, as they did especially in the 1970s, and in the cause of Saudi Arabia , there are three reasons for exaggerating the population, or the size of the Muslim population:
1) In the case of the rich Arab sheikdoms and of Saudi Arabia, it would not do, the governments realized, to let the world know exactly how few people were enjoying such fabulous wealth, because then the greed and selfishness become ever more apparent. The more Saudis that are claimed exist and who supposedly "share" in the unearned and unmerited oil wealth, the more that per capita income figure can be kept down for public relations purposes.
2) The more local Arabs who are counted, whether they exist or not, the less outrageous appear the figures for the ratio of the foreigners who do all the work, from being doctors and teachers to the laborers and, of course, those domestic workers/sex-slaves without which no self-respecting Saudi household can function. If the ratio of non-Saudis to Saudis is like that of the staff to clients at the Plaza-Athenee, or the Crillon (and it is) then the Al-Saud look like exactly what they are -- dagger-and-dishdasha primitives, yet arrogant, with sneers of cold command that they have done nothing to merit, and as soon as they are treated like the family of national thieves they are, whatever outward sheen some have acquired by travel and "study" in the West, the real attitude of Western governments and peoples should be one of contempt, both bemused at their pretensions, and outraged at what, with their unearned trillions, they have done to the Western world for so long, buying up armies of Western hirelings (who have been the most important obstacle to sensible energy policies based on the need to diminish the use of oil and gas), and building mosques and madrasas, and funding campaigns of Daw'a, and supporting Musliim groups determined to prevent or eliminate sensible measures of self-defense being taken by Infidel governments and peoples.
3) they lie about their numbers in the same way that certain animals, essentially vulnerable, puff themselves up to appear larger to other animals, and thus not to be attacked. The full weakness of Saudi Arabia may not be realized. Its oilfields could be seized in a day or two. Its major cities -- Riyadh and Jiddah -- could be seized in about the same time. The assets abroad, and not only those traditionally deemed "illiquid" but also bank accounts and stock shares, behind assorted pierceable veils of ownership, could be seized, just as enemy-owned assets were seized during World War II, and the money go to reimburse the American people, and other Infidels, for the colosssal costs of new, necessary, and permanent security measures all over the Western world.
4) Muslim-controlled states minimize, always, the numbers of non-Muslims, as in Malaysia above, so that the non-Muslims become disheartened (and some will no doubt succumb to Islam, and others --such as Chinese, will simply move out when they can) and so that the world will come to think of the country as "Muslim." Who among us does not now think of Malaysia, which just a few decades ago was not thought of as a "Muslim" country but as a mixed one, and now is seen, and its government does everything it can to have it be seen, as clearly a "Muslim" country where non-Muslms, for the moment, are tolerated with that famous "toleration" so admired by Bush, and Blair, and others of that dismal ilk.
5) Muslims in the West do the same thing: they deliberately inflate their numbers, repeat those numbers, and get lazy journalists to do the same. How often have you heard Muslims, or those writing one of those treacly pieces about "Islam in America" (lots of emphasize on family values, and Ramadan, and supposedly "hurt feelings" fromm negative glances at those who are just walking down the street wearing their hijabs or burkhas,or breathless descriptions of brand-new thrusting-skyward mosque-and-minaret complexes going up, but not a word on who is really paying for those complexes, not a word on how, in Islam, the legal and political institutions of Infidels are reqarded, not a word on what is preached in those mosques and what is taught in those madrasas about the only thing that Infidels should be wondering -- which is to say, Infidels.
How often do you hear Muslims confidently say "we are six million" or "we are seven million" and then see the same figures appear, without comment, without analysis, without anytyhing but lazy and credulous acceptance, in The Duranty Times, in The Bandar Beacon, in The Daily Scream?
But the figures are nonsense. There are at most 3 million people calling themselves Muslin in the United States, and 2 million of those are the highly heterodox belongers to the Nation of Islam, which for all kinds of reasons cannot be lumped in with the full-fledged orthodox Muslms (though Arab Muslims, for example, are very good at manipulating, to their own political ends, the Black Muslims or those who begin as Black Muslims and then move toward orthodoxy).
"How to Lie With Statistics" is a famous, and useful book. It was written, and published, and is widely read in the Western world. It was, of course, designed to show the reader how they should be wary of statistics, know how to read or interpret them, so that others, who by accident were misconveying information, or by design were conveying misinformation, would not mislead.
But if such a book were to be published by Muslims, it would not be a book to warn them, but rather a book of telling them something that they do not really need to know, for the world of rumor, conspiracy theories, deliberate evasiveness, omission of facts, and outright lying, is what journalists, and diplomats, and Infidel military men, confront every day, observe every day, when they are in Muslim countries or dealing with Muslims in official circles.
"War is deception," said Muhammad. "Deception" about everything. Beginning even with the figures on the population, Muslim and non-Muslim, iarond the world, and of which the article above offers one small, but telling, example.
Posted by: Hugh at April 1, 2007 9:25 AM
All of them are "putrid"!!
Why?---Theres something dead inside.
I like life, truth, peace, joy, and LOVE INSIDE.
Posted by: guide inside at April 1, 2007 10:05 AM
not only are artifacts, buildings being destroyed by islam, but so is society and culture. take for example this story in the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6515701.stm
the headline is UK man released from Guantanamo
ok so you think of a british guy but read further and he is only a uk resident, an iraqi national.
the UK is becoming ethnically and culturally cleansed. we need to preserve the individual cultures and nationalities of each nation against islam.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at April 1, 2007 10:39 AM
Non-Muslims in Malaysia do not needs physical buildings to assemble for worship. Early Christians assembled in caves and private homes, and there are several modern Christian groups these days that meet in auditoriums or rent a public place to worship.
Posted by: Rafa at April 1, 2007 12:36 PM
Jesus didn't have one building for his Apostles and they seemed to do quite well as did early Americans who simply worshipped thee real God.
The Israelites had a dolphin skin tent which God found quite well for the purpose.
They don't need buildings, but they do need God invoked to do the fighting for them as no one can stand against faith in God.
Posted by: Lame Cherry at April 1, 2007 1:49 PM
'Guess catacombs will be the big thing in the near future, once again.
Start digging, Malays.
Deep.
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 1, 2007 2:00 PM
Non-Muslims in Malaysia do not needs physical buildings to assemble for worship. Early Christians assembled in caves and private homes, and there are several modern Christian groups these days that meet in auditoriums or rent a public place to worship.
Posted by: Rafa
Oh, but moslems do?!
The ROP® reveals itself one more time.
There really isn't anything one can add.
at April 1, 2007 3:58 PM
Stats on Malaysia, from a Christian fact book that uses reputable sources and also has its own sources 'on the ground'.
Malaysia has three regions: Peninsular Malaysia with 80 % of the people, then (on the island of Borneo, shared with Brunei and Indonesia's Kalimantan province) Sabah and Sarawak each with about 10 %.
PM is the most heavily Islamised. 18 million people. Malay 56%, Chinese 33 %, Indian 10 %, Orang Asli (original indigenous tribes, 23 peoples), 0.7 %. Religions: Islam 60 %, Chinese religion/Buddhist 26 %, Hindu 8 %, Christians 4 %, non-religious 2 %.
Sabah/ North Borneo: 2.2 million - 1 million of whom are Muslim illegal immigrants from Philippines and Indonesia. Indigenous tribes: 28 %. Other Malay, 29 % - 440 000 Chinese, 200 000 Malay. Muslims about 55 % (mostly thanks to those 1 million illegal immigrants [invaders?]), Christian 33 %, traditional tribal beliefs 5 %, 'other' 7 %. State govt had 'bad reputation for corruption and plundering the forests'.
Sarawak: 2.1 million people. 50 % indigenous tribes, 'other Malaysian' 45 %, both Chinese and Malay. Christian est 38 %, Muslim 27 % (NOT a majority), traditional animism 26 %, 'other' 9 %. Note: 'the church is under severe pressure in some rural areas' (i.e. Muslims, not a majority, persecuting non-Muslims). Malaysian companies are gutting the forests and fisheries and treating the indigenous tribes like garbage.
Many Chinese (Christian, Buddhist, Confucian) Malaysians study in Australia because as non-Muslim non-Malay they are excluded from Malaysian universities. There is apartheid in housing, too, aimed at suppressing non-Muslims.
When Malaysia runs out of trees and fish, and Islam prevails, and the dhimmi leave, Malaysia will collapse into poverty, corruption, ecological ruin and violence. Or Indonesia will swallow it; same difference. God help Singapore, caught in between (4 million people: Buddhist 43 %, Muslim 14 %, 'non-religious' 14.8 %, Christian 14 %, Chinese religions 8.5 %, Hindu 5 %). (All Singaporean young males do army service after graduating - now you see why).
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy
at April 1, 2007 8:12 PM
The intelligently authoritarian regime of Lee Kuan Yew put in place laws to monitor and regulate Muslim attempts at Daw'a. All changes of religion must be registered with the state, and this allows the state to see exactly who is being targetted, and who is succumbing to open, or surreptitious, campaigns of Daw'a. Such laws should be studied by Western countries, and emulated.
Posted by: Hugh at April 1, 2007 8:18 PM
The vagaries and prejudices of the MSM are simply amazing. Does Malaysia enjoy unchallenged apartheid because of the fact that the non-Muslims are not cowering in shanty towns and are the most productive members of that society? Do the conditions really have to be as racially blatant as in RSA to grab the attention of human rights groups?
Maybe not enough Europeans or Americans are involved in the Malaysian economy to generate any interest in the West. On the other hand, there has been a similar dearth of news from northwestern China, where people are being moved around in response to "ethnic" Muslim unrest. I wonder what is China's view of Muslim encroachment in their sphere of influence.
We need to watch this country carefully for indications of Islamic strategies in Europe and the US and other areas not yet dominated by dead souls.
Posted by: lycaste at April 1, 2007 9:09 PM
arjun.sevak
The Muslims did hijack Sanskrit. They combined it with Arabic and Persian and gave what is known as Urdu.
Posted by: wrathofasma at April 1, 2007 11:29 PM
I've known a number of Malaysian Chinese, and they all tell similar, and nauseating stories.
Dhimmitude.
Not surprisingly the Chinese are more or less the Jews of Malaysia -- the detested and disproportionately successful and hard-working business class -- and subjected to every sort of indignity.
Now what else is it, do you imagine, that the Malaysian Chinese and Jews might have in common?
Mohammedan oppression! Yes indeed folks, give that man a cigar!
Posted by: joeblough at April 2, 2007 3:33 AM
Its really disgusting that Malaysia keeps the HIndu names of its cities and locales but is a stupid Muslim country. If they are so proud of their goddamn Islam then why do they not rename their cities.
What a pathetic bunch of slave converts of the Islamic world.
Posted by: Gorkhali at April 2, 2007 3:48 AM
The Muslims did hijack Sanskrit. They combined it with Arabic and Persian and gave what is known as Urdu.
Posted by: wrathofasma
The Muslims did not hijack Sanskrit. They hijacked what was known as Khariboli, the language whose roots are no doubt traced to Sanskrit eventually, but was the language which gave birth to both Urdu and Hindi. The Hindus chose Hindi with devnagri script and pure hindu terms which meant that they incorporated Sanskrit words into their vocabulary, while the Muslims sought to incorporate the language of their slave masters and thus incorporated Persian and Arabic words, they also chose to use Islamic Persian script (although between the Arab script and theirs I really don't see a difference.
Urdu was the court and legal language for a long time even during the British era, thus many coins or stamps one may think are Islamic may actually be those of Hindu and Sikh nobility. It was until India's independence in 1947 that Hindi was promoted in all schools and people were forced to start learning Hindi. Many people from the pre-independence era had a hard time with this because they had to learn a new language, but it was a good thing because it brought us closer to our Hindu identity. Even today lawyers in India need to learn urdu so that they can translate old documents.
However, after all this, urdu is purely an Indian language, grammatically Indian, everything Indian, just a few Persian and some Arab words, so in fact the muslims are speaking a Hindu language.
_________________________________________________
thewayoftheright posted:
The Middle East has been the cradle of civilisation for thousands of years. Even before the advent of Islam it was constantly in a state of turmoil.
I could also go into European history, but I do not want to waste my time.
What is the point? Learn to get over it.
Posted by: thewayoftheright
The Middle East the cradle of civilization? What drugs do you smoke dude? According to history, the Babylonian region in Iraq was the cradle of Western civilization and its still not completely sure about that, however those of us from the East had our own cradle of Civilization and it wasn't from the babaric savages of Islam. We had a civilization that outshone you desert guys before you even knew how to bathe. Sanskrit being the mother of sevral Indo-European Languages further shows that our ancestors didn't need your river banks to create a civilization that still causes so much mystery and intrigue. India was the cradle of civilization for Asia (that includes Burma, Tibet, China, Thailand, Southeast Asia, Japan, Korea and the rest.) So go back and educate yourself witha good solid University level education.
Here are some chaps who would have disagreed with you:
Albert Einstein, (1879-1955) physicist. In 1905 He published his theory of Relativity. Einstein said:
" When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous."
"We owe a lot to Indians who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made."
The Fourth Caliph, Ali bin Abi Talib (656 - 661 A.D.) had remarked:
" The land where books were first written and from where wisdom and knowledge sprang is India."
(Note: Many Islamic traditions support the high standing of Indian culture with the Arabs. This shows the affection and respect of early Muslims had for India. In any case, Caliph Umar, was opposed to attacking India, even when he was told that "Indian rivers are pearls, her mountains rubies, her trees perfumes," for he regarded India as a country of complete freedom of thought and belief where Muslims and others were free to practice their faith.)
(source: Hindu Muslim Cultural Accord - By Syed Mohamud Bombay 1949 p. 18 and 21).
Mark Twain (1835-1910) also known as Samuel Clemens, one of the most widely loved and celebrated American writers since his first books were released in the late 1860s. Many of his writings have reached the pinnacles of American and world literature, including the timeless Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court and Following the Equator. Besides these easily recognizable classics, Twain wrote fascinating Travelogue detailing his experiences in Asia.
"So far as I am able to judge, nothing has been left undone, either by man or nature, to make India the most extraordinary country that the sun visits on his rounds. Nothing seems to have been forgotten, nothing overlooked."
"Land of religions, cradle of human race, birthplace of human speech, grandmother of legend, great grandmother of tradition. The land that all men desire to see and having seen once even by a glimpse, would not give that glimpse for the shows of the rest of the globe combined."
"India had the start of the whole world in the beginning of things. She had the first civilization; she had the first accumulation of material wealth; she was populous with deep thinkers and subtle intellects; she had mines, and woods, and a fruitful soul."
Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire (1694-1774) France's greatest writers and philosophers, was a theist, and a bitter critic of the Church, which he looked upon as the instigator of cruelty, injustice, and inequality. No wonder that Voltaire, who strongly opposed the Church's totalitarian grip over men's lives, and may count as one of the ideologues of secularism, mentioned the religions of India and China as a model of how religion could be a free exploration by the individual. He said :
"We have shown how much we (Europeans) surpass the Indians in courage and wickedness, and how inferior to them we are in wisdom. Our European nations have mutually destroyed themselves in this land where we only go in search of money, while the first Greeks traveled to the same land only to instruct themselves."
Voltaire concluded, " I am convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges, - astronomy, astrology, metempsychosis, etc."
" It is very important to note that some 2,500 years ago at the least Pythagoras went from Samos to the Ganges to learn geometry...But he would certainly not have undertaken such a strange journey had the reputation of the Brahmins' science not been long established in Europe..."
(source: The Invasion That Never Was - By Michel Danino and Sujata Nahar p. 12 - 13 and 18 and 90 - 91).
Hu Shih (1891-1962), Chinese philosopher in Republican China. He promoted vernacular literature to replace writing in the classical style. He was ambassador to the U.S. (1938-42) and chancellor of Peking University (1946-48). Hu Shih has commented on the peace-loving nature of Indians:
"India conquered and dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border."
"Never before had China seen a religion so rich in imagery, so beautiful and captivating in ritualism and so bold in cosmological and metaphysical speculations. Like a poor beggar suddenly halting before a magnificent storehouse of precious stones of dazzling brilliancy and splendor, China was overwhelmed, baffled and overjoyed. She begged and borrowed freely from this munificent giver. The first borrowings were chiefly from the religious life of India, in which China's indebtedness to India can never be fully told."
(source: India and World Civilization - By D. P. Singhal p. 338).
Al-Jahiz 9th century Muslim historian writes:
"The Hindus excel in astrology, mathematics, medicine and in various other sciences. They have developed to a perfection arts like sculpture, painting, and architecture. They have collections of poetry, philosophy, literature and science of morals. From India we received the book called Kalilah wa Dimnah. These people have judgment and are brave. They posses the virtues of cleanliness and purity. Contemplation has originated with them."
(source: The Vision of India - By Sisirkumar Mitra p. 226).
Posted by: Gorkhali at April 2, 2007 4:17 AM
It is certainly heartening to read the praise of India in the comments. But now India is not the same as the historical ancient India. The dhimmitude of the Indians is just shocking...and that could be the beginning of the end of the Hindus...
Posted by: proud-hindu at April 2, 2007 10:02 AM
If they are so proud of their goddamn Islam then why do they not rename their cities.One suggestion along the lines of the sister cities program - India and Malaysia pair up cities - an Indian city Islamically named (e.g. Allahabad, Ahmadabad, Aurangabad, et al) with Malaysian cities (Putrajaya, Penang, Kuala Lumpur, et al). Then, as a part of this program, India gives the Muslim city a Hindu name - preferably their original Hindu names such as Prayag or Karnavati, but failing that, even Putrajaya is welcome. In the meantime, Putrajaya can be renamed Allahabad, Penang can be renamed Ahmedabad, and so on.
What a pathetic bunch of slave converts of the Islamic world. Posted by: Gorkhali
Once Malaysia runs out of Hindu named cities, continue the same program with Bangladesh - Dhaka becomes Murshidabad, Murshidabad becomes Dhaka; Rajshahi becomes Alipur, Alipur becomes Rajshahi... Keep doing this until there are no Muslim named cities in India.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 2, 2007 5:00 PM
It is certainly heartening to read the praise of India in the comments. But now India is not the same as the historical ancient India. The dhimmitude of the Indians is just shocking...and that could be the beginning of the end of the Hindus...
Posted by: proud-hindu
I understand your pain, believe me, but you cannot lose heart before the battle has begun. If the great Rajput King had accepted defeat even before the battle of Haldighati had taken place with the bloody Mughals (June 18th or 21st, 1576) then he would not have been immortalised as he is today and worshipped as a God because he chose to keep the fight alive against Islam and that is why today Rajputs keep their heads up high, Akbar was never allowed to claim that he had defeated all the Rajputs because Mewar remained free thanks to Pratap. It was 22,000 Rajputs without anything except their swords and saffron robes versus 200,000 Mughals (plus elephants, canons etc etc etc). After the battle only 8,000 Rajputs survived and the Mughals were morally defeated. To this day my parent's home celebrates the battle with dinner and drinks with all our family friends (Hindu, Christian, Jew etc etc).
Pratap said to his Rajput men and women "How can man die better, than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of our fathers and the temples of our Gods"!
-thus he rallied us to one of our greatest moments when we remained free and not to ever bow our heads to those bloody Muslims.
Its okay if there are many idiots who call themselves Hindu but are Dhimmis, they can go to hell. The rest of us who still have a fight left in us are willing to carry on just as our brave forefathers did. And BTW a Rajput can never be a Muslim, that is a new tactic used by Muslims today to claim Hindu Jatis (castes) as their own. Since they are not Hindus, how can they claim to be part of our society and our social stratifications of society, its pure BS.
@Infidel Pride
I agree with you brother.
Jai Mahakali
Ayo Gorkhali
Posted by: Gorkhali at April 2, 2007 10:29 PM
Oops, I got a bit excited and forgot to mention the Rajput King's name. His name was Maharana Pratap of Mewar/Udaipur/Chittor.
http://www.rajputindia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://www.indhistory.com/haldighati.html
@ proud-hindu:
And don't forget that when all else failed, we chose death instead of converting to Islam. Remember Chittor and Queen Padmani.
http://www.chittorgarh.com/chittorgarh_history.asp
JAI HIND!
at April 2, 2007 10:40 PM
I can agree that India gave us many great things, but doesn't the Hindu religion relegate certain people to lowly states? Can anyone support the caste system in good conscience? I'm waiting to hear, especially from people who point out the evils of Christianity. Isn't equality a Christian principle, and didn't the men of the Enlightenment have Christian educations? Thank God for the Church, with all of its warts!
Posted by: lafn at April 2, 2007 10:53 PM
@ lafn
The caste system in the past was not what it has become today.
I recall being in Anthropology class in first year University when they explained that the caste system was based on a person's chosen occupation and not what they were born into. Caste was determined by a person's actions and thus they found their place in society and knew their duty. Thus they further explained that the caste system was one of the reasons for India's survival because each city, town or village could survive even if the government/kingdom etc fell apart because everyone would do their duty. Back then Caste system was horizontal and everyone depended on one another, later it became vertical.
However, with the coming Islam, castes became rigid and based on hereditary in order to survive the Islamic invasion. With that it got corrupted with upper castes sometimes not treating the lower castes properly.
However, you should not be so quick to judge just based on caste system how beautiful Hinduism is. Hinduism teaches equality and speaks against the mistreatment of others. Much of Buddhism can be seen in Jesus's teachings.
Furthermore, I really don't want to get into an arguement here about Hinduism and Christianity because that is not right. However, I must address your comment with what Rabindranath Tagore (Noble Laureate) replied on his trip to the US when someone questioned him on the caste system of the Hindus, he simply retorted with how they questioner felt about the treatment of Blacks when it is not taught in Christianity to ill treat others and yet it was done.
One last thing I recall from Anthro class, they explained that in Hindus, caste was based on actions, not wealth or skin colour (because we do have dark skinned Brahmins, the most famous being Chanakya (Chalukya)). However in the West Caste is based on material wealth and race, so be careful before you point the finger and someone who could be a valuable ally.
Jai Mahakali
Ayo Gorkhali.
Posted by: Gorkhali at April 2, 2007 11:14 PM
(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.)