| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
From the Detroit Free Press, with thanks to EPG:
Michigan Muslims of Indian descent are hailing the U.S. government's decision to deny a prominent Indian minister entry into the country because of his intolerance toward religious minorities.The State Department's move came after U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Detroit, sponsored a congressional resolution last week to condemn Narendra Modi, chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat. In 2002, anti-Muslim riots broke out in his state after a train carrying Hindu activists was attacked. Some Muslim and human-rights groups said Modi failed to stop the violence and has allowed a culture of intolerance to take hold in the state where Mohandas Gandhi was born....
Hmmm. Modi didn't start any violence...he just "failed to stop" the violence actually started by Muslims -- and he's the "intolerant" one.
Conyers said Thursday that he was urged to action by the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C....
Well well, these are heady days for CAIR. We might as well elect Ibrahim Hooper President and get it over with.
The decision brought protests from some Indian Americans and the Indian government, which asked the United States to reconsider, noting that Modi was a democratically elected official and should have been given the respect afforded elected officials...."I personally call him the Hitler of Gujarat," Quayid Saifee, a computer consultant from Rochester Hills born in India, said Thursday....
Conyers' resolution, introduced March 15, was supported by U.S. Reps. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania and Trent Franks of Arizona, both Republicans. They also expressed concern about Modi's treatment of Christians.
In the resolution, Conyers noted that the Indian Supreme Court had admonished Modi for his inaction in the 2002 riots.
Conyers said he hopes the move won't adversely affect America's relations with India. "We consider ourselves allies of India," Conyers said Thursday. "We just have this one problem."
We sure do.
Posted by Robert at March 31, 2005 10:55 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
They are always the victims arn't they ?
These are the guys who could counter CAIR, they will tell you all about the Glory of islam in India.
And they can't be accused of racism either.
You have the F 16 sale to the paks, now this !
AI
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 31, 2005 11:07 AM
Conyers is a traitor who sells America for votes,his district is virtually 100% Muslim, Paul Sperry discusses him in Infiltration in the same chapters he discusses the treason of Norquist, Rove, Mueller, Bush, Mineta.
It's all about Muslim money and votes.
Bingo apostate, the F-16 sales to the paks betrayal from left and right.
BTW India is beset with a fundamentalist Hindu problem, every bit as bad as the Muslims. The RSS, whose ideology is fundamentalist Hinduism, which from the perspective of a secularist is indistinguishable from Islam.
Much as the Christian Rights agenda is, from the perspective of a secularist, indistinguishable from the mullahcracy of Iran.
The RSS is a reaction to Islam, IMO, a consequence of Ghandi's efforts to squelch and cover up Indians bad experience with the Muslim conquerors.
His goal was to create a sovereign and independent India, which of necessity meant sublimating the various religions. He of course failed, and Pakistan is one result, Kashmir and Bangladesh another and India is home to the worlds second largest population of Muslims (after Indonesia).
From what I know of India, most Indians are ignorant of the harsh experience that the Hindu's had with the Muslim conquerors. A consequence of Ghandi's great idea for a unified sovereign India, and now we have the clash of religions and their attendant slaughters.
The blessings of religion.
Posted by: Giaour at March 31, 2005 8:25 PM
Giaour
Another classic example of moral equivalence. Without having an iota of information on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindutva philosophy, as an ardent atheist, he thinks all religious philosophies must be able to harbor equally bad so-called 'fundamentalists'. Pray, what are the fundamentals of Hinduism? Lets get it out in the open. Deal with facts please. You are absolutely right about the Hindus experiences with Islamic conquerors of yore. But again you have deceived yourself into believing than Gandhi had the right ideas. Gandhi was dhimmi-par-excellence. His whole concept of non-violence (ahimsa) was based mostly on orthodox russian christianity than Hinduism. He even is quoted as asking the jews to quietly suffer their misery under Hitler and that their deaths will surely not be in vain.
Please carry out some research before lambasting nationalist organisations. And avoid ad hominem...the best tool for losers. Follow Mr. Spencer's example and stick to the facts. I shall prove you wrong.
Sincerely
Tushar Saxena
at March 31, 2005 8:49 PM
you mean that conyers has found something else to do besides push for slavery reparations?
Posted by: andece at March 31, 2005 9:22 PM
Well, Conyers had just better not come India.
He can go to muslim countries. But if he ever comes to India we will certainly let him know what we think of his half-baked ideas.
Better still - when is he converting to Islam. We`ll send him some indian sweets when his dickie gets cut.
at March 31, 2005 10:02 PM
Tushar,
I am in full agreement with your comments.
Can you please follows this URL:
http://www.themuslimweekly.com/newspaper/viewfullstory.aspx?NewsID=NW00002041
Print the story out, put it on the notice board at as many temples as you can, sent it to the Governing Committee's and forward the link to everybody you know.
I don't know if you live in the UK, I do. Why should we vote for Labour ??
The moslems have a far better PR machine.
However we are the ones with the money & education.
If you know anybody in IT, so much the better, they can forward the link to other Indians.
Regards
AI
Posted by: apostate_islam at April 1, 2005 5:43 AM
Mr. Saxena,
And, in a Young India issue of 1924, Gandhi wrote, "My own experience but confirms the opinion that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as a rule is a coward. Need the Hindus blame the Mussalman for his cowardice?" In the context of the latter 'logic', today's 'secularists' must tell us what their Sabarmati practitioner of non-violence would have said of the boiling Hindu blood, post-Godhra, having spilt beyond 'cowardice'.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/16arvind.htm
AI,
I agree that Labour should not be voted for.
at April 1, 2005 6:12 AM
Also:
But Gandhi was sold on his brand of communal harmony and on his Mussalmans, whatever they said about him in the Islamic context. Thus, in his post-prayer speech at Birla Mandir, New Delhi, on April 6, 1947, Gandhi said, "Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo even their existence." In another post-prayer speech asking the Partition-inflicted Hindus not to seek refuge in India, he said, "They should not be afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our Muslim brothers."
If the 'secularists' in the media and elsewhere want the Hindus of 2002 to accept those Sabarmati shibboleths of non-violence and amity with the Muslims at any cost, they ought to also demand that the red carpet be laid for Pakistan to just stride into Srinagar and all the way down into Sabarimalai -- via Sabarmati, if you please.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/apr/16arvind.htm
Posted by: hutchrun at April 1, 2005 6:18 AM
What are the American government thinking ?
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/newsrf.php?newsid=2010
Posted by: apostate_islam at April 1, 2005 7:27 AM
While I find myself in agreement with 90% of this site you clearly know very little about the pogroms Modi's supporters organised in Gujarat.
India's Muslims are by far the strongest supporters of the secular state founded by Nehru (whether they would be so if they were the majority is not relevant as they never are going to be a majority in India and with a few exceptions understand this), while the Hindu fascists of the RSS/BJP are to most intents and purposes mirror images of the Islamofascists and only represent a lower level threat to global civilisation because their racism prevents them from proselytising as effectively and they lack the drive to world conquest.
There is clearly a point where a rational secularist opposition to Islamism as an ideology does slide into unreasoning hatred of all Muslims irrespective of their actions and beliefs and supporting the murderers and rapists of Gujarat because their victims were Muslims is one of those points.
If Modi were to visit the UK I would certainly protest against him, just as I would protest against any other mass-murderer polluting our shores, and I applaud the US's decision to keep him out of their territory.
It is not automatically true that our enemies enemies are our friends.
Posted by: Menshevik at April 3, 2005 10:05 AM
(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.)