Feeds:
Posts
Comments

They want to destroy Christians

Washington Post – Aug. 3

Joshua Partlow

GOJRA, Pakistan, Aug. 2 — They do not want to bury the Christians. They want the nation to see them.

By nightfall Sunday, hundreds of residents of the Christian enclave here stood in defiant vigil around seven particleboard coffins neatly aligned on the train tracks that run through town. They had demands: Until the government investigates the killings and finds those responsible, they will not remove the bodies.

Police waited warily in the street. A man on a loudspeaker bellowed the villagers’ sentiments, which included anger at provincial authorities for not stopping the killings.

“Death to the Punjab government!”

A spasm of religious violence came to this rural town in the shape of an angry Muslim mob Saturday morning. The Muslims marched to avenge what they believed was the desecration of a Koran one week earlier. When it was over, dozens of houses were torched and Faith Bible Pentecostal Church lay in ruins. Two villagers were shot dead, residents said. Five others, including two children, burned alive.

Killing has become commonplace in Pakistan. But this attack startled the country both for its ferocity and for its stark message to religious minorities. Many saw the violence as further evidence of the growing power of the Taliban and allied Islamist militant groups in Punjab province, home to about half of Pakistan’s population.

“They have made up their minds to crush Christianity. They always call us dogs of America, agents of America,” said Romar Sardar, an English teacher from the area. “There has been no protection by the police. Nothing.”

The conflict apparently began with a wedding. On the evening of July 25, a wedding procession for a Christian couple passed through the nearby village of Korian, according to a police report. Revelers danced and threw money in the air, as is local custom. In the morning, a resident told police he had picked up scraps of paper on the ground and found Arabic writing. “We examined them, and it was the pages from the holy Koran,” the man said in the report.

Four days later, the accused, a member of the wedding party named Talib Masih, faced a meeting of local elders, who demanded that he be punished. Instead of repenting, the report said, he denied the desecration, and as a result, “the whole Muslim population was enraged.” The house burning began that night and then quieted down until Saturday morning.

That day, Riaz Masih, 68, a retired teacher, grew increasingly worried as a crowd gathered, chanting anti-Christian slogans and cursing Americans. He locked his house and rushed with his wife and children to the home of a Muslim friend nearby. The crowd, some wearing black veils and carrying guns, turned down Masih’s narrow brick alley near the train tracks and into the Christian Colony, according to several witnesses. Residents and marchers threw rocks at each other, and gunfire broke out. Using what residents described as gasoline and other flammable chemicals, the mob torched Masih’s house.

“We have nothing left,” he said, standing in the charred remains of his living room, his daughter’s empty jewelry box at his feet. “We are trying to face this in the name of Jesus Christ. The Bible says you cannot take revenge.”

On Sunday, the scenes of wreckage and dismay played out in house after house. Residents tossed burned blankets and clothing, broken televisions, and charred beds into heaps on the street. Fruit seller Iqbal Masih, 49, stepped over his mangled carts on his patio and tried to assess what was left of his daughter’s dowry. The armoire, a refrigerator, the bedding were burned; the $675 for furniture had disappeared.

“I am out of my mind. I can’t look,” he said. “They have subjected us to severe cruelties. May God show them the right path.”

At least four of the dead came from a single house. As the mob approached, a bullet struck Hamid Masih, a builder, in the head as he stood in his doorway, said his son, Min Has. Has heaved his father onto a motorcycle and drove him to a hospital, while the rest of the family members crowded in a back bedroom. The house began burning, and smoked billowed into the rooms. At least three other relatives, including 5- and 8-year-old siblings, died in the flames, according to residents. “There was fire everywhere, and it was impossible for them to get out,” Has said.

“I know one thing. They want to destroy Christians,” said Atiq Masih, 22, a janitor who was shot in the right knee. “They were attacking everything.”

Christians, who make up about 2 percent of the Punjab population, have been targeted in other recent cases. In June, a mob attacked Christian homes in the Kasur district of Punjab for allegedly dishonoring the prophet Mohammed. In Pakistan, which has strict laws against blasphemy, people can be imprisoned for life or put to death for insulting Islam.

Residents in Gojra said that this was the first incident of its kind in the town and that Christians and Muslims have long lived alongside one another without serious problems. They blamed Muslim clerics for inciting anger over the Koran incident in mosque sermons and accused the Taliban and the militant group Sipah-e-Sahaba of involvement in the attack.

“The provincial government is not accepting that a large part of Punjab is suffering from religious intolerance due to the Taliban and religious outfits,” said Peter Jacob, executive secretary of the National Commission for Justice and Peace, which issues an annual report on religious minorities in Pakistan. “They have been very negligent. This conflict was brewing for three days, and they were not receptive. They were not taking it seriously.”

Pakistan’s president and prime minister have called for investigations into the violence. By Sunday, police and paramilitary troops had taken up positions in the town. Provincial authorities said they have already made arrests and registered cases against 800 people. Federal Minister for Minorities Shahbaz Bhatti denied that any Koran had been desecrated.

Police in Gojra said the violence Saturday was beyond their control.

“It happened all of a sudden. The police that were here were too few in number to stop it,” said policeman Kashif Sadiq. “It’s not fair to assume they let this happen intentionally.”

Religious Violence @ http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/15-Pakistans-religious-minorities-report-violence-nf-01

Sikhs attacked @ http://jaibihar.com/sikhs-attacked-in-pak-for-non-payment-of-jiziya/7425/

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/02/AR2009080202011.html

Fallouts of the Islamic Invasion and British Occupation in Perspective
Alamgir Hussain
Islam Watch

A major part of the history of India is characterized by two major foreign rules: the Islamic invasion and the British occupation.

The Islamic invasion started with the assault of Muhammad bin Qassim in 712 on the order of Hajjaj, the governor of what is now Iraq, and it took until 1690 for the Muslim rulers to conquer India completely.

The fall of Islamic rule started with the British East India Company’s capture of Bengal in 1757, during the days of Industrial Revolution in Europe. The British rulers took almost 150 years to capture the entire sub-continent from the hands of its Muslim rulers.

Since childhood, the people of the subcontinent keep hearing stories of the British occupation of India and their 190 years of exploitative imperial rule but the stories of the Islamic invasion and centuries of Muslim domination are rarely being mentioned and discussed. This amazing policy of silence regarding the Islamic invasion of the subcontinent is interesting.

And whatsoever is discussed about the Islamic rule in India is all good and dandy and often glorious. Recently, a group of people from the subcontinent have launched a call to celebrate “The Siraj-ud-Dowlah Day” which will be an occasion to glorify the sacrifice of Siraj-ud-Dowlah, the last Nawab of Bengal. He was defeated by the British mercantile mercenaries in 1757 in the battlefield of Polashi (Plassey), which marked the beginning of the British rule in India.

The celebration of such an event will definitely be another opportunity to vilify the British occupation of India as well as to glorify the rule of the last Muslim Nawab in Eastern India.

In recent years, some people from the sub-continent have been daring to delve into the “other episode” of foreign invasion of India, i.e., the Islamic conquest, which hitherto has remained mostly shrouded in a policy of silence or denial and a de-facto prohibition.

While the liberals and the rationalists of the subcontinent are adamant against critiquing the fallout of the Islamic conquest, they have no problem criticizing the British occupation and exploitation of India with extreme vigor. They take refuge in the tradition of silence or negation about the fallout of Islamic invasion and rule of India and yet, they are highly vocal in condemning the fallout of the British occupation.

 Interestingly, however, some people have recently started asking for putting the fallout of Islamic invasion and rule of India in the spotlight alongside that of the British occupation.

India, before the Islamic invasion, was one of the world’s great civilizations that matched its contemporaries, both in the East and the West, in the realms of philosophy, mathematics, and natural science. Indian mathematicians discovered the number zero and algebra (Bijganita in Sanskrit). After the Islamic invasion, these texts were translated into Arabic and Persian and were transmitted to the Islamic world and ultimately to Europe via Spain. Muslims mistakenly and unfairly take credit of these contributions to Mathematics and Science as their won.

 India’s sculptures were magnificent and sensual and her architectures were ornate and spellbinding. Following the Islamic invasion, many of these indigenous achievements, became part of so-called Islamic civilization.

There has been too much of talk about the “divide and rule” policy of the British Raj where British administrators had created division between Hindus and the Muslims during their rule in India. An overwhelming majority of the sub-continent people believe this policy to be the root cause of communal troubles that we witness in India today. There is a deeply entrenched belief that the concept of religious intolerance between the Hindus and the Muslims was totally absent in India until the British devised this malevolent scheme to keep the Hindus and Muslims engaged in fighting each other. Many people in the sub-continent believe that this was a clever ploy so that they (the British) could continue to rule India while the people remained divided over religious disharmony. There cannot be any bigger untruth than the assertion that religious intolerance never existed in Indian soil until the British invented it.

 The truth is that religious tolerance and harmony hardly ever existed in the sub-continent throughout the centuries of Islamic rule. Destruction of temples, oppression and forced conversion of the Hindus, especially around the urban areas all over India, were common phenomenon during the Islamic rule.

The Bahmani sultans in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 Hindus a year. In 1399, Teimur killed 100,000 Hindus IN A SINGLE DAY, and many more on other occasions [Negationism in India]. Even during the late period of the Islamic domination of India, Emperor Aurangzeb (rule 1658-1707) re-imposed the “religion tax or Jiziya” on the Hindus and other people of indigenous religions.

Aurangzeb was a champion destroyer of Hindu temples. Amongst the famous temples he destroyed were: the Kashi Vishvanath, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism, Krishna’s birth temple in Mathura, the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujurat, the Vishnu temple, overlooking Benares that was replaced with the Alamgir mosque (Alamgir is another name of Aurangzeb), and the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. Aurangzeb’s own official chronicles have recorded mind-blowing figures of temple destruction.

Aurangzeb had ordered his provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the pagans and to make a complete end to all pagan teachings and practices.

The Aurangzeb’s chronicle sums up the temple destructions as follows:

“Hasan Ali Khan came and said that 172 temples in the area had been destroyed… His majesty went to Chittor and 63 temples were destroyed. Abu Tarab, appointed to destroy the idol-temples of Amber, reported that 66 temples had been razed to the ground..” Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples only, their users were also often wiped out; even his own brother, Dara Shikoh, was executed for taking an interest in Hindu religion. The Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur Singh was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb’s forced conversions. Even during the rule of Mohammad Shah after Aurangzeb’s death, Persian ruler Nadir Shah invaded of India (1738-39) and killed an estimated 200,000 people in Northern India alongside plundering and looting.

The Islamic assault on India started in the early 8th century, on the order of Hajjaj, the ruler of present-day Iraq. Starting in 712 the raiders, commanded by Muhammad bin Qasim, demolished temples, shattered sculptures, plundered palaces and killed vast numbers of men. It took three whole days to slaughter the inhabitants of the city of Debal followed by taking their women and children to slavery, including the taking of young women as sex slaves. After the initial wave of violence, however, bin Qasim tried to establish law and order in the newly-conquered lands, and to that end he even allowed some degree of religious tolerance. But upon hearing of such humane practices (contrary to the Koranic doctrine), his superior, Hajjaj from Baghdad objected, writing:

“It appears from your letter that all the rules made by you for the comfort and convenience of your men are strictly in accordance with religious law. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the law is different from the one adopted by you, for you go on giving pardon to everybody, high or low, without any discretion between a friend and a foe. The great God says in the Koran [47.4]: 0 True believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads.”

The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man.”

In a subsequent communication, Hajjaj reiterated that all able-bodied men were to be killed, and that their underage sons and daughters were to be imprisoned and retained as hostages. Muhammad bin Qasim obeyed, and on his arrival at the town of Brahminabad massacred between 6,000 and 16,000 men.

Muhammad bin Qasim’s early exploits of slaughter and destruction were revived in the early eleventh century, when Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni conquered Punjab in 17 attempts of plundering expeditions between 997-1021.

Alberuni, the great Islamic scholar whom Mahmud brought to India, depicted Mahmud’s invasion of India as:

“Mahmud utterly ruined the prosperity of the country, and performed there wonderful exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the people. Their scattered remains cherish, of course, the most inveterate aversion toward all Moslems.”

The acts of destruction of Hindu temples and Buddhist monasteries etc. by the Muslim invaders in India have no parallel in the history of any conquest.

While blasting the British for their atrocities in India, French journalist and political author Francios Gautier writes, “The British were certainly not the Muslims, whose ruthlessness and atrocities have never been equaled in India’s history. Nevertheless, they did their fair share of harm to India, which has not yet really recovered from two centuries of Raj. [“Facets of India: Ancient and Modern”].

Even very late in the Mughal rule, ruler Haider Ali [1722-1782] of Mysore used to order destruction of Hindu temples. In most incidences, after a mosque was destroyed, the remains and especially the remains of the destroyed idols were used as materials for the construction of the mosque. There have been descriptions of slaughtering the Hindu priests or the protectors of the temples as a ritual for purification of the place of idol-worship with the blood of the infidels.

Such vivid descriptions of savagery mostly come from the works of the Muslim historians and writers, one of them include even the highly liberal and benevolent disciple of great Sufi dervish, Nizamuddin Awliya.

A few examples of barbaric atrocities of Muslim invaders and rulers of India, recorded by the Muslim historians themselves, are listed below:

Shahab-ul-Din, King of Ghazni (1170-1206), put Prithwi Raj, King of Ajmer and Delhi, to death in cold blood. He massacred thousands of inhabitants of Ajmer who opposed him, reserving the remaining for slavery [The Kamiu-t Tawarikh, by Ibn-Asir].

Historian Hasan Nizami in his Taj-ul-Ma’sir gives the following account of Ghouri’s Lieutenant Qutbuddin Aibak’s activities:

….after the suppression of a Hindu revolt at Kol (modern day Aligarh) in 1193 AD, Aibak raised “three bastions as high as heaven with their heads, and their carcasses became food for beasts of prey. The tract was freed from idols and idol worship and the foundations of infidelism were destroyed.”

In 1194 AD Aibak destroyed 27 Hindu temples at Delhi and built the Quwwat-ul-lslam mosque with their debris. According to Nizami, Aibak “adorned it with the stones and gold obtained from the temples which had been demolished by elephants“.

In 1195 AD the Mher tribe of Ajmer rose in revolt, and the Chaulukyas of Gujarat came to their assistance. Aibak had to invite reinforcements from Ghazni before he could meet the challenge. In 1196 AD he advanced against Anahilwar Patan, the capital of Gujarat. Nizami writes that after Raja Karan was defeated and forced to flee, “fifty thousand infidels were dispatched to hell by the sword” and “more than twenty thousand slaves, and cattle beyond all calculation fell into the hands of the victors”.

The city was sacked, its temples demolished, and its palaces plundered. On his return to Ajmer, Aibak destroyed the Sanskrit College of Visaladeva, and laid the foundations of a mosque which came to be known as ‘Adhai Din ka Jhompada’.

Conquest of Kalinjar in 1202 AD was Aibak’s crowning achievement. Nizami concludes: “The temples were converted into mosques… Fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus.”

The world famous historian, Will Durant has written in his ‘Story of Civilization’ that “the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history”.

India, before the advent of Islamic imperialism, was not exactly a zone of complete tranquility and peace like many other parts of the world. There were plenty of wars fought by Hindu princes. Despite all these wars, the Hindus had observed some time-honored conventions sanctioned by the Sastras. The Brahmins and the Bhikshus were never molested. The cows were never killed. The temples were never touched. The chastity of women was never violated. The non-combatants were never killed or captured. A human habitation was never attacked unless it was a fort. The civil population was never plundered. War booty was an unknown item in the calculations of conquerors. The martial classes, who clashed, mostly in open spaces, had a code of honor. Sacrifice of honor for victory or material gain was deemed as worse than death.

Islamic imperialism came with a different code – the Sunnah of the Prophet.

It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead, was a measure of the success of a military mission. And they did all this as mujahids (holy warriors) and ghazls (kafir-killers) in the service of Allah and his Last Prophet.

It is estimated that the Islamic conquest and rule in India may have resulted in killing of an estimated 50-80 million Hindus and other indigenous religion people. Such savagery can only be compared to the one committed by the Spaniards in the South American continent.

Koenraad Elst estimates that out of the population of native Continental South America of 1492, which stood at 90 million, only 32 million survived; terrible figures indeed but who talks about them today [Negationism in India]? Such a towering figure of destruction of human lives by the Muslim rulers of India may appear a suspect.

However, in the war of independence of Bangladesh, the Pakistanis killed 2-3 million people in just 9 month in the age of modern civilization and the world hardly took a notice of it.

Hence, it is hardly impossible that Islamic rulers might have had condemned up to 80 million indigenous people to death in a vast region in a long span of almost 1000 years in the medieval age of barbarity.

The British rulers, on the other hand, ruled India mostly following a strategy of economic exploitation, which was mainly aimed at producing revenues for funneling to Britain. This was achieved by imposing high taxes on the farmers and often forcing the latter into cultivating cash-crops (jute, cotton, tea, oil seeds) useful for the Industries in Britain but not for the Indian farmers. This had caused great hardship and suffering to the Indian farmers including famines.

Religious persecution, as unleashed by the Portuguese (in Goa) and the Islamic rulers, was never a part of the British rule. Although there was an clandestine and unofficial complicity to Evangelical Missionary activities, including clandestine effort to convert the Indian soldiers. Yet there is no record of mass destruction of mosques, temples or monasteries by the British rulers or mass killing of the native people for their religions or for not converting to Christianity.

Neither did the British rulers ever allowed the Hindus or the Muslims to destroy either Muslim mosques or the Hindu temples throughout the great part of their rule in India.

However, one prominent but ignored (and even often condemned by the Muslims) aspect of the British rule was the long-due empowerment of the Hindus over the Muslims after centuries of iron-handed ruling and subjugation of the indigenous Indians by the Muslims. Although they kept the critical power and positions in British hand, they did give the next level of power to the hands of the Hindus, including allotment of the Zamindari activities mostly to the Hindus. This again, was not so much unjust. Hindus got those jobs because they were more educated and efficient and with their number were more authoritative to do the job of tax collection. Muslims, on the other hand, never conformed to modernity and never took interest in modern secular education introduced by the British terming it un-Islamic and were left behind.

It should be recognized that the Hindus and other indigenous people were the rightful owner of India both in terms of their number and in being the indigenous people, and the power, if not shared, should have been at the hands of the Hindus.

The British Raj did a good deed towards the empowerment of the Hindu over the Muslims after centuries of subjugation and brutal suppression by the Muslim rulers.

The much hyped up “divide and rule” policy of the British has been consumed voraciously by the Hindus and the Muslims, the progressive and the obscurantist, and the liberals and the zealots alike.

Yes, in the Sepoy Mutiny (Shipahi Biplob) of 1857, the Hindus did not participate as vigorously as did the Muslims. Why should they, anyway? Muslim rulers were still ruling some good parts of India. Was it going to be a wise a decision for the Hindus to join hand with the Muslims to drive away the British and establish the Nawabi and Mughal rule once again? They were definitely more privileged under the British Raj than they were under the Muslim rulers. The slavery of the Muslims once again was not a better choice, and the Hindus did just the right thing.

 The British rulers might have had exploited the huge chasm that existed between the Hindus and Muslims as a result of immense atrocities on the majority indigenous religion people and of massive destruction of their religious institutions by the Muslim invaders all throughout the Islamic domination of India.

Only at the fag-end of the British rule in India, the Hindu-Muslim tension flared up in a dangerous way. There has been a lot of talks and condemnations of the British role in creating Hindu-Muslim divide – yet the contribution of the British rulers in this Hindu-Muslim tension and in the resulting riots in the run-up to independence of India has not been clearly established.

What we know for sure is the fact that, as Britain was counting days to end her imperial rule in India, the Muslims started a vigorous campaign for a separate state fearing that they may have to be under the majority Hindu rule in an independent and democratic India.

They could never really forsake their pride of subjugating and persecuting the Hindus for centuries. That was why they needed a separate state.

As this religious zealotry of the Muslims got strength, there arose the nationalistic Hindu zealotry, and that led to the much of the tension and blood-bath between the Hindus and the Muslims.

And what else the Hindus could do? Muslims came to India as barbaric invaders and ruled for centuries. In the process, Muslim rulers mercilessly oppressed and even killed the indigenous people in great numbers, looted their properties, destroyed their religious institutions and symbols, took them as slaves and raped their women.

Now, when British are about to leave they wanted to divide their country as well. That was the perfect ground for giving rise to religious zealotry amongst the Hindus, and for the first time in the history of the Indian subcontinent, the Hindus, as a religious identity, raised their heads as a militant force to deter the instigatory Islamic zealots from dividing their country.

The world witnessed what happened as a result of that. Let us point fingers to the right place instead of blaming the British for everything that happened around the Hindu-Muslim tensions and riots in the run to the independence.

It is important to sort out the facts from the hypes and lies. It is time that we bury the hypes and lies in which our intellectuals and the commoners have indulged in for too long.

Yet, the British Raj had its own share of cruelty, whatever may be the magnitude. The bulk of the cruelty, that the British inflicted, was during the event of Sepoy Mutiny or the first war of independence in 1857. Surely, the British atrocity in the Sepoy Mutiny was gory. But atrocities were committed by both sides involved in that war. It should be understood that in the 1857 war, the British became more vindictive and cruel only after the Cawnpore (Kanpur) episode when Nana Sahib betrayed and some 210 women and children in his custody were butchered with knives and hatchets into pieces and thrown down a well. This cold-blooded murder of the innocent women and children enraged the British, including the public in Britain, so much so, that every captured rebel soldier, guilty or not, was ordered to be hanged or blow them from the mouth of cannons if facilities existed. The latter was a traditional practice used by the Muslim rulers which the British rulers had banned considering barbaric but they reintroduced it following the Cawnpore incidence.

Thus, although the British committed brutality in putting down the Sepoy Mutiny, it never affected the non-combatants and the innocent women and children as was the case with Islamic brutality in India.

It should also be understood that major cause of discontent that lead to the Sepoy Mutiny, was all the good things the British Raj did in India, including the abolition of child marriage, Sati Daha and female infanticide and hunting down the deadly Thuggee cult (a cult of Kali who used to do robbery and strangulation to death of their victims, mainly travelers). Even the much-prided Indian Railway system, which started operating in the early 1850s preceding the Sepoy mutiny, was also a cause of discontent, since it was seen as a demon introduced by the British for keeping the Indians subjugated.

Another salient point that must be understood is: despite being largely an economically exploitative and often suppressive, the British Raj instituted a system of educational and cultural intellectualism that allowed the blooming of all the literary and scientific achievements, which the people of the sub-continent are proud of today and would continue to be proud of for a long time to come. Those Nobel laureates, the great literary giants like Tagore, Nazrul and Allama Iqbal and the other famous scientists of the subcontinents, including Professor Abdus Salam, were groomed by an educational and intellectual culture which was instituted solely by the stewardship of the British rulers. This glorious phase of intellectuality in India has largely died off, since the British have left. The Dhaka University, once known as the “Oxford of the East”, has now lost all its prestige as an eminent educational institution with severely fallen standard in every discipline of studies. The Qaide-e-Azam University of Pakistan, which was a vibrant campus for intellectual exercise and science education, has become nothing but a University of theological interest. So is the case with the famous Muslim-administered Aligarh University in India.

India, on the other hand, since the British have left, although has maintained some good standard in education and science, yet has failed to keep up with the pace of progress and advancement in the international stage.

It may be long wait before we will see another Nobel laureate emerges from the Land of Tagore, the Chandra Shekhars, Hargobind Khorana and Abdus Salam. Nor will we see very often the likes of genius scientists like Jagadish Chandra Bosu, Satyan Bose and Prafulla Chandra Roy et al. to emerge from India.

Even the latest Nobel laureate from the subcontinent, Prof. Amartya Sen, was groomed in the educational environment left by the British Raj in the forties and early fifties. The great reformers of tradition and culture of the Indian society, namely Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Ishwar Chandra Bidyasagar, were also the product of intellectual and educational culture created by the British.

Furthermore, the British should be credited for the admirable railway and road communication systems in India. They instituted the modern legal and judicial systems in India. And of course, the much prided democracy – the largest democracy in the world – is also what the British left behind.

One must ask the question: what would have been the situation in India if the British did not come and Islamic rulers had continued to rule India? Witnessing what is going on in the world vis–vis Islamic world, one thing that can be said for sure is that the Muslims would still be ruling India with an iron-hand.

Satis would probably have still been burned and child marriage would have been widespread, since it is compatible with Islam. Education system would be characterized by the madrasas. Indeed, India had a very high standard in education and science in pre-Islamic India. But the Muslim invaders and rulers destroyed all schools and educational institutions and converted them into madrasas.

As a result, India did not make any notable contribution in these areas throughout the centuries of Islamic rule.

And given how the minorities are being treated in the Muslim countries and what happened to the Hindus in Bangladesh (~33% in 1947 to ~10% now) and Pakistan (~15% upon 1947 independence to ~1% now), one can be certain that Hindus would still have been doing the slavery and experiencing subjugation under the Muslims if the British never stepped onto India.

One may rise objections that such brutal and potentially explosive facts should not be spoken about lest it causes religious tensions. For this particular reason the modern historians of India, mostly from the leftist background, are probably indulging in the policy of silence, avoidance or cover-up about the Islamic atrocity in India.

Yet, those who agree to the atrocities of the Muslim conquerors attempt to lighten the air by offering lame excuses such as temple destruction by the Muslim rulers were not because of hatred against the Hindus but for plundering the valuables and wealth kept there.

But it is a fact that the Hindus hardly ever used to keep their valuable assets in temples. Neither does that explain as to why tens of thousands of Hindus were slaughtered on many occasions. Yet those Islamic historians, who chronicled the Islamic atrocities often under the patronage of many rulers and sometimes by the rulers themselves, never cited any such reason for the destruction of temples. Plundering the wealth kept in a temple does not require razing down the temples either.

Such apologetic excuses also do not explain why mosques had to be build at the sites of many famous temples after their destruction.

In fact, Indian Geological Survey has identified hundreds of mosques across India that used materials for construction from destroyed temples.

A Geological Investigation team has recently confirmed the presence of structures of temple beneath the very controversial Babri mosque of Ayodhya.

Yet, it could the preferable for some people to negate the Islamic atrocities in India or maintain silence about them hoping that such a policy would maintain a semblance of harmony and peace between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Although this appears a sensible idea, yet at the same time such policy negates the recognition of such a gigantic sacrifice by our forefathers of the Indian subcontinent.

If we fail to recognize this gravest of tragedy in the recorded history of India, it will be a terrible injustice to those who had to sacrifice their lives in such a tragic manner.

Yet, recognition of a tragedy has always borne fruit, whilst failure to do so has resulted in repetition of the same. For the same reason, the secular patriotic Bangladeshis and freedom fighters are so eager to have the tragedy and sacrifice of Bengalis in 1971 war of independence recognized by the perpetrators (Pakistan) and by the world. For the same reason, we have the Holocaust/WWII museums in Israel, New York and Germany. Japan have recognized and apologized for the atrocities they committed in the World War II recently after 60 years of negation. Germany and Italy has recognized and apologized for their atrocities during the WWII time and again. And this recognition is not only meant for justice and recognition of those who had fallen in the said tragedies but also for preventing such tragedies from repeating in future.

Recognition of the fallout of Islamic invasion of India may be argued against fearing that it may ignite explosive violence. Yet for the sake of justice and recognition of the tragic sacrifice of our forefathers, the modern world must be able to recognize and apologize for what happened in the aftermath of Islamic occupation of India.

So should the world recognize the victims of any other tragedy, be it the fallout of British occupation of India or of the barbaric Spanish crusade in the South America or of the barbaric Christian atrocities in the so-called Holy Land!

If the recognition and condemnation of the British atrocities in India is not a problem, there should not be problem in recognizing and condemning fallout about of Islamic invasion. In stead, recognition of the latter tragedy becomes a moral responsibility for the sake of fairness and justice.

One may argue that recognition of the tragedies of WWII and the construction of WWII and Holocaust Museums may cause tension and violence between the Neo-Nazis/White Supremacists and the Jews and for that reason, we should keep away from doing such things and maintain silence about those tragedies. Same could be said about the Bangladesh independence struggles of 1971 fearing that it would cause trouble and tension between Bangladeshi and Pakistanis. Yet, WWII memorials and Holocaust museums are being created not only as recognition of sacrifices of the fallen but also in the hope that they will act as reminders as well as deterrents for such tragedies from repeating in the future.

By this parity of reasons, whether it is the tragedies of burning of millions of Satis in India, or burning millions of so-called witches by the Clergy in Europe, or the massacre of millions by Genghis Khan or the tragic fallout of the Islamic conquest in India – they should be recognized as wrongs, they should be recognized and memorials should be built not only as a symbol and gesture of honoring the sacrifice of the fallen but also as a reminder to the current and future generations so that such terrible tragedies never happen again.

There is a strong argument that talking about such forgotten tragedies may ignite the victims, namely the Hindus in India, into violent actions.

Yet, these are the fact recorded proudly by the Islamic historians and rulers of India and available in original form in libraries around the world and a section of the Hindus in India are becoming aware of these tragic facts and a section of those informed Hindus are forming those radical Hindu organizations such as RSS, Kar Sevaks and VHP etc. who are seeking revenge by trying to rebuild their destroyed temples at the site of now-standing mosques.

Why these people are turning violent once they get to learn about those hushed-up tragedies? It should also be recognized that highly educated and rich Hindus, such as members of the VHP, are funding these militant Hindu organizations. But why? The answer is simple. Those atrocities were terrible and heart-rending and when Hindus suddenly get to find out what has happened to their ancestors centuries ago, they feel shocked, they feel indignation against Muslims and they want revenge in whatsoever way that might be.

However, recognition of those terrible tragedies that fell on the Hindus of India after Islamic invasion and during the Islamic rule is likely to go a long way in pacifying indignant section of Hindus. An apology would advance that cause immensely.

Being grown up as a Muslim, I know there is a good deal of angst amongst Muslims against the Hindus because of the Hindu Zamindars’ oppressive and harsh activities in the days of the British rule. But the harshness caused by the Hindu Zamindars to Muslims is ignorable if compared to what happened to the Hindus in the days of Islamic invasion and rule of India. The Zamindars were harsh on the Hindu subjects as well – thanks to the British.

However if Muslims can recognize the atrocities caused by the Islamic invaders and rulers on the Hindus, their own indignation against the Hindus vis–vis the Zamindari activities would surely be reduced, which can help strengthen relationship between both communities.

Yet the facts about the Islamic atrocities, unrivalled in the history of India, are coming out into the public domain anyway – thanks to the historical details left by the Muslims historians and rulers themselves.

The sooner the people of India and the Muslims in particular take steps to recognize those terrible atrocities to honor the victims, the better it is for harmonious relationship between the Hindus and Muslims living there.

1) Past Demons: Irfan Hussain @ http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-8-2004_pg3_4

2) Never Forget History @ http://indiaview.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/forgive-but-never-forget-%e2%80%93-history/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1653953/posts

http://www.rense.com/general76/jcamp.htm

Jesus Camp: God Help us all!

By Alton Raines

I’ve just finished watching one of the most disturbing documentaries ever produced. It’s called ‘Jesus Camp‘ (Heidi Ewing, Rachel Grady/Magnolia) and deals with non-denominational ultra-fundamentalist Christian church groups and one of the bizarre, psychotic camps they send their children to for two weeks of intense brain washing. I label it as such as one who has been inside the ultra-fundamentalist Christian community and not as an outsider merely perplexed at practices or spiritual/religious activities foreign to me.

Since I extricated myself from the ultra-fundamentalists some ten years ago, things have clearly gone from worse to abominable.

Maybe Rosie O’Donnell wasn’t being too radical when she said fundamentalist Christianity is as dangerous here in America as fundamentalist Islam is elsewhere in the world.

And for me to cough up the slightest acknowledgement of a Rosie O’Donnell statement is really saying something, it barely makes it to the tips of my typing fingers without inducing a small stroke.

Let me say at the outset that there are many wonderful, inspiring, decent Christian camps for kids run by churches that are harmless, that foster intelligent inquiry and respect for the individual while instilling deeply cherished values.

But what you will see in ‘Jesus Camp’ is so abusive, so cultic, so depraved you may not make it through the whole DVD. I had to stop it several times just to sigh and pray.

You will see little children being indoctrinated with irrefutable mind control techniques and the use of emotional contagion and peer-group/group-think manipulations so dastardly, so underhanded and blatantly hypnotic that tears will likely come to your eyes, if rage doesn’t settle in first.  

Emotionally distraught children — When she should be thinking
about yucky boys and hopscotch, she’s weighted down with
intense emotions and worry over ‘the state of the nation’ by
the Pastors’ incessant political, apocalyptic ranting. 

Now, I realize a great many of these people sincerely believe everything they are doing is not only “for God,” but is the very “will of God.” But it is simply a fact of life that religion — any religion — has the capacity for a level of human abuse so far above and beyond the norm that it is paramount that we all remain highly vigilant in watching out for the church-turned-cult, and especially for the sake of the children involved… children who know no better, who are absolute innocents, so easily manipulated and molded. When I see some bloated, boisterous, verbrato-laden preacher lording it over 5-10 year olds sending them into a hysterical frenzy of tears and anguish telling them they have sinned, I want to come up out of the my seat and take the rope of Jesus in the temple and lash that wicked false prophet within an inch of his/her life.

There is nothing more despicable and devious than to monkey with the minds and emotions of little children (Jesus said “the Kingdom of Heaven belong[ed] to ones such as these”!) for ones own twisted cause, desired outcome or benefit.

And that is precisely what these “counselors” and preachers at ‘Jesus Camp’ do, with delighted, obscene abandon, rousing their “army for Jesus” as they called this group of 100+ children cloistered away in the camp.  

What was even more disturbing was to see many of the parents of these poor kids there in attendance with them, participating and involving themselves in the mass mind control, and subsequent at-home interviews revealing their complete commitment to this kind of psychotic manipulation; they themselves have been likewise brainwashed into submission to this radically irresponsible, dangerous neo-Christianity. 

Perhaps the most disturbing moment was when one of the camp counselors brought out a life size cardboard popup of George W. Bush. and stood it in the pulpit, a waving American flag graphic projected behind him, saying “Here’s President Bush, come to visit us…!” and then calling the children to come forward and touch his likeness, “pray over him! Make warfare over him” (note: to those not familiar with certain fundamentalist colloquialisms, “warfare” is in reference to the Apostle Paul’s admonition “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places,” and “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds” speaking of spiritual warfare — prayer and intercession).

Little children clamor and cluster at the feet of this cutout, straining to touch it like the woman with the issue of blood in the Gospels reaching to touch the hem of Jesus’ garment. Though the weapons of their warfare are not carnal, there is no lack of the use of utterly carnal, even military symbolisms. In one scene several children had devised a ‘dance’ to go along with some Christian Heavy Metal music, clad in fatigues and faces painted in camo, brandishing fighting sticks which they were thrusting and flailing about, shouting “War! Warfare!” The girls in the group had war-paint faces and wore black.  

‘Pastor’ Becky Fisher and her oft pointing finger
“Harry Potter is an evil warlock and would’ve been
put to death in Old Testament times!”
 

 Pastor Becky Fisher, the master manipulator of this sect, is a frighteningly twisted character. The look in her eyes is overwhelmingly dark as she gazes out over the sea of little faces weeping and travailing and cackling in ‘tongues’ as she stirs her ‘army’ to frenzy, fear and then utter fanaticism.

This significantly rotund woman has the audacity at one point to admonish the children for not having the strength of faith to fast, even mentioning a 40 day fast. If this woman fasted two hours she’d likely faint and then rise up and personally demolish a Dairy Queen. The hypocrisy is simply revolting. 

One of the twisted ‘methods’ at Jesus Camp, mouths
were taped shut with red duct tape inscribed with the word LIFE
in part of a protest against abortion 

There are no ifs, ands or buts in this documentary, the people involved say plainly they are raising up, indoctrinating and forming a generation of “Conservative Christian Republicans” — WE know them as ‘Neo-cons.’ In one scene they bring the children to such an emotional mania over abortion that one could clearly argue that this is as much child-abuse as taking a child into a porno flick.  

The mixed ages of the children is one very disturbing element. Some are merely toddlers barely out of diapers, others are in their very early teens. Not every message is suitable for every age, but these unthinking yahoo’s, propelled along by the ‘The Spirit’ (may God have mercy on them for grieving the blessed Spirit of grace and truth in claiming their own perverted emotional and political rants to be the same ‘Spirit’), splatter the whole group with machine-gunned verbal assaults with no qualms about its effect on the littlest and most impressionable.

You simply do NOT tell toddlers and little ones that Satan, an invisible but terrifyingly evil monster that personally knows them and watches them, is looking to destroy them! Little children cannot possibly rightly process such a message without trauma. And that trauma is more than abundantly evident in ‘Jesus Camp.’

Among these ultra-fundamentalists, ‘The Spirit’ is an excuse for every manner of bizarre behavior, most of which looks frighteningly similar to the kinds of twitching, jolting and bellowing seen among primitives involved in trance-inducing voodoo.

None of it makes sense, nothing about it is remotely biblical or uplifting and most of the children are beet-red faced with distemper, exhausted emotionally, strained to tears and nowhere near coherent; The perfect state to implant very powerful directives at the subconscious level.  

One little boy named Levi, who looked to be around 10, was a focus for the adult manipulators. It becomes evident in the documentary that he is being groomed to be a big mover and shaker in the years to come. At one point he is heard saying, “I don’t like being around people who are non-Christian, it just makes me feel… gross…I feel bad inside… in my spirit.”

This boy doesn’t know the real Jesus from a hole in the ground! And that is the essential point here — there is no Jesus in Jesus Camp.

There’s everything BUT Jesus in Jesus Camp.

Though His name is tacked onto everything and every sentence ends with his name being bandied about like a magic wand, the real Jesus Christ of the Gospels is entirely missing; his teachings, his truths clearly are abandoned for a new and better Jesus.

A fighting Jesus. A Republican Neo-Con Jesus. A Jesus Dick Cheney could know and love and probably make a few ‘bidniss’ deals with. A Jesus that is red, white and blue, and no other colors have any meaning or significance. THIS Jesus doesn’t ride a donkey, He rides an elephant! As Pastor Becky Fisher puts it (while comparing radical Islamic training of children to fundamentalist Christian training of children) “…the difference being, we’re right and they’re wrong.”

The bombs these children are being taught to strap on are bombs of polarization, exclusion, discrimination, xenophobia and these are sure to ‘go off’ at some point when they are older.  

As a bible-believing Christian, this documentary made me want to puke.

It is even more disheartening to know full well that the documentary itself will effect millions of people and their attitudes toward all Christians, unfortunately. If this is the backbone of the great cultural divide in this nation, we’re in for some really nasty confrontations in the next twenty to fifty years.

Who will OWN the Constitution and the nation? Radical ultra-fundamentalist Christian Neo-Cons or a thinking, responsible republic of fair-minded, rational and magnanimous people from all walks of life and every religious persuasion?

That is what is on the table, when you hear Bill O’Reilly characterize his “Culture Warriors,” the “traditionalists” vs the “SPs” (Secular Progressives). Bill doesn’t realize that in his camp are some serious crazies and among the “traditionalists” are people who have zero comprehension of the Constitution, much less real conservative traditionalism.

The Neo-Con-spiracy is one big, bad mother… and it has got to be opposed at every step. Right now, it’s a lumbering, idiotic baby making a big stink.

But given a few years and exposure to nuclear radiation, it will mutate into a Godzilla of political, social and spiritual tyranny that will make the Taliban and Sharia Law look like mere beatniks.  

(Shortly after its release, the movie gained a new notoriety when Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, who appears near the end of the film, resigned his post amid a male prostitute’s allegations of drug use and sexual misconduct. – Amazon.com review)  altonraines@minister.com

Also Read:   Religious Tolerance

http://www.indianexpress.com/story_print.php?storyid=425407

Ex-nun’s confessions set to rock Kerala Church

Shaju Philip 

2) Behind Locked Doors @ http://www.reformation.org/maria-monk.html

Thiruvananathapuram : Already reeling under several controversies, the Kerala Catholic Church is facing fresh embarrassment from a tell-all autobiography written by a nun who recently quit the Order alleging harassment from superiors.  

‘Amen — an autobiography of a nun’, released last week, is written by Dr Sister Jesme, 52, who was the Principal of St Mary’s College, Thrissur, till last August when she quit the Congregation of Mother Carmelite (CMC).

 “Dedicated to Jesus”, Amen is explicit in its details of the sexual repression and harassment behind the Church walls as well as the draconian rules and “greed” of the Order.

Jesme claims that since the book was released, she has been getting calls pledging solidarity.

 “Nuns mingle with the whole spectrum of the community around them. They teach students, comfort the aged and nurse the sick; still the brides of the Church remain an enigma.

My work would throw light on the misunderstood convent life, engulfed in darkness,” says Jesme.

Apart from the Abhaya murder in which a nun and priests are accused, the Kerala Church was recently in the news for a priest “adopting” a 26-year-old woman.

Jesme’s autobiography includes a poignant version by her of how the convent authorities tried to twice prove that she had mental problems and get her admitted into a rehab centre after she reportedly spoke out against the malpractices within the Order.

Starting with her first days in the Church, 30 years ago, she talks of priets forcing novices to have relations with them and the closet homosexuality within nun ranks, “which the Church reckons as the dirtiest thing possible”. “If nuns developed unusual interest in each other, authorities would deploy other inmates to watch them,” she writes.

The book says Jesme herself was forced into such a relationship by a fellow nun, and that her complaints to a senior nun were ignored.

According to her, the other nun said she preferred such a relationship as it ruled out pregnancy. There were others who had affairs with priests, she writes.

Another passage in Amen deals with a chance encounter Jesme had with a priest in Bangalore while on her way to Dharwar to attend a UGC refresher course in English. “My plan was to stay at the waiting room at the Bangalore railway station. But sisters in the convent gave me the address of a pious, decent priest. When I reached Bangalore, the priest was waiting to receive me. He embraced me and took me to his presbytery. After breakfast, he took me to Lalbagh (Botanical Garden) and showed me several pairs cuddling behind trees. He also gave a sermon on the necessity of physical love and described the illicit affairs certain bishops and priests had.”

Later, when they were in his room, she writes, he stripped and made her do the same.

Jesme claims that while nuns in the lower ranks were punished if caught for even minor offences, the Church turned a blind eye to those superior or with influence for major transgressions.

Talking about the Church’s draconian rules, Jesme writes in the book that she was not allowed to go home when her father died, or to even pray some extra hours for his soul. “I was able to see my father barely 15 minutes before the funeral. The alibi of the superiors was that the then senior sisters were not even lucky enough to see the bodies of their parents.”

During her time in the Church, Jesme often ran into problems with superiors. She was called “cine nun” after she provided office facility for a film festival at St Mary’s College, leading to the first campus film from the college, as well as when she shared dais with a sex worker for the release of a book on the life of a prostitute.

Since quitting CMC, Jesme has been staying alone in a flat in Kozhikode. She told The Indian Express she was still living as a “nun”. “I go for Church mass daily and have no plans to get married.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

1) Do Nuns die Virgins? @ https://honestreporting.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/do-nuns-die-virgins/

The Mythical Moderate Muslim

Faithfreedom.org

Yashiko Sagamori

Primitive tribes offer sacrifices hoping to mollify whatever nonexistent beings they believe in. The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman belongs to a very sophisticated tribe that, according to the recently retired Malaysian Prime Minister, rules the world by proxy.

One would think Mr. Krugman should be above such crude superstitions. Nevertheless, in his column on October 21, he suggests that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld should fire General Boykin in order to mollify moderate Muslims.

General Boykin, the leading anti-terror expert at the Pentagon and a devout Christian, had openly and publicly, on several occasions, expressed his personal opinion of Islam, which happens to be rather low. Considering where the terror is coming from, this is far less surprising than Mr. Krugman’s eagerness to sacrifice both General Boykin and the First Amendment to mollify moderate Muslims. I’d like to ask Mr. Krugman what gives him a reason to believe that the beings he is trying to mollify actually exist.

The official, politically correct point of view says that Islam is just another monotheistic religion, not that different from Judaism or Christianity. If that is true, then moderate Muslims must exist, just like moderate members of other faiths. However, moderate members of other faiths do not require sacrificial mollification — that’s basically how we tell moderates from extremists.
Therefore, either moderate Muslims are mythical creatures, or we need substantially different criteria to identify them. That dilemma alone should make us suspicious as to whether Islam is “just another religion”. Obviously, it is important that we determine how a moderate Muslim can be distinguished from a Muslim extremist.
Why not ask Muslims themselves? Irshad Manji, a young Canadian author, has published a book titled The Trouble With Islam. Since we don’t hear too many Muslim voices criticizing their religion, her book deserves our attention. This is what the author herself says on her promotional website (http://www.irshadmanji.com/the-book):
 I appreciate that every faith has its share of literalists. Christians have their fundamentalists. Jews have the ultra-Orthodox. For God’s sake, even Buddhists have absolutists.
But what this book hammers home is that only in Islam today is literalism mainstream. Which means that when abuse happens under the banner of Islam, most Muslims have no clue how to dissent, debate, or reform ourselves.

Apparently, the terms literalism and fundamentalism in the quotation above are used interchangeably, as synonyms of religious extremism.

Unfortunately, the author fails to mention the most important difference between “literalists” in Islam and other religions. Evangelical Christians may believe that heaven is reserved for them alone. Ultra-Orthodox Jews may display intimate understanding of the murkiest places in the Talmud. I have no idea what extreme fundamentalist Buddhists do that sets them apart from their moderate coreligionists.

What I do know however is that no religion except Islam pursues the idea of physical extermination of those who believe differently.

The concept of holy war is unique to Islam. Jihad is the absolute monopoly of Muslims. There is no parallel to it in any other religion in the world. (Yes, I have heard about Crusades, but Christianity does not mandate them, and do you know when the last Crusade ended?)So, here we have it in plain English, as simple as A, B, C:

A.

According to the Koran, holy war against the infidels is a sacred duty of every Muslim.

 

  

B.According to Ms. Manji, mainstream Muslims interpret Koran literally.

The conclusion is inevitable:

C.

Mainstream Muslims perceive war against the infidels — meaning you and me — as their sacred duty.

 Once you understand that, you don’t need books to explain to you what exactly the trouble with Islam is. The trouble with Islam derives from the fact that mainstream Islam openly calls for murder of all infidels. That’s why Islam is not “just another religion”. That’s what, in my view, allows to classify all its followers as extremist.

What then, besides our stubborn, groundless faith in the general goodness of our fellow human beings, leads us to believe that moderate Muslims are not just a figment of our imagination? How do they manifest themselves in the real world? It would be utterly useless to look for them in Gaza, Judea, or Samaria.

Unlike Bin Laden, terrorists occupying Israeli lands do not live in caves. They live in small towns, villages and crowded refugee camps where everyone knows everything about everyone else. They couldn’t survive for a day without popular support.

When someone gives them a reason to doubt the sincerity of his support, they label him a collaborator and murder him on the spot. Indeed, the PA-sponsored educational system guarantees that innocent children are indoctrinated in the most murderous variety of Islamic extremism — thereby losing their innocence — at the earliest possible age.

Therefore, in Israel, a moderate Muslim is a dead Muslim, which is bad news for those who want us to believe that there is a peaceful solution to the continuing Arab war against Israel.

Let’s look elsewhere. Afghanistan, liberated by the United States from the medieval tyranny of the Taliban is about to publish the draft of its first constitution. Their new constitution is going to be firmly based on Islamic principles. The country itself is soon to be renamed the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

We wouldn’t call a Jew or a Christian who wanted his religion to become the basis of his country’s constitution a moderate, would we?

Here, in the United States, we value the separation of church from state so much that we launch court battles to remove the Ten Commandments and every reference to God from everything that is even remotely related to the government.

If Islam is “just another religion”, shouldn’t the same criteria apply to Muslim countries? And if the same criteria do apply, we have to conclude that President Karzai installed in Afghanistan by the American military and unable to survive now or in the foreseeable future without the American military presence, is not a moderate Muslim, but an outright religious extremist. His “Very correct” remark to Mahadir’s call for the extermination of Jews shows that he is a political extremist as well.

Therefore, the only practical question regarding Afghanistan is why did the United States have to waste lives of its soldiers and tens of billions of dollars in order to replace one bunch of Muslim extremists with another?

It might have been worthwhile had it improved our security at home, but, as we know, that didn’t happen. Therefore, we have to conclude that the United States has once again won a battle but lost the war. Next, the same will inevitably happen in Iraq.

Desperate search for moderate Muslims goes all around the world. It is especially urgent in Europe whose face is being irreversibly altered by mass immigration from Islamic countries.

Recently, the British government appealed to the growing British Muslim community to isolate extremists in their midst. It’s not hard to predict the response. Actually, there will be no response, because everyone in any Muslim community is an extremist. Such is the nature of Islam, and the only thing that I find hard to comprehend is the self-imposed blindness of the British government. Apparently, such is the price of liberalism and political correctness.

Bye-bye, Europe. We are next.

I don’t think World War II could be won if the Allies, instead of eradicating Nazism, attempted to replace Nazi extremists with moderate Nazis.

Actually, nobody was looking for moderate Nazis during World War II. But those were simpler, purer times. Today, the mythical moderate Muslim remains the focal point of the US foreign policy in the Middle East. The blind faith in his existence has already led the United States to many monumental failures, and many more are to be expected in the future. Meanwhile, the moderate Muslim, along with the Big Foot, the unicorn, the Loch Ness monster, remains more elusive than a cure for cancer: there is at least a theoretical possibility that a cure for cancer can be found one day, unless of course Islam takes over and drags us all down into its own endless Dark Ages. source: www.faithfreedom.org/2009/01/30/the-mythical-moderate-muslim/

RELATED STORIES:

Chasing a Mirage  @ http://ultracurrents.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html

A German’s View @ http://worldmonitor.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/a-germans-view/ 

 

For Moderate Muslims @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avYtAyCxUbA&eurl=http://ibloga.blogspot.com/

Nurturing terror with US dollars

Daily Pioneer : Jan. 18, 2009

Kanchan Gupta

Commenting on America’s response to the multiple terrorist strikes of 9/11, the most spectacular of which was Mohammed Atta and his fellow jihadis flying two passenger jets into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and reducing the glittering chrome-and-glass symbol of American power to twisted steel and rubble, Gen Pervez Musharraf writes in his memoir, In the Line of Fire, “I was chairing an important meeting… when my military secretary told me that the US Secretary of State, Gen Colin Powell, was on the phone. I said I would call back later, but he insisted that I come out of the meeting and take the call. Powell was quite candid: ‘You are either with us or against us.’ I took this as a blatant ultimatum… I told him we were with the United States against terrorism, having suffered from it for years, and would fight along with his country against it.”

Gen Powell’s pronounced pro-Pakistan bias was no secret in the first Bush Administration. It is possible that his colleagues were not too sure whether he had been blunt enough while delivering what Gen Musharraf was to later correctly describe as a “blatant ultimatum” to Pakistan. So a follow-up message was sent, this time through a person who had little time and lesser patience for niceties. “When I was back in Islamabad the next day, our director-general of Inter-Services Intelligence, who happened to be in Washington, told me on the phone about his meeting with the US Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage.

In what was to be the most undiplomatic statement ever made, Armitage added to what Colin Powell had said to me and told the director-general not only that we had to decide whether we were with America or with the terrorists, but that if we chose the terrorists, then we would be bombed back to the Stone Age.”

It is anybody’s guess as to whether the Americans would have carried out their threat had Gen Musharraf cast Pakistan’s lot with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But being the crafty man that he is, Gen Musharraf decided to play along with the Bush Administration by pretending to be a ‘staunch’ and ‘steadfast’ ally in the war on terror, and thus get the West to acknowledge Pakistan as the ‘frontline state’ deserving of military and civilian aid, which has since run into billions of dollars, most of it contributed by the US.

Seven years after Gen Powell asked Gen Musharraf to choose between America and the terrorists, and Mr Armitage made sure Pakistan chose to support the US, there is little or nothing to show for the military and non-military aid. Oversight audits have revealed that much of the money meant to modernise the Pakistani Army to fight terrorism in that country’s badlands has been pocketed by its top brass through the rampant use of bogus vouchers and fake bills.

As for non-military aid, it is obvious that generous cash transfers from Western capitals to Islamabad have not helped prevent Pakistani society’s descent into Islamic fanaticism and jihadi bloodletting. Gen Musharraf had promised to reform the education system by cleansing school curriculum of the regressive elements introduced during the Islamisation drive of Gen Zia-ul-Haq, shutting down non-registered madarsas run by rabid mullahs, and modernising those seminaries which are recognised by the Government.

For all his talk about “enlightened moderation”, Gen Musharraf did nothing on this front; by the time he ordered his troops to storm Lal Masjid and its two madarsas, including Jamia Hafza, in the heart of Islamabad on July 8, 2007, thousands of clones of this Deoband-inspired seminary of hate had sprung up across Pakistan. Many more have mushroomed in the last two years and each one of them preaches a simple, one-sentence message: “Jihad is your salvation.”

Distinguished Pakistani scholar and columnist Pervez Hoodbhoy, in an article, “The Saudi-isation of Pakistan”, published in the latest issue of Newsline, laments how radical Islamism and mullah-driven Arabisation are furiously gnawing at the innards of a tottering Pakistani state. He says although the Government admits to the existence of only 13,000 madarsas with 1.5 million taliban, the real number is likely between 18,000 and 22,000.

That would mean millions of taliban being indoctrinated by hate-mongers for whom Islam means being in a state of constant war with those who refuse to submit to oppressive Islamism that militates against human liberty, equality and dignity.

The preaching of hate and the teaching of ‘virtues’ of jihad are not limited to Deobandi madarsas alone. Such has been the all-pervasive influence of state-sponsored Islamisation since the days of Gen Zia’s dictatorship — contrary to popular belief Benazir Bhutto did nothing to reverse the trend after the dictator met a justly deserved fiery death (those with an evil mind insist the CIA did him in), nor did Mr Nawaz Sharif bother to halt the onward march of radical Islam while Gen Musharraf tricked the Americans into believing he was working on education reforms but it would require a few more million dollars, please — that private schools have now begun adopting offensive textbooks.

Rezaul Laskar of PTI has filed a report from Islamabad which is worth quoting verbatim: “Thousands of Pakistani schoolgoing children are growing up learning that the Urdu equivalent of the letter ‘A’ stands for Allah, ‘B’ for bandook (gun) and ‘J’ for jihad. Though not officially prescribed for pre-schoolers, books printed by Iqra Publishers are being used in several regular schools and madarsas across Pakistan.

The three examples of Allah, bandook and jihad are not the only ones which sound like a ‘blueprint for a religious fascist state’. The Urdu letter for the ‘T’ stands for takrao (collision), ‘K’ for khanjar (dagger), H for hijab (veil) and ‘Z’ for zunoob (sins) which include watching television, playing musical instruments and flying kites.

Which takes us back to Peerbhoy’s lament: “Left unchallenged, this education will produce a generation incapable of co-existing with anyone except strictly their own kind.

The mindset it creates may eventually lead to Pakistan’s demise as a nation state.” Not given to grand pronouncements, Peerbhoy has been cautious with his words. For, Pakistan has not only set itself on a self-destructive course, it is also headed for a catastrophe whose victims shall not be Pakistanis alone.

Tragically, the Americans refuse to read the writing on the wall. If the Bush Administration erred in trusting Pakistan, the incoming Obama Administration has compounded that error by promising to treble aid to a criminal state whose ruling elite, both military and civilian, is a complicit partner in promoting a particularly virulent form of radical Islamism. Little does the Pakistani elite realise that it too shall be devoured by the beast it is nurturing with American dollars.      kanchangupta@rocketmail.com

1) India & Obama http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers31/paper3013.html

2) Aiding Terror @ http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=277&page=10

3) Act Tough, India! @ http://newstodaynet.com/newsindex.php?id=14033%20&%20section=13

http://www.dailypioneer.com/150623/Nurturing-terror-with-US-dollars.html

Does Europe have a Civilising mission in India?

http://www.neurope.eu/articles/87642.php

JAKOB De ROOVER

Recently, the European Parliament hosted a meeting on “caste discrimination in South Asia”. At the meeting, participants stated that “India is being ruled by castes not by laws” and that they demanded justice, because there “is one incredible India and one untouchable India.” The EU was urged to come out with a policy statement on the subject. One MEP, referring to the caste system, said that “this barbarism has to end.” This is not the first time.

However, before the EU decides to publish policy statements on caste discrimination in India, we would do well to reflect on some simple facts.

First, the dominant conception of the caste system has emerged from the accounts by Christian missionaries, travelers and colonial administrators. Rather than being neutral, these accounts were shaped by a Christian framework. That is, the religion of European visitors to India had informed them beforehand that they would find false religion and devil worship there, and that false religion always manifested itself in social evils. Especially the Protestants rebuked the “evil priests” of Hinduism for imposing the laws of caste in the name of religion. They told the Indians that conversion to Protestantism was a conversion to equality. Thus, Indian souls were to be saved from damnation and caste discrimination.

Second, this Christian account of “the Hindu religion” and its “caste system” informed colonial policies in British India. Building on the theological framework, scholars now wrote “scientific” treatises on Hindu superstition and caste discrimination.
The Christian mission found its secular counterpart in the idea of the civilising mission, which told the West that it had to rescue the natives from the clutches of superstition and caste. One no longer promoted religious conversion, but the colonial educational system harped on “the horrors of Hindu society.”

Third, the colonial educational project had a deep impact on the Indian intelligentsia. Hindu reform and anti-caste movements came into being, which reproduced the Protestant accounts of Hinduism and caste as true descriptions of India.
Their advocates did not adopt these descriptions as passive recipients, but actively deployed them to pursue socioeconomic and political interests. Political parties and caste associations were created to safeguard the interests of the “lower castes.” The elites of these groups united in associations and received financial and moral support from the missionaries and other progressive colonials.

Fourth, the “Dalit” movement of today is the product of these colonial movements. The notion of “Dalits” makes sense only within the colonial account of India, which had postulated the existence of one single group of “outcastes” or “untouchables” that was supposedly exploited by the upper castes. In reality, it concerns a variety of caste groups, with no criteria to unite them besides the claim that they are all “downtrodden.”

Indeed, many of these groups are poor and discriminated against by other caste groups. However, their socio-economic interests have been hijacked by some of their western-educated elite members. In the name of the downtrodden, these elites establish NGOs and then travel from conference to conference and country to country in order to reveal the plight of the “Dalits” to eager western audiences and secure funding from donor agencies.

Fifth, when present-day Europeans rebuke Indian society for the “barbarism” of caste discrimination, they are reproducing the old stanzas of the civilising mission. Such a stance of superiority perhaps worked in the context of colonialism. But today, at a time when Indians buy some of the European industrial giants and Europe is in need of more collaboration with India, it is ill-advised to continue this type of civilisational propaganda.

In fact, such propaganda derives its plausibility from a series of assumptions that no one would be willing to defend explicitly. It attributes all socioeconomic wrongs of the Indian society to its structure and civilisation.

 The implication is that there is only one way to get rid of socio-economic wrongs here: one has to eradicate both the social structure and the Hindu civilisation. It is as though one would blame the racism, bingedrinking, pedophilia, poverty, homelessness and domestic violence in the contemporary West on its age-old civilisation.

The times have changed. As Europeans, we need to reflect on our deep-rooted sense of superiority and how this informs our moralising discourse on human rights in other parts of the world.

To appreciate the impression we give to Indians with our statements on caste discrimination, just imagine a possible world in which the Indian government regularly castigates the US for its racism against African-Americans and the disproportionate death penalties, and the EU for the treatment of South Asians in England, Turks in Germany, women in Romania, the Basque movement in Spain, gypsies in Italy … just imagine Indian members of parliament consistently blaming the very structure of western societies as the cause of all these wrongs.

Europe needs to wake up fast. The time of colonialism is over.

If we do not change our attitudes, the irritation towards the EU will grow in countries like India and China.

So will the unwillingness to collaborate. In the fast-changing world of the early 21st Century, Europe cannot afford this.

Jakob De Roover is a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Research Foundation (FWO) at the Research Centre Vergelijkende Cultuurwetenschap, Ghent University, Belgium

RELATED ARTICLES:

1) Motivated INDOLOGY

2) Invading the Sacred

3) British Caste System