This video by a pro-Indian YouTuber fleshes out the story of the destruction and massacre at Somnath that I discuss in Islamic Crusades 6, including recent police suppression of demonstrators who were trying honor the deceased:
From the video description:
When it comes to the destruction of temples, the Somanath temple evokes strongest emotions. Somanath is mentioned fifteen times in Alberuni's Indica. While discussing the sacredness of the Somanath idol and its origins and construction, Alberuni records that the idol was destroyed by Mahmud and broken parts shipped to Ghazni; "the upper part with all its trappings of gold, jewels and embroidered garments" being kept at his residence and another part before the door of the mosque of Ghazni, on which people rub their feet to clean them from dirt and wet". Part of it was thrown into the hippodrome of the town, together with the Chakraswamin, an idol of bronze brought from Thanesar.
Additional proof of the destruction of Somanath temple, again, is recorded in a letter written by Aurangzeb. He wrote:.
"The temple of Somnath was demolished early in my reign and idol worship (there) put down. It is not known what the state of things is at present. If the idolators have again taken to the worship of images at the place, then destroy the temple in such a way that no trace of the building may be left, and also expel them (the worshippers) from the place." (Quoted in Jadunath Sarkar's History of Aurangzeb from Inayetullah's Ahkam, 10a, Mirat 372)
Somanath temple was demolished by the Muslims -- from Mahmud to Aurangzeb - and rebuilt by the Hindus several times - the last time soon after India gained her independence.
Focussing on Somanath temple does not, in any way, imply that this was the only temple demolished by the Muslims. This was one of thousands that met similar fate.
Breaking of idols and demolition of places of worship was not unique to medieval Muslims. The latest example of this practice was witnessed by the entire world only two years ago (April 2001) when in opposition to calls from all quarters centuries old Buddha statues carved on hillside in Bamiyan were demolished in Afghanistan.
"The possibility of a forced mass conversion is, in fact, contradicted by Muhammad ibn Qasim himself who, according to Baladhuri, is believed to have said: "The temples shall be unto us like the churches of the Christians, the synagogues of the Jews, and the fire temples of the Magians." Dr. Jha went on to say.
Islamic warriors spared some temples. However, this was not done as an act of tolerance or compassion towards Hindus. Alberuni writes about one such incident. When Muhammad bin Kasim conquered Multan, he inquired "why the town was so very flourishing"? When told the cause was the idol of Aditya, for there came pilgrims from all sides to visit it. He decided to "leave the idol where it was but he hung a piece of cow's flesh on its neck by way of mockery." When the Karmatians occupied Multan, Jalam ibn Shaiban broke the idol into pieces and built a mosque at the same place, Alberuni went on to add.
For reasons best known to him, Dr. Jha does not tell all the facts of the history. He gives only a sanitized account of Muslim invasion, and exploitation.
At Debal, the temples were demolished and mosque founded; a general massacre endured for three whole days; prisoners were taken captive; plunder was amassed. At Nirun, the idols were broken, and mosques founded on the site of the temple of Budh, notwithstanding its voluntary surrender. The account of Mahmud's invasions is full of demolition of temples (at Thanesar, Mathura, Kannauj, Somnath - to mention a few), plunder, massacres, enslavement and forced conversions.
Hajjaj, the governor of Irak and sponsor of Muhammad bin Kasim's campaign to Sind had written clear instructions:
"My dear cousin, I have received your life-augmenting letter. On its receipt my gladness and joy knew no bounds…. But the way of granting pardon prescribed by law is different from the one adopted by you…. The Great God says in the Koran: 'O 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."
If at times Hindus enjoyed some freedom in the practice of their religion; it was dictated less by any principle of justice or humanity, than the impossibility of suppressing the native religion by the small number of Muslim invaders. The Hindus were never treated equal to Muslims. They had to pay higher taxes in addition to humiliating Jiziya.
The truth is that Muslim invasions, almost without exception, were followed by a great massacre and demolition of Hindu temples. All means from the sword to political to economic pressure in the form of excessive taxation and humiliating Jiziya were used to convert Hindus to Islam.
[end]
Read further...
Monday, July 13, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Vanity plate...
I wasn't sure what to make of this.
I'm not suggesting it's impossible for a Muslim to be a committed and patriotic Marine. I think Zuhdi Jasser is a solid guy and he served in the US Navy. But it seems most of them turn out to be more like James Yee. Did CAIR rent this plate as a publicity stunt?
[end]
Read further...
I'm not suggesting it's impossible for a Muslim to be a committed and patriotic Marine. I think Zuhdi Jasser is a solid guy and he served in the US Navy. But it seems most of them turn out to be more like James Yee. Did CAIR rent this plate as a publicity stunt?
[end]
Read further...
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Swedish translation of the correspondence between the last Persian king and his Muslim conqueror
Erik Hellsborn has translated the 7th century letter from Caliph Umar to the defeated Persian Shah, as well as the Shah's spirited but futile rebuttal. I discuss these documents in my video "What's In A Letter?"
Find the Swedish translation here. Thanks Erik.
[end]
Read further...
Find the Swedish translation here. Thanks Erik.
[end]
Read further...
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision for America
"The Third Jihad" is a feature-length film released by the Clarion Fund, the same folks who produced "Obsession" a few years ago. The main narrator is Zuhdi Jasser, a man who may be the only true "moderate Muslim" on earth. Many in the Counterjihad have been highly critical of Jasser and the film because they use the term "radical Islam" rather than blaming the orthodox tenets of Islam itself for Jihadist violence. Though I do believe that mainstream interpretation of the Koran itself is the root of Islamic violence, I also believe that it's important to support Jasser because he is a Muslim who is willing to confront all aspects of Jihad honestly (including subtler forms like the legal jihad, prison conversion, and academic propaganda). The man has certainly put his life on the line to oppose Jihad, so if he insists believes in a mythical peaceful version of Islam let him believe in it. The important part is that he is a patriotic American of Muslim heritage alerting the population to real threats.
UPDATE: Looks like the videos were removed shortly after I embedded them. In lieu of them the abridged version is below:
[end]
Read further...
UPDATE: Looks like the videos were removed shortly after I embedded them. In lieu of them the abridged version is below:
[end]
Read further...
Thai PM in favor of Sharia law for southern Thailand
From Jihad Watch:
More on this story. While the prime minister says Sharia's criminal law aspects would not be considered, validating the jihadists' reason for fighting and granting a partial concession will only embolden them to fight for more. Then there is the matter of the inequality enshrined in the Sharia law in general. Suppose, for example, a woman in Yala would rather have her inheritance decided under Thai law, because she is, after all, Thai. Also unresolved is the legal status of non-Muslims, a particularly slippery slope which the country's Buddhist organizations seem to recognize.
Also from Jihad Watch: Thailand: Jihad against Buddhist construction workers.
For more on this subject check out Islamic Crusades 4: Lessons From the Thai Jihad:
[end]
Read further...
More on this story. While the prime minister says Sharia's criminal law aspects would not be considered, validating the jihadists' reason for fighting and granting a partial concession will only embolden them to fight for more. Then there is the matter of the inequality enshrined in the Sharia law in general. Suppose, for example, a woman in Yala would rather have her inheritance decided under Thai law, because she is, after all, Thai. Also unresolved is the legal status of non-Muslims, a particularly slippery slope which the country's Buddhist organizations seem to recognize.
"PM favours admin zone for South," by Wassana Nanuam and Waedao Hari for the Bangkok Post, June 15:
The government is exploring the idea of proclaiming the South's three predominantly Muslim provinces a special administrative zone as a solution to the region's unrest.
But even before the idea has been fully explored, Buddhist organisations yesterday came out in opposition.
Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday said during his weekly television talk show that turning Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat into a special administrative zone would be acceptable to the government. However, the proposal must be in line with the constitution.
He also warned that the proposed term "special administrative zone" must not create a misleading impression.
"The term could lead to confusion," he said. "Some even go so far as to call it a self-rule area, which is not so," Mr Abhisit said.
"The primary requirement is that it [the special zone] must come under the constitution. Thailand is an indivisible kingdom."
The prime minister said some forms of special administration in terms of the economic and financial management would be acceptable.
He said the application of certain Islamic shariah laws regarding inheritance and other family affairs in the proposed area was possible, although Islamic laws regarding criminal offences would not be considered.
"But the issue of direct election of their own leaders is not certain," he said.
The prime minister said he had information of the existence of insurgent groups but details of their structure as an organisation and their line of command were sketchy.
The government would not negotiate with insurgents....
Also from Jihad Watch: Thailand: Jihad against Buddhist construction workers.
For more on this subject check out Islamic Crusades 4: Lessons From the Thai Jihad:
[end]
Read further...
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Obama's disgraceful silence on Iran
Amir Fakhravar is an Iranian dissident, writer, and the Secretary General of the Confederation of Iranian Students in Washington, DC. Before coming to the US in 2006, Amir was jailed in Iran for his pro-democracy activities. Read Phil Klein's interview at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06... and Amir's blog at http://fakhravar.com/. Here he addresses the Center for Security Policy's National Security Lunch meeting on the situation in Iran.
[end]
Read further...
[end]
Read further...
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Scenes from the new revolution in Iran
Is Mir Hossein Mousavi a pro-Western savior? Maybe not. But among other reforms he wants to free the Iranian media from government control. He supports Iran's nuclear program, as do the majority of nationalist Iranians regardless of their religious zeal. But unlike Ahmadinejad he probably sees it as a deterrent and a key to regional hegemony, rather than the means to provoke an apocalyptic nuclear exchange with Israel and the West.
Regardless, it's heartening to see the Iranian people take to the streets and oppose a regime that aspires to genocide. Remember, unlike the self-righteous leftist agitators who regularly took to the streets against President Bush, these people are actually risking their lives and the lives of their families.
Subscribe to Iran Tube for the latest protest videos.
WARNING: SOME OF THIS IS VERY GRAPHIC
[end]
Read further...
Regardless, it's heartening to see the Iranian people take to the streets and oppose a regime that aspires to genocide. Remember, unlike the self-righteous leftist agitators who regularly took to the streets against President Bush, these people are actually risking their lives and the lives of their families.
Subscribe to Iran Tube for the latest protest videos.
WARNING: SOME OF THIS IS VERY GRAPHIC
[end]
Read further...
Friday, June 12, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
United Against Nuclear Iran
I had never heard of this organization before. Check out their website here. This video sums up the case against Iran effectively and succinctly. Featured interviewees include James Woolsey, Dennis Ross, Richard Holbrooke and Fouad Ajami:
[end]
Read further...
[end]
Read further...
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Vlad Tepes analyzes the Arkansas atrocity
Includes extended footage of the Muslim "counter-protester" who showed up to defame the dead soldier. I had not seen the part where she pulls out the "Jews in the media" chestnut. From Vlad Tepes:
[end]
Read further...
[end]
Read further...
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Insight into the Islamic worldview
Often Islamic advocacy groups have a hard time denouncing specific Jihadist organizations. CAIR has refused to condemn any terrorist organization (other than al-Qaeda) by name. For example, they have never condemned the actions of Hamas or Hezbollah. When pressed by reporters they often give a generalized response such as: "Islam condemns the murder of innocents in all circumstances."
The recent Muslim convert who shot an army recruit to death in Arkansas confirms that CAIR and others are not lying when they say they condemn the murder of "innocents." They just have a different definition of "innocent."
"I don't think it was murder, because murder is when a person kills another person without justified reason... and what I did is Islamic justified and also justified by common sense..."
- Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, Arkansas Jihadist
[end]
Read further...
The recent Muslim convert who shot an army recruit to death in Arkansas confirms that CAIR and others are not lying when they say they condemn the murder of "innocents." They just have a different definition of "innocent."
"I don't think it was murder, because murder is when a person kills another person without justified reason... and what I did is Islamic justified and also justified by common sense..."
- Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, Arkansas Jihadist
[end]
Read further...
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Bangladesh: Muslim woman caned for talking to Hindu man
More Islamic supremacism in Bangladesh. For an overview of the problems on the Indian subcontinent check out Islamic Crusades 7: India's Modern Struggle. The following is from Jihad Watch:
[end]
Read further...
DHAKA (AFP) — A Muslim mother has been caned for talking to a Hindu man in Bangladesh, police said Saturday, prompting fresh concerns about a rise in cases of harsh treatment of women under strict Islamic law.
[...]
"The villagers got bundles of 25 sticks and hit her four times on the back. They claimed it was a symbolic punishment. But she's humiliated and has been in great mental pain," Monowar said.
It was the third such reported case in two weeks in the country and stirred concern among women's groups in Muslim-majority but officially secular Bangladesh about what they say is a rise in brutal treatment of women under locally applied Islamic laws.
[end]
Read further...
Saturday, June 6, 2009
A skeptic's guide to President Obama's Cairo speech
I must say, this speech was hard to stomach. So much pandering, so many historical inaccuracies, so many half-truths, distortions and outright lies. One could write a book on the flaws of this shameful excuse for a speech, but for now I'm analyzing the most glaring inaccuracies in the first ten minutes.
As is customary a full transcript follows:
“I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo”
Cairo is not a timeless city. Jerusalem has been a permanent settlement for an estimated 5,000 years. Rome was founded about 2,800 years ago. These are timeless cities. Cairo is barely 1,000 years old. The ancient capital of Egypt moved dozens of times, to sites ranging up and down the Nile River valley; none of them were Cairo. Then Alexandria, founded by Alexander the Great, served as Egypt’s Capital for nearly 1,000 years (332BC-641AD), until the Arab Islamic conquest in 641AD. At that point the Arab military commander founded a garrison-city called Fustat to administrate the newly conquered territory. It wasn’t until 969AD that Cairo was founded nearby, and not until 1169AD that it became Egypt’s permanent capital.
“The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars.”
The conflict and religious wars you speak of started shortly after Mohammed’s death in 632 AD. Muslim armies invaded and overran about half of the existing Christian world in the space of one century. The Islamic caliphate steamrolled over the Middle Eastern and North African domains of the Byzantine Empire, and an Islamic army crossed into Spain in the year 711AD, invading European territory unprovoked nearly 300 years before the First Crusade, and about 800 years before the beginning of the European colonial period. But of course the aggression was not only directed at the West and Christians. Islamic armies also conquered the ancient empire of Persia and by the dawn of the 8th century had carved out a foothold into the Indian subcontinent, slaughtering Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Hindus along the way.
“More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.”
What about the rights denied to infidels in Muslim-dominated lands for the past 1,400 years? What about their aspirations? The Christians and Jews in the Mediterranean world were relatively lucky. The Koran granted them "protected” status as Dhimmis. This was protection in the mafia sense, except the terms were much harsher. As people of the book, they were allowed to live as long as they paid exorbitant taxes, submitted to constant public humiliation, forfeited their legal rights and did not build any new Churches or Synagogues, or even repair existing structures. The non-monotheist civilizations to the East had it much worse. Mercy was the exception; the rule was slaughter and the abject destruction of their holy places.
And why do you only mention European colonialism? Why not Islamic colonialism which started earlier and lasted longer? Let’s take the example of the country from which you chose to address the Muslim world. Egypt was held by European colonial empires for a total of 43 years: Napolean’s army briefly held the territory from 1798-1801, and the United Kingdom ruled from 1882-1922. Now let’s look about 200 miles across the Mediterranean, to a Christian country called Greece. Greece was occupied by the Islamic Ottoman Empire from the mid-1400’s through the year 1821: about 400 years, or about ten times longer than Egypt was occupied by the West. And Greece was just one province of the European portion of the Ottoman Empire, which occupied the entirety of the Balkan Peninsula and beyond. They ruled over the largely Christian inhabitants of this area for centuries, periodically pushing into central Europe as far as Vienna, and threatening to extinguish Christian civilization in Europe completely. And yet today, we don’t see Greeks or Slavs flying planes into buildings in Istanbul, or blowing up buses in Cairo.
“Our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims."
Fair enough, but unfortunately for us this feeling wasn't mutual. John Adams accompanied Thomas Jefferson to England in 1786 to speak to the ambassador of the Islamic state of Tripoli in London. These two revered founders of our nation were in Europe to ascertain why Islamic pirates were attacking American merchant ships in the Atlantic and Mediterranean and enslaving their crews for no apparent reason. They reported the Tripolitan ambassador’s reasoning to the Continental Congress:
“ ... that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise. ”
This puts us 10 minutes into Obama's 55-minute speech, and I'm already getting queasy.
Read further...
As is customary a full transcript follows:
“I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo”
Cairo is not a timeless city. Jerusalem has been a permanent settlement for an estimated 5,000 years. Rome was founded about 2,800 years ago. These are timeless cities. Cairo is barely 1,000 years old. The ancient capital of Egypt moved dozens of times, to sites ranging up and down the Nile River valley; none of them were Cairo. Then Alexandria, founded by Alexander the Great, served as Egypt’s Capital for nearly 1,000 years (332BC-641AD), until the Arab Islamic conquest in 641AD. At that point the Arab military commander founded a garrison-city called Fustat to administrate the newly conquered territory. It wasn’t until 969AD that Cairo was founded nearby, and not until 1169AD that it became Egypt’s permanent capital.
“The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars.”
The conflict and religious wars you speak of started shortly after Mohammed’s death in 632 AD. Muslim armies invaded and overran about half of the existing Christian world in the space of one century. The Islamic caliphate steamrolled over the Middle Eastern and North African domains of the Byzantine Empire, and an Islamic army crossed into Spain in the year 711AD, invading European territory unprovoked nearly 300 years before the First Crusade, and about 800 years before the beginning of the European colonial period. But of course the aggression was not only directed at the West and Christians. Islamic armies also conquered the ancient empire of Persia and by the dawn of the 8th century had carved out a foothold into the Indian subcontinent, slaughtering Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Hindus along the way.
“More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.”
What about the rights denied to infidels in Muslim-dominated lands for the past 1,400 years? What about their aspirations? The Christians and Jews in the Mediterranean world were relatively lucky. The Koran granted them "protected” status as Dhimmis. This was protection in the mafia sense, except the terms were much harsher. As people of the book, they were allowed to live as long as they paid exorbitant taxes, submitted to constant public humiliation, forfeited their legal rights and did not build any new Churches or Synagogues, or even repair existing structures. The non-monotheist civilizations to the East had it much worse. Mercy was the exception; the rule was slaughter and the abject destruction of their holy places.
And why do you only mention European colonialism? Why not Islamic colonialism which started earlier and lasted longer? Let’s take the example of the country from which you chose to address the Muslim world. Egypt was held by European colonial empires for a total of 43 years: Napolean’s army briefly held the territory from 1798-1801, and the United Kingdom ruled from 1882-1922. Now let’s look about 200 miles across the Mediterranean, to a Christian country called Greece. Greece was occupied by the Islamic Ottoman Empire from the mid-1400’s through the year 1821: about 400 years, or about ten times longer than Egypt was occupied by the West. And Greece was just one province of the European portion of the Ottoman Empire, which occupied the entirety of the Balkan Peninsula and beyond. They ruled over the largely Christian inhabitants of this area for centuries, periodically pushing into central Europe as far as Vienna, and threatening to extinguish Christian civilization in Europe completely. And yet today, we don’t see Greeks or Slavs flying planes into buildings in Istanbul, or blowing up buses in Cairo.
“Our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims."
Fair enough, but unfortunately for us this feeling wasn't mutual. John Adams accompanied Thomas Jefferson to England in 1786 to speak to the ambassador of the Islamic state of Tripoli in London. These two revered founders of our nation were in Europe to ascertain why Islamic pirates were attacking American merchant ships in the Atlantic and Mediterranean and enslaving their crews for no apparent reason. They reported the Tripolitan ambassador’s reasoning to the Continental Congress:
“ ... that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise. ”
This puts us 10 minutes into Obama's 55-minute speech, and I'm already getting queasy.
Read further...
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Robert Spencer discusses the Jihadist attack in Arkansas on the Savage Nation
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch spoke to Michael Savage last night on the June 3, 2009 broadcast of the Savage Nation. The main topic was the recent shooting at an Arkansas Army recruitment center that killed one soldier and wounded another. Spencer discusses the attack in the context of Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood, a task the MSM would never dare do.
[end]
Read further...
[end]
Read further...
Monday, June 1, 2009
Mitt in 2012!
It's hard to stay positive during this horror-show of a presidency... especially when the expected Republican candidates for 2012 leave so much to be desired (Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal).
I forgot about Mitt! This video reminded me. The man is intelligent, prudent and understands security threats better than any other major politician. I would vote for him based on the strength of his foreign policy/military analysis in this video alone. Watch:
[end]
Read further...
I forgot about Mitt! This video reminded me. The man is intelligent, prudent and understands security threats better than any other major politician. I would vote for him based on the strength of his foreign policy/military analysis in this video alone. Watch:
[end]
Read further...
Ahmadiyya persecution in Bangladesh
More information on religious persecution in Bangladesh, this time aimed at a minority sect within Islam. Find dozens more full-length Islam-related videos at this wonderful resource called Kitman TV.
The description from Kitman TV:
[end]
Read further...
The description from Kitman TV:
This is the documentary about the continuous agitation of the Khatme Nabuwwat movement on the Bengali Ahmadis residing in Bangladesh. the video speaks for itself. Khatme Nabuwwat is an offspring of Jamaat-e-Islam Party, the fundamentalists and extremists who only practice Islam in the name and desire to gain political power by using violence.
This is how the moderate Muslims are treated within Islam.
Here is a link to an Ebook containing more information on the state sponsored persecution of Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan and other Islamic states:
http://sites.google.com/site/kitmantv/Home/TrueIslamicConceptofJihad...pdf?attredirects=0
[end]
Read further...
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Brutality against the Hindu minority in Bangladesh
This video illustrates the abuses of the Islamist government in Bangladesh. I gave a brief overview of these crimes in Islamic Crusades 7.
WARNING: Some disturbing violent images :WARNING
[end]
Read further...
WARNING: Some disturbing violent images :WARNING
[end]
Read further...
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Robert Spencer speaks about the myths of the Crusades and Al-Andalus
Robert Spencer spoke to the Danish Free Press Society in Copenhagen earlier this month. He addressed two common canards used by apologists for Islam in the West: the myth of the "unprovoked" sin of the Christian crusades, and the myth of "tolerant" Islamic rule in medieval Spain.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Parts 3-5 below the fold:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:
Read further...
Part 1:
Part 2:
Parts 3-5 below the fold:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:
Read further...
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
What would become of Jewish citizens of a Palestinian state?
Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy talks about the dangerous double standard in the Middle East:
[end]
Read further...
[end]
Read further...
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Islamic Crusades Episode 7: India’s Modern Struggle
The story continues from Episode 6 and addresses the plight of non-Muslims on the Indian subcontinent in the modern era.
Transcript with links and sourcing follows:
Islamic Crusades Episode 7: India’s Modern Struggle
As the power of the Islamic Mughal Empire steadily declined over the 18th and 19th centuries, European influence filled the void, culminating in the establishment of British rule in 1858. This period of colonialism is well-known and universally demonized in the West, and many blame British intervention for the Hindu/Muslim tensions we see in the region today. This flatly ignores the historical fact that Muslims had invaded the subcontinent 1,000 years before the Europeans, and Muslim on Hindu violence had been endemic ever since. To put things in perspective, the British Raj (1858-1947) lasted only 89 years, or less than one third of the 331-year span of the Mughal Empire (1526-1857), which was only the most recent in a series of Islamic empires that ruled India.
Although British rule brought its own brand of exploitation, the relative status of Hindus improved. They were no longer spat-upon infidels, but royal subjects- still occupied by a foreign ideology but now equal to Muslims and all other residents of the subcontinent. The British were more interested in economic gain than religious imperialism, and inadvertently or not, the infrastructure they built brought India out of feudalism and into the modern industrial age. Railways, roads, canals, bridges and telegraph lines were rapidly established so that raw materials, such as cotton, could be transported more efficiently to ports for export to England. By 1920, India had the fourth largest railroad network in the world, and 85% of the railroad network that moves 18 million Indians per day in 2009 was built by the British in the colonial period.
After World War II the British came under increasing pressure to leave, and no longer had the financial resources or domestic support to continue their occupation. In 1947 the British viceroy assembled leaders of the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh communities, who decided to partition the land. Hindu and Sikh-dominated areas would become a smaller core state called India, while Muslim areas in the West and East would form a new state called Pakistan. The prince of Kashmir, a majority-Muslim territory with a large Hindu minority, hesitated to join Pakistan and Islamic forces invaded to force the issue. The prince called for military help from India, igniting the first India-Pakistan War and ensuring division and instability in Kashmir ever since.
The name Pakistan is a recently fabricated acronym based on the five Muslim-majority regions in northwest India: Punjab, Afghan Border States, Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan. Pakistan declared itself an Islamic Republic, and later codified the supremacy of Islam when it adopted the Koran as the basis for its constitution. In contrast the Republic of India’s constitution (PDF) laid the foundations for a secular democratic state in which the rights of all citizens would be respected. In the chaos following partition millions fled across the newly-drawn borders and about half a million died in inter-communal fighting. The fate of the minorities who remained on the wrong side of the borders is very telling.
PAKISTAN (West Pakistan)
In 1947 the population of West Pakistan, later known simply as Pakistan, was 15-20% Hindu. Today that figure has fallen below 2%. Hindus have been murdered, expelled and legally marginalized. Religious minorities have been forcibly converted and temples have been destroyed. Just as Arab Muslim textbooks and media vilify Jews, Pakistani Muslim textbooks incite violence against Hindus.
A 2003 study conducted by 30 experts of Pakistan’s education system found:
With the rise of the Taliban in the Northwest Frontier and the Swat Valley the atrocious conditions for minorities are only getting worse. In early 2009 the Taliban instituted Jizya, the tax that Muslims are required to collect from subdued minorities, on the infidel population of the Swat valley. In May 2009, 2,000 Sikhs who refused to pay the tax were forced to take refuge in a Sikh shrine near Islamabad. Sharia courts have been established in Swat, meting out such progressive penalties as death for adultery.
BANGLADESH (East Pakistan)
In the former East Pakistan, known as Bangladesh today, the Hindu population has seen a similar decline since partition. (INSERT GRAPH). Persecution reached the level of genocide in 1971 when civil war broke out between West Pakistan and East Pakistan. Bengalis in East Pakistan were pushing for independence, so West Pakistan sent tens of thousands of occupying troops to put down the revolt of their fellow Muslims, but during the occupation Hindus wound up being the main victims. They made up less than 20% of the population but accounted for an estimated 80% of the three million deaths and 80% of the ten million refugees who fled over the border to northeast India.
In a report to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Ted Kennedy wrote:
American Professor R. J. Rummel noted that:
Anti-Hindu crimes continue to this day. 98% of reported rapes in Bangladesh are registered by Hindu women. The so-called ‘Vested Property Act’ has seen up to 40% of Hindu land snatched away forcibly, and Hindu temples are regularly vandalized. The Islamist Jamat-e-Islami party joined the government in 2001 sparking a new round of fleeing refugees, violent attacks and forced conversions. The government has openly called for the "Talibanization" of the state.
India
Meanwhile the opposite has happened in India. Not only has the minority Muslim population grown, but it’s exploded at a 50% faster rate than the Hindu population. Between 1961 and 2001 the raw number of Muslims increased from 47 million to 138 million - a growth of 193%. In short the Muslim community of India proper has been thriving as the Hindu communities in Pakistan and Bangladesh have been bullied into irrelevance. Muslims have full voting and citizenship rights in India and just as in Western Europe, the Muslim vote is becoming crucial to swinging elections. And like in Western Europe and North America, the ruling socialist Congress Party in India is loathe to criticize its Muslim population for fear of provoking civil violence.
Of course the horrific violence emanating from the Muslim community and from Islamic groups in neighboring Pakistan continues unabated. The following is a partial list of recent atrocities:
March 12, 1993: 257 killed and more than 1,000 injured in 15 co-ordinated bomb attacks in Mumbai.
December 13, 2001: Attack on the Indian Parliament complex in New Delhi led to the killing of a dozen people and 18 injured. Four members of the Pakistan-based Islamist group Jaish-e-Mohammed were later convicted for their part in the plot
September 24, 2002: 31 people killed, 79 wounded at Akshardham temple in Gujarat
Aug. 25, 2003: Twin car bombings in Mumbai killed at least 52 people and injured 150. Indian authorities blamed the Kashmiri Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba
Oct. 29, 2005: Three explosions in busy shopping areas of south Delhi, two days before the Hindu festival of Diwali, killed 59 and injured 200. The Islamic Revolutionary Group claimed responsibility, but authorities blamed Lashkar-e-Taiba
March 7, 2006: A series of bombings in the holy city of Varanasi killed at least 28 and injured over a hundred. Indian investigators blamed Pakistan-based Islamic terrorists.
July 11, 2006: Seven bomb blasts on the Mumbai Suburban Railway killed over 200 people. Police blamed Lashkar-e-Taiba and Students Islamic Movement of India.
Aug. 25, 2007: Forty-two people killed and 50 injured in twin explosions at a crowded park in Hyderabad by Harkat-ul-Jehad-i-Islami (HuJI).
May 13, 2008: A series of six explosions in Jaipur killed 63 people and injured more than 150.
July 26, 2008: Serial explosions in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad killed 45 people and injured more than 150. The Indian Mujahideen claimed responsibility.
Sept. 13, 2008: Five bomb blasts in New Delhi’s popular shopping centers left 21 people dead and more than 100 injured. The Indian Mujahideen claimed responsibility.
And we all remember the Mumbai Massacre that played out in front of our eyes on live TV in November 2008.
And yet it seems that India is powerless to act. Because both India and Pakistan now possess nuclear weapons, India today faces the same unsettling choices that Israel will face in the near future when Iran acquires nukes. Democracies are accountable to their people. Wars in which the sons and daughters of the nation die in combat are barely tolerated, let alone wars in which entire cities are wiped off the map. Meanwhile Islamic governments are only accountable to Allah.
And so today, the population of India is held hostage by aggressive Islamists who value death as they value life. India faces the same conundrum as the Western democracies; how can they maintain an open and pluralistic society while confronting an enemy who will gladly use those very attributes to sow death, fear and destruction in their cities? But even free people have their limits, and if another Mumbai-style attack occurs on Indian soil the people’s anger may be impossible to contain.
Read further...
Transcript with links and sourcing follows:
Islamic Crusades Episode 7: India’s Modern Struggle
As the power of the Islamic Mughal Empire steadily declined over the 18th and 19th centuries, European influence filled the void, culminating in the establishment of British rule in 1858. This period of colonialism is well-known and universally demonized in the West, and many blame British intervention for the Hindu/Muslim tensions we see in the region today. This flatly ignores the historical fact that Muslims had invaded the subcontinent 1,000 years before the Europeans, and Muslim on Hindu violence had been endemic ever since. To put things in perspective, the British Raj (1858-1947) lasted only 89 years, or less than one third of the 331-year span of the Mughal Empire (1526-1857), which was only the most recent in a series of Islamic empires that ruled India.
Although British rule brought its own brand of exploitation, the relative status of Hindus improved. They were no longer spat-upon infidels, but royal subjects- still occupied by a foreign ideology but now equal to Muslims and all other residents of the subcontinent. The British were more interested in economic gain than religious imperialism, and inadvertently or not, the infrastructure they built brought India out of feudalism and into the modern industrial age. Railways, roads, canals, bridges and telegraph lines were rapidly established so that raw materials, such as cotton, could be transported more efficiently to ports for export to England. By 1920, India had the fourth largest railroad network in the world, and 85% of the railroad network that moves 18 million Indians per day in 2009 was built by the British in the colonial period.
After World War II the British came under increasing pressure to leave, and no longer had the financial resources or domestic support to continue their occupation. In 1947 the British viceroy assembled leaders of the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh communities, who decided to partition the land. Hindu and Sikh-dominated areas would become a smaller core state called India, while Muslim areas in the West and East would form a new state called Pakistan. The prince of Kashmir, a majority-Muslim territory with a large Hindu minority, hesitated to join Pakistan and Islamic forces invaded to force the issue. The prince called for military help from India, igniting the first India-Pakistan War and ensuring division and instability in Kashmir ever since.
The name Pakistan is a recently fabricated acronym based on the five Muslim-majority regions in northwest India: Punjab, Afghan Border States, Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan. Pakistan declared itself an Islamic Republic, and later codified the supremacy of Islam when it adopted the Koran as the basis for its constitution. In contrast the Republic of India’s constitution (PDF) laid the foundations for a secular democratic state in which the rights of all citizens would be respected. In the chaos following partition millions fled across the newly-drawn borders and about half a million died in inter-communal fighting. The fate of the minorities who remained on the wrong side of the borders is very telling.
PAKISTAN (West Pakistan)
In 1947 the population of West Pakistan, later known simply as Pakistan, was 15-20% Hindu. Today that figure has fallen below 2%. Hindus have been murdered, expelled and legally marginalized. Religious minorities have been forcibly converted and temples have been destroyed. Just as Arab Muslim textbooks and media vilify Jews, Pakistani Muslim textbooks incite violence against Hindus.
A 2003 study conducted by 30 experts of Pakistan’s education system found:
"Incitement to militancy and violence, including encouragement of Jihad and Shahadat (martyrdom)”; a “glorification of war and the use of force”; “Perspectives that encourage prejudice, bigotry and discrimination towards fellow citizens, especially women and religious minorities, and towards other nations” and “Omission of concepts ... that could encourage critical self awareness among students”
With the rise of the Taliban in the Northwest Frontier and the Swat Valley the atrocious conditions for minorities are only getting worse. In early 2009 the Taliban instituted Jizya, the tax that Muslims are required to collect from subdued minorities, on the infidel population of the Swat valley. In May 2009, 2,000 Sikhs who refused to pay the tax were forced to take refuge in a Sikh shrine near Islamabad. Sharia courts have been established in Swat, meting out such progressive penalties as death for adultery.
BANGLADESH (East Pakistan)
In the former East Pakistan, known as Bangladesh today, the Hindu population has seen a similar decline since partition. (INSERT GRAPH). Persecution reached the level of genocide in 1971 when civil war broke out between West Pakistan and East Pakistan. Bengalis in East Pakistan were pushing for independence, so West Pakistan sent tens of thousands of occupying troops to put down the revolt of their fellow Muslims, but during the occupation Hindus wound up being the main victims. They made up less than 20% of the population but accounted for an estimated 80% of the three million deaths and 80% of the ten million refugees who fled over the border to northeast India.
In a report to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Ted Kennedy wrote:
"Field reports to the U.S. Government, countless eye-witness journalistic accounts, reports of International agencies such as World Bank and additional information available to the subcommittee document the reign of terror which grips East Bengal (East Pakistan). Hardest hit have been members of the Hindu community who have been robbed of their lands and shops, systematically slaughtered, and in some places, painted with yellow patches marked 'H'. All of this has been officially sanctioned, ordered and implemented under martial law from Islamabad."
American Professor R. J. Rummel noted that:
The genocide and gendercidal atrocities were also perpetrated by lower-ranking officers and ordinary soldiers. These “willing executioners” were fueled by an abiding anti-Bengali racism, especially against the Hindu minority. “Bengalis were often compared with monkeys and chickens. Said Pakistan General Niazi, ‘It was a low lying land of low lying people.’ The Hindus among the Bengalis were as Jews to the Nazis: scum and vermin that [should] best be exterminated.”
Anti-Hindu crimes continue to this day. 98% of reported rapes in Bangladesh are registered by Hindu women. The so-called ‘Vested Property Act’ has seen up to 40% of Hindu land snatched away forcibly, and Hindu temples are regularly vandalized. The Islamist Jamat-e-Islami party joined the government in 2001 sparking a new round of fleeing refugees, violent attacks and forced conversions. The government has openly called for the "Talibanization" of the state.
India
Meanwhile the opposite has happened in India. Not only has the minority Muslim population grown, but it’s exploded at a 50% faster rate than the Hindu population. Between 1961 and 2001 the raw number of Muslims increased from 47 million to 138 million - a growth of 193%. In short the Muslim community of India proper has been thriving as the Hindu communities in Pakistan and Bangladesh have been bullied into irrelevance. Muslims have full voting and citizenship rights in India and just as in Western Europe, the Muslim vote is becoming crucial to swinging elections. And like in Western Europe and North America, the ruling socialist Congress Party in India is loathe to criticize its Muslim population for fear of provoking civil violence.
Of course the horrific violence emanating from the Muslim community and from Islamic groups in neighboring Pakistan continues unabated. The following is a partial list of recent atrocities:
March 12, 1993: 257 killed and more than 1,000 injured in 15 co-ordinated bomb attacks in Mumbai.
December 13, 2001: Attack on the Indian Parliament complex in New Delhi led to the killing of a dozen people and 18 injured. Four members of the Pakistan-based Islamist group Jaish-e-Mohammed were later convicted for their part in the plot
September 24, 2002: 31 people killed, 79 wounded at Akshardham temple in Gujarat
Aug. 25, 2003: Twin car bombings in Mumbai killed at least 52 people and injured 150. Indian authorities blamed the Kashmiri Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba
Oct. 29, 2005: Three explosions in busy shopping areas of south Delhi, two days before the Hindu festival of Diwali, killed 59 and injured 200. The Islamic Revolutionary Group claimed responsibility, but authorities blamed Lashkar-e-Taiba
March 7, 2006: A series of bombings in the holy city of Varanasi killed at least 28 and injured over a hundred. Indian investigators blamed Pakistan-based Islamic terrorists.
July 11, 2006: Seven bomb blasts on the Mumbai Suburban Railway killed over 200 people. Police blamed Lashkar-e-Taiba and Students Islamic Movement of India.
Aug. 25, 2007: Forty-two people killed and 50 injured in twin explosions at a crowded park in Hyderabad by Harkat-ul-Jehad-i-Islami (HuJI).
May 13, 2008: A series of six explosions in Jaipur killed 63 people and injured more than 150.
July 26, 2008: Serial explosions in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad killed 45 people and injured more than 150. The Indian Mujahideen claimed responsibility.
Sept. 13, 2008: Five bomb blasts in New Delhi’s popular shopping centers left 21 people dead and more than 100 injured. The Indian Mujahideen claimed responsibility.
And we all remember the Mumbai Massacre that played out in front of our eyes on live TV in November 2008.
And yet it seems that India is powerless to act. Because both India and Pakistan now possess nuclear weapons, India today faces the same unsettling choices that Israel will face in the near future when Iran acquires nukes. Democracies are accountable to their people. Wars in which the sons and daughters of the nation die in combat are barely tolerated, let alone wars in which entire cities are wiped off the map. Meanwhile Islamic governments are only accountable to Allah.
And so today, the population of India is held hostage by aggressive Islamists who value death as they value life. India faces the same conundrum as the Western democracies; how can they maintain an open and pluralistic society while confronting an enemy who will gladly use those very attributes to sow death, fear and destruction in their cities? But even free people have their limits, and if another Mumbai-style attack occurs on Indian soil the people’s anger may be impossible to contain.
Read further...
Breaking News: Most Israelis are not suicidal
From Breitbart.com:
Just over half of Israelis back an immediate attack on the nuclear facilities of arch-foe Iran but the rest want to wait and see the results of US diplomacy, according to a poll released on Sunday.
Fifty-one percent support an immediate Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites, while 49 percent believe the Jewish state should await the outcome of efforts by the US administration to engage with the Islamic republic, said the survey published by Tel Aviv University.
But 74 percent of those questioned said they believe that new US President Barack Obama's efforts will not stop the Islamic republic from acquiring atomic weapons.
[...]
Opinion is split among left- and right-wingers about whether to attack Iran's nuclear sites, with 63 percent of those leaning to the right favouring a strike, compared with 38 percent of those leaning to the left, the poll said.
[end]
Read further...
Just over half of Israelis back an immediate attack on the nuclear facilities of arch-foe Iran but the rest want to wait and see the results of US diplomacy, according to a poll released on Sunday.
Fifty-one percent support an immediate Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites, while 49 percent believe the Jewish state should await the outcome of efforts by the US administration to engage with the Islamic republic, said the survey published by Tel Aviv University.
But 74 percent of those questioned said they believe that new US President Barack Obama's efforts will not stop the Islamic republic from acquiring atomic weapons.
[...]
Opinion is split among left- and right-wingers about whether to attack Iran's nuclear sites, with 63 percent of those leaning to the right favouring a strike, compared with 38 percent of those leaning to the left, the poll said.
[end]
Read further...
Friday, May 22, 2009
Will YouTube ban vasileOmFrumos for a second time???
Does this sound familiar? It should. YouTube has been harassing this guy for months. They banned his original account and now his new account is "not in good standing" because he posted a French translation of "Fitna."
Costin writes:
"Youtube is back and kicking:
It's funny in a way, but i don't feel like laughing a lot :) "
Subcribe to vasileOmFrumos2 if you haven't already.
[end]
Read further...
Costin writes:
"Youtube is back and kicking:
Your account is not in good standing.
Your account has received the following Community Guidelines warning strikes, which will expire in six months. Additional violations may result in the temporary disabling of your ability to post content to YouTube and/or the termination of your account.
For your reference, a copy of each warning message has also been emailed to the address associated with this account.
The following video(s) from your account have been disabled for violation of the YouTube Community Guidelines:
Fitna Fench 1 of 2 - (vasileOmFrumos2)
Received: February 25, 2009 | Acknowledged: February 26, 2009
It's funny in a way, but i don't feel like laughing a lot :) "
Subcribe to vasileOmFrumos2 if you haven't already.
[end]
Read further...
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
St. Oriana Fallaci of the Counterjihad
Thanks to vasileOmFrumos2 for reposting this Oriana Fallaci commentary on European anti-semitism. It was lost when his original YouTube account was banned in January.
[end]
Read further...
[end]
Read further...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
