Everyone knows that India is a target of Islamic terrorism right? Listening to the news hype or the blog conversations on pro-hindu sites (that’s not an insult btw), you can’t help but feel that the Muslim extremists are taking over India and bombing innocent men, women and children all over the place every day. But there’s one teensy little problem with this scenario.
Islamic terrorism makes up less than 9% of all terror incidents in India! And almost all of it is in the Kashmir region.
Now that can’t possibly be true right? I mean what about all the terrorist blasts in 2009 in the rest of India? Except that there were none. Yup, that’s right. Not one damn terrorist attack in India in 2009 outside of Kashmir that we can attribute to Islamic fanatics.
How do I know this? While researching data for a reply to a blog comment – see, I do the research :) – I found that the US government has set up a worldwide terrorism tracking system which gives a wealth of information regarding terrorist attacks globally. It’s free, publicly accessible, and users can filter by country, date range, type of terror attacks, casualties, groups responsible, location within the country, generate heat maps, get victim data and many more options and you can mix n match to get the exact info you’re looking for.
It turns out, that the majority of terror attacks in India is carried out by the Naxals. Here is the complete map of terrorism in India in 2009. A total of 703 attacks.
When you filter by “Islamic Extremism”, the map changes to this with the number dropping to just 63. I got a bit of a shock on seeing this really.
Ouch..where are all the Islamic bombings? You know, the “terrorists” which our government is trying so hard to save us from. The terrorism which has every citizen in India in a funk afraid of their own shadow. It’s in the damn Naxal belt that’s where – go get em!
But please stop this crap about Islamic militants. Yeah, it happens now and then but hardly kills anyone. Not that we Indians particularly care about lives being lost. Otherwise we would have done something about train accidents in India which have already killed 285 people in this year alone.
Of course, this robs people of the satisfaction of blaming all violence in India on the Muslims. Hopefully at least some people will take note.
Dear Bhagwad,
Why dont you join the congress party ? :)
You speak their language anyways, minority appeasement,
Learn to call an axe an axe, and not a shovel
I seriously hope you say all this to victim’s family members of mumbai terror attack.
Good luck,
In reply to Sam
Any victim of the mumbai terror attack is free to read this post.
Also, you perhaps don’t know that the American parents of 14 year old girl who died in the Mumbai attacks have asked the Indian govt. to spare Kasab’s life. That’s because they realize that Kasab is a product of his upbringing – and though what he did was his fault, he was merely a pawn in a larger game.
So yes…why don’t you go talk to the victim’s family. Not everyone is bloodthirsty and lusting after revenge. I hope that if my wife is killed in a terror attack I will be able to act with the same magnanimity as those parents did.
I also recommend you come live in India before you start talking about ills and terror activities in India.
Bah..living a protected life in US and waving flags, saying go that way and this way. passing judgements.
Sorry have to say this > will replace hats off with “pants off to you”
In reply to Sam
I’m 29 years old. I have lived for 27 years in India. And I’m coming back.
Enough said.
Moreover, data is data. The graph I’ve shown doesn’t change depending on where you view it. Stop indulging in ad hominem attacks and talk like a grown up.
Read the topic and most of the comments on this forum.
I am a Bangladeshi Hindu. Or rather should I say was?
In the late nineties(98-99), our neighbours(Muslims) drove us out of our homes and destroyed the Kali temple. For two years we moved from one place to another, knocked doors everywhere. Everywhere we were turned down. Some officials in Khulna admitted that a cleaning drive was being done. But leaving the country was not an option, yet. Then my wife went missing. Two days later her dead body was recovered by the police. Before I could go to take possession of her, the police buried her and refused to tell me the location. Only after then I left the country.
Mr.Bhagwad, I will sincerely hope that you experience something like I did. Being forced out of your home for your religion. Perhaps then, and only then will you realise the issues involved.
In reply to SRroy
SRoy,
I’m deeply sorry for the agonizing experiences you’ve been through. Does this mean however, that all Muslims behave in the way you describe? Or even the vast majority of them?
In reply to bhagwad
Hindus in bangladesh are routinely slaughtered. That’s the main aim of Islam: To create an islamic caliphate all over the world. Dar ul Harb and Dar ul Islam.
Even though all muslims are not like this, the extremist ones drive the agenda. And the peaceful ones do not / cannot protest. Because all violence and hate against “non-believers”, kafirs has divine sanction. Islam is the disease of this world.
Care to answer why Islam is at war with all non-muslims? (Kashmir, Bosnia, Chechnya, Xinxiang, Palestine, Darfur (sudan) )
In reply to SDK
Not everyone takes their religion seriously. If you read the Bible for example, it tells you to kill someone if you see them working on a Sunday! It also contains lots of horrible passages which people used to take seriously but no longer do. The Bible also tells christians not to eat pork, but they still do it.
No one really cares about their religion and follows it 100%. It doesn’t matter what’s written in the Koran. Decent people will be decent people regardless of what is written there.
The Muslims in India are fine. The Muslims in Indonesia are doing just fine – and that’s a Muslim majority nation!
In reply to bhagwad
You’re displaying a remarkably naive attitude towards Islam that is typical of Indian liberals. This is the same ostrich head in the sand attitude that caused the Partition and the pseudo-secular Muslim appeasement policies that India follows today like Hajj subsidy and allowing Muslims to follow their sharia law in a supposedly secular country. Comparing the Bible to the Quran is not accurate. Christians do not believe in the Old Testament laws; Jesus’ death on the cross made them all unnecessary. In contrast, the Quran is the constant, unchanging word of God that, now that Muhammad is dead, cannot be changed. It is important to note that the Quran specifically condemns deviating from its commands and it is because of this that Muslim countries regularly persecute apostates and heretics. Leaving Islam is punishable by death, as is attempting to change it. This is why Islamic countries are repressive and forbid personal freedoms; such things would invariably lead to people leaving Islam. Many Muslim countries have Islam as their state religion, and even those that don’t are quite strict in their adherence to it. That they care deeply about following Islam is proven in the repression of women, homosexuals, non-Muslims (like Shahbaz Bhatti), blasphemers (like Taslima Nasreen), and Muslims they feel are not practicing Islam in the proper manner, like (like Salman Taseer) and also the Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan, who are classified as non-Muslims and persecuted. The Quran contains hundreds of “horrible passages,” however, Muslims continue to follow these things because that is what their religion demands of them. It is why people are bheaded with a sword in public, in broad daylight in Saudi Arabia for such “crimes” as blasphemy, idolatry, and witchcraft.
Most Muslims are good, normal, decent people. However, they become dangerous and begin to hurt others, precisely when they begin to listen to what is written in the Quran. The violence in Muslim countries is not because the people there are not decent folks, but because they are decent folks who follow what is written in the Quran, and thus become wild and extremely dangerous. Ignoring this, as liberals often do, and saying that most Muslims do not take their religion seriously is a dangerous misconception to hold. India has already paid the price for such muddleheadedness, and continuing to adhere to it in creates problems like indigenous terrorism and Islamization through high Muslim birth rates and illegal immigration facilitated by politicians craving the Muslim vote. The Muslims of India are not fine. Indian mullahs actively call for the Islamization of India, for an Indian caliphate etc. This is not a new attitude; one need only read what was written by individuals like Chowdary Rehmat Ali and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, who believed in the supremacy of Islam as preached by the Quran. Indonesia used to be a Hindu country before it was invaded by Muslim armies, and now what little remains of its Hindu heritage is being wiped out. Non-muslims and heretics are also persecuted in Indonesia. Dismissing the horrendous human rights violations that regularly occur in Islamic countries, often as state policy, as something that can be wished away by ignoring the Quran is patently absurd. The Quran is an integral part of the sharia law in Islamic countries that is responsible for so much of the repression and terror in Islamic countries, including that which is in India. It cannot, and should not be ignored, nor will it disappear on its own. Closing your eyes to it, as Gandhi, Nehru, and the rest of the Indian leaders traditionally have, spells disaster for India.
In reply to Sasank
Unfortunately for Christians, Jesus has also specifically mentioned in the Bible that the Old Testament is still valid and that anyone who doesn’t follow it will go to hell.
In reply to bhagwad
That only applies for certain laws; for others, it is said that Jesus’ death made them unnecessary. However, even if Christians ignore their Bibles, it is clear, based on the egregious human rights abuses that go on in Islamic countries, that Muslims are not ignoring it; they are putting people who ignore it to death.
In reply to Sasank
It’s not just for certain laws – Jesus was very clear on that. Here is the exact quote:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)”
Christianity had its horrendous period of human rights abuses as well. The inquisitions, the horrors of the papacy, wars, the crusades and all the rest of it. What stopped it is that people became civilized. The religion still hasn’t changed since then. Only the people have changed.
The same is true for Islam. Given more time, the people will mature enough to ignore their religion just like every sensible person does today.
In reply to bhagwad
The Bible also says that “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.” (Galatians 3:13), “Ye are not under the law, but under grace.” (Romans 6:14) etc. Regardless, comparing Islam to Christianity is not an accurate comparison. Christianity was capable of reform, as you said, because the things you mentioned, like papacy, inquisition, etc. are extraneous, non-Biblical things that were added. The teachings of Jesus are mostly good, and even those that are not that good are not savage. That’s why Lutheranism and Protestantism were able to gain a significant following, and it’s why the Catholics eventually reformed themselves at the Council of Trent. In contrast, hardly any of the barbarity in Islamic countries is at odds with Islam. Stoning adulterers to death, executing apostates, jailing and killing nonbelievers, sneering at democracy and personal freedoms, no separation of church and state, etc. are all perfectly Islamic, and Muslims find ample justification for this in the Quran and the Hadith. Reform of Islam actually makes it worse. Salafism, for instance, is an excellent example. People condemn Salafism as extremism. It is not. Abdul Wahhab, its founder, believed that Islam was best the way it had been practiced during the time of Muhammad. Wahhab viewed humans as mere slaves of Allah. That is why Saudi Arabia, which follows Salafism, advocates the purity of Islam, and is an oppressive, autocratic regime as a result. It is why Muslim protesters carry signs that say “Freedom go to Hell!” etc. Modern terrorists, including those in India, are motivated in some fashion by this. Islam cannot be positively reformed, nor will it ever disappear because people “become civilized”” (whatever that means). There is no reason for Indians to indulge in these naive fantasies any longer. Islam must be confronted for what it is for what is left of India to remain free.
In reply to Sasank
The moral of the story is that no religious book is consistent. Some parts will say nice things – other parts will say the complete opposite.
Decent people look only at the nice things and ignore the rest. Others will pick out whatever they want and claim divine sanction for their actions.
Are we seriously looking for logical consistency in fairy tale books?
In reply to bhagwad
You’re repeating a nonexistent distinction ad nauseum. People are born decent. They become indecent and positively savage when they embrace Islam. Muslims are not allowed to pick and choose; the Quran specifically forbids it, and people who attempt to do so, or positively reform Islam in any way are targeted with fatwas of death and, when caught, brutally executed, as are people who dump Islam entirely. It is precisely because Indian liberals ignore this that Islamic theocratic law is seen as “secular,” mosques are free from government control (allowing them to amass weapons), and books critical of Islam are banned in the so-called Republic of India (aka Dhimmistan). The sad irony here is that you dismiss an Islamic takeover of India as right wing paranoia and scaremongering, while harboring the very views that make it not only possible, but likely.
In reply to Sasank
What Islamic takeover? Last I saw it was the khaps in Haryana carrying out barbaric justice in a semi court like style – not Sharia law. I’ve never felt threatened by Islamic forces and I stayed in an all Muslim area for almost a year in Hyderabad once.
And contrary to what you think, there are quite a few passages in the koran which talk about peace. There are also passages which talk about violence. Pick and choose which ones you want to follow.
In reply to bhagwad
What part of “Muslims are not allowed to cherry pick from the Quran” do you not understand? It’s considered apostasy, and the penalty is a fatwa of death shortly followed by an execution. You continue to naively ignore this. It’s precisely this prohibition that makes free thought in Islam virtually impossible. If Muslims are picking and choosing verses from the Quran, it is because they live in free societies like the U.S. where sharia has not yet penetrated. Certainly there are verses in the Quran that talk about peace. They are verses that were “revealed” to Muhammad in Mecca, when he was powerless and had to be “tolerant.” They were abrogated by later violent verses when Muhammad was in Medina, having become a warlord.
In reply to Sasank
So you agree the problem is political in nature – areas where Sharia has not penetrated. Because even the bible doesn’t “allow” christians to cherry pick from it.
In reply to Sasank
Sasank and more specifically, Bhagwad,
I don’t see the reason to quibble over specifics of The Bible and The Quran (or some other Holy Book for that matter). I’m having to repeat this point, because I do not find it acknowledged – yes, Christianity over the years became less Barbaric, but what were the costs? I’m sure, Christians who were worried about the harms done to common people could have pointed to Emperor Ashoka, for instance, and say, “hey look, how many people he killed, but he eventually became peaceful!”. Or alternatively, they could have said, “Hey look! In the same land where Manu smriti was written and amidst the same people keeping on fighting amongst each other, a religion as peaceful as Jainism could evolve! Eventually, Christianity would ‘become’ as much peace-loving and progressive”. But the fact is none of those who spoke against Christianity as it was practiced in those times used this *passive voice*. Simply because, they knew, left to itself, Christianity would have only worsened. I’m of course not suggesting that *I* am going to be the one trying to reform Islam, but I do not find any solace in the fact that Islam would turn benign two hundred years, or for that matter, even 20 years from now. The deaths that are taking place presently because of inspiration from Islam, matter! For the simplest reason that they are human-caused and are deliberate, and thus on both counts are ‘preventable’ in the most complete sense (unlike say, deaths caused in road accidents or that caused by childhood diarrhea). Also, I do not buy the argument (if one is being made), that Islam will turn moderate ‘just like that’. No! It will have to be repeatedly shown that such arrogance and baseless belief in supremacy over all other humans just because of one’s reverence of Allah is foolish and will not be tolerated. I don’t think our political correctness must come in way of that. I have also pointed out that most of the influences in Islam seem to be emanating from Saudi Arabia and are reaching moderate nations like Indonesia. At least I am not aware of positive influences traveling from Indonesia back to Saudi Arabia! If this ‘trend’ continues, how is Islam to turn more moderate and peace-loving with time?
After the British left undivided India, it was eventually divided into basically three parts – Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Pakistan and Bangladesh geographically are separated from each other by a country as huge as India. Why do we have organizations like LeT (operating from Pakistan) and HUJI (operating from Bangladesh) that have a central goal of targeting (non-Muslims in) India, but India does not seem to have any large-scale organizations with central goal of targeting Muslims in Bangladesh or Pakistan? And we only need to go further into economics, the state of political stability, industrial progress, state of health, etc., to make us wonder how *both* Pakistan and Bangladesh are lagging behind India. The only point I’m driving at is: religion’s role is not minor in how it influences the society. Pointing out that India’s constitution allows us to be secular and liberal is just a shallow way of looking at things. Important question is: what prevented those who lived in the the present-day India to demand a theocracy for themselves (just like their neighbors) and thus prevent Indian constitution from being secular and liberal? Also, just inserting things into the bodies of law is not sufficient; the basic traits of the populace determine whether they would be effective or not (think dowry deaths and female feticide in India despite arguably very stringent laws against the both).
Also, it turns out that one of the commentators (Anuj Gupta) above had pointed out that nearly 70% of all deaths and injuries that have happened in 2004 to 2006 because of terrorism related events occurring in India were actually ‘Islamic’! I haven’t gone on to verify that claim, but have not seen you counter that as well. So, if those stats are reasonably accurate, I must say that I feel somewhat gullible for having accepted the claim at face value that Naxalite terrorism is bigger than Islamic terrorism! Not that being proved gullible matters too much! :P
In reply to Ketan
Will reply in more detail later Ketan, but the stats bear out the fact that Naxalism causes around 300% more deaths than Islamic terrorism…
I just read Anuj Gupta’s post you reference. But it’s easy to verify this for yourself. Just go to the website and filter down and you get your data. This shouldn’t be a matter of debate.
Just go to
faithfreedom.org and see the Challenge.
Also so alisina.org
You might be enlightened.
Problems associated with Islam are bound to be political, because the way it’s been envisaged it’s a deeply political (expansivist) ideology seeking cover in supernaturalism. Islam (and other religions as well) are more than their ‘central’ texts. Maybe the aspect of memetic also ought to be factored in. Being fundamentally political in nature, Islam is bound to be at odds with other political ideologies, in particular, liberalism. Anyway, seen from proper perspective, problem lies partly in the fact that Sharia has penetrated (partially or completely) vast tracts of land and that too places far away from Mecca/Medina, but it is majorly a problem because it *still* wants to penetrate. Whether this kind of penetration is checked or not will depend on our threat-perception, the pacifist attitude we display or do not display (e.g., SC spoke openly against Khaps. I’m not sure if it ever has spoken that clearly against Sharia), and how much solace we draw from the fact that there are other ideas as well, which are competing to be as much barbaric, etc.
In reply to Ketan
The Abrahamic religions – Christianity and Islam are both expansionist by design. Hence the missionaries, Jehovas witnesses etc…as far as expansionism goes, Islam is no longer as aggressive as Christianity currently is. I can’t recall ever having had my doorbell ring and an Imam preach to me about why I should embrace Islam.
Quite simply put, the supreme court has never spoken out about Sharia law because there is no sharia law in India. The US republicans made fools of themselves by passing a resolution that sharia law will never be implemented in the US, which is stupid cause in no part of the US is sharia law implemented.
The khaps on the other hand are real. Sharia law in India is imaginary. And for the purposes of this article, I’m talking only about India.
In reply to bhagwad
“So you agree the problem is political in nature – areas where Sharia has not penetrated. Because even the bible doesn’t “allow” christians to cherry pick from it.”
No, I’m saying that cherry picking occurs precisely because Islam has not yet penetrated societies like the US. Once Islam takes power, like it did in Pakistan literally overnight, personal freedoms are virtually erased, as evidenced by the sharia-approved barbarism in Islamic countries.
“Quite simply put, the supreme court has never spoken out about Sharia law because there is no sharia law in India. The US republicans made fools of themselves by passing a resolution that sharia law will never be implemented in the US, which is stupid cause in no part of the US is sharia law implemented.
The khaps on the other hand are real. Sharia law in India is imaginary. And for the purposes of this article, I’m talking only about India.”
Of all the absurd things you’ve said about Islam thus far, this is by far the most inaccurate. Muslim Personal Law in India is based on sharia, as the All India. That’s why Muslims are allowed to practice polygamy (and no one else is) and Muslims an can divorce their wives without alimony (and no one else can, thanks to Shah Bano pseudo-secularism), and Muslims can divorce their wives by saying “talaq” three times (and no one else is), and Muslims get hajj subsidy (while Hindu pilgrimages are taxed), among other things. Thankfully, Muslims are still required to follow the Indian Penal Code, or else they would implement Islamic punishments as well, which would include such humane things as amputation, stoning, beheading, etc. The US Congress’ decision was a wise one; it prevents sharia from ever touching US soil.
In reply to Sasank
I couldn’t care less about the personal laws of the muslims regarding divorce etc. Muslim women are free to marry whomsoever they wish using the special marriage act of 1954 if they want to instead of the muslim marriage act. If they still choose to go with the lattter, it’s their choice. They’re not being forced into anything.
All Indians whether Hindu or Muslim or whatever are bound by the same criminal code which is what I care about. As long as that’s the same, I don’t bother my head about the barbaric sharia law ever touching me or anyone else.
The US senate’s sharia declaration was merely a show meant to make paranoid people happy and give them a self righteous feeling of safety. It was a joke and a waste of government time.
Sharia is no threat in India, or the US. I suggest we stop worrying about it.
In reply to bhagwad
The fact that Muslims are allowed privileges that no one else is allowed is idiotic; that this is defended by Indian leftists as being “secular” while anything with a connection to India’s Hindu heritage is considered “communal” or “fascist” is truly asinine. If India is truly a secular country (as Indian leftists love to shriek in response to anything Hindu) it should not discriminate on basis of religion like this. This is what is meant by pseudo-secularism. Having a separate personal law for Muslims is just one step away from giving them their own criminal law code as well. As far as sharia being a threat to India, I don’t see how sharia is NOT a threat. The triple talaq system allows Muslim men to dump their wives whenever they want, and that too, without alimony thanks to the Shah Bano case. This is a threat to Indian women. The separate personal law is part of a larger policy of Muslim appeasement. For instance, Muslims get their hajj subsidized while Hindu pilgrimages are taxed. The hajj subsidy is a waste of government money that could be spent on useful things. Muslim mosques are free from government interference, while Hindu temples get their funding gobbled by the government. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Hindu temples fall into disrepair while mosques are raided by the police and reveal hidden stores of weaponry for terrorist attacks. Muslims are allowed to issue fatwas of death against whomever they wish, like one mullah did when he offered 51 crore rupees to anyone who beheaded the Danish cartoonist who drew Muhammad. It is precisely votebank political policies like these that contributes to the Hindu right wing that you have previously complained about (unsurprisingly, without analyzing the source of Hindu frustration) ; the anger that fuels it will only disappear when the government repeals these absurd policies and treats everyone equally. But this has to start from the ground up. Ignoring this problem can only lead to more radical politics, both Islamic and Hindu.
In reply to Sasank
I don’t understand your frustration. True, there is a separate civil code for Muslims. But there’s also a separate code for Hindus (via the Hindu marriage act) and the Christians (via the Christian marriage act) etc…so how are Muslims getting special treatment here?
The comment about the fatwa against the danish cartoonist is absurd since there’s no such thing as a legal fatwa. If someone is killed because of a fatwa, the govt. won’t sit still and twiddle its fingers and say “Oh well – they’re muslims!”
In reply to bhagwad
There shouldn’t be separate law codes for anyone based on religion; that’s what secularism is all about. Separate law codes are part of Muslim appeasement vote bank politics. Muslims are getting special treatment because, as I said, their laws let them divorce frivolously, practice polygamy, etc. Furthermore, the separate law code for Muslims is part of a larger ideology of Muslim appeasement, which include votebank goodies like hajj subsidy, mosques out of government control, turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, etc. Plus, adopting Muslim personal law is getting one step closer to Muslim criminal law, with stoning, beheading, etc which is barbaric. As far as the thumb twiddling thing goes, the government will arrest the person who did the killing. But the person who issued the fatwa of death will not be prosecuted for issuing hate speech, (like, say, Varun Gandhi was) because that would be a “violation” of the Muslim community’s “rights.” This kind of Muslim appeasement happens in India with depressing frequency. Hindu problems are ignored while Muslim “problems” are exaggerated and concocted, and anyone who speaks out against it is labeled a communalist.
In reply to Sasank
There’s no reason to believe that a separate Muslim civil law will ever spill over into a separate criminal law.
I too would like all laws to be the same. But it’s not as big a problem as it seems. After all, civil law is by definition personal in nature. Personally, I feel the govt. should not get involved in things like marriage at all – it’s a private thing. Perhaps one day governments will come to that conclusion.
Keep in mind that hate speech is very specifically against a particular community based on race or religion. To my knowledge, no one has issued a fatwa against Hindus or Christians.
Also, there’s far more hate speech against Muslims than against Hindus in India. I can show you lots of Indian blogs where Muslims are mentioned in a derogatory manner. Can you on the other hand show me even one Indian Muslim who blogs about hating Hindus and how Hindus are oppressing them etc?
In reply to bhagwad
Allowing Muslims separate civil law only creates a dangerous precedent that makes it easy to demand a separate criminal law. As previously mentioned, even Muslim civil law is unjust towards women. This isn’t a problem that will disappear “one day” on its own, any more than sharia in Islamic countries will disappear on its own. You’re being remarkably naive about something extremely dangerous.
Fatwas have indeed been issued against Hindus and Christians. After the Kashmiri militant Ilyas Kashmiri beheaded a captured Indian soldier in 2000, a cleric named Maulana Zahoor Ahmed Alvi issued a fatwa supporting slitting the throats of other captured Indian officers. The Islamic scholar Abdul Aziz, who lived between the 17th and 18th centuries issued a fatwa declaring India to be Dar al Harb (the house of war) and that it needed to be reconverted into Dar al Islam (an Islamic country) as it had been in the glory days of the Mughal Empire, which was then disintegrating. During the Partition of India, then Muslim Anwar Shaikh butchered Sikhs living in Punjab. Later, he converted to Hinduism and became one of Islam’s most ardent critics, for which a fatwa of death was issued against him by Pakistani mullahs in 1995. A contemporary of Firuz Shah and Muhammad bin Tughlaq, the Islamic scholar Ziauddin Barani criticized the view of the Hanafi school of Islam in India, that advocated that Hindus be considered dhimmis (people of contract) where they would be second class citizens, forced to pay the jiziya tax, and subjected to humiliation. In his Fatwa-i-Jahandari, which described what he considered to be a proper Islamic state in India, he argued that Hindus should be forced to choose between Islam and death; that was, after all, what the Quran very clearly commanded, and what the Prophet himself would do. In 1993 Manaa K. al-Qubtan, a Saudi cleric, issued a fatwa saying that declaring non-Muslims having command against Muslims to be unlawful as per the Quran. The protesters in Egypt used this as a justification to riot over the appointment of a Christian governor in South Egypt. This same sentiment became one of the roots of the Pakistan movement; Sir Syed Ahmed Khan repeatedly stressed that Muslims should not live under Hindu rule, that had once ruled India and that they could do so again. Shahbaz Bhatti, the only Christian minister in the cabinet of the current Pakistani government had fatwas issued against him in response to his opposition to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. For this he was gunned down on March 2nd, 2011 by the Tehrik-i-Taliban. Muslims in Nigeria issued a fatwa against journalist Isioma Daniel for joking about Muslim opposition to a Miss World beauty pageant taking place in the country. Deputy governor Mamuda Aliyu Shinkafi from the state of Zamfara issued a fatwa saying that “Like Salman Rushdie, the blood of Isioma Daniel can be shed. It is abiding on all Muslims wherever they are to consider the killing of the writer as a religious duty.”
How many more examples do you need me to provide before you understand that sharia is barbarity that cannot be allowed in any form in a free country? The reason there is hate speech against Muslims in India is precisely because of despite countless incidents like these, Muslims still get preferential treatment because of their “minority status” while Hindus get discriminated against. Muslims have the same contempt for Hinduism that they have for anything non-Muslim. Most of the Muslims who felt that they would be oppressed created Pakistan and Bangladesh, (that alone should have been a wake up call for India, if nothing else) where they’ve mostly cleansed the Hindu population from the country. Now Muslim mullahs actively call for an Islamic caliphate in India, and having Islamic jurisprudence of any kind only paves the way for that kind of savagery.
In reply to Sasank
Four things Sasank:
1. Parsis, Hindus and Christians also have their own personal law codes. So why are you complaining only about Muslims here?
2. I’m not saying that Sharia law is not barbaric. I’m saying that it’s irrelevant because criminal sharia law will never be implement in India – the basic structure of the constitution doesn’t allow it and that can never change.
3. What happens in other countries is irrelevant to me. The title of my post specifically relates to India.
4. What happened hundreds of years ago is irrelevant to me. There’s no chance of Muslim invaders taking over India today.
1. What I could gather from Sasank’s explanation above is the fact that Hindus, Christians and Muslims having their own personal law codes is not compatible with secularism. If you are saying that you don’t care if Muslims are allowed to marry four times or if Muslim women are barred from demanding alimony, then it means that you don’t care much about the rights of Muslim women. I think Sasank was referring to this injustice when he was talking about Personal Laws. I am not an expert on Hindu, Sikh or Christian personal laws, but I don’t think any of these laws are regressive; and if they are, they should also be repealed.
2. Yes, the Indian constitution is not compatible with the Sharia law. But given the fact that the share of Muslim population [in the Indian subcontinent] has grown from around 13% in 1800 to 33% in 2001 [in India alone, Muslims form 15% of the population], there may come a time when the “minority” will become the majority. Who knows, the constitution may then have to be made Sharia-compliant!
4. The chances of Muslim invaders taking over India may be slim. But (2) above is certainly possible- not in the near future, though.
In reply to Sachin
Point No. 2 is interesting Sachin. Luckily the Constitution’s basic structure cannot be changed even through an amendment. Basic rights cannot be abbrogated no matter how great the majority is. For example, most of India is against homosexuality. Yet the Delhi High Court found it necessary to decriminalize it because Constitutional morality is more important than public morality.
So it really matters very little even if the Muslim population is 80% – our freedoms and rights will still be in tact.
Also , reliable estimates of the Muslim population in India is under 14% as per independent estimates – hardly a big threat.
Finally, any Indian can choose to get married under the special marriage act 1954 which doesn’t involve religion (I myself am married under this act.) I have trouble feeling sorry for women and men who choose to get married under an unfair system when they have better alternatives available to them.
In reply to bhagwad
“Parsis, Hindus and Christians also have their own personal law codes. So why are you complaining only about Muslims here?”
Because Muslim personal codes are barbaric, they contribute to the Islamization of India, and because they are part of Congress’ Muslim appeasement strategy to gain Muslim votes.
“I’m not saying that Sharia law is not barbaric. I’m saying that it’s irrelevant because criminal sharia law will never be implement in India – the basic structure of the constitution doesn’t allow it and that can never change.”
The constitution calls for a uniform civil code. Has that been implemented? The constitution outlaws untouchability and caste discrimination. Has that been eradicated? The constitution says that reservations are a temporary measure. Have Indian politicians stopped promising reservations to gain votes? The constitution says that Article 370 is temporary and that J&K should be fully integrated into the union. Has that happened yet, after 60 years? The constitution says that cow slaughter should be banned. Is it? The constitution says that the state shall not discriminate against anyone based on their religion? Does it? Didn’t Manmohan Singh say that Muslims have first claim on India’s national resources, and then defend it against detractors? You’re putting a lot of faith in a constitution that has been ignored again and again and again. The constitution can indeed be changed, if the people desire to change it. And if the Muslim population grows high enough, and it is currently growing at an alarming pace, then an Islamicized India could simply scrap the constitution and adopt sharia. Sure, the constitution forbids this, but what is stopping an Islamicized India from abolishing it? Remember that an Islamicized India includes Muslims in every government institution that matters, and could thus make a new, Islam based constitution if they so desired. That is what Pakistan did, incidentally. Recall that Pakistan’s constitution also guarantees free speech, freedom of religion, etc. yet the Hindus of Pakistan have been driven out, and Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti were gunned down for speaking out against the blasphemy laws. An Islamicized Pakistan has ignored its constitution. What’s stopping an Islamicized India from doing the same?
“What happens in other countries is irrelevant to me. The title of my post specifically relates to India.”
Indian Muslims are motivated by the same barbarism that motivates Muslims in other countries. They desire a global caliphate, of which local Muslim terrorism and insurgency is merely a front in Global Jihad. To view Indian Islam in isolation is typical liberal myopia.
“What happened hundreds of years ago is irrelevant to me. There’s no chance of Muslim invaders taking over India today.”
As usual you show your fundamental ignorance of Islam. Indian Muslims follow the same barbaric ideology of the aforementioned Muslims. That’s what led to the Partition, the Islamization of Pakistan, the creation of Bangladesh (rather than, say, re-merger into India) and the slaughter of millions of Bangladeshis by the Pakistani Army. It’s what motivates terrorist groups like SIMI and the jihadis in Kashmir. The contempt that drives the Muslims of the subcontinent remains the same. The only thing that has changed is the means by which they Islamcize. Mistaking these for fundamental changes is idiotic. Islam cannot be changed.
“So it really matters very little even if the Muslim population is 80% – our freedoms and rights will still be in tact.”
The constitution is just a scrap of paper, Bhagwad. It only has whatever power the people choose to give it. And if an India that is 80% Muslim decides to scrap it completely, even though the constitution itself forbids that, who’s going to stop them? The courts (run by fellow Muslims)? The army (also run by Muslims)? And even if someone tries, Islamic countries have always been ruthless in crushing dissent. India would basically degenerate into Greater Pakistan. Indira Gandhi’s dictatorship failed because Hindus in India do not desire a dictator. But Muslims in India are bound by their religion to support a autocratic caliphate. Democracy is incompatible with Islam. That is why virtually every country that follows Islam is autocratic to some degree despite their worthless constitutions.
“Also , reliable estimates of the Muslim population in India is under 14% as per independent estimates – hardly a big threat.”
The influence of a population is not necessarily based on how large it is. Muslims were not a majority in Mughal India, yet they ran the country. Muslims were a minority in British India too. Did that stop them from getting their Pakistan? Muslims are not the majority in India, yet the government has striven to please them at the expense of the Hindus for the past 60 + years. You also forget that the Muslim population of India is increasing very quickly. In 1961, Muslims were 10.7%, and Hindus were 83.4%. By 2001, Muslims were 13.4%, and Hindus were 80.5%. When the new census data for 2011 comes out, it is said that the Hindu population will drop below 80%, while the Muslim population continues to increase. This should surprise no one. Muhammad himself recommended that his followers outbreed the infidels.
In reply to Sasank
So far a uniform civil code has never been as integral to our Constitution as the fundamental rights have been.
Consider this. Well over 80% of Indians didn’t want Article 377 dealing with homosexuality to be discarded. They felt it was immoral. But what happened? It was decriminalized anyway. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what people want in this case. It doesn’t matter what anyone’s personal opinion was. All that mattered was that the Constitution guarantees equality. The will of majority doesn’t matter. Even parliament cannot change that (it’s tried several times.)
I also disagree that Muslims in India look to other countries as inspiration. If anything, Muslims in other countries look to Indian Muslims for inspiration. Here’s an example of how Indian Muslims respond to calls to Muslims from other nations.
As for the population increasing, while it’s true that in general Muslims have a higher fertility rate than other communities, this has been dropping steadily. The current rate of growth is hardly alarming. Population demographics can take centuries to change and the world will be a very different place than what it is now.
Again, I completely disagree that Muslims today look to how Muslims behaved hundreds of years ago.
Finally, it’s irrelevant to me how violent Islam itself is. Christianity is actually far more violent by nature. The truth is that no one really takes their religion seriously. Only crazy people do and they’re not important enough in India.
In reply to bhagwad
“So far a uniform civil code has never been as integral to our Constitution as the fundamental rights have been.
Consider this. Well over 80% of Indians didn’t want Article 377 dealing with homosexuality to be discarded. They felt it was immoral. But what happened? It was decriminalized anyway. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what people want in this case. It doesn’t matter what anyone’s personal opinion was. All that mattered was that the Constitution guarantees equality. The will of majority doesn’t matter. Even parliament cannot change that (it’s tried several times.)”
The Indian people accepted this law, because they believe in the democratic process. Islam, however, is incompatible with democracy. An Islamicized India would simply become another Pakistan, a country that guarantees freedoms on paper, but is in fact brutal and undemocratic. An Islamicized India would not allow this sort of law; they’d simply murder those reformists responsible for it for being apostates. Again, you’re putting too much faith in the constitution. The Constitution can only work if the people desire to make it work. They can overthrow the government and dismantle it if they want to.
“I also disagree that Muslims in India look to other countries as inspiration. If anything, Muslims in other countries look to Indian Muslims for inspiration. Here’s an example of how Indian Muslims respond to calls to Muslims from other nations.”
I am not saying that Muslims in India look to Muslims outside India for inspiration (though it is not unheard of. A Muslim’s true loyalty is to the ummah first. The Khilafat Movement is an excellent example of this.) I am saying that they are all inspired by Islam. Islam is unchanging. The same Islam that inspired conquerors centuries ago inspires Muslims today. So long as Islam remains in this world, the world will never be at peace.
“As for the population increasing, while it’s true that in general Muslims have a higher fertility rate than other communities, this has been dropping steadily. The current rate of growth is hardly alarming. Population demographics can take centuries to change and the world will be a very different place than what it is now.”
Of course the world will change. The world has changed a lot in 1400 years since Islam was founded. Yet Islam itself cannot change, because Muhammad is dead, and his Quran and Hadith are unchangeable. That is why Islamic countries are still very backward and primitive in almost all respects. Remember that the Pakistanis, Afghanistanis, and Bangladeshis were once Hindus, and part of a vibrant and prosperous India. Yet, once they were converted to Islam, they demanded and received their own separate countries, and turned them into backward, primitive hells. Note that this is despite the rest of the world having long since discarded such barbarity. It is because of Islam that Muslims possess a perverse and atavistic reverence for primitive, seventh century Arabian practices. Even if the Muslims remain a minority in India, they will still be dragging the country backward, if not vivisecting it to create more Islamic states.
“Again, I completely disagree that Muslims today look to how Muslims behaved hundreds of years ago.”
Sure they do. Look at the writings of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, for instance. He lived centuries after the Muslim conquerors, in the decline of the Mughal Empire. Yet what did he write about? He wrote that the Muslims of India had enjoyed great power and wealth only a century ago, and that they should strive to do so again. Note that this man was considered a modernist and a progressive. Look at Mohammed Ali who started the Khilafat movement. He cared more about the Sultan in Turkey than he did about the independence of India. He even wanted the emir of Afghanistan to invade India. Yet he was honored by the Indian government with a postage stamp. Or Faisal Khan Durrani. He was an educated man, who exhorted the Muslims to modernize themselves, pointing out in his book “The Future of Islam in India” that the Hindus were growing stronger in India as a result of modernizing themselves. Yet, what did he want modernized Muslims to do in his book “The Meaning of Pakistan”? To reconquer India by force as the ancestors of the Muslims had purchased with blood. Modern Pakistani politicians constantly talk about how India needs to be destroyed an Islamicized to complete the work of Muslim conquerors. Pakistan even named its missiles after Mohammed Ghauri, Mohammed Ghaznavi, Ahmed Shah Abdali, and Babur! Before the arrival of Islam in India, Pakistan was part of India, and the Pakistanis did not consider themselves to be separate at all. Yet, as a result of Islam, they viewed the culture of their ancestors in contempt, and seek to destroy it. There is no reason to believe that an Islamicized India would be any different. This is what Islam does to people.
“Finally, it’s irrelevant to me how violent Islam itself is. Christianity is actually far more violent by nature. The truth is that no one really takes their religion seriously. Only crazy people do and they’re not important enough in India.”
There’s nothing crazy about the people who take Islam seriously. Terrorists, Islamic insurgents, violent mullahs, etc are all doing exactly what their religion demands that they do. Given the amount of influence these individuals have in Islamic countries, it is absurd to say that India will remain unaffected, given that they view India as a land of infidels who must be brought into the house of Islam, and support Pakistan’s attempt to destroy the country by bleeding it with a thousand cuts. The Indian government’s response to this is pathetic. Instead of asserting India’s Hindu identity and fighting against Islamization, they lick the boots of foreign Islamic states to garner Muslim votes in India. They also appease Indian Muslims by giving them special goodies based on their minority status, thereby encouraging their separatism and thus radicalism. The two Islamicized states on India’s borders are testament to previous Islamization of Indians, despite the presence of the constitutions that you hold in such high regard guaranteeing personal freedoms. Clearly “crazy people” have much more clout than you give them credit for. The root of all these problems is Islam. It is because of Islam’s inherently violent nature that these things occur. I am not saying that most people do not ignore their religion. Most Muslims living in Islam countries (and in India) are normal, decent people. Yet, this does not matter; the small ruling elite in these countries are not, and thus the entire country is rendered a living hell. This was the same as in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia, Inquisitorial Spain, etc. Most of the people living in those countries did not espouse violent ideologies, yet the few that did were the ones who called the shots, and created the nightmares for which those states are known for today. The root of the problem here is Islam and Islam alone. To view its inherently violent nature as unimportant is hopelessly naive and extremely dangerous. The problems of Islamic terrorism and insurgency will not go away on their own. They will only truly vanish once Islam is abandoned.
In reply to Sasank
You say that it’s Islam’s inherently violent nature that causes these problems. I’ve already shown you that Christianity is even more inherently violent than Islam. How do you deal with that fact?
In reply to bhagwad
Christianity is not more violent than Islam. Jesus did not kill people. He didn’t rape women. He didn’t torture anyone. He didn’t have sex with children. He didn’t assassinate anyone, nor did he loot. Jesus’ teachings were mostly good. Muhammad, in contrast, did all of these things and more. He was a cult leader, just like David Koresh or Jim Jones. He declared himself to be a prophet of God, making all of his heinous crimes have divine sanction. More importantly, he made his every action a precedent to be followed by all Muslims for all eternity. You might say that this is insignificant. After all, Christians look to Jesus’ teachings and behavior for guidance, Buddhists look to Buddha, Hindus look to Rama, Krishna, the ancient rishis, etc. However, they do not look to these figures for guidance on every single, triviaul aspect of their lives. For instance, they don’t look to these figures for guidance on how to go to the bathroom. Muslims, in contrast must go to the bathroom
exactly as Muhammad did; sitting down. The hadith record every single action that Muhammad engaged in, they way he walked, talked, sate, even the way he had sex, and Muslims are expected to act exactly that way. That is why, as I have said, even “progressive”, educated Muslims advocate conquest and destruction, and Muslim countries, despite being surrounded by modern, civilized nations, still stone people to death, and behead them for “crimes” like like idolatry and witchcraft. Muslims do not have the freedom of thought that Christians have to reject Islam, because Islam forcibly pervades every single aspect of their lives. The way that they walk, talk, eat, bathe, defecate, sleep, etc. are all determined by Islam. As a newborn, the call to prayer is recited directly into their ears; it is the first thing they ever hear. Since Islam forbids what we would consider art, the only thing that Muslims see while growing up is Quranic calligraphy. Because the call to prayer is repeated five times a day, it becomes to most common sound that Muslim hears during his life. This indoctrination is furthered if the Muslims is unfortunate enough to get an “education” in a madrassa, where all he does is memorize the Quran all day long. And, for any lucky soul that manages to somehow gain a bit of mental freedom, apostasy is punishable by death. Though the Christian world did punish people for heresy, this was not based on Jesus’ teachings. Muhammad, in contrast, had people who questioned his orders, or tried to leave Islam, killed, and it thus became doctrine. It is because Muhammad was a monster that Islam is the way that it is. In contrast, Jesus, whatever he may have been, was not a cult leader or a mass murderer. More importantly, his followers had considerably more mental freedom that allowed free thinking to permeate the Western world. Muslims, in contrast, are just as mentally chained as the followers of Michael Travesser are. It is this mental slavery to barbarism and fanaticism is what makes Islam uniquely dangerous.
In reply to Sasank
Christianity is not just Jesus. In fact, the new testament is only a very very small part of the Bible. I should know because I was born a Christian! And Jesus is certainly not as important as Jehovah – who is god himself.
Jesus himself tells people to follow the barbaric old testament in clear terms. Over there, all these lovely things happen – rape, murder, sex with children, incest, torture, loot.
As for bathing eating, sleeping etc, the Bible lays down detailed rules in a chapter called “Leviticus.” Amongst them is a rule even saying you should kill your neighbor if you find them working on Sunday! It talks about what to do with women having their periods, what they should wear, how to discipline children and what not.
The solution is not to change Christianity (it can’t be changed.) The solution is for people to ignore the Bible or at least selectively ignore the bad parts. Ultimately that’s the only thing which makes people decent.
So please listen to a person who knows more in this matter. As a Christian by birth, I know exactly what the Bible is and what it says. Trust me when I say that it’s far more violent than the Koran.
So we have a situation where some parts of the bible are horribly violent – far more violent than the koran ever was. Another (small) part says nice things. Are you surprised? Since when was a religious book ever consistent?
In reply to bhagwad
The Bible is not more violent than the Quran. This guy did a survey of both texts and showed that, despite being shorter, the Quran is more violent; it has a higher percentage of violent verses:
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html
The figures in the Old Testament are mythical. According to the book “Who Wrote the Bible” by Richard Elliot Friedman, the Jews were living under oppression, and, out of frustration, exaggerated and and just plain fabricated events in their history to show themselves as a powerful, bloodthirsty, conquering race. This is not the case with Islam. I know that Christianity is not just Jesus. But Islam is indeed just Muhammad. Muhammad was definitely a historical figure, and Islam is based entirely on the man’s so called revelations. Islam is a complete mind control cult, like those of the cult leaders I mentioned in my previous post. You want Muslims to ignore their Qurans like Christians ignore their Bibles. But how are they to do this? The crucial difference that you keep ignoring is that Muslims do not have the freedom of thought and freedom of expression that the Western world has. Like I said, everything in their lives revolves around Islam, and anyone who says otherwise is killed. Muslims are brainwashed, and the Quran specifically forbids picking and choosing on pain of death and subsequent hellfire. People who pick and choose are already heretics and have been sentenced to death by mullahs time and time again. And there is really nothing good to pick and choose from. Virtually all the “good” verses in the Quran were abrogated by by later verses that were “revealed” when Muhammad became powerful and had no more reason to pretend to be nice. Picking and choosing from parts of Islam is like trying to pick and choose from Nazism or fascism. These ideologies are inherently violent and purely evil. Picking and choosing keeps them alive and proliferates their poison. The only way to deal with Islam is to dump it for good, and that can be done by showing “moderate” Muslims how evil their prophet and his teachings were, and how dangerous they can be even when they lie dormant, like in India. But ignoring the danger of Islamic terror, simply because the number of attacks have been outstripped by those of Maoism is absurdity. Islam is far more dangerous than Maoism. While the latter is a political ideology, the latter is a political ideology disguised as a religion, which allows it to grow unchecked because while it is politically correct to criticize a political ideology, it is anathema to criticize a religion due to multiculturalism. Muslims are compelled to wage jihad against the world until it is brought under the rule of Islam. If there are fewer terrorist attacks by Muslims in India, it is because the jihadists have been temporarily stymied by Indian intelligence and security forces, or are running low on resources. But their motivation is the same, and their desire to Islamicize the world is far more fervent than that of the communists, since Islamic brainwashing is far more absolute than that of Communism. And that is what makes it deadly.
In reply to Sasank
Everything you have said is also true of Christianity. The Bible is supposed to be a history book to be taken as seriously as a textbook. Just a few weeks back some fellow calculated that the world would end on the 21st of May 2011. That date was reached by interpreting dates in the Bible. Any Christian will tell you that they treat the Bible as very real history – including all the violence, torture and rape.
The “freedom of thought” and expression that the “western” world has is achieved by ignoring the Bible. Muslims have to learn to do that as well. It’s not impossible.
“Luckily the Constitution’s basic structure cannot be changed even through an amendment.”
I am very well aware that the Indian constitution’s basic structure cannot be changed today. But how do we know it will or will not be changed in the future. There have been instances when constitutions of other countries were annulled, suspended, or altered. I know it may seem inconceivable in present times but nothing is impossible.
“Also , reliable estimates of the Muslim population in India is under 14% as per independent estimates – hardly a big threat.”
Yes, 14.9% (or 15%) may not be a threat, but I was referring to a possible future when Muslims are no longer a minority.
“I have trouble feeling sorry for women and men who choose to get married under an unfair system when they have better alternatives available to them.”
Well, there may be alternatives, but I don’t think the majority of ordinary Muslims have the luxury of choice.
But more importantly, my contention is that when we say the law is the same for everyone, why have separate laws? Does the UK have separate personal laws for Muslims? Or Australia? Or Japan? I agree Muslim personal laws don’t harm Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhists, but I am talking about equality here.
In reply to Sachin
But India isn’t just another country. We’ve proved our democracy and judicial system works. Indira Gandhi tried to kill the Supreme court once and failed. It will never happen again.
It matters little to me if Muslims are even 80% of the country. The constitution guarantees me freedom of expression, due process and equal rights. Nothing can change that.
I agree with you about equality. We need to have a uniform civil code – no doubt about that. But my frustration in this regard is not directed towards Muslims since every community has their own laws.
“But India isn’t just another country. We’ve proved our democracy and judicial system works. Indira Gandhi tried to kill the Supreme court once and failed. It will never happen again.”
Never say never!
“But my frustration in this regard is not directed towards Muslims since every community has their own laws.”
Like I mentioned earlier, Muslim personal laws are regressive – as they are based on something that was cobbled together in the 7th century. So, I don’t think you should lump all personal laws together.
In reply to Sachin
Fair enough.
Naxalist problem in India was between rich and poor (not on religious basis) at the beginning but now it has changed as a result Kanu sanyal founder member of Naxal movement kill himself. As Now some Naxalist kills the poor and it has become caste war. Islamic problem is everywhere. Why ? Religion is for peace whatever it may be. But why all hate one religion that the followers of that religionist has to think. When they are not able to fight with others they will fight themselves for different cause. Paki Min Rahman Malik admits that karachi violence for girl friends and wife’s. I am giving some example of Islamic violence and how to do ethnic cleaning like Bengalies, Kashmiries hidus unable to live in their native due to Islam. There are more good muslim but their voice is unheard. What is the value?
Times Of India 17.04.09
Pakistan’s Sikh community has been forced to pay Rs 20 million as jazia (religious tax) to the Taliban so as to return to their homes and resume business, a newspaper said on Thursday.
The minority Sikh community on Wednesday met the Taliban demand in return for “protection” in Orakzai Agency in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, the Daily Times reported.
The Taliban then released Sikh leader Sardar Saiwang Singh and vacated the community’s houses. The militia announced that the Sikhs were now free to live anywhere in the area.
“They also announced protection for the Sikh community, saying no one would harm them after they paid jazia. Sikhs who had left the agency would now return to their houses and resume business,” an official said.
Here I must mention the writing of Sarat Chandra Chatterji in Hindu Muslim Unity chapter. He asked , Why Muslim leaders never raise their voice against the rape or molestation of Hindu or other minority women? His reply was that If this leaders get chance then they will also do the same thing. Muslim’s has to change their mentality towards other religionist. This is true after 100 years now also.
Pakistan has to suffer. They do not allow other religionist to profess their faith with freedom. Like Soudi Arabia not allow to profess other religion, Pakistan want the same.
All minorities in Pakistan/Bangaladesh have tested the Islamic (Begger, uncultured, terrorist, unfaithful, betrayer) rude rule such a long time. Muslim’s are ignorant about that they create terrorism where they are minority and make noise by hue and cry and annihilate the minority by killing or forcing to convert them like B’desh where 30% minority has come down to 9%. Islam has deculturized our people, divided our country, insist killing brothers and enslave by medieval mentality. In B.desh 30 lakhs people were killed in 1971 alone. Even dogs were not allowed on the road. On the other hand Israili army allowed throwing stone to them. Therefore they are far better than the Muslim army else where in the world. Fundamentalist are frustrated as Fastest dying religion is Islam. How many Muslim are there who follow the Islamic rule? Those who called Muslim at present claim their population is one forth of World population. It is false. Because out of these population only a macroscopic percent are Muslim. As per Muslim law, or sariat law among women those who do not wear veiled, among mail those are not wear Muslim dress code, Shies, ahmedia, those wear skirt or modern dress, artist, singer and those who watch movie or listen song or viewing television, those who are not doing kulukh ( private parts wash after urine), those women are working with the men, those women who are taking education except reading Qoran are not Muslim. Those who do not ask their neighbours at the time of taking food are not Muslim. Those who give birth children and not able to give food and proper education are not Muslim. Those who take Interest in money lending. There may be many more kafer as per fundamentalist’s theory. True Muslims are those who follow all this rule and its number will not be more than a 10 million on the whole world. No agreement will work with Islamist
Quran called a violence against others,
It says “Then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them. And seize them, beleaguer them, And lie in wait for them, In every stratagem(of war)”. So it needs change. 7.7.04
Islamist feels all are wrong except it. This itself is wrong. When they practice terrorism & support violence which is a doctrine of Islam & claim it is a religion of peace. Is not it a contradiction? They must come out clean by themselves and can claim equality. They even teach bad education to innocent child even in remote areas as a result now this situation has arises. Very few people now believe them. They used bomb under veil and if searched it then they called Islamist are targeting their modesty hamper. Islam is in danger. How cruel their logic is. It means killer claims innocent. It is as usual all criminal claimed. They target & killed innocent people and compared it with other killing and named it jihad. No body except criminals target and killed innocent lives. Intolerance in Islam Murtaza khaliq, a film student at Pakistan’s biggest university in Karachi, produced a music video for his final-year project. But right wing Islamic students opposed to holding art shows on campus attacked the graduating student’s year end exhibition and smashed the computer he had planned to use to screen it. “My video had no objectionable material. There weren’t even any women in it,” said the frail looking khaliq. “ They found it offensive because it was a musical video. The battle on Pakistan’s campuses between liberal and conservative students mirrors a wider struggle for the soul of Pakistan since it won independence from Britain in 1947. Art, music a bane on pak campuses news from Karachi,Nov 28,2003(Reuters) Islamist hate other religionist, Some Islamist hate other religionist, they destroy culture and force their culture insist terrorism.
It annihilate minority and divide country on religious line and named it after Islam. Minority of a Islamic republic constitutions denied equal right to minority. On the other hand wherever they are minority they claims themselves superior like dictator. If the same thing done by the minority of Muslim nation they will be killed for blashfamy etc, they destroy others like bamiyan Buddha. Some of them are betrayer, sex monger. A Muslim advocate argued for the murderer of swami shraddhananda in the manner that to kill a non believer is not a sin as long as he argued that even Mr. Gandhi is not better than fallen Muslim.
Not a single terrorist attack took place in Canada, still Canadian PM., says in his interview today, the biggest threat is Islamic terroirsm in Canada as well as all over the world. And today one more attack in Delhi and you say it is myth, hype..?? there is difference between accidents and terror. If person is threatening you all the time, intimidating you all the time and terrorising you all the time is not called accidents. How long we can tolerate intolerance? its another story that we have failed to protect people, but atleast it is not myth or hype it is for real for common people. If you are declaring it as a myth can you put some words when it turns in to reality? what are the measure you are looking for to consider it as real and not myth or hype? Trying to justify terrorists attacks as normal by comparing it with rail accidents naxalite attacks does not make sense.
In reply to Reality
What’s the difference between a terrorist attack and a naxalite attack?
Are they not terrorists as well?