Call a spade a spade

Courtesy: Daily Pioneer

Francois Gautier

In most of the cases, it is Indian Muslim terrorists

I have often been accused of being a ‘Right-winger’, a ’saffron journalist’, a ‘Hindu-lover’. Actually I am proud to be a lover of the Hindus — 850 million in India, a billion in the world, one in every six humanbeings on this planet. I am proud to defend people who have always accepted others, who have given refuge to all persecuted minorities in the world, and who still possess knowledge of karma, yoga, avatar and the hidden realities behind life. People who still produce gurus, ashrams, individuals for us to learn from.

What surprises me the most is that there must be around 200 foreign media correspondents posted in India and that I do not know another one who defends Hindus, except maybe Mark Tully, in a roundabout manner.

I am appalled at what is happening at the moment. For, make no mistake, it is not a question of buying MPs to get through a dubious vote of confidence, it is not even a question of the Communists versus the Samajwadi Party, or even so-called secularist forces against the BJP, or the unleashing of terrorism on Indian democracy. It is, in fact, an all out attack on Hindus and their values.

Nobody wants to call a spade a spade, or else, apologists of Islam will say that Islamic fundamentalism happens because of Palestine or Ayodhya or the Gujarat riots. But make no mistake. All these attacks in Jaipur, Mumbai, Varanasi, Bangalore and Ahmedabad are only targeting Hindus; it is an accident if some Muslims also get killed. Why is it then that at the moment India seems to be paralysed into inaction in the face of an all-out war against Indian liberties and values by Islamic terrorists?

One is really shocked and suspicious as to why Prime Minister Manmohan Singh appears hell-bent to impose upon the nation a nuclear deal with the US which will neutralise India’s nuclear weapons in the face of the aggressive nuclear weaponisation of China and Pakistan, and negate India’s independence in foreign policy, as well as to bring with it immense Westernisation, not to speak of a huge influx of Christian missionaries. Here again, Hindus will lose.

Most of today’s media, sadly, is anti-Hindu. Nothing symbolises this more than CNN-IBN. This channel has chosen to sit on sting operation tapes that clearly show someone close to a very senior Samajwadi Party leader handing over a crore of rupees to three BJP MPs as inducement for abstaining from the trust vote moved by the Prime Minister. If the tapes had been aired, it would have immediately led to the postponement of the trust vote and the UPA would have ultimately lost confidence motion.

Instead, CNN-IBN decided not to telecast the tapes. It sat on them for 24 hours before handing them over to the Speaker. Is this the role of the media? Can a mainstream television news channel, which is associated with a well-known international television organisation, be so partisan and unethical? And get away with it?

Whenever Hindus are hit, the Government looks the other way. It happened when four lakh Hindus were chased out of the Kashmir Valley and many were killed in terrorist attacks over a period of time — both the Centre and the State Government just kept watching. It happened over the recent Sri Amarnath Shrine Board land transfer issue. How dare Mr Omar Abdullah make a self-righteous yet untruthful speech in Parliament and then complain that he was booed?

And now look at the inertia of the Union Government and the media after the Bangalore blasts followed by the the horrible bombings in Ahmedabad, killing more than 50 innocent people.

Does the UPA think that the common citizen of India is a nitwit and does not understand that the Government of India, by pointing its finger at Pakistan’s ISI, or at some Bangladeshi outfit, is trying to deflect attention from the fact that most of the recent terror attacks have been perpetrated by Indian Muslims, with or without Pakistani or Bangladeshi (or Al Qaeda) help?

It is not only a matter of vote-bank in times of election but also a fact that politicians in India want to keep their citizens blindfolded and pretend that nothing is happening. Does not the Government realise that we have all become cynical to its usual conduct on such occasions. It first condemns ‘in the strongest terms’ the ‘barbarous act’ and appeals for calm and ‘communal harmony’, and then gives a few lakhs each to the families of the dead or injured, so that they shut up, and finally never catches the culprits. And so it goes on till the next terrorist strike.

I am a born Christian, but I marvel at the greatness that is Hinduism and Hindus. Ms Sonia Gandhi and Mr Manmohan Singh are doing all they can to cut Hindus to size. Unless Hindus wake up now, unless they realise that they are under attack from all sides, one of the greatest civilisations of all times will slowly pass away. That will be a great loss to the world.

6 responses to “Call a spade a spade

  1. We only wish there are more of people like Mr. Francois Gautier to egg on and motivate the majority community in India!!!

    Dhamma is good at the beginning, in the middle and at the end. hindus have a urgent need to counter part of the US $ 150-300 billions that pours into India by supporting non sectarian service bodies like Sri Sri’s Art of Living 5H programmes, Swami Dayanand Saraswati’s ‘AIMS’ All India Movement for Seva….

  2. The violence by Muslim terrorists against Hindus is not really about “Hindus.” It is about non-Muslims. In Islam the world is divided into Dar ul-Islam (House of Islam), and the Dar ul-Harb (House of War).

    Dictionary of Islam, Thomas Hughes
    “Zimmi [dhimmi}
    A member of the Ahulu ‘z’Zhimmah, non-Muslim subject of a Muslim government, belonging to the Jewish, Christian, or Sabean creed, who, for the payment of a poll or capitation tax enjoys the security of his person and property in a Muhamadan country….Infidelity, however, admits of degrees. Its worst shape is idolatry, that is, the worship of idols instead of or besides the One true God; and this again is a crime most abominable on the part of Arabs, “since the Prophet was sent amongst them, and manifested himself in the midst of them, and the Quran was delivered down in their language.” Of an equally atrocious character is the infidelity of apostates, “because they have become infidels, after having been led into the way of the faith, and made acquainted with its excellence.” In the of neither, therefore is a compromise admissible; they must accept or re-embrace the faith or pay with their lives the full penalty of their crime.

    With regard to the idolaters of a non-Arabic or ‘Ajam country, which latter expression in the times of early Islam, particularly applied to the Persian Empire, ash-Shafi’i maintains that destruction is incurred by them also; but the other learned doctors agree that it is lawful to reduce them to slavery, thus allowing them, as it were, a respite during which it may please God to direct them into the right path, but making, at the same time, their persons and substance subservient to the cause of Islam.

    The least objectionable form of infidelity in the eyes of Muhammed and his followers, is that of the Kitabis or people of the Book (ahlu ‘lkitab), i.e. the Jews, as possessors of the Old Testament, or Taurat, and teh Christians, to whom, moreover, the Injil (Gospel) was revealed. As they are not guilty of an absolute denial, but only of a partial perversion of the truth, only part of the punishment for disbelief is their due, and it is imposed upon them in the shape of a tribute, called poll or capitation tax (jizyah), by means of which they secure protection for their property, personal freedom, and religious toleration from the Muslim government. The same privilege is extended to the Majusi or Sabeans, whose particular form of worship was more leniently judged by Muhammed and the Traditionalists than that of the idolaters of Persia.”

    A house, dwellin, habitation, land, country.”

    “Daru ‘L-Islam
    “Land of Islam.” According to the Raddu ‘l-Mukhtar, vol. iii, p. 391, it is a country in which the edicts of Islam are fully promulgated.

    In a state brought under Muslims, all those who do not embrace the faith are placed under certain disabilities. They can worship God according to their own customs, provided they are not idolaters; but it must be done without any ostentation, and, whilst churches and synagogues may be repaired no new place of worship can be erected. “The construction of churches, or synagogues, in Muslim territory is unlawful, this being forbidden in the Traditions; but if places of worship belonging to Jews, or Christians, be destroyed, or fall into decay, they are at liberty to repair them, because buildings cannot endure forever.”

    Idol temples must be destroyed, and idolatry suppressed by force in all countries ruled according to strict Muslim law. (Hidayah, vol. ii. p.219)”

    “Daru ‘L-Harb
    “The land of warfare.” According to the Dictionary Ghiyasu ‘l-Lughat, Daru ‘l-harb is “a country belonging to infidels which has not been subdued by Islam.” According to the Qamus, it is “a country in which peace has not been proclaimed between Muslims and unbelievers.”

    In the Fatawa ‘Alamgiri, vol. ii. p854, it is written that a Daru ‘l-harb becomes a Daru ‘l-Islam on one condition, namely, the promulgation of the edicts of Islam. The Imam Muhammed, in his book called the Ziyadah, says a Daru ‘l-Islam becomes a Daru ‘l-harb, according to Abu Hanifah, on three conditions, namely: (1) That the edicts of the unbelievers be promulgated, and the edicts of Islam be suppressed; (2) That the country in question be adjoining a Daru ‘l-harb and no other Muslim country lie between them (that is, when the duty of Jihad or religious warfare becomes incumbent on them, and they have not the power to carry it on). (3) That no protection (aman) remains for either a Muslim of a zimmi; viz. that amanu ‘lawwal, or that first protection which was given them when the country was first conquered by Islam. The Imans Yusuf and Muhammed both say that when the edicts of unbelievers are promulgated in a country, it is sufficient to constitute it a Daru ‘l-harb.

    In the Raddu ‘lMukhtar, vol. iii. p. 391, it is stated, “if the edicts of Islam remain in force, together with the edicts of the unbelievers, then the country cannot be said to be a Daru ‘l-harb….

    …The Sunnis and Shi’ahs alike believe in the eventual triumph of Islam, when the whole world shall become the followers of the Prophet of Arabia; but whist the Sunnis are, of course, ready to undertake the accomplishment of this great end, “whenever there is a probability of victory to Musulmans,” the Shi’ahs, true to the one great principle of their sect, must wait until the appearance of the rightful Imam. [JIHAD]”

    ‘(C) With regard to the persons who may legally be slaves, there seems to be little, if any, difference between the two sects [Shi’ah and Sunni]. According to the Shi’ahs slavery is the proper condition of the HARABIS, or enemies, with the exception only of Christians, Jews, and Majusis, or fire-worshipers, so long as they continue in a state of zimmah, or subjection, to the Musulman community. If they renounce their zimmah, they fall back into the condition of ordinary HARABIS…”

  3. British novelist Dorothy Sayers on excessive “Tolerance”:

    ” In this world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called indifference, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.”

  4. Gautier,

    This is a site that monitors terrorism in South Asia. Please review and share to those who may be interested: South Asia Terrorism Portal

  5. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations – The borders of Islam are bloody.

    An article by Pakistani ex-Muslim MA Khan. :
    Is Islam Set to Become the Dominant Primer of Future Extremist Violence By Non-Muslims?

    In recent decades, Muslims have obviously been the overwhelmingly dominant perpetrators of religiously-motivated extremist violence, targeting non-Muslims and their allies within the Muslim community, as well as Muslim sects which they consider deviant from orthodox Islam. But over the last couple of decades, extremist violence by non-Muslims, targeting people of differing faiths, has been becoming increasingly frequent. And disturbingly, an Islamic connection is becoming a common motivator of these non-Muslim extremist violence: Non-Muslims commit those violence due to instigation by Muslims or as retaliation to preceding violence by Muslims.

    In the West, the last time a non-Muslim extremist committed a major terrorist massacre was the Oklahoma City Bombing by Timothy McVeigh (professed to be an atheist of Christian heritage) on April 19, 1995 that killed 168 people and injured 450. McVeigh’s motive was his anger at the Waco Siege at Texas (February 28 to April 19, 1993) by the FBI that left 76 people of the infamous David Koresh-led Davidian Sect dead.

    And whenever extremist Muslim groups or individuals have committed similar terrorist atrocities in recent years, we have been reminded by Muslims and their apologists with reference to the McVeigh incident that people of all persuasions — Islam, Christianity, Judaism, White Supremacism, Communism, and such — can commit extremist violence. So, Islam should not associated with extremism and terrorism for the actions of its individual followers, just as violence by a Christian or Jewish extremist must not be attributed to their faiths.

    Now, in the West, we have a new extremist massacre in Norway: Bombing and a horrendous shooting spree in Oslo, both apparently committed by Anders Behring Breivik, a Norwegian Nationalist extremist and a Christian, have left nearly 100 innocent people dead. This Oslo extremist violence incident will certainly add further fuel to the Islamic apologists’ attempt to shield Islam from criticism for the atrocities radical Muslims commit in the name of their religion.

    The purpose of this note is, however, to highlight how Islam is also becoming the dominant motivating or instigating factor behind the extremist violence committed by non-Muslims around the world.

    The connection of Breivik’s motivation to Islam is already crystal clear. His 1,500-page manifesto, entitled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence”, is all about Europe’s “Islam problem” caused by unrestrained Muslim immigration and aided by the predominantly leftist political elite. About Islam’s historical problems, Breivik writes (p. 39):

    Since the creation of Islam in the 7th century and to up to this day, the Islamic Jihad has systematically killed more than 300 million non Muslims and tortured and enslaved more than 500 million individuals. Since 9/11 2001, more than 12 000 Jihadi terrorist attacks have occurred around the world which have led to the death of one or more non-Muslims [2] per attack. In other words; there are around 150 deadly Jihadi attacks per month around the world. This trend will continue as long as there are non-Muslim targets available and as long as Islam continues to exist.

    He mentions of the Norway government’s cowardly handling of the Muslim rage surrounding the publication of Prophet Muhammad’s cartoons in Danish magazine (2006-2007). His major concern: Muslim immigration, actively promoted by present leftist governments, was bringing in chaos to Europe. When thousands of Muslim enclaves in Europe — in Norway, Sweden, Britain, France, Netherlands, and other countries — have already become “no-go zones” for the native Europeans, and more and more neighborhoods with growing Muslim populations are becoming inhospitable to the natives, who are often forced out of those areas through intimidation and even violence by Muslims, Breivik’s concern is not at all groundless. And he sees solution to this Tsumani of Europe’s “Islam problem” in the waging of a “Western European Resistance Movements (anti-Marxist/anti-Jihad movements)” — a European Civil War — by the so-called “patriotic European political activists” against Muslims and their leftist allies; and he predicts it will eventually be won by the Resistance Movement in 2083 with the annihilation of the Leftists/Marxists and deportation of Muslims. His terrorist actions on July 23, 2011, are declaration of that Civil War, in which he targeted youths of Norway’s Leftist ruling party.

    Apart from the Norway incident, India is another hotspot where we see extremist homicidal violence committed by non-Muslim Hindus that are also connected to Islam: Hindus commit those violence either upon instigation by Muslims or in retaliation to preceding violence by them. An example is the infamous 2002 Gujarat Violence, in which Hindus attacked Muslims and Muslims counter-attacked. The violence resulted in 790 Muslim and 254 Hindu deaths. What is often omitted from discussion about Gujarat riot is that Hindus committed it in retaliation to an earlier Muslim atrocity, in which they set fire on a train full of Hindu devotees, mostly women and children, burning 59 Hindus to death.

    Over in Africa, Christians in Nigeria (and other countries) have suffered sustained horrendous violence at the hands of increasingly radicalized Muslims in recent years. And on a few occasions, Christians have hit back in retaliation, causing large-scale homicide of Muslims.

    One must consider the fact that the Chinese and Indians (Hindus) are also immigrating to Europe in large numbers, but they are no concern to Breivik; his concern is exclusively directed at the Muslim immigrants. The reason is: the non-Muslim Chinese and Indian immigrants integrate in European societies, or, at least, live peacefully with their native neighbors. But Muslims not only refuse to integrate in the host societies, but also have become a major source of social scourge and violence: all sorts of criminal activities, terrorist attacks, as well as rapes and eviction of the natives.

    And source of these problems is Islam, not the individuals. Britain is facing problems with Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh and Pakistan, but not with the equally-large Hindu immigrant community from the same region. The Hindu and Muslim immigrants from the subcontinent are the same as individuals; religion is the only difference between them.

    As the burgeoning and increasingly radicalized and violent Muslim populations distress non-Muslims all over the world, including in non-Muslim-majority countries, extremist violence by non-Muslims, like the acts committed by Hindus in India, Christians in Nigerian and the Norwegian nationalist Breivik, are set to become increasingly frequent. A full-scale Civil War in Europe, as anticipated by Breivik, cannot be ruled out. Instead, it remains a real possibility and may spread to other parts of the world.

    The indiscriminate and ruthless killing of innocent young people by Breivik to draw attention to Europe’s “Islam problem,” as well as those committed by the Hindus in India or Christians in Nigeria, are tragic and indefensible. But as the state of affairs stands now, the occurrence of such tragic incidents with increasing frequency in future also looks to be a definite possibility. It is in the hands of governments as well as of Muslims themselves to mitigate the problem. Muslim immigrants can learn from the Hindu or Chinese immigrants in their host countries, while the governments should pay serious attention to a real problem, instead of turning a blind eye to it, which they have done for way too long.

    M. A. Khan is the author of Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s