A LETTER TO ALL THOSE WHO ACCUSE ME TO BE AN ANTI-MUSLIM. BY FRANCOIS GAUTIER

What is intellectual fascism? It is to accuse the other, without bothering to analyze these charges by the test of logic and reason … 

Fascism is also to refuse dialogue, which can take place before witnesses in the form of a debate. All Indologists who denigrate India, whether American ones, such as Witzel, or French like Jaffrelot, always refuse to dialogue with those they denigrate or those who defend the Hindus. 
Fascism is to label someone who has lived 40 years in India, has been married 20 years to an Indian, whose friends are Indians of different ethnic origin or religion, to be a right wing fascist. Someone, who in his private life, is neither racist nor hateful, nor fascist .
Intellectual fascism is sitting behind a plush desk in Harvard or Paris (or in this big bubble that is Delhi) and dissect India, using prejudices and false theorems, based on the politically correct, which are only a product of one’s education, atavism, or what one reads (this is called second hand knowledge). 

Fascism is to label as a fascist someone who has covered Kashmir for 15 years at the time of its most serious unrest, who has traveled extensively in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and who crisscrossed India like very few western journalists, except maybe Mark Tully. Even if he is wrong – at least he speaks from experience – and perhaps the time will prove him right…
All I did when I was working for Swiss newspaper Le Journal de Genève and later French daily Le Figaro, was to state that there was a problem with Islam in South Asia, at a time when it was not politically correct to say so. I also wrote a series of articles on major religions in India, showing the enduring tolerance of Hinduism, the brutality of Islam, the proselytizing tendencies of Christianity and the disappearance from India of Buddhism – not at the hands of Brahmins – but thanks to Muslim invasions.  These articles provoked the ire of French Indologists, who began writing to Le Figaro an impressive number of letters of protest, demanding my resignation. From that day, I was marked and a smear campaign at all levels has been initiated against me.
When one is accused of being anti-Muslim, it’s worse than being a leper, one is sentenced without trial, without the accusers putting themselves in question for a second. If they did, they would realize that it is a terrible irony: we excuse suicide bombings in Israel or in Mumbai which kill thousands of innocents, in the name of  the ‘persecution’ of Palestinians, Chechens and Kashmiris; but accuse of the worst crimes someone who has never murdered anyone, or even advocated hatred, but simply wrote about the reality he found on the ground with his own eyes, during twenty years of reporting.
Throughout my career I have thus suffered from these labels that are not explained but are passed on from person to person and quickly make the around of everything related to India, whether travel agencies, expatriates, diplomats or journalists: “He is an anti- Muslim, a pro-Hindu, a Fascist” … Nowadays, even the most enlightened only want to listen to the politically correct, the current ideologies of the masses, they rarely want to listen to something different which strives to go beyond appearances. I have seen six ambassadors of France, but never have I been asked about my opinion on one subject or another. I was even recently thrown by the current ambassador, Jerome Bonnafont, who called me a fascist … … because I told him that it was only after 59 innocent Hindus including 36 women and children, had been burnt in a train by a mob of Muslims, that the anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat have started (Jerôme Bonnafont who is the first openly gay foreign ambassador, should know better).
It is this very French arrogance, which is not normal in the land of Descartes, which labels as a sect, anything which has a Hindu color, or casts as fascists anybody with whom they disagree, without giving them the chance to defend themselves. President Sarkozy, who showed he could be different, should form a small committee of French who LIVE India from within, so as to advise him.
F G

Advertisements

68 responses to “A LETTER TO ALL THOSE WHO ACCUSE ME TO BE AN ANTI-MUSLIM. BY FRANCOIS GAUTIER

  1. When people talk of Islam, they became diplomatic and speak less than truth. It is due to the wrath of hard core Mullahs… And don’t worry about these historians. Truth is always written from the point of victor. And the wheel of destiny has turned and with the rise of hinduism, we are seeing paradigm shift in retelling of history. As long as your work reflects truth not propganda, I am with you.

  2. In India, in the land of left intellectuals, secular polilticians, left artists, left writers, left human right activists speaking as a Hindu is wrong, it is Hindu fascism but praising Islam or Christianity is right which is protecting minority. But these minorities are colossal majorities and they do what they like in their majority nations. In Saudi Arabia all women, irrespective of their religion have to wear purdha. There even if a non Muslim prays to his god or goddess in the privacy of his room he may get arrested without proper legal proceedings. Conviction is according to the whims of Islamic court. In other Islamic nations or Muslim majority nations the situations are not better. Christian nations also do whatever they can. These two religions are swelling with followers all over the world, still their workers work overtime all through 365 days of the year to enrol new converts by overt and covert means. Every other Sunday some visit my house to talk about Bible. Now there is Love Jihad for Muslims as a
    weapon of conversion.
    BJP the party known as Hindu party is only a political party, who take Hindus and Hinduism as a tool to grab power, not to help Hindus or Hinduism. Hindus themselves never try to swell their ranks by any way. On the other hand they do all things to alienate the existing members such as Dalits to the camps of eagerly waiting missionaries and militants.

  3. You are not alone. Every person who speaks the truth is a target these days. Whether it is the truth about the economy, poverty, communism or even islam.

    Your experiences are proof of intellectual witch-hunt at its worst. Yet, I hope that like Arun Shourie you will continue to enlighten us with your writing. I assure you that your readers are far greater in number than those who attack you.

  4. The tide is turning.

    Driven by internet, knowledge is spreading to everybody, transcending the control so far exercised by imperialistic vested interests through media and academe.

    The numbers of gullible folks taken in by the propaganda of cultural, economical imperialists of today are dwindling and those aligning with thoughts of such as Francois Gautier are increasing.

    dhanyavaad

  5. FG, Its the time of Inner Transformation….Keep writing….The truth will prevail. This country is & was on target from all the directions…not only from the outside but from within. But slowly people will understand that this country has given the highest wisdom on this planet. We need more writers in Media like you to propogate the wisdom as well as the wrong knowledge propogated by the leftist,pseudo secularists & pseudo intellectuals & Anti Indians…

  6. Dear Gautier,

    Falsehood rises to full swing and its highest just before its disappearance.
    If the resistance to Truth becomes absolute, it will get smashed, or rather smashes itself up.

    The adversary is an instrument to clear the way.
    We ofcourse are imperilled and lament.

    The Divine has its own ‘dire strategy’.

    It is not for Indians we cry, but for Her which is her soul.

    If She had willed doom for herself, it would have happened long ago and India would be just like so many sumerian artifacts in Louvre.

    In all this stupidity I see only the magnitude of their own tragedy to come.

  7. Bullseye.
    PC no longer promotes fairness in discussion. It promotes censorship in the disguise of tolerance and pluralism.

    You are right. It is easy to negatively label and dismiss people who go off theme (in this case Hinduism/Hindus always wrong, bad, fascist, no legitimate grievances, never the ones discriminated against or attacked but ALWAYS the discriminator and the attacker), instead of engaging them in objective discussion.

    Personally I can’t take those French seriously since Sarkosy slammed the burqa, and I read in an article that men who have their female family members who wear the burqa and the women themselves are ineligible for French citizenship (No French Citizenship for ‘Burqa” Muslims http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/french-news/No-French-citizenship-for-_burqa_-Muslims_58711.html). I don’t doubt that if it had been India instead of France who denied citizenship to “Burqa Muslims” those very same French would take it as a significant example of fascism in India. What is said about France here is that their Muslim population is alienated by the French and that is the reason for their bursts of street violence, fiery riots.

    Gautier, in many ways you are the true liberal, not the PC police of today. You are one of the few journalists who try to provide a balanced view, and the perspective of Hindus that pretty much is ignored by the mainstream (Indians and non-Indians alike).

    You are actually not one sided, but see the whole series of events and not only those that fit the established anti-Hindu majority theme. The ones who label you as fascist are actually the ones who are militantly one sided and prejudiced. They are projecting.

    Continue to write with a balanced perspective, with the true qualities of liberalism and tolerance, which are not the same as PCist censorship. You are not ant-any other group, but trying to be fair on a variety of topics and events to a group of people automatically demonized.

  8. The word fascism is so overused that it has lost its original meaning. Right now a fascist is anyone off the sacred theme.

  9. The French banned the burqa and headscarves. The Swiss now have voted to ban minarets on mosques (which by the way historically was much later part of mosque architecture and therefore not essential in Islam). Sarkosy supports this ban on minarets. http://www.meforum.org/1798/political-islam-gets-switzerlands-goat

    ‘ “The minaret is a symbol of a political and aggressive Islam; it’s a symbol of Islamic law. The minute you have minarets in Europe, it means Islam will have taken over.” ‘

    This reaction comes from less than half a century of living with a growing Muslim population. India on the other hand has had a large population of Muslims (large enough to partition into three separate countries, two of which are Islamic countries). Yet in India the headscarves, the burqa, and minarets on mosques are allowed.

    I think it is increasingly hypocritical for Europe to label people like Gautier as fascists who is just speaking up for a group that is heard, while India has shown far more tolerance to all faiths than they are, both unlike Europe and all Islamic countries. Why to Europeans concern of Islamization of Europe is legitimate, yet to Europeans Hindu concerns for Islamization after a real traumatic Islamization of the continent (partition) could only be fascism? That strikes me as both bigoted and racist of Europeans towards Hindus of India.

  10. I meant to write : “…hypocritical for Europe to label people like Gautier as fascists who is just speaking up for a group that is UNheard, …”

  11. This is a good article that shows French and other European hypocrisy:

    “Sarkozy’s sinister warning on Islam: it’s our way or no way

    Nicolas Sarkozy’s ‘debate’ on national identity took a sinister turn yesterday with a threat to Muslims that an ostentatious practice of Islam would be “provocation” and seen as a challenge to France’s Christian heritage and republican values, and this would “doom to failure” a moderate Islam in France.

    And speaking about the recent Swiss ban on minarets, he said “Instead of condemning the Swiss out of hand, we should try to understand what they meant to express and what so many people in Europe feel, including people in France”. Such an incendiary statement from the premier of France will fuel and institutionalise rank hatred and discrimination against Muslims. For racists it will license abuse and attacks on Muslims that are now widespread all across Europe. It will damage community relations and further ignite divisions between Muslims and the wider European population. The message is clear ‘it’s our way or no way’ in Europe for Muslims. Sarkozy’s warning follows a recent Swiss ban on the construction of minarets.

    Blinded by their abhorrence of Islam, mere visible displays, from the burqa to the minaret, are enough for European politicians to call for censor hypocritically contradicting the so-called liberal values they are so determined to protect. Clearly such liberal values are far from priceless being frequently expendable in the fight against Islam.

    Europe with a torrid and violent history of religious hatred (Germany’s Jews; Bosnian Muslims) is more than inching towards a xenophobic hatred of Muslims and Islam.

    France has already banned Muslim women’s headscarf (hijab) in public schools and universities and Sarkozy has been the bulkwork leading the campaign by both right and left politicians to banish the ‘burqa’ from French society per se …”
    http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/resources/issues-explained/sarkozys-sinister-warning-on-islam-its-our-way-or-no-way.html

    Gautier you and Hindus in India have shown far more tolerance and sense of fairness to all parties involved than your compatriots who hypocritically call others fascists.

  12. An article that explores this issue:

    “…There is a strong trend these days, particularly in America, to pussy-foot around ethnic and racial issues under the banner of political correctness. Yet it wasn’t so many decades ago that minorities (“negroes” and Jews especially) were fiercely segregated and persecuted. Today, going to the other extreme, we are very careful not to insult or irritate Muslims. Is this a sign of tolerance, or fear?…

    …Interestingly, a very different but very sensitive case erupted nine years ago in France, also involving Islam and the media. A seasoned French-Israeli journalist, Charles Enderlin, reported an incident in Gaza in which Israeli soldiers allegedly fired on a Palestinian and his son, killing the 12-year old boy and wounding the father. The story, first reported on France 2 (state television) went around the world, unchecked and unverified. Arab nations had a field day: posters, postage stamps, and even stone memorials were created in the boy’s honor….yet his death was never actually proven.

    An astute Frenchman, Philippe Karsenty, questioned the story, called on medical and ballistic experts to examine the scraps of film and photos, and claimed the story was fabricated, a complete hoax. Karsenty, in turn, was sued for defamation. Now, years later, after endless legal battles, Karsenty has won against the defamation charge. But France 2 has never issued an apology or rectification, and Enderlin was awarded the prestigious Légion d’Honneur last summer!…”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-z-shore/the-wages-of-fear-alibis_b_367276.html

  13. England is grappling with similar issues (Gautier it seems you are in good company):

    “British universities: seats of learning – and loathing
    Many British universities are breeding grounds for Muslim extremism. Islamic specialist Ruth Dudley Edwards explains why financial need and government interference have rendered academics oblivious to this threat to democratic society

    …Then there was Professor Anthony Glees who, four years ago in his book When Students Turn to Terror, named more than 30 universities where “extremist and/or terror groups” were to be found. He was denounced by the National Union of Students and met with hostility from the academic establishment. The following year, when an all-party parliamentary commission reported on the rise in anti-Semitism that was accompanying increasing support for Islamism on campuses, in the words of its chairman, the respected Denis MacShane, “university vice-chancellors and the university lecturers’ union pooh-poohed our concerns”. And when the Government finally became alarmed, its suggestion that academics should keep an eye on their students and report signs of extremism was angrily rejected by the same union (University and College Union), which boasts a substantial minority who want an academic boycott against Israel. …

    …The truth is that a mixture of greed, knee-jerk Left-wingery, anti-Semitism and pusillanimity have combined to make our universities breeding grounds for Islamism. The greed is two‑fold. Starved of funds and bullied by the Government into dropping standards in the name of social and ethnic diversity, universities court more foreign students than they can cope with and do nothing to upset them. Equally alarmingly, they woo benefactors from such rotten societies as Iran and Saudi Arabia. …

    …The anti-Western and anti-Israel propaganda emanating from some SOAS academics and students has made a once-great institution a joke. The editor of its student newspaper assures us that because of its wicked past as a facilitator of colonialism, the school has gone through a process of intellectual reorientation. Its “mentality and values”, we are told, “now seem to reflect an acute awareness of the subtle forms that racism can take.” That seems to mean that anyone with a claim to be an underdog can do and say anything they like.

    Academics tend towards the Left and, for a variety of perverse reasons, the Left has allied itself with radical Islam, choosing to ignore the brutality, the oppression of women, the stifling of dissent and many of the other repellent aspects of countries ruled by Sharia law. There will always be a substantial body of students who are idealistic, radical and hot-headed, but all too many academics seem incapable of grasping that the Islamist variety is a threat to the very foundations of democratic society: even the worst of the small number of student lunatics in the late Sixties were not suicide bombers intent on random mass murder.

    Worse still, fearful of being accused of racism and cultural insensitivity, the academic establishment is running scared of Islamic bully-boys. Supporters of the BNP would be run off campuses where there are no rebukes for proponents of Islamic fascism and murder. …”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6917777/British-universities-seats-of-learning—and-loathing.html

  14. what is saddening is that there are more people writing against you and our tribe than who are for it..
    a middle class hindu sitting in the comforts of his home may take the non-sense shown by the mainstream media (like the one shown today on a news channel about the kumbh and its negativity!), a little uncomfortably , but it wont induce him to write to them or anyone else objecting it…
    but had it been something against the christians/muslims, the media house would have been bombed (!) or political pressure would have mounted to send them into exile !

    this collective laid-back-attitude of the hindus, who are by now, used to the atrocities meted out to them (since 1000 yrs) , has to change – to bring about the revival of our dharma.
    JGD

  15. There is a huge difference between being a doormat, and speaking up for oneself through non-violent (both physical and verbal) means. Activism and liberalism are about speaking up. The majority of the time one engages disagreements and conflicts civilly. This should not be appeasement.

    The more people who speak up and who speak up more frequently the healthier society will be. Don’t shy away from conflict. Find a way to engage in a healthy way. The middle way – neither a doormat nor a bully. Healthy conflict resolution skills. It is too easy for people to dismiss you if you behave either verbally or physically abusively. That becomes a distraction – an opportunity for your opponent to change the subject to your bad behavior. Then that also brings into question the validity of your point no matter how accurate is your point. Strong emotions are okay. How you express them will affect how far and how well it is received.

    –Mahatma Gandhi said it best:

    If you don’t ask, you don’t get.

    Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.

    Nonviolence in the sense of mere non-killing does not appear to me, therefore, to be any improvement on the technique of violence.

    I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life.

    Nonviolence should never be used as a shield for cowardice. It is a weapon of the brave.

    Nonviolence does not signify that man must not fight against the enemy, and by enemy is meant the evil which men do, not the human beings themselves.

    If what passed as nonviolence did not enable people to protect the honour of women, or if it did not enable the women to protect their own honour, it was not nonviolence.

    My nonviolence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving the dear ones unprotected.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    –Mahatma Gandhi

  16. Gautier, you may find this interesting. Similar issue of distorted imbalanced reporting:

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9250

  17. Actually Gautier compared to famous people of the past, you are far more PC. If these men were alive today, they would be far more demonized than you. :

    Rabindranath Tagore:

    ““Weakness harbors sin. So, if the Muslims beat us and we, the Hindus, tolerate this without resistance – then, we will know that it is made possible only by our weakness. For the sake of ourselves and our neighbour Muslims also, we have to discard our weakness. We can appeal to our neighbour Muslims, ‘Please don’t be cruel to us. No religion should be based on genocide’ – but this kind of appeal is nothing but the weeping of the weak persons. When the low pressure is created in the air, storm comes spontaneously’ nobody can stop it for sake of religion. Similarly, if weakness is cherished and is allowed to exit, torture comes automatically – nobody can stop it. ”

    ” “Dr. Munje said in another part of his report that, eight hundred years ago, the Hindu king of Malabar (now Kerala) on the advice of his Brahmin ministers, made big favor to the Arab Muslim to settle in his kingdom. Even he appeased the Arab Muslims by converting the Hindus to Islam to an extent to making law for compulsory conversion of a member of each Hindu fisherman family in to Islam. Those, whose nature is to practice idiocy rather than common sense, never can enjoy freedom even if they are in the throne. They turn the hour of action in to a night of merriment. That’s why they are always struck by the ghost at the middle of the day.””

    ““The king of Malabar once gave away his throne to idiocy. That idiocy is still ruling Malabar from a Hindu throne. That’s why the Hindus are still being beaten and saying that God is there, turning the faces towards the sky. Throughout India we allowed idiocy to rule and surrender ourselves to it. That kingdom of idiocy – the fatal lack of commonsense – was continuously invaded by the Pathans, sometimes by the Mughols and sometimes by the British. From outside we can only see the torture done by them, but they are only the tools of torture, not really the cause. The real reason of the torture is our lack of common sense and our idiocy, which is responsible for our sufferings. So we have to fight this idiocy that divided the Hindus and imposed slavery on us……..If we only think about the torture we will not find any solution. But if we can get rid of our idiocy, the tyrants will surrender to us.” ”

    Winston Churchill:

    “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science-the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

  18. Gautier,

    Here is an article that analyzes the leftist view. It discusses the dynamic between the West, leftists in the West and Islam. But some of it may shed light on the attitudes against Hindus in India.

    Why the right wing in the Western world, in the not so distant past, supported Islam over Hinduism is not that hard to figure out – Christians felt more akin to Islam as it is an Abrahamic faith like Christianity. Only when they felt more under attack (modern day terrorism) did more and more of the West’s right wing turn. But then it is easier for the West Christian right wing to turn because like Islam they believe there is only one God and only one way to worship that one God. Feeling an Abrahamic connection to Islam meant Islam was familiar, less strange, less wrong, than non-Abrahamic religions. But still wrong.

    For the left, liberals, and I would say for polytheistic religions such as Hinduism and others, or a non-proselytizing monotheistic religion like Judaism, since they tolerate religious diversity even atheism, the reaction to Islamic terrorism is more complex. It tests the boundaries of the inherent tolerance of such groups.

    The political left and liberals who believe in liberal ideas are not always one and the same.

    I think the political left’s view of the situation over in India is basically the same as their view of the Western world’s dynamic with Islam. Majority (therefore must be powerful and call all the shots, can only be oppressive) is the bad guy. The violence done by the majority is “oppressive violence.” The minority (therefore must be oppressed and are only rebelling against t majority’s oppression) is the underdog good guy. The violence done by the minority is “grievance based violence” or “revolutionary justice.”

    The problem is also equating religiosity with right wing. Hence a Hindu as the majority and also religious group is right wing. Muslims though a religious group are a minority therefore falls under left wing.

    A note – this site is more on the Western right wing, so read it with a critical and discerning eye. Neither the right nor left are completely correct or incorrect.

    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-liberals-support-islamic-terrorism.html

    (I think what is missing is a neutral or even liberal (not political left) analysis on the web on this issue that so far only the right wing is doing with unfortunate right wing bias. However, that of course is not your task Gautier. You are right to keep the focus on Hinduism and the biases against Hinduism no matter where it comes from)

  19. Two geopolitical models, which may also have an effect on they treatment you have received:

    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/01/two-models-for-encounter-between-islam.html

  20. Gautier, there are other liberal journalists who are questioning leftists. Whom they write about may be different, however similar to you they see that journalism has been not as balanced as it should be:

    “….Spain has suffered the worst terrorist attack in Europe and it is in the crosshairs of every Islamic terrorist organization. As I wrote before, they kill us with cell phones hooked to satellites connected to the Middle Ages. And yet the Spanish left is the most anti Israeli in the world.

    And then it says it is anti Israeli because of solidarity. This is the madness I want to denounce.

    Conclusion:

    I am not Jewish. Ideologically I am left and by profession a journalist. Why am I not as anti Israeli as my colleagues? Because as a non-Jew I have the historical responsibility to fight against Jewish hatred and currently against the hatred for their historic homeland, Israel. To fight against anti-Semitism is not the duty of the Jews, it is the duty of the non-Jews.

    As a journalist it is my duty to search for the truth beyond prejudice, lies and manipulations. The truth about Israel is not told. As a person from the left who loves progress, I am obligated to defend liberty, culture, civic education for children, coexistence and the laws that the Tablets of the Covenant made into universal principles…..”
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9292

  21. If you can understand Spanish, this is that journalist’s website:

    http://www.pilarrahola.com/3_0/HOME/default.cfm

  22. This is her analysis:

    “…He speaks of the menace of Islamic fascism, which threatens, terrorizes, enslaves and kills. And his leftist companions accuse him of being Islamophobic and racist. He denounces the world’s passiveness in the face of the slavery of women, clitoral ablation, the use of children as bombs and terrorist fanaticism. And his left-wing comrades accuse him of being disrespectful of other cultures. Like myself and many others, Robert Redeker defends an Islam free of fanatics, dictators, terrorists and totalitarians. And our leftist comrades leave us alone to make that defense. He assumes, then, the moral responsibility of defending the Human Rights Charter against the encroachment of radical Islamism, which is the new totalitarian ideology the world is confronting. And our leftist comrades betray that very moral commitment. That is, we are in a moment of history which demands a firm defense of freedom. The left should lead that defense. Unfortunately, the left is not up to the moral commitment, which this historical moment requires.

    Why is this? What deeply rooted pathologies are causing the European left to back off from its moral commitment? Why are we not seeing demonstrations against Islamic dictatorships in Paris, London or Barcelona? Why are they not marching in the streets against the Burmese dictatorship? Why isn´t the left worried about the Iranian nuclear threat, when It wishes to export the islamo-fascim, and threats to destroy Israel. The Torah says: If your enemy “says” that he wants to destroy you, you must believe him… Why doesn´t the left believe?…”
    http://www.pilarrahola.com/3_0/CONFERENCIAS/default.cfm?ID=1420

  23. “Those who cannot attack the thought, instead attack the thinker.”

    (Paul Valery 1871-1945)

  24. We should wait no further and all hindus should unite and proclaim Sri Sri Ravishankar as the pope of Hinduism. Do you think if we call him Pope Pope Ravishankar it will sound good.

  25. What are you talking about Rasika?

  26. The goal is not a secret, and never has been:

    A map produced by one Islamic group:

  27. Opening up discussion for foreign policy:
    “Understanding other religions is a smart approach”
    http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/ramdas_lamb/2010/02/respecting_others_beliefs_is_an_important.html

  28. Advocate of freedom of speech for all regardless of who is offended, or just an anti-Muslim?

    “Why should a Danish newspaper apologise for republishing a drawing of a dead tradesman? ”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100027758/why-should-a-danish-newspaper-apologise-for-republishing-a-drawing-of-a-dead-tradesman/

  29. induism is again in danger Francois. Param Pujya Paramahamsa Nithyanandji is now targeted by the sun tv (missionary and atheists). they have filmed the great swan doing kamasutra with tamil actress. it is time you fought for his defence franciois. just like how you did when ramdevji mahar was accused of mixing human bone extracts in ayurvedic medicine. we need to save induism.
    Also param Pujya Nitanandaji was close to His holiness param pujya guruji sri sri ravishankarji, the guru of joy. sri sri ravishankarji also visited his tiruvannamali ashram and prayed there.
    http://www.dhyanapeetam.org/web/RavishankarVisit_Aug2009.asp
    We need to fight against the enemies. Tomorrow these people will attack the guru of joy and sri sri will also become pale and dull like paramahamsaji who has lost all bliss and lustre. he is now hiding in a mutt in mysore and taking sedatives to keep calm. the same should not happen to sri sri. remmember we also want to proclaim him as indooism’s pope.

  30. I prefer to follow the teachings of HH Sri Sri Ravi Shankar; (Founder of the AOL). Maybe, after the Project coming thru me by His (of HHSSRS) grace in Bihar materialises; the ‘intellectual’ assessments on Him might subside – but detractors (so called ‘intellectuals’) – analysing His greatness are sure to remain. What is required (the path shown by HHSSRS) is analysing why and how have we got Human Birth (in India) and how do we realise the purpose of our life. I am grateful to Guruji (HHSSRS) for taking my focus in this direction.

    Jai Gurudev.

  31. I guess lame sarcasm, instead of grown up civil discussion, is the best some people here can do. Gautier isn’t the one who looks bad, you do, Rasika. Your posts contribute nothing constructive and not sure why it gets posted. It is weird non sense, which for some reason is bizarrely focused on Shankar.

    It is good to have a variety of views, including those that oppose you, but Gautier, posts like hers adds very little. A calm thoughtful civil comment that presents a different view from yours would be worth reading. Not posts like that.

  32. Alternative - Atheists

    Perhaps atheists are ones who can help put secular liberal democracy, where freedom of speech is valued, back in charge:

  33. “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. ” Margart Thatcher

  34. The inept journalist after being found guilty of fascist views and being rejected by the liberal press, in utter confusion, looks for an answer. Someone mumbles to him about the mysterious and enchanting India, and like many a white skinned European he too sets off to this spiritual land to find inner peace. He comes and finds at his destination a people who have been trained to rever the light skinned sahib, and immediately starts feeling good about himself. He does see the utter poverty and chaos that surrounds him, but his inner self understands that he cant go back and this land is the best bet he has. Hence he entrenches himself here, leeching on the gullibility of the local popilation and starts penning down articles to expound the cause of the people who have welcomed him. In the end he writes and keep on writing, blinding himself to the truth, to keep himself alive in an utopian ideal. This is your story, Francois.

  35. muralidharan k

    Don’t worry We are with you. Moreover please
    remember the words of Shakespeare – “Fair is
    foul and foul is Fair” It seems to applicable to the entire things of the present world.

  36. The clash is growing between liberals/ secularists/feminists and radical aggressive religious minorities:

    “MONTREAL – As demonstrations go, the small protest in front of the cathedral in Trois Rivières on International Women’s Day two weeks ago went almost unnoticed.

    About 20 demonstrators with handwritten placards called on the Quebec government to stop accommodating religious minorities like Muslim women who wear the niqab – a face veil with a slit for the eyes.

    It’s time to stop tolerating religious practices “that pollute our society and deny the principle of equality between men and women,” said organizer Andréa Richard, 75, a former nun and author of two books harshly critical of organized religion.

    Richard called for a charter of “la laïcité” that would make Quebec an officially secular state.

    Another demonstrator seconded the proposal: André Drouin, the former town councillor from Hérouxville – population 1,200 – whose 2007 bylaw banning the stoning of women sparked a furor over the accommodation of minorities and led to the Bouchard-Taylor Commission.

    “In Quebec, 85 per cent of people don’t want religious accommodation,” Drouin, 62, a retired engineer who has been promoting his views to audiences across Canada, said in an interview this week….Quebec is ready for secularism,” said Richard, who founded a pressure group called Citizens of the World two weeks ago. People are tired of “accommodating this one and accommodating that one,” she said….

    …In the National Assembly, the PQ has hammered relentlessly at the Liberal government to adopt a charter of secularism….

    …”Bottom line, it’s a problem with a new religious community, which is Islam,” he said….

    Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Quebecers+rally+secularism+agenda/2706835/story.html#ixzz0nfpjyJJs

  37. Belgium – same tensions with liberals/secularists/feminists:

    Belgium ban burka type dress (Assoc. Press)
    “BRUSSELS — Belgium’s lower house of parliament on Thursday banned burqa-type Islamic dress in public, but the measure faces a challenge in the Senate which will delay early enactment of the law.

    Christian Democrats and Liberals in the Senate questioned the phrasing of the law, which holds no one can appear in public “with the face fully or partly covered so as to render them no longer recognizable.”

    Following the fall of Premier Yves Leterme’s government April 22, Belgium faces early elections that may delay passage of the Belgian anti-burqa ban – Europe’s first – by several months. Both houses of parliament must approve the bill.

    Approval in the lower house was almost unanimous.

    Like elsewhere in Europe, Belgium struggles with anxieties that visible signs of Islam erode national identity and that women in traditional conservative Islamic dress, such as the burqa, the chador and the niqab, signal a refusal to assimilate in western society.

    The law’s author, Daniel Bacquelaine, a Liberal, said a burqa is incompatible with basic security as everyone in public must be recognizable and clashes with the principles of an emancipated society that respects the rights of all….”

  38. CHRISTIAN TERROR WANTS TO DESTROY INDIA
    Interview of a Christian Evangelist in India

    By: Bandyopadhyay Arindam
    The world today could have been a much better place for all of us, had we all refrained from trying to prove the superiority of our own religion………..

    This is an interview of “Father Johnson’ after his award by the Government of India for his exemplary work in India in enlightening the people in the path of the ONLY God. Father Johnson returned to the USA after 10 years of service, to uplift the people of India in the name of God. The interview was taken in July 2005 by a journalist in Houston, USA……

    Welcome home Father. You have been in India for 10 years, where “our mission’ is still going on. Tell me Father, how is India?

    India is a fascinating country, a land of contrasts. Modern India is the largest democracy, the budding economic superpower, with the second-largest pool of scientists and engineers in the world. India is also the only surviving ancient civilization with over one sixth of the world population. At one time, not so long ago, when Europe was in the “dark ages’ and America was not even “discovered’, India was a far advanced and developed country with a contribution of over 25% of world GDP till the 17th century and far advanced in all aspects of life, be it knowledge, philosophy, science, mathematics, arts, astronomy or navigation.

    Ella Wheeler Wilcox, (1850-1919), American poet and journalist, wrote “India – The land of Vedas, the remarkable works contain not only religious ideas for a perfect life, but also facts which science has proved true. Electricity, radium, electronics, airship, all were known to the seers who founded the Vedas.”

    Dick Teresi, American author of “Lost Discoveries’ mentioned “Some one thousand years before Aristotle, the Vedic people asserted that the earth was round and circled the sun….Two thousand years before Pythagoras, philosophers in northern India had understood that gravitation held the solar system together, and that therefore the sun, the most massive object, had to be at its center….Twenty-four centuries before Isaac Newton, the Hindu Rig-Veda asserted that gravitation held the universe together….. The Sanskrit speaking people subscribed to the idea of a spherical earth in an era when the Greeks believed in a flat one…..The Indians of the fifth century A.D. calculated the age of the earth as 4.3 billion years; scientists in 19th century England were convinced it was 100 million years…”

    Despite all its riches, history says that India never invaded any country. On the contrary, India has been repeatedly assaulted and conquered by numerous invaders and has been ruled by “foreigners’, first the Muslims and then the British for over a thousand years. India, before the advent of the British rulers, was a rich and prosperous country.
    Rev. Jabez T. Sunderland (1842-1936), Unitarian minister and reformer, wrote that “…when the British first appeared on the scene, India was one of the richest countries of the world; indeed, it was her great riches that attracted the British to her shores. For 2,500 years before the British came on the scene and robbed her of her freedom, India was self-ruling and one of the most influential and illustrious nations of the world ….. This wealth was created by the Hindus’ vast and varied industries.”

    What about Hinduism as a religion?

    Hinduism has a deep philosophical and spiritual heritage that has repeatedly mesmerized the world including western scientists, leaders and philosophers. Despite propaganda to the contrary, Hindus, like us, believes in one Supreme God but they do so in many forms, that helps to develop personalized relations. Hinduism is the oldest major religion in the earth with 900 million followers. Unlike monotheistic institutionalized, religions like Judaism, Islam or Christianity, it is not based on any single prophet or scripture, but allows its followers all the freedom to pursue God and Truth in their own way, while living harmoniously with all creation.

    We know that the Hindus are tolerant of other religions. Recently, UNESCO pointed out that out of 128 countries where Jews lived before Israel was created, only one, India, did not persecute them and allowed them to prosper and practice Judaism in peace. Similarly the Zoroastrians, when driven out of Persia by Islam were given shelter by the Hindus in India and still coexist in India peacefully. Very recently, the Dalai Lama, driven from Buddhist Tibet, has been accepted with open arms. Such is the ethos of Hinduism and India.

    I have heard that Mark Twain once said that “In religion all other countries are paupers; India is the only millionaire’. I have also read Arnold Toynbee’s writing “…at the religious level, India has not been a recipient; she has been a giver. About half the total number of the living, higher religions are of Indian origin’. What do you think about it?

    We know India gave birth to religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism. Hinduism, though the predominant religion, has, to quote Aldous Huxley, “never been a persecuting faith, have preached almost no holy wars and have refrained from that proselytizing religious imperialism which has gone hand in hand with political and economic oppression of colored people.’

    What many do not know and I will not elaborate further for obvious reasons, is that there are researchers who think that the teachings of Jesus Christ have something to do with the ancient wisdom of Vedas. The Hindu concepts of “karma’, and “reincarnation’, which are part of the New Age Movement that we see today, were not unknown to Jesus.

    Then Father, why do we need to convert people in India?

    You see, we in the western world, have the “white man’s burden’ of civilizing the rest of the world. We also have the need and desire to spread the message of Christ, since we believe that it is the ONLY way to salvation and all other nonbelievers will go to hell. The faith in Christianity is being eroded in Europe and America. That is why our Pope on his visit to India said, “Just as in the first millennium, the Cross was planted on the soil of Europe, and in the second on that of the Americas and Africa, we can pray that in the third Christian millennium a great harvest of faith will be reaped in this vast and vital continent.’

    Why do you target India?

    India is the right country because Hindu Indians are generally peace-loving tolerant, law abiding people who are truthful and virtuous. India”s devotion to being good rather than being clever comes nearer the heart of a true civilization, said W. J. Grant, in his book,
    “The spirit of India’. The unsuspecting Indians have always welcomed everybody on their shore and still keep on doing so. You cannot say the same about a Muslim country or of communist China. You see Hindus are such naive – they go out of their way to say that “all religions are same – they all lead to God’. Christians and for that matter, no other religion, says that.

    Where does your resource come from?

    There are five major aid-giving countries, viz., USA, Germany, Britain, Italy and the Netherlands. According to the available data, in the last decade alone, foreign aid organizations received more than 2.5 billion dollars. This is only official statistics. According to the record and report of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the statistics about the foreign aid being received by Indian Non Government Organizations shows that 80% of it is meant only for the Christian organizations that have been buying their ways into the Indian society and converting unsuspecting people under the guise of social service.

    How powerful is Christianity in India?

    Oh, though we are only 2.4% of the population officially, we have a large control over the country because of our economic invasion. You see, the present leader of the main political party-The Congress Party of India is a Roman Catholic with close contact with the Vatican. There are Christian Chief ministers in 5 out of 29 states. Because of the British rule of India, we have a large section of the leaders of India who look up to us. Believe me, we are the second largest land owners in India. We own and control 80% of the Indian media like NDTV 24*7, CNN-IBN ,AAJ TAK, THE TEHELKA etc and newspapers .The best example is how these media made a huge hue and cry over the Gujarat riots.Riots have happened everywhere in India.But in case of Gujarat riots, the reports were deliberately inflated,stories were built up and a systematic,planned malicious and slanderous campaign was launched against the NDA government.
    Inspite of the fact that India took giant leaps in progress in every field and there was a surge in National pride and self confidence for every Indian during their tenure,India’s Most Popular Government led by India’s Finest Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was made to suffer shock defeat. We overtly or covertly have alliance with key political associations. So it is very easy for us to influence the right people.

    You must have a very organized system?

    Yes, we do. Have you heard about the Joshua Project? It identifies and highlights the people groups of the world that have the least exposure to the Gospel and the least Christian presence and shares this information to encourage pioneer church-planting movements among every ethnic group. The Joshua Project has identified the North India Hindi belt as “the core of the core of the core” because of its population density (40% of the Indian population- the states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh lies in this region); it is the religious hub of India; and it has the smallest Christian presence in India. Thus detailed plans have been drawn up to target India’s 75,000 Pin Codes.

    The Seventh Day Adventists owes its Indian success to Canadian evangelist Ron Watts, President for the South Asian Division. When he entered India, in 1997, the Adventist Church had 225,000 members after 103 years of operations. In five years, he took it to 700,000.

    Some methods used include the 10-Village and the 25-Village Programs, which involve five sets of laymen, under guidance from a regular pastor, who identify 10 or 25 villages in close proximity. Once the villages were selected, the teams would approach the leaders of each village and invite them to send two leaders to a 10-day seminar at a nearby resort, at the organization’s expense. It is before no time that the local leaders will then start working for our faith and organization. In 1998, there were seventeen 10-Village Programs and 9,337 were baptized. In 1999, forty programs were held and nearly 40,000 people baptized.
    Under the Christian Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y. Samuel Rajashekar Reddy, the Adventists shifted to a 50-village plan. They began baptizing at the rate of 10,000 persons per month and have increased it to 5,000 persons per day all over India.

    The US-based Maranatha Volunteers International provides buildings for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They are committed to build 750 churches in 2 years in India. The Oregon based, Fjarli family have a goal to build 1000 churches at a rate of 1 per day.

    How do you carry out conversion attempts?

    You see the local people are so simple and naïve that they do not have any clue as what out motive or means are. We target mostly the poor, illiterate, tribal people because they are the easiest to convert. We do that by various means – we establish schools, hospitals that overtly or subtly promote our faith, we allure them with money or goods to the needy when they convert, we “stage’ miracle cures, we use our influence on the media, we use our experts in propaganda, we promote the influential people and so on. We use the money sent to us by unsuspecting religious and faithful Christians from all over the world. We have numerous NGO and AID organizations to funnel the money into the country. There are a great number of missionaries of various denominations who are working there, all literally competing for the most number of converts. The Southern Baptists alone are a group that has nearly 100,000 career missionaries in North India, all working to spread our “good word.”

    We convince the “natives’ by our appearances and even use their own culture. A native converted person will continue to use his Hindu name so as not to alienate himself. Some of the numerous Catholic priests in Southern India dress like “sannyasis’ (monks), and call their organizations “ashramas’ (hermitage). This is to make Christianity more similar to the Vedic traditions. Bharat Natyam, the classical dance of India, is also taught in the Christian schools, but with Christian symbols and meanings replacing the Vedic. This is all in the attempt to actively sway Hindus over to Christianity. The Evangelical Church of India (ECI), established in 1954, targets the slums, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, in cities and villages. Its logo depicts a cross struck deep in a lotus, the seat of Hindu divinity.

    Is the so called caste system in India an advantage?

    The “Caste-ism in India’ is a boon to us. Though Varna or caste was once an essential part of the culture, based on occupation and vocational skills, which kept the civilization going for over 5000 years, caste-ism is a degenerated socio-political system now that has been declared illegal. However it is one big weapon against Hinduism. We have learnt from the colonial British that it is very easy to divide the population on the basis of caste and religion based politics and we use it to our own interest to the maximum. We join the anti-Hindu forces and help to keep the stigma of caste-ism alive for our own benefit. We target the “untouchables’ (the unprivileged people, that has so marvelously crafted to be a result of the Hindu religion and not the social system) and convert them in the lure of “liberating’ them. However I must confess that we maintain their “untouchability’ by not allowing them to mix with the general Christians, maintaining separate entry to churches and even giving them separate churches and cemeteries.

    We also use opportunities that God gives us. During natural disasters like floods, earthquakes and the recent Tsunami, taking advantage of the need, we were able to convert successfully entire low caste villages in Tamil Nadu to Christianity with the lure of money and aid.

    How successful are you in your conversion attempts.

    Oh we are doing a good job. The Northeast Indian states like Assam, Nagaland, and Manipur, have witnessed a surge of nearly 200% in their Christian population in the past 25 years.
    Their grasp is so strong now that practicing Hinduism is forbidden in some areas. Hindus can no longer do worship or “puja’ in the open because of our influence.
    In another northeast state, Tripura, where there were no Christians at the time of India’s independence, 55 years ago, there are now over 120,000 today. The figures are even more striking in Arunachal Pradesh, where there were only 1710 Christians in 1961, but over 1 million today, along with over 780 churches. In the southern state of Andhra Pradesh, churches are coming-up every day in far flung villages and there is an attempt to set-up one near Tirupati, the world famous Hindu temple. Many of the North-East separatist movements, such as the Mizo or the Bodos, are not only Christian dominated, but also sometimes function with the covert backing of the missionaries. Christian Nagaland terrorists have been killing non-Christians for decades on end. More than 20,000 people have lost their lives to insurgency in Assam and Manipur in the past two decades. We understand that there are some social problems that crept up – the northeast states are the highest in India in terms of drugs and AIDS related problem – but we accept that as “casualties of war” –that should not deter us from our goal.

    Do you face any resistance?

    Of course we do. But we brand any resistance as “Hindu fundamentalism or militancy” and the media and our favorite leaders take care of the rest. We have set the mind of the unsuspecting population in a way, that whenever any of our people are harassed, attacked or killed, from any reason including their own faults, the blame automatically goes to these so called “Hindu fundamentalist and Communal Elements” and even though almost all of these instances are later proved to have nothing to do with these Hindu groups, the initial hue and cry that is raised makes sure the memories persist in the mind of the populace and the sympathy stays with us. There are instances when nuns have been proved to be raped by Christians, but the blames continues to stay with the Hindus.

    Is there any legal barrier?

    Yes there are some rules and laws that sometimes impair our activities. The Indian Supreme Court had declared that: “The right to propagate religion does not mean the right to convert… Conversion done under allurement, use of force and fraud in which the poverty or ignorance of the individual is taken advantage of, is not only undemocratic but also unconstitutional…Respect for all religions is the foundation of secularism whereas the seeds of conversion lie in religious intolerance.”. Anti conversion laws have been passed in various states. But as I said, we have our ways.

    Sometimes the law does get us though. We had some instances where members of our faith have been convicted with resultant imprisonment or expulsion. As in churches all over the world, some clergymen have been penalized for cases of sexual exploitation, including pedophilia. But that does not deter us from our goal and our almighty Lord takes care of our soul.

    How satisfied are you with the progress of the missions?

    It is really satisfying. We find enormous pleasure in converting the Hindu “pagans’. However I wish we could do more. I wish I could say like St Francis Xavier, during the Goa Inquisition in 1560, “When I have finished baptizing the people, I order them to destroy the huts in which they keep their idols; and I have them break the statues of their idols into tiny pieces, since they are now Christians. I could never come to an end describing to you the great consolation which fills my soul when I see idols being destroyed by the hands of those who had been idolaters.”

    Thank you, Father for your time and honesty.
    Thank you, my son. God bless you.

    Epilogue

    “Christianity offers nothing that is not already available somewhere in the many forms of Hinduism. Hinduism never rejected the teachings of Jesus. Those who have converted either agreed with a gun pressed at their skulls as in Goa, or because it provided an escape from caste tyranny, as well as a guaranteed professional advancement. Through its Vedic legacy, Hinduism respects all faiths. It clearly states that God is one, but has many forms”.
    (Paul William Roberts, author of, “Empire of the Soul: Some journeys in India’)

  39. Buddhism and Islam:
    From Islam’s War Against Buddhism:
    “I feel, through my direct experiences of it, that Islam has not changed its ways in the least. In fact it has become more aggressive now than at any time since its period of greatest expansion in the 900s to the 1200s.

    “Modern” Islam seeks to return humanity to those very same times – a revival of the dark ages of Islamic slaughter, mayhem, and pillage – all in the name of Allah.

    We Buddhists must realize that we, and our cherished practices, would be swept away entirely and crushed utterly, should Islam ever gain ascendancy in this world in which we live. Islam is the only belief that propagates itself thus – by the sword.

    And it is very patient.”

    “Bangladesh and Pakistan – the destruction of Buddhism and Hinduism
    To make matters worse both Bangladesh and Pakistan would witness the gradual Islamization of their societies, notably Pakistan, and massive corruption and persecution of women would continue. The Islamization of both nations was especially traumatic for Hindus in Pakistan and Buddhists in Bangladesh…

    For unlike the destruction of Buddhism in Afghanistan, which happened centuries earlier because of Islamic conquests, persecution and controlling all leverages of power; the Islamization of Bangladesh and Pakistan took place in the twentieth century and continues today. Yet why were Buddhism and Hinduism being allowed to be destroyed in both nations? After all, Buddhists in Bangladesh were a small minority and they could never threaten Islam; the same applies to Hindus in Pakistan…

    Dhimmi and Harbi
    Islam divides people into two antagonistic groups – Muslims (collectively known as the Ummah) versus Kaffirs (aka Kufr, Kuffars, Infidels or non-believers).

    Kaffirs are subdivided further – Jews and Christians who accept the supremacy of Islam are known as Dhimmis, and are allowed to live as second-class citizens, provided they pay the extortionate Jizya (infidel tax) to their Muslim masters. The state of being a submissive Dhimmi is known as Dhimmitude.

    Buddhists, Pagans and members of all other ‘non-Abrahamic’ religions, together with secularists, and those Jews and Christians who do not accept Muslim domination, are regarded as Harbis – targets of war. (However ultimately ALL Jews, even those who live submissively under Islamic domination, will be exterminated. )

    Islam is at permanent war with Harbis, even if the Harbis don’t actually do anything to annoy Muslims. The Harbis’ mere existence is itself an act of war. A Harbi has no rights, not even the right to live.

    Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam
    Areas under Muslim control are known as Dar al-Islam. Areas under Harbi control are known as Dar al-Harb – the domain of war. The Koran commands Muslims to wage perpetual war (Jihad) against Dar al-Harb until the entire world is Dar al-Islam. These attacks are ordained by Allah and are non-negotiable in the long term, though the practice of taqiyya (holy deception) allows temporary deceptive peace agreements (’Hudna’) to be made if the forces of Islam are too weak to attack the Harbis successfully.

    Buddhists as Harbis
    Buddhists have always been favorite targets because:

    (1) The Koran (Surah 9, ayah 5) commands that polytheists and idolaters should be murdered wherever they are found. Buddhist statues and icons provided the perfect excuse for a bloodbath. Modern Muslims continue to believe that since Buddhists are not monotheists they must be forced to convert to Islam or be killed.

    (2) Being pacifists, Buddhists were unable to defend themselves…. ” http://seanrobsville.blogspot.com/2009/12/what-buddhists-and-pagans-need-to-know.html

  40. April, 2007 Wall Street Journel article, former Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group member, now Muslim reformer Dr. Tawfik Hamidis said:

    “It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the “end of days.” The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.

    “The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. …

    “Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand–but so far haven’t–that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered “moderates.” …

    “Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism.”
    http://www.tawfikhamid.com/opt-eds/

  41. John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States:
    “In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he [Muhammad] connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam’s capital letters)….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”

  42. John Quincy Adams:
    “The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.”

    Benjamin Franklin:
    “Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book [the Quran] forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.”

    John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on July 16, 1814, reveals John Adams’ true feelings about Islam: Adams states that Mohammed is “a military fanatic” who “denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.”
    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/no-professor-ahmed-the-founders-were-not-so-fond-of-islam/?singlepage=true

  43. Muhammad wrote to the kings of Oman:
    ‘Embrace Islam and you shall be safe… If you submit to Islam, you will remain kings, but if you abstain, your rule will be removed and my horses will enter your arena to prove my prophecy.’

    Caliph Omar demanding submission to Islam, he wrote to the Shah of Iran:
    Worship Allah the creator of the world. Worship Allah and accept Islam as the path of salvation. End now your polytheistic ways and become Muslims that you may accept Allah-u-Akbar as your savior. This is the only way of securing your own survival and the peace of your Persians. You will do this if you know what is good for you and for your Persians. Submission is your only option.

    Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini:
    Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those people are witless. Islam says: ‘Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!’ Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by the infidel? Islam says: ‘Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter them.’ Islam says: ‘Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword.’ The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war?
    I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

    Yusuf al-Qaradawi:
    The Muslims conquered Constantinople, where Eastern Christianity is situated, and in the future, a mighty king will arise for the Muslims; through him, Islam will spread and Rome will be conquered. We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians, who carve crosses on the breasts of the Muslims in Kosovo – and before then in Bosnia, and before then in many places in the world – will yet pay us the Jiziya, in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam…”

    Syed Abul A’ala Maududi:
    It must now be obvious that the objective of the Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system, and establish in its place an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine his rule to a single state or a hand full of countries. The aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution. Although in the initial stages, it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to carry out a revolution in the state system of the countries to which they belong; their ultimate objective is none other than world revolution.
    Human relations are so integrated that no state can have complete freedom of action under its principles unless the same principles are not in force in a neighbouring country. Therefore, a, ‘Muslim Party’ will not be content with the establishment of Islam in just one area alone –both for its own safety and for general reform. It should try and expand in all directions. On one hand it will spread its ideology; on the other it will invite people of all nations to accept its creed, for salvation lies only therein. If this Islamic state has power and resources it will fight and destroy non-Islamic governments and establish Islamic states in their place.

    Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi:
    At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. ”We have sent you forth to all mankind” (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (dawa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the dawa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam. Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Quranic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of “opening” the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Quran and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the dawa, are blamed for this state of war, for the dawa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is temporary truce (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of temporary).

  44. “Bring Back Islam’s Mutazilite “Golden Age”?
    September 4th, 2010 by Andrew Bostom

    Ignaz Goldziher (d. 1921) on the Mutazilite revisionism of his era:

    Authors of sophistic fantasies about hypothetical developments in Islam at times draw pictures of how salutary it would have been to the evolution of Islam if the Mutazila had successfully risen to spiritual dominance…

    Currently (see here, reviewed 9/2/10 at The National Review Online), the Mutazilites, typified by the Abbasid Muslim rulers al-Mamun (r. 813-833) and al-Mutasim (r. 833-842) are being lionized as avatars of the kind of “rationalist freethinking” which might have spared both Muslims and non-Muslims from the consequences of traditionalist Islamic irredentism. These views are a contemporary re-packaging of idealized portrayals initially put forth by Heinrich Steiner in 1865, and reiterated afterward by late 19th and early 20th writers. All such romantic and apologetic portrayals—past and present—maintain the Mutazilites were “liberal” rationalists and freethinkers.

    But these roseate characterizations are grossly oversimplified, and ahistorical. The Mutazilites were pious Muslims motivated by Islamic religious concerns, first and foremost. The wistful projection of “Mutazilism” as a “squandered” modernizing force for Islam is an untenable hypothesis, debunked long ago by Ignaz Goldziher, one of the pre-eminent Western scholars of Islam.

    Goldziher acknowledges the “one salutary consequence” of the Mutazilites ruthless endeavors was bringing “aql,” reason, “..to bear upon questions of belief.” But he also demonstrated that the Mutazilites exhibited no real manifestation of liberated thinking, or any desire “…to throw off chafing shackles, to the detriment of the rigorously orthodox [Islamic] view of life.” Moreover, the Mutazilites’ own orthodoxy was accompanied by fanatical intolerance—they orchestrated the “Mihna”, or Muslim Inquisition under their brutal 9th century reign during the Abbasid-Baghdadian Caliphate.

    [p. 98] The Caliph al-Mamun…acting as kind of high priest of the state, ordered his subjects, under pain of sever punishments, to adopt the belief in the created Koran. His successor al-Mutassim, followed in his footsteps. Orthodox theologians and those who refused to make open declaration of their position were subjected to harassment, imprisonment, and torture. Docile qadis and other religious authorities ready to assume the office of inquisitors, in order to vex and persecute the stiff-necked supporters of the orthodox view, and also those who were not sufficiently unambivalent in declaring themselves for belief in the created Koran, the sole belief in which salvation lay.

    [p. 101] [T]hey were intolerant in the extreme. A tendency to intolerance lies in the nature of the endeavor to frame religious belief in dogma. During the reign of the three Abbasid caliphs, when the Mutazilites were fortunate enough to have their doctrines recognized as state dogma, those doctrines were urged by means of inquisition, imprisonment, and terror…

    And Goldziher has also shown how the Mutazilites advocated jihad in all realms where their doctrine was not ascendant, while being fully prepared to assassinate those who refused to abide their formulations.

    [p. 102] How some of them [the Mutazilites] envisioned matters appears, for instance, from the teachings of Hisham al-Fuwati, one of the most radical opponents of the admissibility of divine attributes and predestination: “He considered it permissible to assassinate those who rejected his doctrines, and to lay hands on their property in violence or in secrecy; for they were unbelievers and their lives and goods were free for all to take.” These were naturally only theories from a schoolroom, but they weer followed out to the conclusion that territories in which the Mutazilite beliefes did not prevail were to be regarded as dar-al-harb, “lands of war.”

    H.S. Nyberg, summed up the Mutazilites more general call for jihad in his Encyclopedia of Islam essay (p. 605): “[T]he faith (Islam) must be spread by the tongue, the hand, and the sword.” Thus the Mutazilites jihadism was hardly confined to their internal Muslim antagonists. The Mutazilite Caliph Al-Mamun brutally subdued a Coptic Christian uprising in Lower Egypt, exterminating those who were not among the thousands enslaved and deported. (see, Bat Yeor’s, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, pp. 112; 131-2) And below is a prototypical example of a Mutazilite-led bloody jihad against the non-Muslim infidel in a neighboring area of the Dar al- Harb—Byzantine Christian Anatolia—written by the medieval chronicler Michael the Syrian. He is describing the 838 CE Muslim conquest of Amorium in Byzantine Anatolia (the current Turkish village of Hisarköy) by the Abbasid Mutazilite Caliph al-Mutasim, who succeeded Al-Mamun, and ruled from 833-42 (see, my The Legacy of Jihad, pp. 598-99):

    The sword of the Taiyaye [Arab Muslims] began the slaughter and heaped them up by piles; when their sword was drunk with blood, the order came to massacre no more, but to take the population captive and to lead it away. Then they pillaged the town. When the king entered to see the town, he admired the beautiful structure of the temples and palaces. As news came which worried him, he set the town on fire and burned it down. There were so many women’s convents and monasteries that over a thousand virgins were led into captivity, not counting those that had been slaughtered. They were given to the Moorish and Turkish slaves, so as to assuage their lust: glory to the incomprehensible judgments of God! . They burned all those who were hidden in houses or who had climbed up to the church galleries. When the booty from the town was collected in one place, the king, seeing that the population was very numerous, gave the order to kill four thousand men. He also gave the order to take away the fabrics and the gold, silver and bronze objects and the rest of the yield from the pillage. They also began to take away the population: and there was a clamor of lamentation from the women, men and children, when children were separated and removed from the arms of their parents; they shouted and howled.

    Pace the latest Mutazilite revisionism, Nyberg’s authoritative Encyclopedia of Islam entry (p. 601) states plainly,

    Nothing could be less justifiable than to regard the Mutazila as philosophers, freethinkers, or liberals. On the contrary, they are theologians of the strictest school; their ideal is dogmatic orthodoxy…

    However, Goldziher’s even more sobering conclusions (pp. 98,102-3), gleaned from informed, serious, and thoughtful analyses of their doctrine and history, merit particularly careful review.

    Authors of sophistic fantasies about hypothetical developments in Islam at times draw pictures of how salutary it would have been to the evolution of Islam if the Mutazila had successfully risen to spiritual dominance…

    It was truly a piece of good fortune for Islam that state patronage of this mentality was limited to the time of those three [Mutazilite] caliphs. How far would the Mutazilites have gone if the instruments and power of the state had been longer at the disposal of their intellectual faith!

    [T]he inquisitors of liberalism were, if possible, even more terrible than their literal-minded colleagues. In any case their fanaticism is more repugnant than that of their imprisoned and mistreated victims.

    Ignaz Goldziher’s sagacious words remind us that in our zealous desire for an Islamic Enlightenment we must not re-write past history as a prologue to perceived modern “solutions.” ”
    http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2010/09/04/bring-back-islam%E2%80%99s-mutazilite-%E2%80%9Cgolden-age%E2%80%9D/

  45. Respected Shri Francois Gautier ji,

    Namaste,
    Bharat Mata ki Jai.

    You are more of an Indian than I am. Hats off to you bhai saheb.

    I have been reading your articles since a very long time. We are sort of like minded and you seem to echo my every thought. You are verbalizing and putting in black and white – my cloudy thoughts.

    And yet, you present an unbiased picture in your approach. You love India. But still that infatuation does not seem to cloud your work. You have seen India for what it is and what it was and you are writing from that true understanding.

    It can be said that we Indians, and this is the sad part, are discovering the true India through your eyes. We have to be awakened by someone outside from India who knows and values our civilization and culture. Is not this unfortunate? And yet is your message reaching everyone? My earnest request – please increase your reach.

    Not only India, you have understood the world for what it is – then only you can truly understand where India fits in. It is in tune with this understanding that you write about the global Muslims, and particularly Indian Muslims. No doubt, you have a mind and an eye (and a soul, I should say), which all truly secular and global in outlook people should have (that is, not a narrow chauvinistic outlook).

    Shrimaan, please carry on your good work. May God guide you through your work and may your work reach the minds of humans, particularly that of we Indians, for whom it is meant – so that the vastness and richness that is Indian culture and civilization – is not devalued and depreciated in the coming years to come.

    Jai Hind.
    God Bless.

  46. R K Nagar Vasi

    Dear Francois: Thanks for taking the cudgels and speaking the truth. The main problem with Indians is Hypocrisy. I hail from Chennai and 30 years ago when I was speaking about Islam and its politcal agenda of the people who follow that faith, I was branded a “right winger” by my supple[spineless] friends who refused to see reason int he arguments that I had put forward. I had seen[in 1976] Missionaries preaching the virtues of Christianity in front of Mylapore, Kapaleeswarar Temple but would not dare to do the same thing in front of a mosque.
    Not offending others, conforming to society expectatons, no thaving courage to speak truth are the main problems. The moment you speak things as they are, people are branded as “strongly opinionated”. It appears one should not truth to be called “not strongly opinionated”. That is modern India! Thankfully, things are changing and the younger generations are lot more non conformist and that should bring about the change we are hoping for.

    Thank You again for your good work. believe me, I have read quite a few of your articles and no where, repeat no where, I have seen any biased view . God Bless You.

  47. Thank you for a wonderful article.

    Our patience is our biggest strength, people fail to recognize this simple fact. Hinduism has transited many a time turbulent time and thrived.

    This shall also pass.

    God Bless you.

  48. I am glad that I visited this blog. The sread of internet has facilitiated the awakening of people against the tyrrant and terrorist Islam. Jews talk about 6 million killed in nazi Holocaust tha why Hindus can’t build a Holocaust Museum in Delhi. Hindus must learn what happened to their ancestors and work together against the evil -Islam

  49. Dear FG, Please keep writing your thoughts, we need more people like you now than ever. Best Rgds, Amit

  50. “Tout va Très Bien Madame la Multiculturalisma
    France’s President Sarkozy has stated that multiculturalism has failed, insisting that Muslim immigrants merge into the “national community”. Germany’s Angela Merkel made virtually the same statement earlier at her party’s convention. British PM David Cameron went further saying that Islamism had taken root because multiculturalism had diminished a collective English identity. All three leaders are conservatives and language like this has been greeted with applause by their base. But there is really very little to cheer here.

    Announcing the failure of multiculturalism in Europe of 2011 is as relevant a disclosure as the comic French song, Tout Va Très Bien, Madame La Marquise, in which the groom informs her ladyship that her husband had committed suicide after losing his money and burned down the estate, by telling her that everything was alright except for a minor mishap with her horse. Multiculturalism may be the post-national left’s favorite nag, but the failure here is much greater. It is mass migration from the Muslim world that is the problem, and any policy that only addresses the consequences, rather than the cause, is bound to be a failure.

    Of the three leaders, Cameron was the only to lay out something close to a policy. But his muscular rhetoric sounds suspiciously like the pre-election Sarkozy. And conservative British pols have developed a habit of talking tough about Islam one minute, and pandering to it shamelessly for votes on the other. Before becoming Prime Minister, Cameron went to live with a Muslim family and announced that, “Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.”

    Has Cameron suddenly realized that the extended Muslim family with its rugs and hospitality masks less appetizing cultural problems, particularly when it comes to the treatment of women, or is he trying to stay ahead of a public backlash. Sarkozy certainly is. His popularity is low. Meanwhile LePen’s daughter is behind a revived party, without her father’s Nazi sympathies and anti-semitism, that may take away enough votes to make a difference. Merkel is also unpopular and needs a red meat issue that will distract the voters from Greece and Portugal. And so for all that European leaders are talking about the threat of Islamic separatism, and the Palestinization of Muslim communities with their No Go zones, honor killings and riots, they are still speaking the language of integration.

    Integration. Process the millions of Muslims through British, Germany and French schools and make sure that they know the national language, rather than the urban patois that has become the lingua franca of a changing Europe, showing up in rap albums and TV shows. Teach them how wonderfully tolerant we are, bridge the gap by celebrating their culture, and maybe even making room for a little Sharia law on the side. Tie the knot and there’ll be a happy integrated nation, which marries the Middle Eastern values of hospitality and the British values of not beheading your daughter.

    The problem with this new anthem of ‘Tout va Très Bien Madame la Multiculturalisma’ is that multiculturalism isn’t the problem, it’s the symptom. The British, French and German systems haven’t failed, they have had a chance of success. It would have been possible to integrate a few thousand Muslims per country, but not a few million. Certainly not people who have no definition of integration, and whose cultural and religious assumptions are so far apart that they cannot integrate without losing their identity.

    But even this need not have been a complete and absolute disaster. 3 million Nepalese might have made their own separate communities, as they have in towns such as Reading, without it leading to a civil war. The natives would have complained of the smells, the foreign languages and the strange signs. Of entire English towns in the hands of strangers. And it would have ended at that. But Muslims are a special case for three unfortunate reasons.

    First, they hold an enduring grievance toward Europe for everything over the last 1000 years. Considering the troubles in Northern Ireland between peoples far more closely related by culture and blood, who in their right mind thought that it would be a good idea to import millions of foreigners who still resent the loss of Spain, the Crusades and colonial governments with nearly equal ferocity, and imagined that it would all go smoothly.

    Second, their culture is tightly integrated with their religion, and their religion has a long history of expanding through conquest. A history both ancient and recent. It took enormous arrogance to import millions of members whose civilization still employs violence as a religiously sanctioned tool for promoting the faith, and then act as if they could be integrated with a good lesson plan.

    Third, many Muslim countries have enormous wealth and influence, and have used it to promote Islamism and tear down the defenses of Western nations. Imagine if the Soviet Union had possessed enormous oil wealth or if Japan in the 80’s had decided to use its wealth to aggressively promote a cultural takeover. That is what we are dealing with here.

    All this talk of integrating Muslims disregards them as a civilization, and treats them as if they were delinquents. Cameron’s talk of youth falling into extremism suggests that he thinks of them as if they were children from a broken home falling through the cracks of the system and shooting up heroin on council estates, rather than young men acting in accord with the values of their own religion.

    The Muslim terrorists of Europe are neither impoverished nor marginalized. They are doctors, architects and university students who have taken the full benefit of what the countries have to offer them, and gone to war to win it all. They are not brats acting out, but soldiers engaging in a war of conquest. A simple fact that all the integration prattle obscures.

    The difference between the so-called extremists and the moderates, is that the extremists want to conquer Europe by force, and the moderates through demographics and culture. The extremists want to blow up Europe. The moderates want to integrate it. And their lesson plans have gotten much further into the European, Canadian, Australian and American child– than the lesson plans of the Western integrators have into the Muslim child.

    Cameron has rightly identified a portion of the problem. But his solution is asinine. You do not create a vigorous culture worthy of respect by passing a law and making it so. A culture that merits respect can only be created by the measure of its accomplishments. The decline of English culture parallels the physical recession of the nation, its power, its industry and its achievements. (And that is a fair warning for America, which is headed down the same path at a slower pace.) A lesson plan on King Alfred the Great, will not make England great, and will not earn Muslim respect, let alone their integration. Most nations have their own grand histories and their own tales. But unless they still have greatness within them, these are nothing but matters of trivia.

    Talk all you want of greatness, but great nations colonize, they are not colonized. All a UK Muslim needs to do in order to gauge where the future lies is look at the native birth rate, at the Muslim birth rate and at the immigration statistics. And then he can safely relegate King Alfred the Great, Lord Nelson and Winston Churchill to the realm of obscure trivia from a vanishing nation. After all Byzantium too was great in its time, but now it’s a giant Muslim marketplace.

    The Middle East was once the cradle of civilization, today it is a heap of dirt with a smattering of oil, olive groves and vast dirty slum carrying the names of once legendary cities. The region was full of cultures and civilizations that were once great, before being trodden under the boots of maddened Bedouin fanatics. Today only two, the Jews and the Persians, exist as independent nations. And it would not take all that long to turn Europe into the new Middle East.

    The integrators imagine that they can halt that process with a reading of ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’ or by banning the burqa, but the tide of history is not turned so easily as that. The great men of England’s own history could tell Cameron that. It is not history that makes nations great, but the way in which they carry on that history into the present. The way in which they realize that history in the present day.

    Say what you will about Muslims, but they are realizing their history in Europe today. While they reenact the old battles, their foes are tempting them with social services funding. European governments want Muslims to join their republican secular states. Muslims want Europeans to join their caliphate. And it is not difficult to see who will win that particular contest if things go on as they are.

    Reporting the failure of multiculturalism is a touch of Tout Va Très Bien, Madame La Marquise by the integrators who are comically understating the scope and the nature of the problem. Europe’s problem is not multiculturalism, but that it has been invaded and it has forgotten how to fight back.” http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/02/tout-va-tres-bien-madame-la.html

  51. FYI:
    “Are YOU a Harbi?

    Islam divides people into two antagonistic groups – Muslims (collectively known as the Ummah) versus Kaffirs (aka Kufr, Kuffars, Infidels or non-believers).

    Kaffirs are subdivided further – Jews and Christians who accept the supremacy of Islam are known as Dhimmis, and are allowed to live as second-class citizens, provided they pay the extortionate Jizya (infidel tax) to their Muslim masters. However the Jews must be exterminated eventually before world Islamic domination can be achieved. Christians will then be kept as slaves, since somebody has to do the work.

    The state of being a submissive Dhimmi is known as Dhimmitude.

    Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Pagans and members of all other ‘non-Abrahamic’ religions, together with secularists, and those Jews and Christians who do not accept Muslim domination, are regarded as Harbis – targets of war.

    Islam is at permanent war with Harbis, even if the Harbis don’t actually do anything to annoy Muslims. The Harbis’ mere existence is itself an act of war. A Harbi has no rights, not even the right to live.

    Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam
    Areas under Muslim control are known as Dar al-Islam. Areas under Harbi control are known as Dar al-Harb – the domain of war. The Koran commands Muslims to wage perpetual war (Jihad) against Dar al-Harb until the entire world is Dar al-Islam. These attacks are ordained by Allah and are non-negotiable in the long term, though the practice of taqiyya (holy deception) allows temporary treacherous peace agreements (’Hudna’) to be made if the forces of Islam are too weak to attack the Harbis successfully.” http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/02/harbis-and-islam-harbi-has-no-right-to.html

  52. Thank you Sir for writing articles which most Indians don’t get to read in their history textbooks nevertheless they never learn from history and keep following stupid policies. I remember yours were first articles that motivated me to do more research on islamic barbarianism which destroyed Indian culture.

  53. “Caliphate, Jihad, Sharia: Now What?
    by Raymond Ibrahim
    March 8, 2011 at 4:30 am

    “Suppose you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Islam is constitutionally violent, where do you go from there?” This question was asked from the floor by Columbia professor Hamid Dabashi during a 2008 debate titled “Clash of Civilizations” (see first minute here). It came in response to an assertion that Islamists seek to resurrect the caliphate, and, according to the doctrine of offensive jihad, wage war—when and wherever expedient—to bring the world under Islamic rule.

    Today, as once arcane words — such as caliphate, jihad, sharia — become common place in the media; regularly evoked by politicians, and increasingly understood by Americans, Dabashi’s question returns.

    Ever since Egypt became a hot topic in the media, there has been no shortage of pundits warning against the Muslim Brotherhood; warning that an Islamist takeover in Egypt may have a domino effect in the region; warning that the ultimate goal of Islamists around the world is the resurrection of an imperialist and expansionist caliphate (see Andrew McCarthy’s recent article).

    The very existence of a caliphate would usher a state of constant hostility: Both historically and doctrinally, the caliphate is obligated to wage jihad, at least annually, to bring the “disbelieving” world under Islamic dominion and enforce sharia law. Most of what is today called the “Muslim world”—from Morocco to Pakistan—was conquered, bit by bit, by a caliphate begun in Arabia in 632.

    A caliphate represents a permanent, ideological enemy, not a temporal enemy that can be bought or pacified through diplomacy or concessions — economic or otherwise. Short of agreeing either to convert to Islam or live as second-class citizens, or “dhimmis” — who, among other indignities, must practice their religions quietly; pay a higher tax [jizyah]; give way to Muslims on the street; wear clothing that distinguishes them from Muslims, the start of the yellow star of David required for the Jews by the Nazis during World War II; have their testimony be worth half of a Muslim’s; and never retaliate against Muslim abuses—the jihad continues.

    A caliphate is precisely what Islamists around the world are feverishly seeking to establish — before people realize what it represents and try to prevent it. Without active, preemptive measures, it is only a matter of time before they succeed.

    Yet, as Western people begin to understand what is at stake, what exactly are their governments prepared to do about it — now, before the caliphate becomes a reality? Would the West be willing to launch a preemptive offensive — politically, legally, educationally, and, if necessary, militarily — if these were the only solutions to the establishment of a jihad-waging, sharia-enforcing caliphate? Would it go on the offensive without waiting until its enemies were strong so that by the time one realized what was happening it would be too late,, or would political correctness and pacifist inertia allow the Islamists to have their way?

    One can point as a precedent to the preemptive Iraq war, yet there are subtle and important differences. The rationale behind the Iraq war was practical and physical: the war had a limited goal — the elimination of suspected WMDs — and it was limited to a specific region and government (Saddam’s regime). War to prevent the creation of a caliphate, on the other hand, is impractical and abstract, not confined to one region nor limited to eliminating material weapons.

    The West, alarmingly, does not have a political history or language to justify an offensive against an ideological foe. The same international culture that saw to it that an autocrat like Egypt’s Mubarak stepped down — simply because he was handicapped from responding to the protestors in the name of human rights — certainly could not approve a preemptive offensive by the West articulated in terms of a religious threat.

    What if an important nation were to go Islamist, such as Egypt — a big domino in the quest of a caliphate? The Muslim Brotherhood pretends to be secular, recently removing its by-laws from the Web — bylaws that include its intention of creating an “Islamic state” as a prelude to the caliphate, as reported by Steven Emerson. Yet the Muslim Brotherhood’s forthright motto is: “Allah is our objective, the prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, jihad is our way, dying in the way of Allah our highest hope.”

    Worse, as Arab governments come crashing down, the Obama administration has made it clear that it is willing to engage the Islamists and permit the Muslim Brotherhood to participate in elections, even before institutions of democracy — such as rule of law, an independent judiciary, and above all, free speech and a free press — have developed.

    Likewise, a theocratic, eschatologically-driven Iran is on its way to possessing nuclear weapons — while the international community stands by.

    Now that Americans are becoming familiar with the perpetual and determined nature of its enemy — jihad, sharia, and the caliphate have a 1400-year legacy — who will take it to the next level by, not just highlighting the threat, but openly and boldly suggesting what steps the West needs to take to combat it, now and for the long haul? Where do you go from there?” http://www.raymondibrahim.com

  54. Other labeling you unfairly is probably more to do with them than you, and is a reflection of things that are happening in Europe.

    “Danish Islam Expert Tina Magaard Warns Prime Minister And Danish Secret Service

    Tina Magaard
    Danish Islam expert Tina Magaard warns Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen against extreme Islam appeasing ‘experts’, and any showing any sign of weakness in the face of Muslim demands for apologies.

    In sharp contrast to those ’experts on Islam’ the national TV stations favour and invite for comments, Tina Magaard explains without restraint about the very real and dangerous attempts of Islamists to impose a status of dhimmihood on non Muslims.
    Jyllands Posten 22 October 2006

    Danmark’s road to subjugation
    Religious extremism: Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has found a new way to deal with offense to Mohammed.

    This signals that Denmark is on it’s way to subjugate itself to an Islamic agenda, says Islam researcher Tina Magaard, who also criticises the Danish Secret Service (PET) and other experts on Islam.

    Original article By Pernille Ammitzbøll

    On the surface everything seems peaceful, after the threat of yet another international crises as a result of the video with the happy young members of the Danish People’s Party Youth.

    Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen seemed to have prevented a repeat of spring times Mohammed Cartoon Crises, by quickly distancing himself from the video.

    »This was a case of unacceptable behaviour from a small group of young people. Their tasteless conduct in no way represents the Danish people, or young Danish people’s view of Muslims or Islam,« he said.

    Kasem Said Ahmad – The islamic Faith Society Denmark – Islamic Extremist
    Kasem Ahmad – The Islamic Faith Association Denmark

    October 13 Kasem Ahmad interviewed on Danish TV after PM Rasmussen said he distanced himself from the Danish People’s Party Youth’ new Mohammed Cartoons.

    Kasem Ahmad: »I can see that there are more politicians who have understood our message, and we are getting help, eh there are more politicians who take our side. So that is really good.«

    Afterwards The Islamic Faith Association (Det Islamiske Trossamfund) in Denmark, represented by Kasem Ahmad and imam Abu Laban said that the issue was dead.

    »We are very satisfied with the way Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Chairman of the Danish People’s Party Pia Kjaersgaard have distanced them selves from the video. That was both wise and necessary, and we will take no further action.«

    Perhaps this fraternising has prevented a crises here and now, but Islam researcher Tina Magaard warns the Prime Minister against granting too many concessions to the The Islamic Faith Association, because that will be understood as if the ”Official Denmark” subjects itself to an Islamic agenda, which is about forcing Islamic rules over Danish society.

    PM Fogh Rasmussen in a dhimmi position

    With his statements the Prime Minister has written himself and the Danes in an Islamic theological framework, is her message.

    »This case has to be viewed from the viewpoint of the Islamic holy scriptures, that constitute the basic values for The Islamic Faith Association in Denmark, and for their political program. What Kasem Ahmad says now, is that now the Prime Minister is doing what we want him to do. In their eyes the Prime Minister has accepted a dhimmi position, by accepting him self to the rules a dhimmi must adhere to,« says Tina Magaard.

    She explains that a dhimma is a contract, which has been made by the Muslim rulers and the non Muslims in the areas which were conquered by these commanders. A dhimmi is one who has accepted this contract. Tina Magaard:

    »According to scriptures like the Koran verse 9.29, this means they have to subjugate to the Muslims. From a theological viewpoint, their has never been any reform in Islam, which has led to an acceptance that Jews and Christian can be human beings equal to Muslims«.

    Criticism of Islam is forbidden

    Submission also means that dhimmis will pay a tax ’jiyza’ to the rulers, and that the dhimmi also is socially and morally inferior to Muslims.

    »Another important element in the definition of dhimmi, is that dhimmis have limited freedom of speech. That means that the dhimmi can not criticise Islam or Muslims. It is a hierarchical relationship, where it is the Muslim who makes the rules. The Dhimmi never has the right to offend Muslims, and it is the Muslims alone who can define, when he has been offended,« thus Tina Magaard.

    »If you break this ’dhimma’ you and your possessions become halal. That is a juridical category which means that one is ’allowed’. That means that it is allowed to kill you. Flemming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands Posten was declared ’halal’ during the Cartoon Crises. The interesting thing to note here is that apparently already before the Mohammed Crises there were some who regarded Europe and Denmark as a part of the Islamic world, and therefore could pass sentence on Flemming Rose, as the dhimmi he would be if that were true.,« she says.

    In the Islamic holy scriptures Mohamed takes care of creating a common sphere of interest with a dhimmi-elite, who on his behalf keep down the criticism among the lower ranking common dhimmis.

    Today Tina Magaard thinks that the way the Danish Secret Service (PET) acted during and after the Mohammed Crises was a sign that the agency is starting to act as a dhimmi-elite.

    »The Danish Secret Service was praised by The Islamic Faith Association, and Danish Secret Service were praising the imams and credit them because there were no violent episodes in Denmark during the Mohamed Crises. This is a short sighted strategy, with the purpose of preventing terror here and now in Denmark. But the imams have a long term strategy for their cooperation with the Danish Secret Service. Little by little they will teach Danish Secret Service to think like them. Little by little the Danish Secret Service will start to think just like them. Bit by bit the Danish Secret Service will defend the interests of the imams.«

    Stop Islamisation

    Tina Magaard also refers to the association ‘Stop the Islamisation of Denmark’ (Stop Islamiseringen af Danmark, [SIAD]), which is no longer allowed to demonstrate close to immigrant quarters like Vollsmose (Odense), Noerrebro (Copenhagen) and Gellerup (Aarhus).

    »Whatever one may think of them, it is their constitutional right to demonstrate. When the Danish Secret Service (PET) is advising police precincts to disallow SIAD to demonstrate certain places in Denmark, the Danish Secret Service is sending a signal that they have a dhimmi-pact.«

    They are willing to forget the constitution and accept their duty of preventing the common dhimmis from criticising Islam.

    This is done because the Islamists have a violent potential at their disposal, and are negotiating with the Danish Secret Service. But this way the Danish Secret Service has handed part of the State monopoly on the use of force over to the imams. With their praise of the Prime Minister the Islamic Faith Association signals, that they now own part of the state monopoly of the use of force, when Kasem Ahmad has said that they now no longer will press their case in the Middle East and thereby will prevent more violent reactions«

    She is warning the Danish Secret Service not to further pursue this path.

    »If a new leadership in the Danish Secret Service (PET) wants to try to get some of that monopoly on the use of force back, they are likely to see a violent reaction, where it is thought to be legitimate and necessary to call for help from abroad. Just like their is no lower limit for when Muslims feel offended, there will be no upper limit to what kind of violence can be used. A little provoking, one could say, that if they break off their cooperation with the imams now, we may see a clash, yes, but this will demonstrate that we are not dhimmis, and we will be spared a much bigger clash in the future.«

    Much the same way, Tina Magaard thinks that the Prime Minister in stead of playing on the terms of the imams, he should rebuff them.

    »That agenda is a time bomb, Tina Magaard thinks. He should quote the concrete passages in the Islamic law books, and say, that dhimmis have restricted freedom of speech, and tell the imams that those laws do not apply in Denmark.«

    Tina Magaard, who holds a position at the University of Aarhus, also criticises research on Islam, where she sees examples that researchers, consciously or unconsciously take up a role of aides in favour of the demands of Islamists.

    As an example she mentions Islam researcher Joergen Baek Simonsen (Jørgen Bæk Simonsen) from, the Carsten Niebuhr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, who is an apologist for Abu Laban, and thereby has placed him self in an extreme position, Tina Magaard thinks.

    »Within the academic research of Islam Joergen Baek Simonsen represents a trend which very much resembles the way some people understood them selves during the Cold War.

    Then people accepted the ideological premises of the Soviet Union, defended the system, and tried to make it appear appetising for others who didn’t have the same positive attitude.

    It is the same attitude towards Islamists, we see every now and then among Islam researchers today.«

    That’s the reason why they do not wish to criticise the dhimmification of Christians and Jews, which has been going on during history, she thinks.

    »But it would be good, if the research on Islam in Denmark could be a little more inclusive, and let the story of the Middle-East also be told from the point of view of the dhimmi.

    That is the only way to raise awareness to the signs of the dhimmification that are manifesting them selves in Denmark.«” http://balder.org/muhammed/Danish-Islam-Expert-Tina-Magaard-Warns-Prime-Minister-And-Danish-Secret-Service.php

  55. “Wednesday, April 27, 2011
    No One Expects the Muslim Inquisition

    Monty Python may have surprised us with the Spanish Inquisition, but today there is hardly anyone who doesn’t expect the Muslim Inquisition. It is almost hard to imagine that there was a time not so long ago when it was possible to catch sight of Muslim terrorists in films and when it was permissible to crack jokes about Mohammed and the mountain.

    Today a few strokes of a pen can put you on the run, not in Islambad or Ridyah, but as far away as Seattle. And the mere whisper of a mosque protest can put you in a jail cell for ‘breach of peace’. Peace being another way of saying Islam.

    Ever since Mohammed couched his demand for surrender to the Byzantine Emperor with the words, ‘Aslim Taslam’– appeasing Muslims often comes gift wrapped as ‘peace’. From the ‘Peace Process’ that condemns Israel to carve itself up to appease Muslim terror, to Terry Jones planted in a Dearbornistan jail cell for ‘Breach of Peace’ on charges of plotting to exercise his Constitutional right to protest– the Religion of Peace finds ways to remind us that in the Islamic lexicon, peace is just another way of saying ‘submission’. As Mohammed told Heracilus back in the day, the only peace to be found is under the rule of Islam.

    Globalism, immigration and the internet have moved the blasphemy trial from the hinterlands of Islam to the rainy west coast. And it isn’t just a few mullahs in dark garb writing out their fatwas anymore. The clerics may write the fatwas, but more and more it’s the local justice departments of formerly free countries that enforce them. When a few angry Imams call for your head, you can always turn to the authorities for protection. But when the authorities are the ones calling for your head because you offended the imams– who do you turn to?

    … And the difference between Sharia law as practiced in the formerly free West, from the one practiced in the minaret ridden slums of the east is that Western authorities don’t lock away blasphemers because they believe that Mohammed was the final prophet of Allah and the Koran is his revelation to mankind. Rather they’re afraid of the murderous offense taken by those who do.

    It’s bad enough when Muslims enact laws to promote the supremacy of a religion that they believe in, but what do we make of Western authorities who don’t believe in their religion, but do abide by their definition of blasphemy. It’s awful to be persecuted for your beliefs by authorities whose beliefs are at variance with yours, but even worse to be persecuted by authorities who believe in nothing at all. If Muslims have faith in Allah, they have faith in their own power to jail those who might give Muslims an excuse for kicking up a violent fuss.

    Some call it the heckler’s veto, but it’s more like the Heckler and Koch veto. If the authorities were afraid of riots in the 60’s, now they’re afraid of massacres. And it’s easier to put on the Dhimmi and pay out the Danegeld, than to stand up to the religion of the machine gun and the faith of the suicide bomb.

    British authorities kept an open door and a warm meal ready for the friendless Islamist so as not to offend Muslims for fear of terror. In return, the civic leaders of Londonistan were rewarded with the 7/7 attacks. A bloody atrocity that did not in any way diminish the flow of bearded hostiles into Albion. After all, if this was how Muslims responded to not being offended, just imagine what they would do if you they really were offended.

    Now England has become a nation where you can be arrested for a bad karaoke rendition of Kung Fu Fighting, but where Islamists cheerfully sit on the dole like so many murderous partridges in a rotten pear tree, composing their hymns of jihad, burning poppies and proclaiming that the end is near in Luton. It is perfectly safe to arrest bad singers and ex-soldiers who touch a lighter to the pages of a Koran. At least from the perspective of the authorities. But arresting Muslims is so much more dangerous altogether.

    Spend enough time standing in line and you discover that there are two kinds of people. The kind who decide that lines may be uncomfortable, but they’ll have to wait in them just like everyone else. And the kind who decide that only suckers wait in line and muscle their way through with violent tantrums daring anyone to stop them. The first kind have adapted to the discomforts of civilization, the second kind treat them like sheep, confident that people willing to stand in line at a bureaucrat’s word don’t have what it takes to stop them. And much of the time they’re right.

    Muslims are the violent queue jumpers of civilization, their violent tantrums putting not the fear of Allah, but the fear of violent disorder into the guardians of civilizations. The fragile order of the urban centers, chock full of multiculturalism and resentment, depends on everyone respecting authority. That has become the chief duty of all forms of law enforcement. Not so much to prevent crime, but to keep everyone properly respectful of all laws and regulations.

    Most of the criticisms of the TSA miss the point. The blue shirted drones aren’t fondling air travelers for any other reason than because frightened and humiliated people are how incompetent systems assert their authority in the face of problems that they cannot afford to tackle. You can grope a 6 year old and the only thing you have to worry about is Drudge pageviews. But try singling out Muslims for a rational airline security policy and the bureaucrats who make the policies are certain it will only increase terror. Grope an imam or grope a 6 year old? It’s not a tough choice for the bureaucracy. It never is.

    From throwing elderly preachers in jail to firing employees for burning korans on their day off to groping children– the system is doing its best to protect itself from having to make difficult decisions. And the Muslim Inquisition has been outsourced to the overpaid employees of the modern socialist state. Their duty is not to serve or protect, but to keep the facade going for as long as possible.

    We live in a world run by the smirking embodiments of the Peter Principle, screwups who have leveraged a screwed up system to get to where they are. The hereditary monarchies that Mohammed confronted in his day, have nothing on the parade of hopeless buffoons who are at the wheel today, insisting that there is no such thing as deficit spending, carving up their sole aircraft carrier before going to war, and insisting that the only way to stop terror is by surrendering to it. The authorities aren’t mad, they’re powermad. Smart enough to find their niche of power and stupid enough to cling to it at all costs with safe decisions and boldly inoffensive rhetoric.

    The outsourcing of the Muslim Inquisition is now a depressing fact of life in the West. In the United States, the Constitution provides one last defense against the mandate of public order that has swept away the rights of citizen in Europe. But it is a defense unlikely to hold against the full tide. When the guardians of our public order insist that it is a choice between freedom of speech and dead soldiers in Afghanistan, you can expect that it won’t just be Justice Stephen Breyer burning the Constitution on his lonesome.

    There is a congruence between the public order mandate of the leaders of the declining west, and the imperative of the religion of peace. Both demand submission under the law. Not the law of men, but the law of systems. The law of the West has become the law of the system. A system that is more important than any law abiding individual in it. Maintaining the pretense that the system is working just fine is the sole duty of its administrators and advocates. It’s the slow bus version of Orwell’s Oceania, a system whose totalitarianism is offset only by its incompetence. Whose greatest secret is its own helplessness in the face of organized opposition.

    … As the line cutters of the West, Muslims have stumbled on the pathetic truth of the system. That it is every bit as weak as they were told. The system will buy them off with money, with privileges and by enforcing their doctrines against its own citizens. Everyone has learned to expect the Muslim Inquisition from the state, as sure as BBC license fees, the DMV and every other bureaucratic nightmare of oppressive incompetence. But they don’t always understand why.

    The ‘Why’ is because the system has a thorough contempt for its compliant citizenry and a deep seated fear of the arriving hordes of Muslim immigrants who will not comply and not obey. Its officers will browbeat and berate ordinary cooperative citizens, but treat Muslims with kid gloves for fear that they will stop “cooperating” with authorities. It will confiscate guns from Americans, but let Islamists with their armed training camps. It will toss anyone who might even think of offending a Muslim in jail for a ‘Breach of the Peace’, but let the Islamists run wild shrieking their hate. Burning a Koran is a criminal offense, but putting a lighter to the Constitution is the duty of the judiciary.

    The Blasphemy trial has left Pakistan for Londonistan and Lebanon for Dearborn, to be enforced by a system that would rather impose Islamic law on the peoples of the formerly free world, than admit that it has lost control over the consequences of its own immigration and social welfare policies.” – by Daniel Greenfield

  56. How slavery is permitted in Islam. Why so many Indians historically along with millions of others ended up being sold in Mid East markets:

    “Muslim Woman Seeks to Revitalize the Institution of Sex-Slavery
    Posted GMT 6-8-2011 1:47:20

    Last week witnessed popular Muslim preacher Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini boast about how Islam allows Muslims to buy and sell conquered infidel women, so that “When I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her.”

    This week’s depraved anachronism comes from a Muslim woman–political activist and former parliamentary candidate for Kuwait’s government, Salwa al-Mutairi: She, too, seeks to “revitalize the institution of sex-slavery.”

    A brief English summary appeared in the Kuwait Times (nothing, of course, in the MSM):

    Muslim men who fear being seduced or tempted into immoral behavior by the beauty of their female servants, or even of those servants “casting spells” on them, would be better to purchase women from an “enslaved maid” agency for sexual purposes. She [Mutairi] suggested that special offices could be set up to provide concubines in the same way as domestic staff recruitment agencies currently provide housemaids. “We want our youth to be protected from adultery,” said al-Mutairi, suggesting that these maids could be brought as prisoners of war in war-stricken nations like Chechnya to be sold on later to devout merchants.

    The Arabic news website, Al Arabiya, has the sordid details, including a video of Mutairi addressing the topic of sex-slavery. I summarize and translate various excerpts below (note: I am not making any of this up).

    The Kuwaiti activist begins by insisting that “it’s of course true” that “the prophet of Islam legitimized sex-slavery.” She recounts how when she was in Mecca, Islam’s holiest city, she asked various sheikhs and muftis (learned, authoritative Muslims) about the legality of sex-slavery according to Sharia: they all confirmed it to be perfectly legal; Kuwaiti ulema further pointed out that extra “virile” men–Western synonymous include “lecherous,” “perverted,” “lust-driven”–would do well to purchase sex-slaves to sate their appetites without sinning.

    Here’s a particularly interesting excerpt from her taped speech on the rules governing sex-slaves:

    A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state–sorry, I mean any non-Muslim state–and they [the women, the future sex-slaves] must be captives of the raid [i.e., jihad]. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex slaves are not at all forbidden. Quite the contrary, the rules regulating sex-slaves differ from those for free women [i.e., Muslim women]: the latter’s body must be covered entirely, except for her face and hands, whereas the sex-slave is kept naked from the bellybutton on up–she is different from the free woman; the free woman has to be married properly to her husband, but the sex-slave–he just buys her and that’s that. So the sex-slave is different from the free woman.

    She went on to offer concrete suggestions: “For example, in the Chechnyan war, of course there are female Russian captives. So go and buy those and sell them here in Kuwait; better that than for the men to engage in forbidden sexual relations. I don’t see any problem in this, no problem at all.”

    Mutairi suggests sex-slaves be at least 15 years-old.

    She further justified the institution of sex-slavery by evoking 8th century caliph, Harun Rashid–a name some may recall from bedtime stories out of the Thousand and One Nights; a name some may be surprised to discover politically active Muslims modeling their lives after:

    “And the greatest example we have is Harun al-Rashid: when he died, he had 2,000 sex slaves–so it’s okay, nothing wrong with it.”

    Her rationale is apparently guided by a sense of efficiency, a desire for the good of society: legalizing sex-slaves ultimately helps prevent Muslim men from sinning with Muslim women, and thus transgressing Allah’s laws; sex-slaves provide a convenient, Sharia-compliant way of satiating their libidinous urges.

    This approach has universal precedents. For example, in the West, some seek to legalize marijuana, arguing that many will use it anyway, and shouldn’t be punished for it by the law. In the Muslim world, we have those who seek to legalize sex-slavery, arguing that many men can’t get enough women, and shouldn’t be punished for it by Allah.

    Such are the “nuanced” differences between the Western mindset (based on reason and universal rights) and the Sharia mindset (based on the commands of a 7th century Arabian warlord).

    Mutairi concluded by piously supplicating Allah: “Oh I truly wish this for Kuwait, Allah willing–Oh Lord, Lord, you are bountiful.”

    While she waits, Mutairi can take solace in the fact that, if sex-slavery is not institutionalized in Kuwait, it thrives in the black markets of the Muslim world, where non-Muslim girls, especially Christians, are routinely abducted, enslaved, and forced into lives of unspeakable degradation.

    By Raymond Ibrahim “

  57. An Indian more than a Hindu

    Hindu fundamentalism??

    Fundamentalism is an easily discernable phenomenon in belief-oriented religions which have a simple and exclusive pattern to their faith. They generally insist that there is only One God, one true scripture, which is literally God’s Word. They hold that belief in this One God and his chief representative brings salvation in an eternal heaven and disbelief causes condemnation to an eternal hell.

    Fundamentalists are literalists in these traditions who hold rigidly to their beliefs and insist that since their religion alone is true the other religions should not be tolerated, particularly in the lands where members of their religion are in a majority. Fundamentalists generally hold to their religion’s older social customs and refuse to integrate into the broader stream of modern society which recognizes freedom of religious belief.

    Fundamentalism can usually be discriminated from orthodoxy in these traditions. Most orthodox Christians & Muslims tolerate those of other religious beliefs, though they may not agree with them, and are not involved in the militancy and social backwardness of fundamentalist groups. They usually have little trouble functioning in modern society, though they may keep to themselves in matters of religion and still regard that theirs is the only true religion.

    While the new media of the Western World, and of India itself, speaks of Hindu fundamentalism, no one appears to have really defined what it is. Is there a Hindu fundamentalism comparable to other religious fundamentalism? There is no monolithic faith called Hinduism with a set system of beliefs that all Hindus must follow which can be turned into such fundamentalism. Fundamentalist groups insist that theirs is the only true God and that all other Gods or names for God are wrong.

    A belief in God is not even necessary to be a Hindu, as such non-theistic Hindu systems as Sankhya reveal. For those who speak of Hindu fundamentalism, we must ask the question: What One God to Hindu fundamentalist groups insist upon is the only true God and which other Gods are they claiming are false except for him? If Hindus are not insisting upon the sole reality of the One Hindu God can they be called fundamentalists? The fundamentalists of other religion hold that their faith alone is true, and that Hinduism is religion of the devil.

    No Hindus – including so-called Hindu fundamentalists insist that there is only on true faith called Hinduism and that all other faiths are false. Hinduism contains too much plurality to allow for that. Its tendency is not to coalesce into a fanatic unity like the fundamentalists of other religions, but to disperse into various diverse sects and fail to arrive at any common action, historically even one of self-defense against foreign invaders.

    Fundamentalists groups insist upon belief in the literal truth of one book as the Word of God, which they base their behavior on. Hindus have many holy books like the Vedas, Agamas, Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana and so on, which contain a great variety of teaching and many different points of view and no one of these books is required reading for all Hindus. Hindus generally respect the holy books of other religions as well. What single holy book to Hindu fundamentalists hold literally to be the word of God, which they base their behavior upon? The other religious fundamentalists flaunt their holy book and are ever quoting from it to justify their actions. What Hindu holy book are the Hindu fundamentalists all carrying, quoting and preaching from the finding justification in?

    Fundamentalist groups are often involved in conversion activity to get other people to adopt their beliefs. They frequently promote missionary efforts throughout the world to being the entire world to their views. Fundamentalists are merely more vehement in their practices. What missionary activities are Hindu fundamentalists promoting throughout the world? What missions is other countries have Hindu fundamentalists set up to convert those of other beliefs to the only true religion called Hinduism? What Hindus are motivated by a missionary spirit to discredit people of other religious beliefs in order to convert and save them?

    Other religious fundamentalist groups not only condemn those of other beliefs to an eternal hell, they may even make death threats against those who criticize their beliefs. Which Hindu has ever condemned non-Hindus to an eternal hell, or issued declarations asking for the death of anyone for merely criticizing Hindu beliefs? Where have Hindus ever stated that it is punishable by death to criticize Krishna or Rama? There are certainly plenty of books which portray Hinduism in a negative light. How many of such books are Hindu fundamentalists trying to ban, and how many of their authors are they threatening?

    Fundamentalists are usually seeking to return to the social order and customs of some ideal religious era of a previous age. Fundamentalists often insist upon returning to some traditional law code, which are often regressive by modern standards of justice and humanitarianism. What law code are Hindu fundamentalists seeking to reestablish? Which Hindu groups are agitating for the return of the law code of the Manu Samhita?

    Fundamentalists are usually opposed to modern science. They reject the theory of evolution and insist that the world was created by God some 6000 years ago. Even in America fundamentalists are trying to have this theory taught in the public schools and would like to have the evolution theory taken out. What scientific theories are Hindu fundamentalists opposed to and trying to prevent being taught in schools today?

    Fundamentalism creates various political parties limited to members of that religion only, which aims at setting up religious dictatorships. Who is asking for a Hindu state that forbids the practice of other religions allows only Hindu religious centers to be built and requires a Hindu religious figure as the head of the country? This is what other fundamentalist groups are asking for in terms of their religions and what they have instituted in a number of countries that they have come to power.

    Fundamentalism is often involved with militancy and sometimes with terrorism. Which Hindu minorities in the world are violently agitating for their separate state? Which planes have Hindu fundamentalists hijacked, which hostages have they taken? What terrorist activities are Hindu fundamentalists promoting throughout the world? Which countries are stalking down Hindu fundamentalist terrorists who are plotting against them?

    There are certain orthodox countries usually not called fundamentalist even by the news media of India. The other faiths places of worship are allowed to be built there. Traditional law, including mutilation for various offences, is strictly enforced by a special religious police force. If we apply any standard definition of fundamentalism, these countries are a super fundamentalist country. Which Hindu community is insisting upon the same domination of one religious belief, law and social practices like that of these countries? Which Hindus are more fundamentalist in their beliefs and practices than those of these countries, whom few are calling fundamentalists?

    Hence we must ask: What are Hindus being accused as fundamentalists for doing? Is it belief in the unique superiority of their religion, the sole claim of their scripture as the Word of God, their savior or prophet as ultimate for all humanity, that those who believe in their religion go to an eternal heaven and those who don’t go to an eternal hell, the need to convert the world to their beliefs? Can we imagine any Hindu swearing that there is no God but Rama and Tulsidas is his only prophet, that the Ramayana is the only true scripture, that those who believe differently will be condemned by Rama to eternal damnation and those who criticize Tulsidas should be killed?

    Hindus are called fundamentalists for organizing themselves politically. Yet members of all other religious have done this, while Hinduism is by all accounts the most disorganized of all religions. There are many Christian and Islamic parties throughout the world, and in all countries where these religions are in a majority they make sure to exert whatever political influence they can. Why shouldn’t Hindus have a political voice even in India? The Muslims in India have their own party and no one calls them fundamentalists for organizing themselves politically.

    There are those who ward that Hindu rule would mean the creation of a Hindu theocratic state. Yet which standard Hindu theology is there, and which Hindu theocratic state has ever existed? Will it be a Shaivite, Vaishnava, or Vedantic theocracy? What Hindu theocracy model will be based upon? Is there a model of Hindu kings like the Caliphs of early Islam to go back to, or like the Christian emperors of the Middle Ages? Which Hindu king was a fundamentalist who tried to eliminate all other beliefs from the land or tried to spread Hinduism throughout the world by the sword? Does Rama or Krishna provide such a model? If no such model exists what is the fear of militant Hindu theocratic rule based upon?

    Traditional Hindus do exist. There are Hindus who are caught in conservative or regressive social customs, like untouchability or mistreatment of women, which should not be underestimated. There are serious problems in Hindu society that must be addressed, but these should be examined as per their nature and cause, which is not some uniform Hindu fundamentalism but wrong practices that are often contrary to real Hindu thought. To lump them together as problems of Hindu fundamentalism fails to examine them adequately but, rather, used them discredit Hinduism as whole. There are some Hindus who may believe that their religion is superior and want to keep it separate from other religions. In this regard they are no different than orthodox Christians, and Muslims. The fact is that there is no monolithic fundamentalism possible among Hindus who have no uniform belief structure. A charge of social backwardness and discriminatory attitudes can be made against a number of Hindus but this is not the same as the blanket charge of fundamentalism, which misinterprets Hinduism as a region of militancy which it nowhere is.

    Hinduism is a super tolerant religion. No other religion in the world accepts such a diversity of beliefs and practices or is so ready to acknowledge the validity of other religions. The idea of the unity of all religions was practically invented by modern Hindus like Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and Gandhi. As Hinduism is a super tolerant religion, even minute intolerance among Hindus is regarded as Hindu fundamentalism. And the charge of intolerance can be used to discredit Hindu groups, who are extremely sensitive to such a negative portrayal.

    Hindus often have a double standard in region that work against them. They try to tolerate, accept or even appreciate exclusivism, intolerance and fundamentalism when practiced by those of other regions beliefs. Meanwhile any criticism by Hindu of other religions, even when justified, may be regarded by the other Hindu as intolerance. In addition, many Hindus, particularly of the modern socialist-communist variety, brand even pride in Hinduism as fundamentalism.

    Another related term that we meet with in the Indian press today is that of “Hindu Chauvinism”, though terms such as “Christian chauvinism” or “Islamic chauvinism” do not occur in either the Indian or the Western press. Chauvinists believe in the special superiority of their particular group. This term is used mainly relative to white chauvinists, those who think that whites are genetically better than dark-skinned people, or in the case of male chauvinists or those who think that men are inherently better than women. Hindus may praise their religion, and Hindus often use flowery and exaggerated language to praise things, but few it any Hindus are claiming that Hindus own the truth and that those of other background of beliefs cannot find it. The other religions routinely believe that only members of their religion go to heaven and everyone else, particularly idol worshipping people like Hindus, go to hell. Which Hindu chauvinists have similar ideas? Vatican recently told its monks and nuns not to experiment with Yoga and Eastern forms of religious practice, which is branded as selfish, false and misleading. Should we not therefore call the pope a Christian chauvinist religious leader? Yet Hindus who are more tolerant than its may be designated in such a manner.

    Hindus are not only not chauvinistic they are generally suffering from a lack of self-esteem and an inferiority complex by which they are afraid to really express themselves or their religion. The have been beaten down by centuries of foreign rule and ongoing attempts to convert them. The British treated them as racially inferior and other religions treated them as religiously perverted. That some Hindus may express pride in their religion is a good sign and shows a Hindu awakening. Unfortunately the groups who may be challenged by this awakening have labelled this pride chauvinistic. Naturally some Hindu groups may express this pride in an excessive way, just as happened with the Black pride idea in America during the civil rights movement, but this is only an attempt to counter a lack of pride and self-respect, it is hardly the assertion of any enduring cultural militancy and does not have the history like other religious fundamentalism, which goes back to the early years of these faiths.

    This does not mean that Hindus should not be criticized. Certainly they can be criticized for many things. They have to really look at who they are and what they are doing because in most cases they are not living up to their inner potential or their heritage. On a social level many Hindus are trapped in backward social customs, but those who are not backward are usually caught in the corruption or materialism of modern society. On an inner level Hindus suffer from lack of creativity, initiative, and original thinking. They want to imitate either their own older thinkers, whose teachings may not be entirely relevant today, or, if modern, they imitate the trends of Western culture which is unspiritual. As a group Hindu mainly suffer from passivity, disunity, and a lack of organization, and they are very poor at communicating who they are to the world as a whole. Relative to their own religion their main problem is that they fail to study, practice or support it, or to defend it when the Hindu teachings are misrepresented or if Hindus are oppressed.

    Hindus who accuse other Hindus of being fundamentalists should really question what they are saying. What is the fundamentalism they see, or is it merely a reaction of the oppression that Hindus have passively suffered for so long? Are the people making the charge of fundamentalism themselves following any religious or spiritual path, or is it a political statement of non-religious people against religion? If Hindus are becoming intolerant and narrow-minded they should be criticized for being poor Hindus, not for being fundamentalist Hindus, as true Hinduism has a universal spirit.

    To routinely raise such negative stereotypes as fundamentalists or even fascist relative to Hindu groups, who may only be trying to bring some sense of unity or common cause among Hindus, is a gross abuse of language. What Hindus need is to wake up and unite, to recognize their common spiritual heritage and work together to manifest it in the world today, just as modern teachers like Vivekanda and Aurobindo encouraged. Such teachers did no speak of Hindu fundamentalism. They recognized Hindu backwardness but sought to remedy it by going to the core of Hindu spirituality, the spirit of unity in recognition of the Divine in all, not by trying to cast a shadow on Hinduism as a whole.

    Loka samastha sukhino bhavanthu!!!

  58. “it was only after 59 innocent Hindus including 36 women and children, had been burnt in a train by a mob of Muslims, that the anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat have started”.

    Really, thats a justification? By that logic, you should justify all islamist terror on basis of supposed grievances.
    Also, when you write about greatness of “hindu culture” etc, have you ever bothered to spare a thought about how it ruined lives of millions in the name of caste and pushed them to backwardness, the poison/ill-effects of which faced even today?

  59. Ankit Nehra

    @ Vijay Kumar Hindu scriptures never advocate castism on basis of birth. It was only the people who created it later on. Shastras mention castes to be based on professions which are not necessarily hierarchic. One was independent to chose one’s profession and belong to any caste of his choice

  60. Very nice article ans articulation. 100% in agreement with you.

  61. Ashim Raizada

    What you stated in your article is so true. I wonder if anyone is listening – esp our media and people like Rajdeep Sardesai and Barkha Dutt who have such a hollier than thou attitude.

  62. Befitting reply to smart jerks! These words seems so familiar .. as if m reading my own story.

    Its so simple for these fascists to ignore the ‘truth’, not a cup of tea to accept reality for such spineless creatures called ‘Seculars’.

    So ultimately I started using the same weapon to beat them, and it brought me so much of solace to see them getting irritated.

    Treat a Fascist with reciprocal Fascism, if you know you are with the truth !!

  63. It’s going to be ending of mine day, however before finish I am reading this great article to improve my know-how.

  64. This excellent website truly has all of the information I wanted about this subject and didn’t know who to ask.

  65. Hi! This post could not be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me
    of my good old room mate! He always kept talking about this.
    I will forward this article to him. Fairly certain he will have a good
    read. Thanks for sharing!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s