RSS Feed
Mumbai's Disheartening Lessons
Whose heart was not broken by the image of two-year-old Moshe Holtzberg crying for his parents, both of whom were murdered last week in Mumbai's Jewish Center? The world weeps with this innocent child, and for all of those whose lives were lost or torn apart in last week's carnage.
The Mumbai tragedy brings with it two sad lessons, not merely for South Asia, but for the entire world.
Lesson One: The problem of weak or failed states - which in many ways was at the heart of 9/11-- is far more serious than it was eight years ago. One key problem is the failure of Pakistan's leaders to confront a radical Islamist organization that transformed under their very feet. For a movement that had once focused on the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir has embraced al-Qaeda's global hate ideology. Thus it matters not whether al-Qaeda is organizationally a spent force. What counts is that a terrorist organization that operates openly (and with the connivance of elements within Pakistan's security services), has appropriated the doctrinal mantle and action plan of al-Qaeda.
Lesson Two: al-Qaeda's putrid brew of anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, anti-Christianism, anti-Hinduism (a worldview that is equally if not more opposed to all Muslims who see in Islam a cause for peace) is still potent. While this "anti-ist ideology" has been somewhat countered by the proliferation--on a global level--of interfaith dialogues and meetings, it continues to thrive in ways big and small.
Consider the recent decision by Malaysia's Council of Ulema to ban yoga because its "ultimate aim is to be one with a god of a different religion." This council's act cannot be construed as a call to violence. But peel away its outer layers, and you find an intolerant logic that could be the first-- among many--steps (or bends!) towards a worldview that see all non-Muslims as essential enemies of Islam itself.
What is to be done? The problem of weak states belies any simple formula. Calls for mounting an international military effort to fight the Pakistan based Laskhar-e-Tabi ("Army of the Poor") -if carried out - will only further erode Pakistan's weak sovereignty, undermining its shaky civilian government. One would hope that the US has learned -however belatedly -that the enduring challenge for Pakistan's divided and divisive leaders is to unite around a common agenda of democracy, economic development and effective governance. Absent this, Pakistan's military-security apparatus will once again find itself in the enviable position of addressing a dangerous problem that it helped to foster in the first place!
As for the spread of ideological intolerance and "anti-ism," I hardly know where to begin. As in Pakistan, it is ultimately up to Muslim political leaders and thinkers to take a stand and to warn the contagion of intolerance. Ruling regimes should not think that their survival will be enhanced by indulging the desire of conservative clerics to ban this or that book, this form of exercise or that type of music. Such tactics have a way of boomeranging, even in strong states such as Malaysia.
Finally, the U.S. and its Western allies must do everything it can do help India and Pakistan avoid conflict. To do otherwise would be to hand the perpetrators of the Mumbai outrage the very victory that they - or their commanders -- were seeking.
By Daniel Brumberg |
December 4, 2008; 4:43 PM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Blair Aces His Israel-Palestine Presentation |
Next: Memo to Obama: World's Hope in Democracy
Posted by: Anonymous | December 11, 2008 11:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It is sad so many innocent lives were lost in Bombay bombing.
We cannot learn the lessons taught by Dr.bromberg which contrary to the truth.
1. Pakistan is failed state, unable to control the terrorism.
2. Al-Qaida is manifesting in other forms.
Both the assertions are very misleading
Actually it is a war for the control of world resources and for the protection of the Jewish state.( Jews and Neo-cons doing a “pious” job of fulfilling the prophecies.)
Fuel is added to this war by the drug money collected by bumper poppy crops in Afghanistan.
You don’t know the crook politicians, they show you the right and slap with the left.
Give the people of right to freedom and ownership of their resources and there will be no war.
The solutions shown by the imperialists only lead to no where.
Pakistan don’t control so they should come to control the terrorists, in Afghanistan they cannot control them so kill the people in indiscriminately bombardment.
The reason behind bombings:::: the teaching of Islam - therefore re-write Islam.
Is there any thread to hold?
It is a war based on pack of lies therefore wait to see what comes next from either side.
Shame on us all as human beings. We still live in primitive times
Posted by: Anonymous | December 11, 2008 8:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It is sad so many inocent lives were lost.
I cannot learn the lessons taught by Dr.bromberg
1. Pakistan is failed state, unable to control the terrorism
2. Al-Qaida is menifesting in other forms.
Both the assertions are very misleading
Actually is a war for the control of world resources and for the protection of the jewish state.
Fuel is added to this war by the drug money collected by bumber poppy crops is afghanistan.
You dont know the crook politician they show you the right and slap with the left.
Give the people of right to freedom and ownership of their resources and there will be no war.
The solutions showen by the imperialists only lead to know where.
Pakistan dont control so they should come to control, in afghanistan they cannot control so kill the people in indisriminate bombardment.
The reason behimd bombing the teaching of Islam therefore re-write Islam.
Is there any thread to hold?
It is a war based on pack of lies therefore wait to see what comes next from either side.
Shame of us all as human beings.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 11, 2008 8:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
how did Barack Obama feel when he met the intelligence service reports?
Posted by: congratulations | December 11, 2008 2:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
on mOnday i met a ship from Mumbai passing the Bosphorus Channel in Istanbul to Russia or Ukrain. the arcbishop of Ukrain died of undeclared reason and Chairman of Southern Cyprus died of lung cancer. arcbishop of Athens was declared to resign. and in Greece policemen and citizens fought for "two potatoes".
where are Germans after Williams Bush? and where is Angelika MErkel? where is Pope Benedictus? where is John McCain and BArtholomeos?
Posted by: congratulations | December 11, 2008 2:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
my question is why Barack Obama is in deep calmness? he is not as eagerful as he was before the elections and it doesnt seem to be the victorious calmness.
my question is how did Barack Obama feel when he met the papers and records.
Posted by: congratulations | December 11, 2008 2:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Daniel Brumberg is a Jew specializing in Islam. Are there many Muslims specializing in Judaism?
Posted by: Anonymous | December 11, 2008 1:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Any skeptic who doubts Gandhi's work wasn't enough, they must know he achieved his goal of gaining independence for India by non-violent means, and remaining friends with the British even while India said no thank you to their rule. The partition of India, which MKG granted, is what angered most Indians and it drove a Hindu to assassinate him. It is for that reason that many feel his work was not perfect. Gandhi's ideals for India included all the people. Self sufficiency and self respect for every Indian living in the most remote Indian village.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 6:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Mahatma Gandhi was a political leader, not a religious one. He was an extreme ascetic in his personal life. He practiced Hinduism ( he read from the Bhagavad Gita and had it read to him constantly, he chanted the name of a Hindu God, Rama) even though he read all religious texts to inform himself and be inspired by spiritual insights from other religions. He was particularly inspired by the Sermon on the Mount, which is counted as the height of spiritual insight even by people of other religions. Gandhi set an example of how people of different religions could work together for political goals. Remember MKG went about doing political work, not preaching religion.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 6:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It should be in the interest of all peoples of goodwill around the world to help safeguard the secular democracy in India because one sixth of the world population with the most diverse cultures, languages and religions live there and try to live in harmony. Although the country itself is ancient, its history as a secular democracy is only 60 years old. It needs all the help it can get to protect the ideals for which such a nation was created.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 6:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
I wonder why Mahatma Gandhi and his approach on religions failed to appeal to many in the country of his birth for starters, what with the BJP. In spite of India having gave "birth" to four religions, "imported" Christianity and Islam still makes inroads, but there are more Buddhists in East Asia and Southeast Asia that all of India. It is interesting that you stated, "there is simply no rationalization of violence in the name of Hinduism by Hindus themselves". This is also always the reason given by other non-Muslim faith adherents too, but it certainly do not stop them from committing violence by any other name or any reason. So, in spite of pacifist nature of Hinduism, Hindus can and do commit violence and wage wars. This is one Muslim who is not persuaded by others who claimed their religion do not sanction violence, and yet they do in spite of their religious beliefs and injunctions. The Bhagavad Gita is a great treastise on battle for good and evil, within oneself and and without. And the war that follows after the end of the Arjuna/Krishna discourse is horrific.
"I am become death" - Krishna. Terrorists have become death, but they are not God, are mere mortals who can be contained, who hauled to justice, who can be killed too.
J
December 8, 2008 11:58 AM
_____________________________________
Sure people do bad things in spite of what the religious ideals teach them to do. Not many Christians have lived like Jesus Christ. That is for sure. It is just that nobody can say that they are imitating the life and teachings of Jesus when they do evil. ALL religions, including Islam, acknowledge the presence of evil in the world. The question is whether somebody does it in the NAME of their religion, or does it as his free act in spite of opposite teachings in the religion. It is for Muslims to stop terrorists from claiming they are doing evil in the name of Islam. If terrorists claim they are acting for political reasons, they should be taught to negotiate politically, not by attacking and killing unarmed civilians. I fully agree with Muslims who say many Muslims have become victims of terrorists among them. It is a sad plight they have to deal with. It is time to fight the terrorist ideology from within and without.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 6:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
And why now for India and India Muslims to consider the Mumbai 26/11 terrorist attack as an attack on their homeland when there were other terrorist attacks before? Attacks by domestic terrorists does not warrant a similar outrage? And why not other terrorist attacks by non-Muslim groups of India's own Muslim terrorist groups? It is interesting to read India's Muslims consider the 26/11 mayhem and murder as an attack on their homeland when they are being attacked verbally and physically by their fellow non-Muslim Indians.
It recalls similar instances of Jews trying to prove their Germaness in various ways in pre-war Nazi Germany. Including highlighting and articulating their Germaness instead of their Jewishness and their loyalty as citizens of Germany. And all because they believe national identity is more important that religious identity, or that nationalism trumps ethnicity and/or religion. With an an irate Hindu majority with a historical baggage of Mughal rule and tit for tat violence till now between Hindus and Muslims, should there be any surprise for Indian Muslims to dissociate themselves from terrorists, for by their experience, it will be them who will bear the brunt of Indian Hindus in direct retributions for 26/11, not Pakistanis.
J
December 7, 2008 8:15 PM
________________________________________________
Indian Muslims are ethnic Indians living in their own country. Whatever differences they may have with other Indians, when there is an attack from outside, it is treated as such - an invasion of their motherland. I doubt if Indonesia was subject to terrorist attack from any other Muslim country, Indonesian Muslims would not react in the same way and want to defend their homeland.
It is not wise to compare the situation in Iraq to the situation of Indian Muslims.
There is no baggage of Moghul rule. It is more likely to be the baggage of the Indian partition which lead to over one million deaths and loss of country. Anyway the trumped baggage is politically motivated and has nothing to do with Hindu-Muslim relationship of the average Indian. Remember British ruled India for 200 years, and all historical baggage was put aside to fight jointly for independence.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 6:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
India has been a desperately poor third world country for a long time. No Indian tries to deny that. The vast majority of the Indian population still live in horrific poverty, in a completely different world, which has nothing to do with the very recent economic miracle of India. Recent development has only thus far managed to enlarge the middle class a bit. Until the economic miracle of a little more than a decade, India had an extremely small middle class. It was generally known that 2% of the population had 98% of the wealth. Such long standing disparity cannot be wiped out overnight. The increasing number of middle class is the first step in the right direction, but it is not the last.
As to Brahmins being the intellectual elite, it is true in the sense that they have a higher proportion of intellectuals compared to any other group. That has to do with their millennia of being the exclusive group that fostered learning i n keeping with their caste ideals. The fact that there were no universities that imparted knowledge to non-Brahmins helped them to pass on their knowledge only to their kind. Caste segregation only added to that. But it must be remembered there has been other influences to break that stronghold. Christianity, Islam and 200 years of British rule. Remember Muslims have been around for over a thousand years and ruled for 300 years despite the Brahmins! Brahmins are primarily intellectuals, were never into building political regimes, which they left to the political class of Hindus, the Kshatriyas.
The secular Constitution has worked against Brahmins because they have to compete extremely hard on merit for the few places that they are entitled to occupy in educational and government institutions. Three hundred years of Muslim rule, two hundred years of British rule, 60 years of secular democracy has not exactly been in the interests of upholding Brahmin superiority. That is why BJP, the Hindu nationalist party is trying to gain power. Anyone trying to explain India in simplistic terms is sure to go completely off the mark. India is complex, way to complex for simplistic explanations because it is an ancient country with thousands of factors which shaped its history.
What exactly constitutes "gripes from the rest?" Who exactly are the "rest?" The millions of poor Hindus who have been left out of the economic improvement?
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 5:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
If India is such a "paradise" for Muslims, and Dalits and Christians as India's Constitution is admirably secular and India has Muslim Presidents and now, an Sikh prime minister why do we still hear of gripes from the rest?
India is a bigger mess than Brahmins, who disporportionately still hold significant posts in the government, the media, the academia etc, will let on...
J
December 7, 2008 8:11
_________________________________________
Indian Muslims are ethnic Indians living in their own country. They are not immigrants. The contingent of Arabians who came at the time of Islamic conquest came over a thousand years ago. Any others who might have come, came over five hundred years ago, when the Muslims last ruled parts of India. The small numbers that came from outside integrated with ethnic Indians. Marrying Hindus was part of building alliance even for Muslim rulers. Whether it is a paradise or a hell hole, India still remains the country of Indian Muslims. They are in it together for the better or worse, with other Indians who follow other religions, be it Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism or Christianity.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 5:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There was no "India" as like now before the British came and stitch the states in the Sub-continent into one against the will of some states, or willingly by other states. And then, the British proceeded to split its Jewel in the Crown of British imperialism and colonialism into India and Pakistan when Indians agitated for independence. And Gandhi most reluctantly agreed to it, and got killed for it. And then India complicitly split Pakistan into - Pakistan and Bangladesh.
J
December 7, 2008 1:05 PM
___________________________________________
India was a British colony for nearly two hundred years. Some Muslim Indians, or rather a couple of Indian Muslims politicians wanted a separate country for Indian Muslims. Mahatma Gandhi agreed, much to the anger of the Indians who had jointly struggled for independence. Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu. On what grounds does the British have to take responsibility for a free India deciding to split into two separate countries, a decision put forward by a couple of Indian Muslims and approved by Mahatma Gandhi, the most influential politician, also known as the father of the nation? India split Pakistan into two? Unfortunately Bangladeshis don't agree. They wanted to be liberated from Pakistan, and they still remain a separate country. Bangladeshi Muslims are Bengalis who share common cultural and language bonds with Bengali Hindus in India.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 5:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
At the moment I'm unable to locate your post regarding the Bhagavad Gita in which you tried to imply there was mention of war.
First of all, ALL Hindu Scripture is mythology. There is not a single historical text. So the war is an allegory. The instruction was to fight evil, and to fight even one's relatives and teachers, if they are evil. It is distinctively a description of war against evil, and no one is spared, not even one's own teacher and family. There are many other aspects of Hindu philosophy covered in that, and fighting evil is only one of them.
I already mentioned how it is Hindus themselves who are ridiculing Hindu militants using violence and calling them Hindu terrorists. Can you imagine a Muslim sitting opposite a Muslim terrorist and ridiculing him and calling him a terrorist? And the Muslim terrorist responding calmly by admitting that some wrong things were done but it should not be called Hindu terrorism? They admit it has to do with politics. There is absolutely no room for violence in the name of fighting other religions in Hinduism. It is strictly about fighting evil. And Gandhi and others have explained that it is to be understood as fighting also evil within oneself.
After Buddha converted many Hindus to Buddhism, a Hindu saint reconverted them to Hinduism on the basis of his spiritual insight, which Buddhists claim is nothing but integration of Buddhist insights into Hinduism in a uniquely Hindu way. But there is absolutely no evidence that the Hindu saint had read any Buddhist texts, and Buddhism is about personal experience anyway.
Zen Buddhism is not a different religion. It is a school of Buddhist thought and practice. It has no elements of Japanese Shinto. The word Zen means the same as Chaán in Chinese and Dyan in Sanskrit. It is the same school of Buddhist thought but each teacher has a school based on their individual experience. There are many schools of Buddhist thought. But all have Buddha and basic Buddhist tenets in common. Sure the pot bellied Bodhisattva of China looks very different to the handsome Buddha (who was known to be very good looking prince; it is hardly possible for him to have been pot bellied because he fasted a lot, was a strict vegetarian, and spent the last forty years after enlightenment traveling around India on foot). No matter what figure is used, all have the same man in mind.
Happy Eid to you! Indian Muslims are sacrificing their celebrations to mourn their dead and to express solidarity with all the victims of Mumbai 26/11.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 4:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
My previous post was in response to the one below:
Jihadist:
I do suppose that makes the British better as conquerors and colonisers of India just because they do not touch on the religion of the conquered. They coopted the sons of aristocrats to rule and in giving them first priority in education for that purpose. Nicely shaped up those chaps into nice WOGs (westernised oriental gentlemen) without converting them to Christianity. Don't want the parents to get into a hissy fit and raised armies to rebel against the British. In a way, it was a smart and mutually beneficial collaborative move - the aristocrats and upper caste/classes working in tandem with the British to rein in the masses. Maharajahs/Sultans (in British Malaya too) as titular/ceremonial rulers, and British advisers/residents/governors really holding the power back by guns. And the British were smart enough to realise if they touch on the faiths of the colonised ones, they would not last as long as the did as colonisers.
Even so, there is the Indian Mutiny that also triggers Indian anger at British rule. One do wonder why the Indians, led by Gandhi, wants the British out with all the hospitals, schools and railways and "administration" they brought to India. The white maharajahs and sahids must be doing not quite right by the natives. And by the way, the British missionaries during colonial times in Malaya, did try to convert Malays to Christianity, but the Malays were indifferent. They had more success with the animists of Sabah and Sarawak, formerly British Borneo. So, not for want of trying by the British missionaries, but due to rejections by the Malays. Of course, if it was the Spaniards who conquered and colonised India, perhaps all Indians would all have been Catholics now judging by what happened in Latin America and the Philippines.
Now, the Spaniards do know how to conquer by the sword and imbue in the natives fear of fire and brimstones of their guns and Bible, and to raze as many native houses of worships while they are at it and use the materials to build their governors' mansions and bishops' palaces and cathedrals. Imagine Indians speaking Spanish, lapping up works by Mario Varga Llisa, Julio Cortazar, Carlos Fuentes, Gabriel Garcia Marquez et al, and perhaps outdoing Spanish native speakers in Spanish literature as many Indian writers do now in English.
J
December 8, 2008 8:48 PM
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 3:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
In response to an earlier post:
I don't how British rule in India compares with Dutch rule in Indonesia. Your father being an Indonesian Muslim and your mother Dutch, you must have experienced the post colonial time in Indonesia very uniquely. In goes without saying the British had their unique way which made it possible for them to rule vast areas of the world with so little input. They mobilized the locals well enough to profit handsomely from the arrangement. Isn't that what colonization is all about anyway? Just because the Dutch might have used a different style (I don't know their style, except that they were not so successful as the British).
Just as the Indonesians didn't want the Dutch anymore, neither did the Indians. I'm sure the Dutch built some good schools and hospitals in Indonesia too.
I'm sure Indonesians would have been speaking Spanish too and reading Spanish authors and become Catholics if the Spanish had colonized them. What luck!
Even though you are supposed to be speaking only Dutch as per your theories, you have outdone the English in writing English. How come? At least the Indians have an excuse - two hundred years of British rule and no common language to unite the Indians is hard. At independence, Hindi was chosen as the national language because at least 30% of the Indian population understand it. As to other languages with their own script and cultures in each state, it has always existed, probably even in the days of Emperor Ashoka. That is why India is known as a subcontinent. Each state uses their regional language and English for official purposes. Have you ever heard an Indian national politician speak English when giving an official speech? They speak Hindi, because it has been chosen as the national language. However English is used as the second official language.
India is an experiment in secular democracy. It is a miracle that it exists, considering the number of languages and cultures and religions that live together as one country.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 3:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
The Indian Hindus first to "rewrite" Indian history from their perspective, and now now Indian Muslims naturally would write to reclaim their contributions towards Indian civilisation which was subsumed or ignored or denigrated for years by the majority faith group in a snit over being ruled by a minority group for centuries. And, do anyone really believe that Indian Hindus, especially the lower castes, needed any incentives "by the sword" to convert to Islam or other faiths? As do lower caste Indians, and especially Dalits, now are converting to other faiths due to their "station in life" in the Indian caste system, or beyond being casted to no caste such as Dalits.
J
December 8, 2008 8:50 PM
_______________________________________________
It would not have been possible for Muslims to rule large parts of India if they had converted only the lowest castes. That much should be obvious to anyone. Islam developed Sufi elements, and that was used to spread the faith peacefully later on. Remember India has a 1000 year history with Islam and locals developed the religion influenced by the Hindu and Buddhist culture in which they lived. It was not like Indonesia you know which converted 100% to Islam and most of the Hindu/Buddhist/Animist influence had little say.
It is true lower castes had greater reason to covert to Islam freely. But there is no evidence that they did in fact convert in large numbers freely. There are a large group of lower caste Hindu coverts to Islam, which is why all of them were given the backward caste status according to their caste affiliation in Hinduism, although many are very rich.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 3:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
India makes no attempt to water down the great contribution of Islam and Arabic culture. The areas in which Muslims ruled are merged with Muslim culture. How could anyone forget that Taj Mahal is part of the Muslim rule, as are many other great works of architecture in North India? There are also great Hindu and Jain and Buddhist works of architecture. But of course it is not possible to call a Hindu or Jain temple as Islamic contribution.
Indian Muslims are happy to live in India as part of a multi-religious society under a secular constitution. They practice their religion freely and live in peace with other Indians. They are completely free to leave to live in the two countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh, specially created for Indian Muslims who did not want to live in a free India where they would be one among many religions. So why are non-Indian Muslims making an issue where none exists and trying to foment division among Indians?
Posted by: To Jihadist | December 9, 2008 2:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Contd...
There is no mention of the caste system in Hindu Scripture. It was part of rules for the Hindu society penned by Manu Smrithi. His writing does not constitute Scripture. He merely described the society as four castes based on their function in society like parts of a body. That was later solidified in practice to form rigid structures like the class system elsewhere in the world. It has no real basis in Hinduism except to describe different professions in a certain hierarchy. The caste system did with time become a terrible blight on Hinduism. Until not long ago such rigid class structures existed also in Europe, most notably in England. Hinduism is unique only in the length of time it has lasted and the inability to change castes one is born into. But as far as Hindu philosophy itself goes, it has no basis. A totally spiritual person consciously rejects the caste system. Brahmin sannyasis, therefore are known to cut and throw away their sacred thread, which marks them as Brahmins, when they set out as sannyasis in search of God. The caste system merely is a community/professional grouping for this worldly purposes. It exists in other cultures but there is no name given to it, nor is it so rigid as in Hinduism.
Posted by: To Jihadist | December 9, 2008 2:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Ah yes. Conversion of Islam "by the sword". Heard that often from some western and Indian Hindu writers, and many On Faith posters on how Islam spread. And quite often by Indian Hindus too, never mind Aryans came with the swords and the chariots into the Indian subcontinent, conquered and forced the darker skinned Dravidians into submission, and created the caste system. And, ah yes, some Muslim historians working furiously to "rewrite" the history of Islam in India. Thus far, it was the British who wrote the glories of the empire where the sun never set and Queen Victoria reign over all. She's Empress of India and never set foot there.
The Indian Hindus first to "rewrite" Indian history from their perspective, and now now Indian Muslims naturally would write to reclaim their contributions towards Indian civilisation which was subsumed or ignored or denigrated for years by the majority faith group in a snit over being ruled by a minority group for centuries. And, do anyone really believe that Indian Hindus, especially the lower castes, needed any incentives "by the sword" to convert to Islam or other faiths? As do lower caste Indians, and especially Dalits, now are converting to other faiths due to their "station in life" in the Indian caste system, or beyond being casted to no caste such as Dalits.
J
December 8, 2008 8:50 PM
___________________________________
Indian Hindus, who have remained the majority in their country cannot be persuaded to NOT to write their history as it happened. There has always been Hindu resistance. The fact that even after 1000 years of advent of Islam, Hindus retained the majority, is evidence of that. Besides there are areas of India which was never conquered by Muslims, not for lack of trying.
Where exactly did you read about sword wielding Aryans who traveled in chariots to conquer Indian Dravidians? Chariots and swords are mentioned in the Mahabharata, in Hindu epics, which is mythology, like Greek mythology, but not in connection with Aryan conquest. Aryans supposedly came around 2000 BC or earlier, a subject that is hotly disputed. They were not political conquerers. They are considered bringers of some form of religion which merged with the local religions adopting the local gods into it.
Contd...
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 2:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Anonymous¨: "If India was intolerable to Muslims they would all have left for Pakistan or Bangladesh. Yet 140-150 Muslims live in India of their own free choice."
Some are too far from either Pakistan (and Bagladesh) to go, or have too much to leave behind to leave and start anew. And the rest decided to live where they are and remained so. There is a difference between toleration and accomodation. One can tolerate, but that does not mean one accepts the other...
Cheers
J
December 8, 2008 9:19 PM
_____________________________________________
You seem to think India is like Iraq where Sunni, Shia and Kurdish Muslims have had centuries old differences and have not settled them to this day. India has always been a country with many religions. Hindus have lived in harmony with other religions, not merely tolerated them. If you could understand Hinduism as a religion you would know. Hindus worship any god they choose. Even in a single family, each family member could have a different favorite deity. That is what makes it easy for them to accept people who worship different gods. That is also what makes it almost impossible to convert them to any other religion.
As to Muslims leaving India for Pakistan or Bangladesh, it must be remembered Muslims in India speak mostly their local languages and follow the local culture. The decision to partition India was made by a politician and supported only by a few Muslims. The ordinary man had no choice but to leave. Hindus living in Pakistan and Bangladesh were driven out of their homes or massacred (one of the greatest movement of peoples and worst people-to-people massacres in world history). Some Hindus returned the favor and chased Indian Muslims living along the border into Pakistan and Bangladesh. In the sixty years since independence, there has been enough time to travel that distance. Every Indian Muslim has been free to leave. In fact the Hindu extremist groups would like to leave, calling it "completion of the partition Indian Muslims wanted." All Indian Muslims who live in India, it can be said with certainty live there freely, and they would not do so if they feared for their lives all the time. Any attempt to portray the plight of Muslims in India in that light is being done with a malicious agenda.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 2:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
And certainly, by your argument, Muslims should not, and could not fight for their rights, for their land, for their "way of life" no matter how alien and reprehensible for the Judeo-Christian civilisation and heritage champions as the best, the greatest and the one to measure other civilisations and heritage.
Indians/Hindus, Chinese and Iranians thinks their civilisation and heritage are great too. Do we leave it to civilisation chauvinists to thrash that out in words and wars? Of course there is that much disputed cliche : "One man´s freedom fighter and another man's terrorist". Need we go into this, the obvious, judging by history?
J
December 7, 2008 8:03 PM
_____________________________
There is a certain Muslim logic that seems to come through sometimes that non-Muslims find impossible to understand. Just because a certain group is Muslim how does that give them the right to rule over non-Muslims or have non-Muslims convert/leave/die/be second class in their own land, so that they could have all the land to themselves for "their way of life?"
True there are other great cultures and civilizations apart from Islam, which in comparison to the others in the new kid in town. The only difference is that no other culture identifies itself strictly on religious terms as Islam does. One can accept an Arabian culture which absorbed other cultures that went before it in the same land, just one talks of Indian, Chinese and Persian cultures. None of these cultures identify themselves with their religion. It is considered the culture of a certain peoples living in a certain geographic location. For example, one talks of Islamic culture in Spain, never Spanish culture under Islamic rule. Spain had a culture of its own before Muslims arrived, but that is completely ignored while taking of Islamic culture of Spain.
Coming back to Mumbhai 26/11. India is a secular democracy. It happens to have 85% Hindus, who have lived there since the beginning of time. Some Indians accepted Islam, as other religions. That is about it. Muslims do get enough representation in all areas of life in India, much higher than the 13%. If some groups of Muslims are poor, so are a large group of Hindus and Christians who belong to the lower social classes. It was not born of discrimination specially against Muslims. Muslims ruled for 300 years, and if they had one enough for Muslims and non-Muslims alike there should have no poor. It is a secular democracy that is offering everyone a chance, and the poor are being given special opportunities to better their stand. With a population of 1.2 billion, vast majority of which has been desperately poor for millennia, and a democracy that is only 60 years old, India has shown remarkable progress. The fact that India has had Muslim and Sikh Presidents and PM and many politicians and successful people at all levels of life is a success story.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 2:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
The big difference with Judaism is that Jews only claim a small portion of land they say was promised to them by God. They have a group of chosen people and they do not seek out to convert others to that chosen group. Their religion has no global agenda either politically or regards their faith.
Islam, like Christianity has a global mission to spread the faith. But Christianity, not being established as a theocracy, has no simultaneously political agenda that goes with it, although some European colonizers may have permitted Christian missionaries to proselytize in the areas they conquered.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 1:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist: (Contd..)
As to what Jesus taught, it is about turning the other cheek. But Jesus did not establish a theocracy and gave room for Caesar to do what Caesar needs to do to rule with justice. As to what Mohammad taught and lived, it is about taking revenge just like Judaism. So Christians cannot quote Scripture when they go to war, and they don't. Secular governments have gone to war as part of their secular government policies. Even the British as other monarchies go to war in the name of their Queen not in the name of Jesus or Catholicism.
As a Muslim I understand that this is a very difficult concept to understand because Islam was established as theocracy and Mohammad was a religious, political leader and military commander all rolled into one. It might help if you could understand that no other religion has such a founder. Judaism is the only religion that comes anywhere close but even Judaism has had kings, prophets, priests as par of their religion each with specific roles. Judaism kept evolving and they produced Scripture to keep up with the change.
Islam has been anything but a passive religion. Mohammad himself established an Arabian political Empire within ten years, and his followers extended on that empire continuously until quite recently. It is the only religion where political conquest and religious conversion went hand in hand in keeping with the life of the founder. Anyone who has the most basic knowledge of Islam knows that.
The problem non-Muslims have with certain definitions of Jihad is that the rights of non-Muslims are completely ignored and there is sense of entitlement expressed by Muslims to rule others. Killing innocent non-Muslims without any political negotiation and war declaration is defined as Jihad by some. Terrorist organizations are vague entities changing shapes and names and forms like shifting shadows and waging war, without actually coming out and sitting down with their opponents and clearly defining what it is they are fighting for. If the unarticulated goal is to have the whole world submit to Allah, are non-Muslims expected to turn the other cheek in such instances?
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 1:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Anonymous: "If by your argument, poverty turns Muslims into terrorists, that doesn't speak highly for Islam as a religion of peace."
"No taxation without representation" is one worthy cause to fight and die for independence and for one to alledgedly say, "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country". Add race and religion too, apart from country. No justice + no justness = no peace for both the oppressors and for the victims of such oppression until one side won decisively and won over their populations.
Muslims don't quite turn the other cheek. And Christians don't quite turn the other cheek, nor do other faith adherents when they had had enough of marginalisation, exploitation, suppression, oppression and deprivation of their rights. Muslims don't quite "protest" by letting, say, colonisers, to beat them up while they passively accept verbal and physical blows and to wait for the abusers to come to their "civilized" senses and stop all by themselves.
Muslims are more inclined to call for a jihad against those they are against as rallying battle cries. Islamic history is full of such, and now more often invoke by sub-state and non-state actors instead of Muslim goverments. So, Muslim governments are faced with jihads against them too, from Algeria to Indonesia by those who hated their regimes and seek to remove them by force.
And certainly, by your argument, Muslims should not, and could not fight for their rights, for their land, for their "way of life" no matter how alien and reprehensible for the Judeo-Christian civilisation and heritage champions as the best, the greatest and the one to measure other civilisations and heritage.
Indians/Hindus, Chinese and Iranians thinks their civilisation and heritage are great too. Do we leave it to civilisation chauvinists to thrash that out in words and wars? Of course there is that much disputed cliche : "One man´s freedom fighter and another man's terrorist". Need we go into this, the obvious, judging by history?
J
December 7, 2008 8:03 PM
_______________________________________________
Let us stick to the context first. Pakistani Muslims trying to conquer Indian Kashmir is not about fighting for their rights. It is about fighting for landgrab in the name of religion. Mumbai 26/11 is not about fighting for Muslim rights, it is about fighting a dirty stealthy war on a civilian population to destroy the economy.
Cond...
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 1:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Whatever gives you the idea that I am asking Indian Muslims to leave India? Indians, regardless of religion or caste, have been leaving for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, and UK in huge numbers since India's independence freely for various reasons. You must ask the best and brightest Indians of all religious and no religious persuasions why they migrate to the west.
Cheers
J
December 8, 2008 9:19 PM
______________________________________________
Hindus have been known to live at peace with other religions for thousands of years in India. So when they go in search of better fortunes to Western countries, they do not have to compromise on any religious principle. They live quiet lives, minding their own business, without trying to impose their religion or way of life on anyone. Many Muslims on the other hand claim only Islam can provide the best society and it is a shame for Muslims to live in situations where they are not the rulers. So then I might ask you why Muslims, especially from countries where they are the rulers go to the West, not just for higher education but also to live there permanently.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 9, 2008 12:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Reiteration is such a valuable tool in education!!
The only fatwa that has any meaning is the fatwa that will dictate that Mahound was a warmongering, illiterate, womanizing and hallucinating, long-dead Arab and his rules of "death to all infidels", Islamic dominance of the globe and oppression to women so "Gabriel-detailed" in the Worst Book Ever Written are no longer to be followed!!!
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | December 9, 2008 12:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Re: US Fatwas through general elections
Just double-checked via e-mail with Muslim friend. Technically, since Islam has no hierarchy comparable to that of the Catholic Church fatwas are not necessarily binding; they appear to be religious rulings similar to religious decisions that occur in some branches of Judaism.
Hence, I must withdraw my suggestion on US fatwas through general elections, since I want our decisions to be binding. What I'm after is a return to direct democracy.
Oh, well. Fat chance, right. But then I never thought I'd get this grant, either. I know, I know. Yup. But I can hope....
Farnaz
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 10:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
You have raised so many issues that it can't be tackled in one post.
As to migration of brains from East to West: Maybe you should also take note of the millions of Muslims from all parts of the world, including ME living in European countries, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand; and millions more who go to Western countries to get higher education.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 10:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Re: Supreme Court and Fatwa Committee
Yes, I suppose you're right, except that getting cases heard by the Supreme Court is difficult and expensive, made all the more problematic because they decide what they are going to hear.
Arguably, the Congressional Fatwa Committee would deal with legislation, but, again, partisanship would become problematic.
Therefore, I suggest, a nondenominational democratic Fatwa process, to be conducted through national elections. The purpose would be to deal with issues such as those I mention in my earlier post. In this way, we could avoid or at least have the chance to circumvent the transnational corporate-government complex, etc., in the interest of, dare I say it, justice.
What do you think?
Farnaz
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 10:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
If Islamic Jihadists are killing innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the issues they claim to be fighting for, then they should admit they are using a cowardly form of violence to create mayhem and nothing else. If their goals are political, they should articulate them as political goals, as all other peoples of civilized nations do. They should form political parties and negotiate in peaceful ways. But to use violence in an attempt to achieve their political goals, and do it in the name of a religion they insist is one of peace, is a logic that escapes all sane human beings. If Muslim terrorists use violence on innocent civilians, they should either distance themselves from Islam or stop calling Islam a religion of peace. They get to pick only one option. Indian Muslims have wisely chosen to distance themselves from Muslims who use violence in the name of their religion, killing innocent and killing themselves. National Muslim councils have sent directives to get all Indian Imams to preach against joining such Jihad in the name of Islam. They have refused to bury the terrorists, who are only criminals, in their cemeteries, they have shown solidarity with Indians of other faiths. All in action. Other Muslims could learn from that.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 10:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello Farnaz,
The US to have a Congressional Fatwa Committee, founded on secular principles?
Surely you already have a secular National Fatwa Committee. It is called the Supreme Court. And they go by the Constitution in place of the Qur'an. They made dubious interpretations of the Constitution in their decisions/rulings/fatwas. Their decisions cannot be challenged and have to be complied with by mere mortals (unless appealed and appealed successfully).
Those nine justices are already issuing fatwas/rulings that are controversial too. Only difference, the Supreme Court Fatwa Committee (justices) are legally binding. And that is more scary to my mind, looking at how Americans are divided over Roe vs Wade and how Pro-Lifers keep trying to overturn it.
If there is to be a Congressional Fatwa Committee, they would be issuing fatwas such as:
- pork barrel politics is not forbidden but good for the community and country and partaking in it will ensure one a place in heaven
- an oil pipeline is the will of God, not an act of man, and thus not forbidden if one happens as a miracle of God and not to be questioned further
- as war is part of God's Plan, it should be undertaken regardless of cost to country and people and those who objected will go to hell
I got to go for a while on business
Regards
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 8, 2008 9:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous: " The theory that poverty leads to terrorism is another spin that has gained strength in terrorist appeasing, desperate-to-be politically correct circles, even academic ones."
And the is the one that works too, if one pays attention to what terrorists (they called themselves freedom fighters or this and that mujahideen or this and that God's army as a nice touch to legitimise their cause as a force of good vs evil) have been saying to get support for their cause.
Not to mention to fight against foreign occupiers painted as the ones seeking to pillage the resources of the country and people that is also appealing. And the ends justify the means. It takes money to buy guns and feed recruits. If only to replace the ones terrorist groups are against with themself.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 8, 2008 9:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous : " Having ruled as minority for 300 years, maybe they feel entitled to rule the majority all the time."
Ah, a sense of entitlement and deprivation. I do believe you need to look again at Indian rule by the Mughals - where and how. None of the Indian Hindu maharajahs were actually deprived under Mughal rule or British rule. Only their subjects were.
Indian Muslims call themselves themselves as Indians when asked, and only say they are Muslims when asked on their religion. Or one would know by their name. Surely Indian Hindus should not have much to gripe about now after being in power for over half a century by sheer numbers in everything? Perhaps better for India to reinstate a divide and rule policy as practiced by the British? Surely not. India is a very vibrant democracy, warts and all.
Anonymous¨: "If India was intolerable to Muslims they would all have left for Pakistan or Bangladesh. Yet 140-150 Muslims live in India of their own free choice."
Some are too far from either Pakistan (and Bagladesh) to go, or have too much to leave behind to leave and start anew. And the rest decided to live where they are and remained so. There is a difference between toleration and accomodation. One can tolerate, but that does not mean one accepts the other.
Anonymous : "Otherwise, respect the desire the wish of Indian Muslims to remain in India. Over 85% of Indians are still Hindus."
Whatever gives you the idea that I am asking Indian Muslims to leave India? Indians, regardless of religion or caste, have been leaving for Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, and UK in huge numbers since India's independence freely for various reasons. You must ask the best and brightest Indians of all religious and no religious persuasions why they migrate to the west.
Cheers
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 8, 2008 9:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
"Naturally, Malaysians had a field day with that fatwa forbidding yoga for Muslims. The Council retorted that Egypt and Singapore have fatwas against it, but lay Muslims retorted that even Iran and Saudi Arabia have none, and they should be issuing fatwas ranging from against taking bribes, to one encouraging men to wear condoms to ensure safe sex and not spread STDs."
Re: National Fatwa Committees
Is it absolutely essential that one be Muslim to issue Fatwas? I was thinking that maybe here in the US we could have a Congressional Fatwa Committee, founded on secular principles. I know this is contradictory, etc., but we do that sort of thing all the time.
So, for instance, we could have a fatwa against interfering in the affairs of other nations. We could have a fatwa against homelessness, poverty, unaffordable healthcare, deregulation, corporate media ownership, interference with a woman's right to choose, fatih-based funding, exploitation of third-world nations, starting unnecessary woars, bombing Afghanistan, etc.
What do you think?
Farnaz
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 9:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
This essay is about Mumbai 26/11 and I was discussing your reinvented take on Indian history in connection with that. The terrorists are Pakistanis who are politically motivated. Kashmir was never a part of Pakistan, Pakistan itself was a part of India. The logic that any Indian territory in which Muslims live belongs to Pakistan doesn't sell even with Indian Muslims. So non-Indian Muslims should really stop doing that.
The theory that poverty leads to terrorism is another spin that has gained strength in terrorist appeasing, desperate-to-be politically correct circles, even academic ones. Never mind the evidence is to the contrary. If poverty is what led Osama bin Laden to set up al-Qaeda (btw why didn't he stay on in Saudi Arabia and blow up mosques there in protest of the Saudi-US oil friendship?), all the Muslim terrorists were poor people, and all poor people of all religions in the history of the human race resorted to terrorism, it would make perfect sense. Money being made available to alleviate poverty is being used to recruit more terrorists and indoctrinate a hate filled ideology, not reduce poverty. Whose fault is it? People who give money, and the very people who give money should be punished by those who accept the handouts?
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 8:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous: "It is well known that SOME Muslims are working furiously to rewrite the history of Islam in India, blatantly ignoring what is common knowledge in India: Islam was brought to North India by Muslim invaders and there was blood bath along their trail of political conquest which went hand in hand with conversion at the point of the sword."
Ah yes. Conversion of Islam "by the sword". Heard that often from some western and Indian Hindu writers, and many On Faith posters on how Islam spread. And quite often by Indian Hindus too, never mind Aryans came with the swords and the chariots into the Indian subcontinent, conquered and forced the darker skinned Dravidians into submission, and created the caste system. And, ah yes, some Muslim historians working furiously to "rewrite" the history of Islam in India. Thus far, it was the British who wrote the glories of the empire where the sun never set and Queen Victoria reign over all. She's Empress of India and never set foot there.
The Indian Hindus first to "rewrite" Indian history from their perspective, and now now Indian Muslims naturally would write to reclaim their contributions towards Indian civilisation which was subsumed or ignored or denigrated for years by the majority faith group in a snit over being ruled by a minority group for centuries. And, do anyone really believe that Indian Hindus, especially the lower castes, needed any incentives "by the sword" to convert to Islam or other faiths? As do lower caste Indians, and especially Dalits, now are converting to other faiths due to their "station in life" in the Indian caste system, or beyond being casted to no caste such as Dalits.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 8, 2008 8:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous: "The British set up secular government institutions in India - universities, hospitals, administrations etc in India. That is why they do not bear a Church of England seal, although CoE is the State religion and the British monarch is the head of the Church. The British were about governing India, using local manpower to serve them. In the process they did much good, even while they were the chief profiteers of the arrangement. Getting the "ruled" in their colonies to submit to their God was never their policy, unlike Muslim conquerers."
I do suppose that makes the British better as conquerors and colonisers of India just because they do not touch on the religion of the conquered. They coopted the sons of aristocrats to rule and in giving them first priority in education for that purpose. Nicely shaped up those chaps into nice WOGs (westernised oriental gentlemen) without converting them to Christianity. Don't want the parents to get into a hissy fit and raised armies to rebel against the British. In a way, it was a smart and mutually beneficial collaborative move - the aristocrats and upper caste/classes working in tandem with the British to rein in the masses. Maharajahs/Sultans (in British Malaya too) as titular/ceremonial rulers, and British advisers/residents/governors really holding the power back by guns. And the British were smart enough to realise if they touch on the faiths of the colonised ones, they would not last as long as the did as colonisers.
Even so, there is the Indian Mutiny that also triggers Indian anger at British rule. One do wonder why the Indians, led by Gandhi, wants the British out with all the hospitals, schools and railways and "administration" they brought to India. The white maharajahs and sahids must be doing not quite right by the natives. And by the way, the British missionaries during colonial times in Malaya, did try to convert Malays to Christianity, but the Malays were indifferent. They had more success with the animists of Sabah and Sarawak, formerly British Borneo. So, not for want of trying by the British missionaries, but due to rejections by the Malays. Of course, if it was the Spaniards who conquered and colonised India, perhaps all Indians would all have been Catholics now judging by what happened in Latin America and the Philippines.
Now, the Spaniards do know how to conquer by the sword and imbue in the natives fear of fire and brimstones of their guns and Bible, and to raze as many native houses of worships while they are at it and use the materials to build their governors' mansions and bishops' palaces and cathedrals. Imagine Indians speaking Spanish, lapping up works by Mario Varga Llisa, Julio Cortazar, Carlos Fuentes, Gabriel Garcia Marquez et al, and perhaps outdoing Spanish native speakers in Spanish literature as many Indian writers do now in English.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 8, 2008 8:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous : "Your knowledge of Indian history could do with some improvement. Pakistan was a part of India until 1947."
Uhhhhh.....only one person, even as Anonymous, would have come up with the first sentence above. Certainly not an Indian Hindu, as they would have been absolutely livid by some of my posts on India, and would really got into a rant and vent on Islam and Muslims. You have not responded substantively to my posts, and not been reading my post correctly? The lowers ones where I stated India was carved into Pakistan, and Pakistan into Banbgladesh? Oh yes, Pakistan was part of British India. Oh, all right then, I'll humour you, I'll indulge you with some more responses.
Anonymous : "India was carved up in the name of Islam. On what basis does Pakistan lay claim to Kashmir and make it a bilateral issue? On the grounds that it has the right to claim any Indian territory which has Muslims living in it? Should Saudi Arabia then claim Indonesia and Malaysia for itself, considering its Muslim population?"
If you consider Ali Jinnah as a "pious" and "practicing" Muslim who insisted on Pakistan being carved, he is as "secular" as Theodor Hertzl who insisted on Isreal being carved out. I fail to see the logic of Saudi Arabia claiming Indonesia and Malaysia because the populations are largely Muslims. Just as I fail to see the British claiming Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States just because they are largely Protestant and English speakers. No Australian, Canadian, New Zealander and American wants to be part of the United Kingdom. These people were given a choice, or take a choice and decided not to. I also fail to see why Timor Leste and Bosnia should be allowed to be seccede from the former larger states (Indonesia and Yugoslavia) respectively they were in, but for the fact that they were not willing to be part of the states they were in. Of course the folks of Timor-Leste are largely Catholics in a sea of Muslims, and the Bosnians are largely Muslims in a sea of Eastern Orthodoxists.
Therefore, even if India claims Kashmir, do the Kashmiris want to be part of India? Why not the give the Kashmiris a chance to vote to decide? And have EU and UN election observers monitoring the referendum? If India is confident that Kashmiris, both Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and oh, I'll call the rest "others" and call it a day, considers themselves Indians first and Hindus, Muslims etc second, and India is paradise and the promised land of South Asia/Indian subcontinent, then India should have no fear of any UN organised and managed referendum. I would not be surprised if Kashmiris wants to be a sovereign state instead of being part or India or Pakistan. If Maldives, Nauru, Tuvalu can become states, never mind their economic state, surely can Kashmir, what with beautiful landscape to get tourism dollars from.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 8, 2008 8:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
If you knew sufficient Indian history you would know that Muslims being classified as backward caste works in their favor rather than against them because a certain percentage of seats in all government educational institutions, certain percentage of all government jobs are reserved for backward castes, be they Hindu or Muslim. There are many filthy rich Muslims in all part of India, but they get classified as backward caste too and benefit from the quota system, while brilliant, high caste Hindu Brahmins and forward caste of any other religion, who are economically not well to do, or middle class have to compete for the very few seats available to them only on merit.
If you were better informed about Indian history you would know too that more than 14% Muslims are represented in politics and have occupied the highest political offices in the land - President and PM. Having ruled as minority for 300 years, maybe they feel entitled to rule the majority all the time. At least that is what non-Indian Muslims are trying to tell them. If India was intolerable to Muslims they would all have left for Pakistan or Bangladesh. Yet 140-150 Muslims live in India of their own free choice. Maybe you'd like to invite them to Indonesia or Malaysia, considering they are richer than Pakistan and Bangladesh? Otherwise, respect the desire the wish of Indian Muslims to remain in India. Over 85% of Indians are still Hindus. If it was their policy to butcher Indian Muslims, there would not be a single Indian Muslim left, and there is no way could have lived among Hindus for a thousand years before India was carved up into Pakistan and Bangladesh, thanks to Mahatma Gandhi.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 8:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Your knowledge of Indian history could do with some improvement. Pakistan was a part of India until 1947. India was carved up in the name of Islam. On what basis does Pakistan lay claim to Kashmir and make it a bilateral issue? On the grounds that it has the right to claim any Indian territory which has Muslims living in it? Should Saudi Arabia then claim Indonesia and Malaysia for itself, considering its Muslim population?
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 6:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The British set up secular government institutions in India - universities, hospitals, administrations etc in India. That is why they do not bear a Church of England seal, although CoE is the State religion and the British monarch is the head of the Church. The British were about governing India, using local manpower to serve them. In the process they did much good, even while they were the chief profiteers of the arrangement. Getting the "ruled" in their colonies to submit to their God was never their policy, unlike Muslim conquerers.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 6:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
You annoyed that someone is not willing to buy your Sunni Muslim Indonesian-Malaysian version of Indian history? It is well known that SOME Muslims are working furiously to rewrite the history of Islam in India, blatantly ignoring what is common knowledge in India: Islam was brought to North India by Muslim invaders and there was blood bath along their trail of political conquest which went hand in hand with conversion at the point of the sword.
Let it not be forgotten Muslims ruled large parts of India for 300 years, even though Hindus were the majority at all times. After they gained political power, which was achieved by converting sufficient number of locals by force, the drive to conversion stopped. After that the quality of Muslim rule depended on the character and whim of the ruler. Some were good and some were brutal. Some discriminated against Hindus and others did not. Many Muslim men even married Hindu women, thus creating a Muslim class that was very much knit into the fabric of the Hindu society. Yet upper caste Hindus were less likely to enter into marriages with Muslims, even if they were rulers because the Hindu Brahmins consider themselves superior to the ruling class.
Hindus, like Jews, are not easy to convert. The history of Christianity in India is proof. After two thousand years, there are only 2.3% Christians. They were not much lower when the British arrived. The waves of conversions took place long before the British arrived, and it was done by an Apostle of Jesus Himself in the first century and a Catholic priest missionary, fifteen centuries later - not by armed soldiers at the point of a sword. The British were not on a proselytyzing mission. Every British colony is proof of that. If the British had been on such a mission in India, and Hindus were easy to convert, India would be almost 100% Christian considering they ruled for 200 years. Almost 77% of Indian Christians are Catholic, as are almost all Christian institutions and charities, and Catholicism has nothing to do with the British Raj.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 6:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist to Anonymous:
That is the classic cheap shot of one not able to come out with rapid response but have to look up up before responding. So, give me your counter-points and facts on India which the "whole" world knows.
From what I have been reading in On Faith threads, some do not know even their own country's history.
Anonymous: "You are entitled to your global sport. That you indulge in such a global sport does not in itself mean you have much knowledge of the issues and that you are not trapped in your bias."
- Obviously the sarcasm on "global sport" is missed. Anyone can say anything and everything on any country and any people and any issues in the world. Even here in On Faith threads.
Anonymous: "Luckily Indian Muslims do not need outsiders to speak on their behalf and protect them with propaganda." - Ah, perhaps you have not been reading Indians of all faiths having plenty to comment on everyone and everything outside their country, race and religion. Even as On Faith panelists, as both American and non-American citizens.
Anonymus : "Indian Muslims have lived with Indian non-Muslim for a thousand years. They are all ethnic Indians who had Hindus as their ancestors. Maybe that explains the difference." -Most Indonesians and Malaysians have pagans, hindus and buddhists as their ancestors before becoming Muslims. In spite of being of the same race and religion, no one here is fooling themselves they have no differences on race and religion issues even within the same race and religion.
So, your assertions is more and most questionable when it comes to India. Unless you missed reading about all the violence related to religion in India. We must be living in different planets in alternate universe, no, on India, race and religion.
Cheers and out, it is Eid Adha now.
J
December 7, 2008 9:45 PM
________________________________________
Anonymous to Jihadist:
Luckily Indian Muslims do not need outsiders to speak on their behalf and protect them with propaganda. The previous President was a Muslim, and there are many politicians at various levels who are Muslims, so an outside opinion that Muslims in India are discriminated against serves some political purpose for non-Indians. It has nothing to do with Islam or interest in Indian Muslims. It does not serve any good purpose. Indian Muslims have lived with Indian non-Muslim for a thousand years. They are all ethnic Indians who had Hindus as their ancestors. Maybe that explains the difference.
December 7, 2008 8:30 PM
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 5:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The only fatwa that has any meaning is the fatwa that will dictate that Mahound was a warmongering, illiterate, womanizing and hallucinating, long-dead Arab and his rules of "death to all infidels", Islamic dominance of the globe and oppression to women so "Gabriel-detailed" in the Worst Book Ever Written are no longer to be followed!!!
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | December 8, 2008 12:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz,
By the way, it was not the fatwa on Zen meditation. It was the fatwa against yoga that was made by the National Fatwa Council because they as think the Om, Om, Om is Hinduism, Malaysian Muslims will become Hindus. And now you have done it. You have brought out Zen meditation and soon those chaps would be issuing fatwas against Zen meditation as being associated with Buddhism and atheism (Sam Harris is a practitioner, no?). While we are at it, why not fatwas against performing and watching kung fu movies as it originated in the Buddhist Shaolin temples of China? No wonder some Malaysian Muslims took up yoga to destress themseleves from the stress of having to put up with fatwas by these chaps. Oh, some members of the National Fatwa Council suggested to take up pilates instead of yoga.
Naturally, Malaysians had a field day with that fatwa forbidding yoga for Muslims. The Council retorted that Egypt and Singapore have fatwas against it, but lay Muslims retorted that even Iran and Saudi Arabia have none, and they should be issuing fatwas ranging from against taking bribes, to one encouraging men to wear condoms to ensure safe sex and not spread STDs. The Chairman of the Council also stated Muslims are not to question that fatwa as it would be going against God. That did it. Even the Sultans jumped in to remind them that they are the "defenders" of the faith by the Constitution, and not the National Fatwa Council etc.
It would seem that God now conveyed Its messages and revelations not to individual messsengers and prophets, but to a whole committee such the Malaysian National Fatwa Council on what is enjoined, and what is forbidden. By any standards, even by the standards of classical Muslim formulators of Shariah schools of jurisprudence, they flunked very, very badly. At least now Malaysians are questioning the methodology and processes they use to come out with fatwas and demanding more transparency and consultations by them before issuing one. All too often, fatwas issued are focussed on what should not be done, rather than on what is good and to be encouraged. I am ignoring this fatwa as I do for all other fatwas they have made before. You don't need a whole National Fatwa Committee to tell you how to be a good Muslim.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 8, 2008 12:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello Farnaz,
Thanks for your background on Gavriel, Rivka and Moshe. Another man killed there, (wish I can remember his name off hand) was a former Israeli who gave up his citizenship to become a full American as he was not partial to Zionism and against the state of Israel. I could not help noticing the irony of his death, as the terrorists targetted citizens of countries they blamed regardless of the citizens' personal views. The world is all the most dangerous for that in terrorists wreaking vengeance and punishing by deaths of innocent citizens of countries, be it 9/11, Bali bombings, or Mumbai's mayhem and murders. The Chasidim rabbi and the anti-Zionist are innocent civilians and victims of policies not of their doing and which they have no control of. Those terrorists who killed innocent civilians should not be spared.
India is still a mess of a mass of humanity. When the biggest selling English language authors are P.G. Wodehouse and Agatha Christie, and English is widely used by the government and bureacracy, when Tamil and Malayalam are other languages used by milllions and millions apart from Hindi, forging a cohesice national identity is quite a challenge except when there is a threat, an attack by outsiders. Then "we are all Indians". Same for the citizens of other countries no matter how much they squabbled internally on their religious, racial and cultural rights. Malaysia is such a racial and religious mess too, with all attendant political, economic and social rights demanded by various groups. But being a medium sized country with only 27 million people, it is easier to be "managed", or rather, "controlled" by the government by means reprehensible and pragmatic.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 8, 2008 12:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous: "Pakistani Muslims are trying to "liberate" Indian administered Kashmir, not trying to annexe another country; Indian Muslims need to be "liberated" in the same way, they only need to be ruled by Muslims from Pakistan or ME; the whole world is to blame for Islamic terrorism not just the terrorists...you get the drift."
India should not balked at UN mediated solutions on Kashmir, or to consider taking it to take it to the International Court of Justice. Malaysia and Singapore (Pulau Batu Putih), Malaysia and Indonesia (Sipadan) settled those territorial disputes by the ICJ and all said countries accepted the ICJ decisions on where it goes after considering claims given by those countries. Of course, those islands don't have too many people to complicate the issue. But if Kashnir becomes a bilateral problem, then, it is not longer India's domestic problem. If India goes around talking up its case on Kashmir as do Pakistan, then it is no longer India's and Pakistan's domestic or bilateral problem, but an internationalised issue.
As for the whole world being blamed by Muslims for Muslim terrorism, if you look at whom the terrorists are targetting, you will get the drift of whom the terrorists blamed. All terrorism from Algeria to Indonesia are localised against their own governments until they hit tourist spots to hit at those they blamed for Palestinians, for Afghanistan, for Iraq for other "slights" against Islam and Muslims as they see it. Oh, also to change the government by force if they can, and to put themself in place. The terrorists, in hitting out at civilians to punish governments, do turn populations against them. Only problem is, governments, in fighting against terrorists, do not have in place, well considered approaches to win hearts and minds and effective strategies to deprive terrorists of their cause and reason for being. Shot first, talk later, or study why following the shooting is not quite a good approach. There may be no one left to talk, or to study why for all will be dead with all the shooting at and shooting back.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 8, 2008 12:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous: "Considering you are a Sunni Muslim from Indonesia-Malaysia, it is no wonder you are not living on the same planet as Indian Muslims and Hindus are, unless of course you think a few visits to India makes you an expert on the country."
Aye. It is called, "armchair expert" or "armchair critic" . Except that I never ever claimed that I am an "expert" and what I am into here, unlike Mr. Daniel Brumberg, a bona fide academic, writing under "Islam and the West" and very seriously too, is to write on, "Islam and the wackos" and to give a wacked view on anything and everything related to race and religion and the kitchen sink too.
Anonymous: "You have also conventiently forgotten to point out where the paradise that was promised to Indian Muslims at the time of their exodus to Pakistan and Bangladesh is. The Muslim paradise in all of ME is also not obvious to most."
There is, on paper and in the minds of men, the "Promised Land" or "paradise" here on earth. But, of course, that is the Utopia everyone hopes for. But in reality, no. Not for Israelis being rocket lauched and suicide bombed by PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah. Not for Palestinians being collectively sanctioned or embargoed by Israelis as collective punishments for the acts of a few. Not Pakistanis being harrassed and havocked by terrorists and fanatics. Not for annually flood ridden Bangladeshis. Not for Indians with various secessionist, seperatists as well as alienated, disaffected groups such as Muslims and Maoist terrorising and commiting violence.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 8, 2008 12:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous : "The only difference with India is that Hinduism and Buddhism was born in India. Islam is foreign to India, but it has evolved as a result of being on Indian soil, the birth: place of four religions."
Aye. So is Christianity foreign to the West and everywhere else in the world, being an "import" from the Middle East and laced with local prevailing flavours for local consumption and palates. Likewise Buddhism to Indochina and East Asia. All evolved or become somethings else. Heresies and deviationists comes to mind when traditional believers regard these new faith. Zen Buddhism was "born" in Japan. The various Christian denominations, churches, sects permuted in Europe. Oh yes, Islam also permuted into Bahaism in Iran and Ahmaddiya in India. The violent Assassins into peaceniks Ismaili Muslims. The peacenik Sikhs into sometime violent Sikhs. And, what with atheists blaming religions to poison everything, so if neither Indonesia nor Malaysia have given birth to any religion, then Indonesians and Malaysians are not responsible for coming up with religions which "poisons everything" and it the root of all evil and violence and delusions in the world, no?
I wonder why Mahatma Gandhi and his approach on religions failed to appeal to many in the country of his birth for starters, what with the BJP. In spite of India having gave "birth" to four religions, "imported" Christianity and Islam still makes inroads, but there are more Buddhists in East Asia and Southeast Asia that all of India. It is interesting that you stated, "there is simply no rationalization of violence in the name of Hinduism by Hindus themselves". This is also always the reason given by other non-Muslim faith adherents too, but it certainly do not stop them from committing violence by any other name or any reason. So, in spite of pacifist nature of Hinduism, Hindus can and do commit violence and wage wars. This is one Muslim who is not persuaded by others who claimed their religion do not sanction violence, and yet they do in spite of their religious beliefs and injunctions. The Bhagavad Gita is a great treastise on battle for good and evil, within oneself and and without. And the war that follows after the end of the Arjuna/Krishna discourse is horrific.
"I am become death" - Krishna. Terrorists have become death, but they are not God, are mere mortals who can be contained, who hauled to justice, who can be killed too.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 8, 2008 11:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Two of the major factors feeding Muslim militarism today are the political and economic inequality of the world. The fact that vast numbers of people live under horribly oppressive regimes and in terrible living conditions with little or no hope of improvement, gives militants a justification for their militancy -- they believe they are fighting injustice. If we truly want to eliminate militarism, then we have to address the fact that our global economic system is terribly unbalanced, and we need to bring pressure on totalitarian regimes to relinquish power to the ballot box and a parliamentary system."
---------Panelist Pamela K Taylor
This is rationalization 101.
Not a word of condolence, no outrage...just same old all religions do it...
Why don't terrorists fight injustices in their own societies with terrorist attacks? Why is that it is always another community or another nation that is targeted?
Lesson to be learned: treat terrorism like an act of war and respond to it accordingly. Leave the Scripture quoting people out of it.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 10:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The horror of the massacre at Mumbai pales in comparison to the atrocities listed in the Jewish scriptures/bible/OT:
To wit:http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm
"Biblical Atrocities
Exodus 32: 3,000 Israelites killed by Moses for worshipping the golden calf.
Numbers 31: After killing all men, boys and married women among the Midianites, 32,000 virgins remain as booty for the Israelites. (If unmarried girls are a quarter of the population, then 96,000 people were killed.)
Joshua:
Joshua 8: 12,000 men and women, all the people of Ai, killed.
Joshua 10: Joshua completely destroys Gibeon ("larger than Ai"), Makeddah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir. "He left no survivors."
Joshua 11: Hazor destroyed. [Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987), estimates the population of Hazor at ?> 50,000]
TOTAL: if Ai is average, 12,000 x 9 = 108,000 killed.
Judges 1: 10,000 Canaanites k. at Battle of Bezek. Jerusalem and Zephath destroyed.
Judges 3: ca. 10,000 Moabites k. at Jordan River.
Judges 8: 120,000 Midianite soldiers k. by Gideon
Judges 20: Benjamin attacked by other tribes. 25,000 killed.
1 Samuel 4: 4,000 Isrealites killed at 1st Battle of Ebenezer/Aphek. 30,000 Isr. k. at 2nd battle.
David:
2 Samuel 8: 22,000 Arameans of Damascus and 18,000 Edomites killed in 2 battles.
2 Samuel 10: 40,000 Aramean footsoldiers and 7,000 charioteers killed at Helam.
2 Samuel 18: 20,000 Israelites under Absalom killed at Ephraim.
1 Kings 20: 100,000 Arameans killed by Israelites at Battle of Aphek. Another 27,000 killed by collapsing wall.
2 Chron 13: Judah beat Israel and inflicted 500,000 casualties.
2 Chron 25: Amaziah, king of Judah, k. 10,000 from Seir in battle and executed 10,000 POWs. Discharged Judean soldiers pillaged and killed 3,000.
2 Chron 28: Pekah, king of Israel, slew 120,000 Judeans
TOTAL: That comes to about 1,283,000 mass killings specifically enumerated in the Bible. The battle of 2_Chron_13 is so much larger than all the others that we probably should doubt it."
The irony is that the Mumbai terrorists took their guidance from the Worst Book Ever Written aka the koran which was written by scribes who plagiarized from a number of sources to include the Jewish scriptures/OT/bible.
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | December 8, 2008 4:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Indonesians and Malaysians may have animist, Buddhist, Hindu ancestors. The only difference with India is that Hinduism and Buddhism was born in India. Islam is foreign to India, but it has evolved as a result of being on Indian soil, the birthplace of four religions. Neither Indonesia nor Malaysia as far as I know have given birth to any religion except animism nor has it had a man called Mahatma Gandhi who worked very hard towards unity in diversity of religions. There are many well known Hindu leaders who have done the same. India gave birth to four religions, and people of different religions have lived harmoniously for the most part of its long history. India saw its first Hindu-Muslim riots in the lead up to Indian independence. Until then Hindus had been victims of Muslim violence, and it was Muslims who had ruled large parts of India which always had a Hindu majority.
Now, even though Hindu extremists claim they are only taking revenge for centuries of violence against Hindus, it is Hindus themselves who are trying very hard to rein them in. They have been ridiculed by other Hindus and labelled Hindu terrorists, and a law has been enacted to bring anyone indulging in violence in the name of religion to justice with swiftness. There is simply no rationalization of violence in the name of Hinduism by Hindus themselves (except those who are directly involved in the violence or are secretly supporting the politics). Muslims could learn from that.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 3:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Indonesians and Malaysians may have animist, Buddhist, Hindu ancestors. The only difference with India is that Hinduism and Buddhism was born in India. Islam is foreign to India, but it has evolved as a result of being on Indian soil, the birthplace of four religions. Neither Indonesia nor Malaysia as far as I know have given birth to any religion except animism nor has it had a man called Mahatma Gandhi who worked very hard towards unity in diversity of religions. There are many well known Hindu leaders who have done the same. India gave birth to four religions, and people of different religions have lived harmoniously for the most part of its long history. India saw its first Hindu-Muslim riots in the lead up to Indian independence. Until then Hindus had been victims of Muslim violence, and it was Muslims who had ruled large parts of India which always had a Hindu majority.
Now, even though Hindu extremists claim they are only taking revenge for centuries of violence against Hindus, it is Hindus themselves who are trying very hard to rein them in. They have been ridiculed by other Hindus and labelled Hindu terrorists, and a law has been enacted to bring anyone indulging in violence in the name of religion to justice with swiftness. There is simply no rationalization of violence in the name of Hinduism by Hindus themselves (except those who are directly involved in the violence or are secretly supporting the politics). Muslims could learn from that.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 2:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
VICTORIA:
How conveniently we put out of our minds that it was CIA operatives who gave the expert training to Osama Bin Laden, and the US shelled out 370 million dollars to fund the Taliban.
And supported Saddam Hussein with weapons to fight Iran (while at the same time duplicitously giving weapons to Iran to fight Iraq).
December 7, 2008 4:21 PM
__________________________________________
Correction: The US supported the Taliban to rid Afghanistan of Soviets. Taliban established a fanatic and repressive Islamic regime; they gave refuge to Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden is a millionaire. He did not need any funding from the US. His al-Quaeda is supported by oil money from ME. Osama bin Laden's anger was with US forces in ME, in connection with Gulf War I. Anyways, Taliban thanked the US for helping get rid of Soviets and giving them back their country by allowing OBL to attack US from their soil. Pakistanis who live on the border with Afghanistan identify with Taliban. As Muslims, all Pakistanis identify with the cause of Taliban although Afghanistan is ruled by Afghani Muslims, who are not fanatical and oppressive. There are many Afghanis who are grateful for the progress their country has made since the fall of Taliban rule.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 2:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The Mumbai 26/11 terrorist who was captured has given enough information about himself. He is a Pakistani national as were all the members of his team. The information he provided has been independently verified. That is known to the whole world because it is published on the international media. I understand you would read versions/spin that suits your rationalizations best. That is old hat. That is what I referred to as unsurprising run-of-the-mill response.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 2:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Verify the information I have provided before calling it a cheap shot. In fact your " expert" opinion is the cheap shot.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 2:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Considering you are a Sunni Muslim from Indonesia-Malaysia, it is no wonder you are not living on the same planet as Indian Muslims and Hindus are, unless of course you think a few visits to India makes you an expert on the country.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 2:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
You have also conventiently forgotten to point out where the paradise that was promised to Indian Muslims at the time of their exodus to Pakistan and Bangladesh is. The Muslim paradise in all of ME is also not obvious to most.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 2:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
When I refer to your run-of-the-mill comments it is: Muslim terrorists, poor things, resorted to terrorism because of poverty; Muslim terrorists are victims; if only Muslims were allowed to rule everywhere there would be no problem at all; Pakistani Muslims are trying to "liberate" Indian administered Kashmir, not trying to annexe another country; Indian Muslims need to be "liberated" in the same way, they only need to be ruled by Muslims from Pakistan or ME; the whole world is to blame for Islamic terrorism not just the terrorists...you get the drift.
Your sympathy for the victims and your condemnation of the cowardly terrorists who do everything in the name of peace, if it was written somewhere, I have missed it.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 8, 2008 2:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist,
Last thoughts on Gavriel, Rivka, Moshe. One of the men tortured and killed at Naiman House was a Satmar Chasid. To think of a Lubovitcher like Gavriel within a ten-mile radius of a Satmar is difficult, given how theologically different the two Chasidic branches are. That a Satmar should have actually made it a point to visit a Lubovitcher is testimony to how extraordinary young Gavriel must have been.
In the meantime, the Lubovitchers have several volunteers to pick up where Gavriel and Rivka left off. Israel has adopted Moshe, their son. The feelings of the Israeli people have always been mixed, at best, with respect to the Chasidim, always for the Satmar, more recently for the Lubovitcher, not that Israelis were ever particularly fond of either group. That appears to have changed, almost overnight, as it were.
India: Ofen, Indians confuse diversity with plurlism. However, since it is more than a nominal democracy, some progress has been made with minority groups, not enough for the Dalit, whose plight is a blight on humanity, et al.
I was last there eight years ago. Perhaps, some things have gotten better.
Farnaz
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2008 11:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist,
Anon's assessment of Brumberg reminds me of a blogger's assessment of yours truly: a Muslim/Jew?/Atheist. I have to say it was all above my head, but I thought it very interesting.
Farnaz
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2008 11:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello Jihadist,
I read that Muslims in Malaysia can't meditate using Zen anymore, which is unfortunate. Personally, I think every human should practice Vispanna meditation.
As for Mumbai, coverage is focusing principally on the numbers, whether ISI had anything to do with the attack, the detection of complicitous Indian nationals.
Obviously, the torture/killings at Naiman House do not cloud over everyone else killed, maimed, and orphaned, and I know this is needless to say.
I do think that to continue hunting Jews is going to have consequences, and not only for the terrorists. Isn't that what always seems to happen, except with Jews? But after all, there are just so many racist attacks one can take in England, France, the US, India, etc. Two thousand years is a long time to hasstle wiht lunatics.
Nike and fatwas: I'm no fan of Nike, but neither am I fond of fatwas.
Be careful, and be safe.
Regards,
Farnaz
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2008 10:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Again and again and again Victoria and the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist rant about the USA et al but never about the flaws and errors of Islam that cause so much suffering on a 24/7 basis i.e. the Sunni-Shiite civil wars, the massacre at Mumbai, the Darfur situation, Somali, threats from Iran, the Taliban, and al Qaeda, and all based on the Worst Book Ever Written, i.e the koran and one "pretty, wingie, thingie" named Gabriel.
And then there is the oppression of Islamic women demanded in said book. Ayaan Hirsi Ali gives some vivid examples in her book, Infidel:
"Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nomads, circumcised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue. It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hirsi Ali escaped -- and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women."
ref: Washington Post book review.
four excerpts:
p. 47 paperback issue:
"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly beaten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their screams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"
p.68:
"The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had castes. The Untouchable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were untouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were touchable: we touched them see? but also horrifying to think of yourself as untouchable, despicable to the human race."
p.309
"Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were killed by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exaggerating."
p. 347
"The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Somalia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feudal mind-set based on tribal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hyprocricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | December 7, 2008 10:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous: "Professor Daniel Brumberg it would seem is not expressing opinions as an amusing sport. Islam seems to be an area he has specialized in and he is working towards Islamic goals worldwide, especially in the ME, even if he may be a Jew." - What exactly is "working towards Islamic goals worldwide"? Surely not giving some Islamophobes the vapours with visions of an global Islamic caliphate, are you? There is such a thing as Judeo-Muslim civilisation and heritage as manifested in Al Andalus. So, no suprise of Brumberg being Jewish and to be interested in the Middle East.
Anonymous: "Your comment about India and Indian Muslims were completely devoid of facts and in complete denial of facts known to the whole world." - Oh come now, come now. That is the classic cheap shot of one not able to come out with rapid response but have to look up up before responding. So, give me your counter-points and facts on India which the "whole" world knows. From what I have been reading in On Faith threads, some do not know even their own country's history.
Anonymous: "You are entitled to your global sport. That you indulge in such a global sport does not in itself mean you have much knowledge of the issues and that you are not trapped in your bias." - Obviously the sarcasm on "global sport" is missed. Anyone can say anything and everything on any country and any people and any issues in the world. Even here in On Faith threads.
Anonymous: "Luckily Indian Muslims do not need outsiders to speak on their behalf and protect them with propaganda." - Ah, perhaps you have not been reading Indians of all faiths having plenty to comment on everyone and everything outside their country, race and religion. Even as On Faith panelists, as both American and non-American citizens.
Anonymus : "Indian Muslims have lived with Indian non-Muslim for a thousand years. They are all ethnic Indians who had Hindus as their ancestors. Maybe that explains the difference." -Most Indonesians and Malaysians have pagans, hindus and buddhists as their ancestors before becoming Muslims. In spite of being of the same race and religion, no one here is fooling themselves they have no differences on race and religion issues even within the same race and religion.
So, your assertions is more and most questionable when it comes to India. Unless you missed reading about all the violence related to religion in India. We must be living in different planets in alternate universe, no, on India, race and religion.
Cheers and out, it is Eid Adha now.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 7, 2008 9:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello Farnaz,
There is no doubt India is a very complicated country and even Indians are hard pressed to "explain" India but in terms of like five blind men and and elephant, or too easy generalisations which are often as confident as they are contradictory politically, culturally, socially, economically, religiously...and what else. I am overwhelmed by India every time I went there, and have no doubt the resentment some Hindu Indians felt towards Muslims.
As for the targetting of Nariman House, and the torturing and killing of six, including the rabbi, his wife and another son, yes, it is deliberately targetted. While there is a difference between deliberately looked for and targeted for death victims, and deaths by random killings or as collateral damage, all dead and their death should not be in vain to root out and bring the masterminds, the groups to justice.
The bigger news on casualties in Malaysia is the Malaysian woman killed in the Mumbai attacks and the anguish of her husband and family looking for her for days until they found her burnt body in a morgue and she was identified only by the jewelry her husband recognised to belong to her. The story in Singapore focussed on a Singaporean woman killed too by the attacks. I am reminded of deaths during the Asian tsunami as well as the Bali bombings. The national media always focussed on their own dead, but the international media seems to give extensive coverage to dead foreigners thought they are less in numbers but for the simple fact that it is CNN and BBC that is the most globalised in news feeds.
Malaysians are more terrified of a recession than terrorists or terrorists attack right now. Until we got hit again by some wacko groups. Oh wait! Our government and our National Fatwa Council are trying to terrorise us with their venality and idiocy. Some possible fatwas by our National Fatwa Council in 2009:
- Muslims are forbidden to wear Nike shoes as it is associated with a pagan goddess and wearing them would turn Muslims into ancient Greek pagans
- Muslims are forbidden to participate in the Olympics as it originates from ancient Greek gods and goddesses and participating in it would make Muslims lose their faith as Muslims
- Muslims are forbidden to think as it would confuse them.
Regards
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 7, 2008 9:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Professor Daniel Brumberg it would seem is not expressing opinions as an amusing sport. Islam seems to be an area he has specialized in and he is working towards Islamic goals worldwide, especially in the ME, even if he may be a Jew.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2008 9:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Your comment about India and Indian Muslims were completely devoid of facts and in complete denial of facts known to the whole world.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2008 8:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
You are entitled to your global sport. That you indulge in such a global sport does not in itself mean you have much knowledge of the issues and that you are not trapped in your bias.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2008 8:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Luckily Indian Muslims do not need outsiders to speak on their behalf and protect them with propaganda. The previous President was a Muslim, and there are many politicians at various levels who are Muslims, so an outside opinion that Muslims in India are discriminated against serves some political purpose for non-Indians. It has nothing to do with Islam or interest in Indian Muslims. It does not serve any good purpose. Indian Muslims have lived with Indian non-Muslim for a thousand years. They are all ethnic Indians who had Hindus as their ancestors. Maybe that explains the difference.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2008 8:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous,
You : "Your analysis of India as coming from a Sunni Indonesian-Malaysian Muslim should be read for what it is - the personal view of a Sunni Indonesian-Malaysian Muslim, a totally unsurprising run-of-the-mill version."
It is a global sport for idle and self-indulgent minds, inclduing moi, to freely comment on other people and countries. Of course this is to be expected of "Anonymous", another, or the same, who stated almost the same thing in another thread on abortion to me. So, the question to be posed back is - Is Mr. Daniel Brumberg's analysis on Pakistan a run of the mill analysis by a Jewish American academia? To be read as the personal view of a Jewish Whie American academia? Or his opinion to be agreed or disagreed. Is his analysis going to be accepted by all Pakistanis?
There are no two sides to any issue now, but at least three - the views of those directly affected, and third party views by interested, or disinterested or partisan parties not living in the country of region in question, or of the the race and religion of the parties being discussed. We have seen how the views of third parties on the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts subsumed the views of Israelis and Palestinians themselves in the global debate for, or against one side or the other side.
And why now for India and India Muslims to consider the Mumbai 26/11 terrorist attack as an attack on their homeland when there were other terrorist attacks before? Attacks by domestic terrorists does not warrant a similar outrage? And why not other terrorist attacks by non-Muslim groups of India's own Muslim terrorist groups? It is interesting to read India's Muslims consider the 26/11 mayhem and murder as an attack on their homeland when they are being attacked verbally and physically by their fellow non-Muslim Indians.
It recalls similar instances of Jews trying to prove their Germaness in various ways in pre-war Nazi Germany. Including highlighting and articulating their Germaness instead of their Jewishness and their loyalty as citizens of Germany. And all because they believe national identity is more important that religious identity, or that nationalism trumps ethnicity and/or religion. With an an irate Hindu majority with a historical baggage of Mughal rule and tit for tat violence till now between Hindus and Muslims, should there be any surprise for Indian Muslims to dissociate themselves from terrorists, for by their experience, it will be them who will bear the brunt of Indian Hindus in direct retributions for 26/11, not Pakistanis.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 7, 2008 8:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous,
A nice description of ancient "India" imperialistic conquests with the example of Ashoka given. And no mention of Chandragupta, another Mauyra emperor or king like Ashoka? You left out the story of Alexander the Great's incursion into India during the Mauyran period. It is glorious for one to conquer other states, but not for others to conquer one's state.
Contemporary India gloried in the Ashoka´s conquests, but reviled the Mughal conquests and reign. kingdom covered nothern India. By that, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and parts of western Iran should be still part of India. Likewise, Louisiana to Canada, and California, Texas etc should be part of Mexico. There was no "India" or Pakistan or Bangladesh, as we know it today until the British came, stitch states together, implement the "divide and rule", and carved up India again as India and Pakistan.
Oh yes, various Chinese emperors and dynasties also stitched "China" from various states, but they did it on their own on modern China. Even then, it was not all, and parts of China broke away in various stages of the historical timeline. So, is India warranted to claim that "India" existed because Asoka stitched together states centuries ago? But, no doubt modern Indians look back to the reign of Ashoka and his dhamma/edicts of India's past greatness and for future greatness too "as long as the sun and moon endure".
Some Indians says the Indian Ocean, because it is called th Indian Ocean, is thus theirs. This is the kind of imperialistic notions and hubris by any country from east or west which should also be paid attention . They are all bad in their imperial designs and over-reach against the unwilling who do not share their notions and visions.
The Indian Muslims who left for Pakistan and Bangladesh in the throes of India's independence made and choice and voted with their feet. Those who stayed in India, also made a choice to do so. If India is such a "paradise" for Muslims, and Dalits and Christians as India's Constitution is admirably secular and India has Muslim Presidents and now, an Sikh prime minister why do we still hear of gripes from the rest?
India is a bigger mess than Brahmins, who disporportionately still hold significant posts in the government, the media, the academia etc, will let on. After all, they are the equivalent of the WASP of US, and resently of their diminishing traditional hold and influence in India through the "affirmative actions" of India by law and by actions to give minorities room in the government and the bureaucracy.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 7, 2008 8:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous: "If by your argument, poverty turns Muslims into terrorists, that doesn't speak highly for Islam as a religion of peace."
"No taxation without representation" is one worthy cause to fight and die for independence and for one to alledgedly say, "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country". Add race and religion too, apart from country. No justice + no justness = no peace for both the oppressors and for the victims of such oppresssion until one side won decisively and won over their populations.
Muslims don't quite turn the other cheek. And Christians don't quite turn the other cheek, nor do other faith adherents when they had had enough of marginalisation, exploitation, suppression, oppression and deprivation of their rights. Muslims don't quite "protest" by letting, say, colonisers, to beat them up while they passively accept verbal and physical blows and to wait for the abusers to come to their "civilized" senses and stop all by themselves.
Muslims are more inclined to call for a jihad against those they are against as rallying battle cries. Islamic history is full of such, and now more often invoke by sub-state and non-state actors instead of Muslim goverments. So, Muslim governments are faced with jihads against them too, from Algeria to Indonesia by those who hated their regimes and seek to remove them by force.
And certainly, by your argument, Muslims should not, and could not fight for their rights, for their land, for their "way of life" no matter how alien and reprehensible for the Judeo-Christian civilisation and heritage champions as the best, the greatest and the one to measure other civilisations and heritage.
Indians/Hindus, Chinese and Iranians thinks their civilisation and heritage are great too. Do we leave it to civilisation chauvinists to thrash that out in words and wars? Of course there is that much disputed cliche : "One man´s freedom fighter and another man's terrorist". Need we go into this, the obvious, judging by history?
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 7, 2008 8:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
The situation in India is very complex, and there is no question that it has failed miserably insofar as preventing homegrown terror. It contains both Muslim and Hindu terrorists both within and without, that is, among its neighbors.
God help them all if the Dalit decide their day has come. In the interim, India treats its Muslim citizens as second-class citizens, and it is unsurprising to find that some responsible for 11/26 were homegrown.
The US is largely responsible for the hell on earth that is Pakistan at present, as I have frequently posted. How the racially motivated attacks on Gavriel and his wife Rivka, six months pregnant, both murdered in front of their son, who was rescued covered in his mother's blood fits in with all this escapes me.
Those in Naiman House were specifically targeted. The terrorists were told to go after them and torture them. Six were tortured to death. Had it not been for the remarkable nanny, Moshe, the two year old, would be dead as well.
The nanny, Sandra, repeatedly says she is no hero. She said, "If I were a hero, I would have saved my rabbi." However, the families of the victim and the nation of Israel do view her as a hero, as do I. This was one racist incident that the Israeli government could not keep from its people.
The whole thing was horrible. All those deaths--Muslim, Hindu, et al. But this racist targeting of Jews all over the world can only result in one of two things--neither of them very good. There is no justification for terror, not in India, not anywhere. Racist terror is particularly disgusting.
I find it extremely peculiar that not a single panelist mentions Naiman House.
Posted by: Farnaz | December 7, 2008 7:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Just for the record it is NOT al-Qaeda that carried out Mumbai 26/11 terrorist attack. They all are Pakistanis, trained by Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2008 6:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is remarkable. Not a SINGLE Muslim panelist has anything to say about Mumbai 26/11!!!
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2008 6:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
It is a true fact that the US funded military regimes of Pakistan and that is why they have such a powerful military that calls the shots in their country. They have been able to divert funds to terrorist activities both directly through ISI and fundamentalist Islamic groups.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2008 6:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
If by your argument, poverty turns Muslims into terrorists, that doesn't speak highly for Islam as a religion of peace.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2008 6:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
There are many Muslim countries in ME and Africa. There is no evidence that they are devoid of poverty, in spite of Islamic rule for fourteen centuries. The simplistic tactic of looking for scapegoats to justify the failure of Pakistani government to establish a democracy IS stuff and nonsense.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2008 6:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Ashoka, the first Indian Emperor, a convert to Buddhism from Hinduism, lived 304 BC – 232 BC. "His empire stretched from present-day Pakistan, Afghanistan and parts of Iran in the west, to the present-day Bangladesh and Assam states of India in the east, and as far south as the Mysore state."
So Emperor Ashoka had "stiched together" a much larger India than the British did, a thousand years before the birth of Islam.
Muslims had "stitched together" large parts of India with a Hindu majority for three hundred years before the British arrived. They did not create separate countries based on religion then or in the thousand years that Muslims have lived among Hindus and other religions in India. India should have become a paradise with no single poor Muslim or Hindu in the 300 years that Muslims ruled. So no Indian Muslim is falling for "if Muslims are given a separate country based on their religion everything is going to be okay." Pakistan and Bangladesh aren't exactly inspiring examples of Indian Muslims having a better time if only they are allowed to live in a separate country.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2008 5:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist:
Your analysis of India as coming from a Sunni Indonesian-Malaysian Muslim should be read for what it is - the personal view of a Sunni Indonesian-Malaysian Muslim, a totally unsurprising run-of-the-mill version. Unfortunately for you Indian Muslims don't share your view. They consider the Mumbai 26/11 terrorist attack as an attack on their homeland. (Remember two separate countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh, were created for Indian Muslims to live in at their request. Yet 140 million Muslims choose to live in India of their own free will.) They consider Muslims who kill the innocent and commit suicide in the process as false Muslims. They admit 1% of the Muslims are such false Muslims. From a population of 1.3 billion, that makes room for enough terrorists. Indian Muslims can handle their interpretation of Islam without outside help.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 7, 2008 5:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Again and again the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist rants about the USA et al but never about the flaws and errors of Islam that cause so much suffering on a 24/7 basis i.e. the Sunni-Shiite civil wars, the massacre at Mumbai, the Darfur situation, Somali, threats from Iran, the Taliban, and al Qaeda, and all based on the Worst Book Ever Written, i.e the koran and one "pretty, wingie, thingie" named Gabriel.
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | December 7, 2008 4:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
How conveniently we put out of our minds that it was CIA operatives who gave the expert training to Osama Bin Laden, and the US shelled out 370 million dollars to fund the Taliban.
And supported Saddam Hussein with weapons to fight Iran (while at the same time duplicitously giving weapons to Iran to fight Iraq).
Posted by: VICTORIA | December 7, 2008 4:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous,
And oh, why not some more too?
Anon : "This stuff and nonsense about poverty leading to terrorism is exactly that - nonsense."
And that assertion is limited in scope, and thus, nonsensical in conclusion. Poverty do provide a reason to get recruits for terrorists too, especially the general poverty of a country and people. Someone will say the root of poverty is capitalism, or corruption and and oppressive governance, or western imperialism, hubris and greed, or unjust policies by the state. And whomever says the recruits has all to be poor or marginalised boys and girls. It is the alienated educated ones who acted up by what they see, they percieve as unjustness who are the most lethal ones in providing reasons to fight. And the funding to feed, train and provide weapons to the poor boys who shared their views to wage the battles. Or by other countries who shares their politcal and/or ideological views.
Anon: "For most part of the 60 year history of the Pakistan nation, it has been ruled by military dictators."
Yes, and it was tolerated by America as it believed only the military can provide support for its war against the Soviets, and er, provide "security" for the country as no civilian goverment could. Very expedient now to huff and puff about Pakistan after giving its various military regimes a nod and a wink and to look the other way on its misgovernance and slippage into a mess when the beasts America and Pakistan created and utilised against the Soviets turns against them. Saddam Hussein was a dictator tolerated by US who complicitly agreed when it attacked Khomeini's Iran as the latter was and is the enemy of the US. Until Saddam unilaterally attacked Kuwait. Can't have that.
Anonymous: "Interfaith dialogues are good to reduce religious radicalization resulting in communal violence and recruitment of terrorist with religious propaganda. This terrorist attack is stealthy war based on politics and should be dealt with politically."
Interfaith dialogues is nothing. Intra-state dialogues between warring factions, and inter-state dialogues is more important and covers everything from political and civil rights to social, cultural and economic rights. Add issues of territories and resources to inter-state dialogues. Religion is part, but not all of it, but a most potent mix in the brew or race, ethnicity and nationalism. If religion becomes all of it, it is because politicians made it so or to allow it so for their own ends of "us vs them". Nationalistic patriotism slipping into jingoism is worst than religious chauvinism. The state has more firepower to act on it. Terrorism by non-state or sub-state actors with home made rockets and fifth hand AK 47s or M16s, are nothing. State terrorism, using all instruments at the disposal of states - armies and laws, now that is something to consider carefully. Or there won't be some groups fighting as terrorists against state terrorism.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 7, 2008 1:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous,
Oh, why not too.
A good educational series of posts by "Anonymous" on India as if India is still a misunderstood country as written so much about by Indian and western writers, and as if India is still a "Wounded Civilisation" as written by V.S. Naipaul.
There was no "India" as like now before the British came and stitch the states in the Sub-continent into one against the will of some states, or willingly by other states. And then, the British proceeded to split its Jewel in the Crown of British imperialism and colonialism into India and Pakistan when Indians agitated for independence. And Gandhi most reluctantly agreed to it, and got killed for it. And then India complicitly split Pakistan into - Pakistan and Bangladesh.
So, what gives that some countries cannot have their countries split up due to festering racial and/or religious conflicts? The reality is otherwise, even in recent post Cold War history. The Soviet Union broke into Ukraine, Georgia, the Central Asian Stans states etc. Yugoslavia was split into Serbia and Bosnia and Croatia etc. Timor Leste split from Indonesia. But India consider any possible split by Kashmir as not possible. China consider any split by Tibet as not possible. US would not tolerate any possible split by Alaska and Americans deem those who want to do so as treasoneous. That Chechnya cannot be allowed to split from Russia. And there can never be a two-state solution as Isreal and Palestine. And Jerusalem can never be shared nor split.
For a country aspiring and courted as an upcoming global power, India to act responsibly towards its smaller neighbours (Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh etc)? Perhaps it should have focussed more on regional organisations and take a leadership role in them, particularly South Asia Region Regional Cooperation (SARRC), as do France and Germany in EU, as do the US in NAFTA, as do Indonesia in ASEAN to earn respect.
The fact remains that an aspiring global power, the world's biggest democracy, with an excellent secular Constitution, is behaving badly towards some of its people some of the times, and some of its people most of the times, and quite heavy handed in dealings with some of its smaller neighbours, some of the time for some, and most of the time for some others. Elephants with nukes and not signing against cluster bombs complaining about domestic and external mosquitoes sounds more like whining and blustering throwing around of its weight, and a deflection from taking real responsibilities on what it did or did not do domestically and internationally.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 7, 2008 1:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Unni Nair,
Oh, why not.
Not every USD America has been giving to Pakistan is used by it to "destabilise" India as alleged. It was also used to fund Mujahideens to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. India was neutral during the Cold war which did irritate several US Administrations. Pakistan was not in the fight against the Communist threat.
Now that the Cold War is over, perhaps in line with Samuel Huntington's premise, the "threat" to America and the free world is now projected to be Confucianism-Islam/Sino-Islam threat. From the looks of it, and as obvious, India is assidiously courted by America as an ally to counter the Chinese "threat", and now the Islamic threat. Is this a possible Hindu-Judeo-Christian civilisation clash against the Sino-Muslim "threat"?
It would seem that "dumb" Chinese, and "dumber" Muslims are called to inject funds in America's and the west financial institutions to keep the financial system afloat, and the global economy from slipping furhter and furhter, country by country, into recession, both the technical and the real kind. To strenghten the US again to fight against them?
Lessons One : The communists were the ideological enemy of America in the Cold War and some hot ones (as in Vietnam), Muslims were allies against Communism (as in Muslim Mujahideens from all fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan).
Lesson Two : The communists lost, America wins, America don't need old allies against Communism, as the new "threat" to America is now Islam/Muslims, Chinese.
Lesson Three : America is a state in a perpetual state of war domestically - War of Independence, Civil War etc); and internationally - Spanish American War, WW 1, WW 2, Korean War, Vietnam War, Afghan War, Iraq War, EU-America Banana war (a trade dispute) etc and soon to be Iran War?
Perhaps, we should consider excluding US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel from the "global community" of responsible actors if only for the fact that they projected themselves as such. Apart from having nukes, for "protection" against threats by enemies, they also did not sign the international convention against clusters bombs for "protection" against threats by enemies.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 7, 2008 1:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Unni Nair notes:
"Every Dollar that America has been giving to Pakistan is used by it to destabilise India in particular and thereby the SE Asia in particular."
References to substantiate your comment??
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | December 7, 2008 11:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The American establishment has always been advocating restraint on the part of India inspite of all kinds of heinous act perpetrated at the instnce of political, military and religious establishment of Pakistan. And India has all along been heeding to the advise of America as it wants peace and stability in the region.
It has tolerated proxy war by Pakis for the last 30 years.
But what Indians dont appreciate is the way of the Americans. All America needed to go on a capaign against Iraq was the assumption that Iraq is on to the manufacture of Chemical weapons. But what is not comprehended by the Indians is why America is ignoring the evidence provided by Indians and dug out by itself against Pakis compicity in terror attacks in India. The last paragraph of the above article is a testimony to what I feel. India to keep quiet inspite of the worst provocation.
Every Dollar that America has been giving to Pakistan is used by it to destabilise India in particular and thereby the SE Asia in particular. While India has been exporting IT, Medical and other professionals to the West thereby the enriching the life of the westerners Paki has been exporting rabid Islamic fundamentalists and Gun weilding terrorists.
Posted by: Unni Nair | December 7, 2008 8:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
With US funded military resources and intelligence tactics learned, they are able to fight on both sides of their border - AFGHANISTAN and India - in a way that suits them best, withholding support to US/NATO as a means of arms twisting to carry on with their activities against India and to cover it up/not be brought to the book, have NATO find excuses for their behavior.
This stuff and nonsense about poverty leading to terrorism is exactly that - nonsense.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 9:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
For most part of the 60 year history of the Pakistan nation, it has been ruled by military dictators. More than one civilian political leader has been assassinated, the most recent one being Ms Bhutto. (One should not be surprised if her widower husband does not feel completely safe.) Al-Quaeda and Taliban have merely added fuel to the fire, radicalizing ever more segments of the populations in the name of Islam. There are strong ant-American sentiments in some segments of Pakistan. They admit very frankly that they need the American money for their country, and they play along saying whatever the US needs them to say. With US funded military resources and intelligence tactics learned, they are able to fight on both sides of their border - Pakistan and India - in a way that suits them best, withholding support to US/NATO as a means of arms twisting to carry on with their activities against India and to cover it up.
This is politics on war footing. Islam is being used merely as recruit strategy, to get young men who are ready to die for nothing.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 9:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is equally naive and simplistic to say al-Quaeda and Taliban are spent forces. They have had an ideology and method which involved indoctrination into Jihad as a noble duty of every Muslim and hard military/combat training that allowed its recruits to set out on their own independently, form daughter organizations under different names or have no name, lie low and attack when the circumstances were right. They are a stealth guerrilla suicide squad trained to attack the innocent unsuspecting public and die in the process.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 7:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
For most part of the 60 history of Pakistan as a nation, it has been ruled by military dictators. Civilian rulers have been assassinated. Al-Quaeda and Taliban have merely added fuel to the fire, radicalizing ever more segments of the populations in the name of Islam.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 7:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Interfaith dialogues are good to reduce religious radicalization resulting in communal violence and recruitment of terrorist with religious propaganda. This terrorist attack is stealthy war based on politics and should be dealt with politically.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 7:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mumbai 26/11 was a well planned, skillfully executed special forces raid, meant to keep foreign investors away from the financial capital of India and terrorize the general population. Quoting Scripture and discussing religious tenets as remedy to this is the height of naivity and idiocy. This is stealthy political war and should be treated as such.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 7:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jihadist, I read every word you wrote- really well thought out and astute observations.
Posted by: VICTORIA | December 6, 2008 3:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
IN OUR COUNTRY, HAS RELIGION CROSSED THE LINE? JUST LOOK AT THIS PAST ELECTION SEASON. JUST HOW MANY WILL FILE TAX EXAMPT WHEN THEY VIOLATED THE TAX EXAMPT RULES. ARE THEY THEN NOT ONLY BEING DISHONEST BUT STEALING FROM SOCITY BY FILEING TAX EXAMPT? WHY IS IT ONE RELIGION SPEAKS OUT BUT ANOTHER CANNOT SUCH AS CHRISTANITY VRS ISLM? WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE IN WHAT EVER JUST SO WE DO NOT FORCE IT ON OTHERS.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 11:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Pakistan seems to have morphed into a terrorist factory. Sad.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 5:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The religious hatred is added only as fuel to the fire.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 4:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If one could split all the conflicts into their real political entities it is easier to understand them. Politics of Sunni vs Shia vs Kurds in Iraq. Other areas to be understood in the same way. Then politics in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Search for groups they identify as their political enemies, search for the political motives for the attacks. A clear picture emerges.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 4:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The modern terrorism in the name of Islam is nothing but guerrilla warfare against an unsuspecting innocent civilian population. It is being waged only for political reasons, whether in the ME or elsewhere. The attempt by Pakistan to take over Kashmir is imperialistic in intent. Kashmir was never a part of Pakistan. Pakistan itself was a part of India. India is trumped up as an enemy because it chooses to defend itself against the imperialist intentions of Pakistan. Pakistan considers any Indian territory where Muslims live its own. India has NEVER waged an aggressive war, neither against China nor against Pakistan. All three wars against Pakistan has been defensive ones. India has taken a thousand cuts from Pakistan without retaliation for fear of a big war. That has been the Pakistani tactic, to bleed India to death and destruction with thousands of small cuts.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 3:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mumbai 26/11 is politically motivated and should be treated as such.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 1:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If Shia, Sunni and Kurish Muslims in Iraq have so much difficulty to find common ground, how should Muslims in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh - all separate countries, find common ground?
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 1:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Just as East Pakistan, which broke away from West Pakistan, to become Bangladesh, Indian Muslims living in India consider themselves a part of a separate country called India. That is where they have always lived for centuries first as Hindus and later converted to Islam and they are all of Indian origin.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 1:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If were poverty were the root of terrorism, 600 MILLION Indians (mostly Hindus) should become terrorists. They should have become terrorists centuries ago. All the poor people in the world, and there are millions of them, should become terrorists.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 1:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Americans, Brits and Jewish American/Israeli citizens were specifically targeted in addition to Indian elite and random Westerners. Shooting in railway station, hospital etc was to create a citywide mayhem. One tenth of the dead were Westerners (circa 22). Forty were Indian Muslims. All the others were non-Muslim Indians.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 1:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Just as East Pakistan, which broke away from West Pakistan, to become Bangladesh, Indian Muslims living in India consider themselves a part of a separate country.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 1:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
After 200 years of British rule, when India gained independence, some Indian Muslims wanted a separate country based on their religion alone. Thus Pakistan and later East Pakistan broke away and became Bangladesh. Kashmir was never part of Pakistan. Pakistan itself was a part of India.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 1:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The terrorist who was caught claimed to be trained by a member of:
Lashkar-e-Taiba = Army of the PURE
renamed mid-2002 Jama'at ud Dawa (Party of the Calling).
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 1:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It has not escaped the attention of the Indian Muslims that some terrorist attacks specifically targeted the Indian lifelines - politics in New Delhi, financial capital - Mumbai, intellectual capital - Bangalore etc. It reeks of politics, not religion.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 12:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Indian Muslims are determined to work with all other Indians to bring peace and security to their country.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 12:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Indian Muslims look upon Mumbai 26/11 as an attack against their country.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 12:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Indian Muslims have condemned the terrorist act.
Indian Muslims have refused to bury the terrorists in their cemeteries.
Indian Muslims are keeping Eid celebrations low key and wearing a black band to show solidarity with all those who were killed, including 40 Indian Muslims.
Indians Muslims will abstain from slaughtering cows for this Eid.
Indian Muslim Imam leaders have given a national directive asking all Imams to preach against getting involved in terrorist activities in the name of Islam.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 12:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank God Indian Muslims have a mind of their own and do not want to be associated with the invasion of their country in the name of Islam and supposed revenge on their behalf by terrorists from outside.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 6, 2008 12:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Isn't it nice... yawn... how some things never change... nod, stretch... like... yawn... Bun-Bun/CCNL... yawn...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: Arminius | December 5, 2008 8:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There the Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist goes again as she does not condemn the Islamic bloodshed being spilled 24/7 in Iraq basically saying that if the USA can have a civil war then why can't Muslims act just as badly? Or since the murder rate in the USA is so high, why can't Sunnis and Shiites butcher themselves 24/7. Why? Because Muslims according the Jihadist are so much better than the rest of the world.
Then there is the foundation of this Muslim violence which the Jihadist always forgets. Strange, since she knows the reason for everything else.
And just think, an historic correction of the koran would eliminate the foundations of all this grief but The Jihadist continues to claim that Islam and the koran are perfect. Give us a break!!!
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | December 5, 2008 6:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
CCNL, Bagel,
Get some cream cheese, make yourself into a sandwich, put yourself in the refrigerator, and close the door. Don't worry. You'll keep.
Posted by: Observer12 | December 5, 2008 6:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
CCNL : "As of November 16, 2008 : 89,589 – 97,814 Iraqi citizens have been killed from suicide bombers, gunfire, executions and roadside bombs.
No figures on Iraqis killed as collateral damage in their liberation and freedom? How many were killed in America's civil war?
Since 9/11, over 85,000 Americans were murdered by other Americans.
Lesson 11 : Guns don't kill, people do. Guns were created and manufactured to help people kill better and faster. Guns don't kill, but people do, and God did not create guns by intelligent design, nor did guns evolved from stone implements by natural selections and evolution.
Lesson 12 : The right to bear arms is a right as enshrined in the Bill of Rights/Constitution for irregular forces or army against foreign oppressors and suppressive governments. This right does not extend to foreigners as a fundamental rights to bear arms under any circumstances.
Lesson 13 : It all right to be killed by one's own people or to kill one's own people, but God help them if someone not of us, kill one of us. Nuke them all!
Posted by: Jihadist | December 5, 2008 4:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
India as a global power
It is India which wants a global role and say, not Pakistan. Ask India’s neighbours and what it did, or did not do on regional affairs. India was also complicit in the training of Tamil Tigers in its territories and causing much troubles in Sri Lanka among others. If India wants a UN Security Council Seat as a permanent member (if there be expanded UNSC membership to reflect new realities, apart from P5 now) perhaps it should also show confidence in the United Nations to let the Kashmir issue be resolved through UN mediated resolution, and even “self-determination” (by a referendum) of the Kashmiris if it dared. Unless, India still consider the will of the people not as important as the will of the maharajah of where he wants to be part of.
One billion Indians or one billion Chinese giving both a say in global affairs by their sheer size in population? Perhaps the world has every right to ask India and China to temper the populations, if unchecked in numbers, that is a burden on global resources and will lead to future conflicts for resources – everything from water to oil to food and as contributors to pollution and environmental degradation.
Lesson One: An aspiring global power will be measured by how it handles its domestic problems and bilateral issues, not its aspirations for global reach and size of domestic markets, both real and potential.
Lesson Two : Lesson One is not solely due to to religion, but also nationalism. Theoretically atheistic China does not commit violence against its own people due to religion, nor do it formulate its domestic and foreign policy due to its belief in implementing God’s Plan and God’s will.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 5, 2008 4:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Pakistan and terrorists
Pakistan and Afghanistan are seen as hotbeds and breeding grounds of terrorism. Both become failed states due to engaging in the ideological battles as either proxies (in the case of Afghanistan) and enablers (as in the case of Pakistan) and funders (as in the case of Saudi Arabia and the US). Reagan is given credit to have “won”, Afghanistan and Pakistan loses and are still paying the price as a security mess.
If the US thinks the communist-Soviets were enemies of the free world then, and found it expedient to use Afghan Mujahideen, with the cooperation of Pakistan, to bleed the Soviets financially, then the Afghans and all those Muslims who fought against the Soviets, including Al-Qaeda, found a tactic to bleed the US and others they deem to be their enemies. Al-Qeada’s No. 2 latest tape did say they want to “bankrupt” the US in wars as they do for the Soviets in getting into Afghanistan. With the Iraq War estimated by some will cost the US a trillion USD, one do think what that amount could do in overseas development assistance to third world countries for education and social services to prevent them from slipping into “failed states” categories, and stanching creation of swamps as fertile breeding grounds of terrorists.
Lesson One : Never get on the same boat with someone who forge convenient friendships to contain their enemies. Once the enemy is deem contained, they will throw you off the boat and leave you to fend for yourself in shark infested seas.
Lesson Two : Your friends with enemies will only supply guns and intel to weaken their enemies, but not for schools and hospitals for the mental and physical health of your people in protecting and securing the “way of life” for their people.
Lesson Three : Money for wars cost more than peace-making and peace-building, and benefits no one except the military-industrial complex in profits and technological research and applications in everything from nukes to cluster bombs, not biofuel etc.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 5, 2008 4:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Oh, why not another series of posts here under the influence of caffeine, Asian realities and absurdities....
Terrorists and Guerillas
Not lessons, but observations:
Observation One: Terrorist organizations are what used to be called guerillas. When against the police or military of a state, and with what resources they have, they have to be creative, effective and improvise constantly. The guerillas’ tactics of “hit and run” is still used by terrorists. Same for the Malayan Communist Party, same for the Al-Qaeda, same for Jemaah Islamiyah. And all are designated as terrorists organizations.
Observation Two: The object of against are the same for the Malayan Communist Party, for Al Qaeda, for Jemaah Islamiyah. Anti-foreigner who are against them and they are against in attaining their objectives, and anti their own governments and seek to remove them by force/violence/terrorism. Which brings to the question as to why terrorists organizations in developing countries are seen to be anti-West (if and when a western country is affected as spill over targets) when all are anti their own governments.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 5, 2008 4:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Reality Challenged and Obfuscating Jihadist she failed to add Lesson 11 i.e. the Mumbai massacre pales in comparison to the 24/7 blood bath of the Islamic Sunni-Shiite civil war being carried out in Iraq.
As of November 16, 2008 : 89,589 – 97,814 Iraqi citizens have been killed from suicide bombers, gunfire, executions and roadside bombs.(an average of 24/day in 2008 as per http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ )
And all over who is the correct descendent of one warmongering, hallucinating, womanizing, illiterate, and long-dead Arab named Mohammed!!! Dumber than dumb!!!
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | December 5, 2008 4:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mumbai's Disheartening Lessons?
My definitely non-academic version of Mumbai’s cause and effect, not lessons learnt:
Lesson 1: If you have limited resources and tried to control/govern and a multiethnic, multireligious society, focus on the needs of majority, marginalize the minorities as pettiness against the national interest and greater public good.
Lesson 2 : As the result of pandering to the racial/religious majority has a price of minorities agitating for their rights - in street demonstrations, in armed separatists or secessionists movements, designate them as disloyal and unpatriotic, or terrorists seeking to undermine territorial integrity.
Lesson 3 : Deploy resources, arms and security forces, to “contain” or “repress” or “purge” or to “drain the swamp” of them, and while at it, enact and enforce laws to limit individual rights in the name of security for all.
Lesson 4 : In undertaking armed conflicts against pesky and demanding minorities, push them out of their homes to be internally displaced persons and let them rot there for weeks, months, years or decades in camps with not enough food, shelter, clothing, health care, and blame the international community for not giving enough.
Lesson 5 : Better yet, push the pesky Minorities to neighbouring countries as refugees to preferably be among their fellow co-religionists and ethnic group for they would fit better there.
Lesson 6 : If they lay assaults from the refugee camps in neighboring countries, blame the neighbouring countries for harbouring and supporting these groups to undermine your country’s security and call them to take actions to weed them out.
Lesson 7 : In any attack that happens in your country, blame external links, or external countries or external parties for supporting the minorities on their rights, in giving moral and material support for them as secessionists, separatists.
Lesson 8 : If the neighbouring country is not taking action as desired, threaten them with war, or have illegal military incursions, or attack them militarily to secure the security of your country.
Lesson 9: Allocate a large chunk of the state annual budget not for health and education, but for the police and military as state security is more important than political, economic and social security of all and for all, to stop challenges from internal and external forces seeking to undermine “state sovereignty” and “territorial integrity”.
Lesson 10 : Never adopt the position that jaw-jaw is always better than war-war, that compromises is always better than impositions. Always remember that “state sovereignty” and “territorial integrity” are more important than humans lives and human costs to ensure that.
J
Posted by: Jihadist | December 5, 2008 1:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What is to be done??
Delete the flaws and errors in the major(and minor) religions starting with Islam!!!
Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/ plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
This agenda continues as shown by the Mumbai massacre, the assassinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.
And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.
Current crises:
The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.
Synopses of the flaws and errors of Judaism, Catholicism/Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism are available upon request.
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | December 5, 2008 10:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
It is so heartening to know that 16 th anniversary of Babri Masjid demolition passed off peacefully. Muslims said they will not organise any protest march this year in the wake of mumbai blasts.
Babri Masjid demolition is considered as mother of all terrorism in India . It was when the wounds of partition was healing, Hindu nationalists demolished the historical monument in dec 1992 . 2000 muslims were killed by the riots that followed all over the country.
Liberman commission set up by the government to probe the demolition incident have not submitted the report yet!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2528025.stm