12-04-2008, 08:02 AM
^Shambhu.
==
a rejoinder by a Hindu, to Time Magazine article about poverty of Muslims in India being a cause for terror. Email.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is my response to this article in Time magazine.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1862650,00.html
DS
Â
November 30, 2008
Dear Sir,
The statement attributed to one of the terrorists by Aryn Baker about the plight of Muslims in India is highly suspect and does not stand to scrutiny considering the remarks made by the TV media including CNN and several hostages about the motives of the terrorists in carrying out the mayhem and cold blooded killing of hundreds of innocent people in Mumbai. The terrorists were looking specifically for the Americans and British citizens. They also targeted Jewish Shabad House which clearly confirms that the Islamic terrorists were not interested in the conditions of Indian Muslims in India as mischievously portrayed in the article by the author. Obviously, Aryn Baker has shamefully built her case to justify the recent Islamic Jihad in Mumbai by using alleged quote from one of the terrorists. Â
The rest of the article lacks the in-depth journalistic analytical standard and is one sided and based on distortions and misinformation. Besides, the author seems to be completely ignorant of India's history, particularly of the last 1200 years.Â
India has suffered Islamic terrorism from the seventh century onwards. The American historian Will Durant said: "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history." French historian Alain Danielou said in his Histoire de l' Inde: "From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilisations, wiped out entire races." Mahmoud Ghazni, was an early example of Muslim ruthlessness, burning in 1018 of the temples of Mathura, razing Kanauj to the ground and destroying the famous temple of Somnath, sacred to all Hindus. His successors were as ruthless as Ghazni: 103 temples in the holy city of Benaras were razed to the ground, its marvelous temples destroyed, its magnificent palaces wrecked." Indeed, the Muslim policy vis a vis India, seems to have been a conscious systematic destruction of everything that was beautiful, holy, refined." Based on the Islamic evidences, several million Hindus were killed, thousands were taken as slaves and many temples were destroyed between 7th to 18th centuries by the Islamic invaders. All along, the iconoclasts remained convinced as per their own records that they were putting into practice the highest tenets of their religion.
Jinnah said in Lahore on 23 March, 1940: "The Hindus and Musalmans belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions." Though the majority Indian Muslims had voted for the creation of Pakistan on the basis of religion, many of them decided to stay back in India. While the Muslim population in India has grown from about 10% in 1947 to nearly 17%, Hindu population in Pakistan has come down from 26% in 1947 to about 2% now. The census of 1951 reports that Hindus constituted 22% in East Pakistan (Bangladesh), but 2001 it is 9.2 %. Can this be called persecution of Muslims by Hindu majority as the article implies?
At the economic level, as per The Economic Times' Survey, "Hindus and Muslims, at a national level, run neck-and-neck on average annual household income (AHI) of Rs. 61, 423 and Rs. 58,420, respectively". http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Econom...how/1858719.cms. The survey thus completely demolishes the argument that Indian Muslims are economically poor.
Indian Muslims have done very well socially and politically by any world standard. There have been Muslims Presidents, cabinet ministers, attorneys, doctors as well as rich businessmen like Azim Premji, owner of Wipro, one of the largest IT houses in the world.
The Muslims in India, though in minority, wield considerable power as they exploit their self-imposed victim status and demand special privileges under threats of uncontrollable violence. As a result, they are given Haj subsidy ( going to Mecca for pilgrimage)Â which is denied to Hindus for their pilgrimage. Whereas Hindu temples and their funds are controlled by the government, Mosques and Madressas are allowed to run independently without any interference from the government. Muslims are allowed to divorce their wives by calling 'Talaq' three times and marry four wives. Rajiv Gandhi (ex-Prime Minister of India) altered the Indian constitution to overrule the Indian Supreme Court's decision in the divorce case of Shah Banu just in order to please the Muslim mullahs. The Indian politicians, particularly the current Indian government in power, have been using Muslims as a vote bank and hence their appeasement by sacrificing the welfare and interest of the majority community, Hindus. As a matter of fact, it is India's Hindus who are facing the real crisis in their own homeland and not Muslims since the political power is in the hands of anti-Hindu politicians.
Finding the roots of Islamic terrorism in India and other parts of world requires study of the Islamic scriptures and the history of Islam which play a central role in promulgation and advancement of a comprehensive political ideology which the author has completely ignored to justify the Mumbai terror to suite her personal agenda.
It is indeed sad and disappointing that a magazine of the Time's stature has allowed itself to be used by the apologist of Islamic Jihad to propagate the hateful political ideology of killing innocent non-believers.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
==
a rejoinder by a Hindu, to Time Magazine article about poverty of Muslims in India being a cause for terror. Email.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is my response to this article in Time magazine.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1862650,00.html
DS
Â
November 30, 2008
Dear Sir,
The statement attributed to one of the terrorists by Aryn Baker about the plight of Muslims in India is highly suspect and does not stand to scrutiny considering the remarks made by the TV media including CNN and several hostages about the motives of the terrorists in carrying out the mayhem and cold blooded killing of hundreds of innocent people in Mumbai. The terrorists were looking specifically for the Americans and British citizens. They also targeted Jewish Shabad House which clearly confirms that the Islamic terrorists were not interested in the conditions of Indian Muslims in India as mischievously portrayed in the article by the author. Obviously, Aryn Baker has shamefully built her case to justify the recent Islamic Jihad in Mumbai by using alleged quote from one of the terrorists. Â
The rest of the article lacks the in-depth journalistic analytical standard and is one sided and based on distortions and misinformation. Besides, the author seems to be completely ignorant of India's history, particularly of the last 1200 years.Â
India has suffered Islamic terrorism from the seventh century onwards. The American historian Will Durant said: "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history." French historian Alain Danielou said in his Histoire de l' Inde: "From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of 'a holy war' of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilisations, wiped out entire races." Mahmoud Ghazni, was an early example of Muslim ruthlessness, burning in 1018 of the temples of Mathura, razing Kanauj to the ground and destroying the famous temple of Somnath, sacred to all Hindus. His successors were as ruthless as Ghazni: 103 temples in the holy city of Benaras were razed to the ground, its marvelous temples destroyed, its magnificent palaces wrecked." Indeed, the Muslim policy vis a vis India, seems to have been a conscious systematic destruction of everything that was beautiful, holy, refined." Based on the Islamic evidences, several million Hindus were killed, thousands were taken as slaves and many temples were destroyed between 7th to 18th centuries by the Islamic invaders. All along, the iconoclasts remained convinced as per their own records that they were putting into practice the highest tenets of their religion.
Jinnah said in Lahore on 23 March, 1940: "The Hindus and Musalmans belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions." Though the majority Indian Muslims had voted for the creation of Pakistan on the basis of religion, many of them decided to stay back in India. While the Muslim population in India has grown from about 10% in 1947 to nearly 17%, Hindu population in Pakistan has come down from 26% in 1947 to about 2% now. The census of 1951 reports that Hindus constituted 22% in East Pakistan (Bangladesh), but 2001 it is 9.2 %. Can this be called persecution of Muslims by Hindu majority as the article implies?
At the economic level, as per The Economic Times' Survey, "Hindus and Muslims, at a national level, run neck-and-neck on average annual household income (AHI) of Rs. 61, 423 and Rs. 58,420, respectively". http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Econom...how/1858719.cms. The survey thus completely demolishes the argument that Indian Muslims are economically poor.
Indian Muslims have done very well socially and politically by any world standard. There have been Muslims Presidents, cabinet ministers, attorneys, doctors as well as rich businessmen like Azim Premji, owner of Wipro, one of the largest IT houses in the world.
The Muslims in India, though in minority, wield considerable power as they exploit their self-imposed victim status and demand special privileges under threats of uncontrollable violence. As a result, they are given Haj subsidy ( going to Mecca for pilgrimage)Â which is denied to Hindus for their pilgrimage. Whereas Hindu temples and their funds are controlled by the government, Mosques and Madressas are allowed to run independently without any interference from the government. Muslims are allowed to divorce their wives by calling 'Talaq' three times and marry four wives. Rajiv Gandhi (ex-Prime Minister of India) altered the Indian constitution to overrule the Indian Supreme Court's decision in the divorce case of Shah Banu just in order to please the Muslim mullahs. The Indian politicians, particularly the current Indian government in power, have been using Muslims as a vote bank and hence their appeasement by sacrificing the welfare and interest of the majority community, Hindus. As a matter of fact, it is India's Hindus who are facing the real crisis in their own homeland and not Muslims since the political power is in the hands of anti-Hindu politicians.
Finding the roots of Islamic terrorism in India and other parts of world requires study of the Islamic scriptures and the history of Islam which play a central role in promulgation and advancement of a comprehensive political ideology which the author has completely ignored to justify the Mumbai terror to suite her personal agenda.
It is indeed sad and disappointing that a magazine of the Time's stature has allowed itself to be used by the apologist of Islamic Jihad to propagate the hateful political ideology of killing innocent non-believers.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->