At the Battle of Chamkaur Sahib, 40 Sikhs fought the army of the Emperor Aurangzeb said to number about 100,000 soldiers. Aurangzeb was a notorious fanatic who carried on a lifelong policy of forced conversions. The picture shows Sahibzadah Ajit Singh, aged 17 years, engaging the enemy. In this battle, Sahibzadah Fateh Singh aged 14 also laid down his life in battle. This battle ranks as the absolute apex of Sikh heroism.
Archive for the ‘Non-Muslims’ Category
Posted by jagoindia on May 9, 2010
Posted by jagoindia on February 17, 2010
The article written by Sudheendra Kulkarni can accessed at Intolerance is a two-way street
“Saudi Arabia prohibits the
construction of any non-Muslim place of worship on its soil. A
non-Muslim cannot even enter Mecca and Medina. Most Gulf countries
disallow building of churches and synagogues. Hindu temples, of course,
are a no-no. A friend who worked in Saudi Arabia once told me that he
was not allowed to carry even pictures of Hindu deities to be used for
worship at home.
“The immigration staff at the airport found the
pictures in my bag and simply threw them aside.” Non-Muslim employees
cannot celebrate their festivals in public. This, in spite of the fact
that millions of non-Muslim immigrants have been working in these
countries for many years, contributing immensely to their economic
prosperity and social wellbeing.
In the debate on the Swiss ban, here is a European blogger’s comment on
the Net: “Muslims are allowed to do dawa, build/repair mosques, and
openly practice their faith in the West. Yet, in the Islamic world,
these activities for Christians are severely restricted if not outright
prohibited. Muslims can convert us, but the other way around is viewed
as a provocation. Only one demographic group in Europe has created
literally hundreds of no-go areas. You don’t hear about Hindus,
Buddhists, or any other faith group creating these kinds of areas. I
want to see the gap bridged between the two civilisations, but it takes
two to dance.”
There are also other asymmetries. The US, Canada and almost all European
countries accept Muslim immigrants from around the world and even grant
them citizenship. This accounts for the rapid rise in the Muslim
population in the West. On the contrary, very few Muslim countries grant
citizenship to non-Muslim immigrants if they refuse to embrace Islam.
Indeed, even the population of native religious minorities in the
Islamic world is shrinking each year, largely due to official and
In Sadanand Dhume’s extremely readable debut
book My Friend The Fanatic, which describes the steady Arabisation of
Indonesia, he says this about neighbouring Malaysia, another Muslim
majority country: “A Yemeni or a Pakistani might show up today and his
children would be considered sons of the soil and given preferences in
everything from college admissions to business contracts. The children
of a Buddhist or Christian Chinese or of a Hindu Tamil who had lived
there a hundred years remained foreign.”
Yes, the Swiss move on minarets is unjustified. Yet, many liberals who
oppose the ban are alarmed by the illiberal voices that have emanated
from the Muslim world. They especially refer to the words of Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey who heads an Islamist party
in a country that is still secular: “The minarets are our bayonets, the
domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks and the faithful our army.”
Clearly, Muslims around the world need to do some self-reflection on
inter-religious relations in our globalised world. If secularism,
pluralism and tolerance are necessary in Muslim-minority countries, they
are equally necessary in Muslim-majority countries. Double standards won’t
Posted by jagoindia on May 9, 2009
Sat, May 9, 2009
By SALIM MANSUR www.edmontonsun.com
There is frantic concern in Washington and elsewhere that Pakistan has reached its tipping point and might succumb to the Taliban forces entrenched barely 80 km (50 miles) from the capital, Islamabad.
But the concern is misleading. A country of some 160 million Muslims is not about to be overrun by the Taliban. On the contrary, Pakistan is more or less a Taliban state shaped by its origin and history.
This is the unpalatable reality that cannot be publicly discussed in Washington, London or Ottawa due to diplomatic niceties. It is also complicated by the patron-client relationship the Pakistani elite pursued with the U.S. over the past six decades as a means to counter India’s dominant position in the region.
Pakistan was forcefully established by an elite on the basis of an exclusivist and bigoted idea that since India’s Muslims constitute a “nation” they deserve a state of their own.
The perversion of Islam into a nationalist ideology hugely aggravated communal politics in undivided India that would not end with the partitioning of the subcontinent in 1947. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, ruthlessly planned this division when he called for direct action — communal blood-letting — by his supporters which led to the massive Hindu-Muslim riots known as the Great Calcutta killings of August 1946.
This act of terror made certain that trust between Hindus and Muslims was irreparably broken, and Britain was compelled to depart by partitioning India.
To recall this history is to have an inkling of the sort of a country that emerged as a result of terrorism followed by ethnic cleansing of the non-Muslim population — most Hindus and Sikhs left or were forcefully driven out from present-day Pakistan.
Subsequently, the Pakistani elite declared the Ahmadiyyas — a small peace-loving sect of minority Muslims — to be non-Muslims, and persecuted them as the harbinger of further bigotry to be unleashed in the slide of Jinnah’s Pakistan into a Taliban state.
The economic exploitation of former East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) by the ruling elite began with Mr. Jinnah imposing Urdu as the national language on Bengali Muslims with their own rich linguistic and cultural tradition. Eventually the two halves of Pakistan would tear apart in 1971 following civil war and systematic massacre of Bengalis by the Pakistani military.
Since 1971 the unremorseful and bloody-minded ruling elite of Pakistan — civil and military — pushed Pakistan deeper into a dependency alliance with Saudi Arabia.
It meant importing the Saudi version of Islam — Wahhabism — and its spread deep across the country through the rapid expansion of religious schools and mosques funded by money from the Gulf countries. The products of these schools and mosques are the Taliban “jihadis,” or holy-warriors, who set forth for Afghanistan in the war against the former Soviet Union.
The Pakistani elite is corrupt, opportunistic and ruthless. Behind the conniving smile of the civilian politician is the steel fist of the military with nuclear weapons.
The fear of Taliban acquiring Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is manufactured by the elite to garner diplomatic and financial support from the West.
This is extortion brazenly practised by the elite responsible for making Pakistan into a rogue state with its people crushed by poverty. It is this reality that makes for terror and war in the region, and threatens peace beyond.
Posted by jagoindia on March 3, 2009
Posted by jagoindia on February 28, 2009
To ban Islam is the most natural way to go
(Reader comment on article: Trouble in Londonistan
in response to reader comment: Root cause of Muslims’ problems
Submitted by Alain Jean-Mairet (Switzerland), Jul 19, 2006 at 06:17)
As soon as you clearly see what Islamic laws do mean – wars against all people who refuse to bow to Islam, religious hatred and segregation, mutilations and collective murder in public places, systematic slavery – you understand that the thing must be banned. This simple fact is confirmed even by a fully politically correct institution like the European Court of Human Rights (this judgment is also presented and explained, in French, on precaution.ch).
The problem is just political.
For most people, and for many Muslims, too, Islam is a normal religion, that is, a good thing, a guide in life, a way to live according to the will of a good and merciful god. And that is not supposed to be questioned. And if it is questioned nevertheless, most people think that you can interpret the sacred texts at will, and find there the best just as well as the worst.
But the latter isn’t true. The best effort ever to interpret Islam’s sacred texts was that of jurists, elaborating the Islamic laws (Sharia). They formed several colleges (madhahib) where all members had to know the Koran and most hadiths by heart for discussing them. They debated for a long time, of all possible matters treated in the Islamic scriptures.
They did disagree on many details. But they fully agreed on jihad being a war of conquest, waged against all infidels until Islam reigns supreme. They did agree too on dhimma, being an inferior, humiliating statute for “people of the book”, as they wanted to label believers of other monotheist faiths. They did agree on most hudud, punishments for violations of the claims of God (huquq Allah) which is why adultery still can be punished by stoning (collective murder with the help of the public) in Islam. They did agree on slavery being a totally normal statute for servants, concubines, workers of all kinds.
One really can doubt whether it is possible to conclude anything else than what those men agreed upon, in separate colleges, soaked in different basic cultures, without consultation nor hardly any political affinities beyond the belonging to Islam.
But fact is, those laws didn’t, don’t and won’t do. They have to be changed or abandoned. So the question is just how?
Obviously, only Muslims can gather and decide that their sacred laws have changed. They have to be encouraged to do so. That means encouraging the learning and questioning of those laws and their basis, and debating some ways to reform them. Within Islam, it is a religious procedure, as those laws are supposed to be divine. I guess it must be done in Mecca or so. But without Islam, the most natural form of encouraging that process is to forbid Islam as long as its laws will stay “incompatible with the democratic regime” (point 25 of the ECHR judgement).
The mere effort, successful or not, towards the banning of Islam based on those reflections will foster the reconsidering of Islamic laws, will awake Westerners to the danger of Islam at large and will strengthen the position of Muslims reformers, within and without Islam.
That’s why, in a nutshell, banning Islam is the way to go. Until it will be reformed.
Posted by jagoindia on February 18, 2009
This interesting note is a comment by little indian this this Link
The writer articulates the difference between the holy Gita and the unholy Quran quite well.
littleindian on December 1, 2008 at 22:17
I followed the pingback to read your article. I wish to make a few points.
As you know in Mahabharata, at the start of the battle, Arjuna sees his step-brothers in the opposing army and questions why he had to fight.
Let us accept the war refered to is the historical event and not allegorical is some argues.
The Gita – is a narration of the alleged conversation between Krishna and Arjuna on the battle field following Arjuna’s refusal to fight.
Of the eighteen chapters of the Gita, it is only in two, the second and third, where Krishna instructs Arjuna of his duties as a warrior on a battlefield and why in certain situations war becomes necessary and the reasons why Arjuna had to fight that War. The rest of the text is Krishna revealing his true identity and discusses soul, religion, yoga, philosophy etc.
This was a conversation between two individuals about a specific task at hand. It does not advice battle against “non-believers”, idolators, or establishing a global hindu nation.
The text in Quran, gives a directive to fight a war against
1. obpression and injustice – I have no problems with that.
2. against non-believers who refuse to believe.
I have serious objections to that. It goes against my fundamental belief in equal human rights.
If, in this 21st century, ever a movement arises says the Gita (based on those two chapters of Gita) gives hindus the directive
1. to be intolerent of all other religions,
2. to wage wars to convert the entire world into hinduism 3. or to kill to wipe out a religion in entirely
- I will be one of the firsts to denounce it and burn those pages.
I expect all “moderate” muslims to do that.
I am fed up of hearing that those who kill in the name of Islam are not muslims.
Of course they are.
To me they are the honest followers of Islam – who are simply practicing what is written without denying their true directive.
I am unable to trust a “moderate muslim” for I will never know how fundamental are their unspoken beliefs.
Posted by jagoindia on February 8, 2009
Anwar Shaikh on Islamic terror by Koenraad Elst
The answer, Mr. Sheikh argues, is quite straightforward: Mohammed himself was a terrorist, the most authoritative precedent for contemporary Islamic terrorists. To prove his point, he presents long lists of quotations from the Quran, the better-known Hadith (traditions of the Prophet) and also some lesser-known Hadith. In this respect, his book is a treasure-trove of first-hand data on the foundations of Islam and its doctrine of Holy War ( Jihad ).
Numerous canonical statements affirm that the Mujahid or Holy Warrior undoubtedly counts as the best among Muslims, e.g.: “Acting as Allah’s soldier for one night in a battlefield is superior to saying prayers at home for 2,000 years.” (from Ibn-e-Majah , vol.2, p.162) Or: “Leaving for Jihad in the way of Allah in the morning or evening will merit a reward better than the world and all that is in it.” (from Muslim , 4639) Jihad, while not a duty for every individual Muslim, is a duty on the Muslim community as a whole until the whole world has become part of the Islamic empire.
The cult of martyrdom is an intrinsic part of the doctrine of jihad: the martyr “will desire to return to this world and be killed ten times for the sake of the great honour that has been bestowed upon him.” (Muslim 4635) And from Allah’s own mouth: “Count not those who were slain in God’s way as dead, but rather living with their Lord, by Him provided, rejoicing in the bounty that God has given them.” (Quran 3:163) Contrary to a recent tongue-in-cheek theory which reduces the heavenly reward for the fallen Mujahid from 72 maidens to mere grapes on the basis of some Arabic-Aramaic homonymy, a number of Prophetic sayings, in varied wordings mostly not susceptible to this cute Aramaic interpretation, confirm the traditional belief that “the martyr is dressed in radiant robes of faith, he is married to houris (the paradisiac virgins)” etc. (Ibn-e-Majah, vol.2, p.174) This confirms that the suicide terrorists were not acting against Islamic tenets, as some soft-brained would-be experts in the media have claimed. On the contrary, to sacrifice one’s life in a jihadic operation against the unbelievers is the most glorious thing a Muslim can do.
In Jihad, it is perfectly permitted to deceive the unbelievers and subject them to terror. Anwar Sheikh provides all the scriptural references plus many precedents from history, which we cannot reproduce here. Suffice it to say there is ample evidence that Islam permits, and that by his personal example or by that of the men under his command, Mohammed has given permission for abduction, extortion, rape of hostages, mass-murder of prisoners, assassinations of enemies and dissidents, breaking of the conventions of civilized warfare, breaking of treaties, and suicide missions. From Osama bin Laden to the murderers of children in Beslan, North Ossetia, the Islamic terrorists are faithful followers of the Prophet.
Read more here: Anwar Shaikh on Islamic terror by Koenraad Elst
Sri Lankan Muslim: Muslims being the worthy fighters and jihadis, can sort out the Tamil within a very short time
Posted by jagoindia on January 31, 2009
by Dr Omar Zia
29 Jan, 2009
Two years ago while traveling through Sri Lanka I befriended a taxi driver in Colombo.
He was a young devout Muslim from a family of ten: two aged parents and eight grown-up children. He was the youngest member of the family born and bred in Sri Lanka. From my chats with him during several excursions in the city, I pieced together a detailed picture of the conditions and aspirations of Muslims in Sri Lanka.
Muslims constituted only 7% of the population in in Sri Lanka. This boy of 22 knew that. He told me in a meaningful way that non-Muslim Sri Lankans are too cautious when it comes to raising a family. They worry about the education and upbringing of their offspring too much; for that reason, birth-rate amongst non-Muslims is quite low. Muslims in Sri Lanka, on the other hand, believe that Allah will provide everything and do not care how many children they have. This boy was prophetic. Current Muslim population of Sri Lanka is listed as 9% according to many guide-books.
Upon my enquiry as to how he got along with his non-Muslim neighbors, he praised them for their placidity and then complained that he found it quite annoying that Muslims had to take their cowardly neighbor religious sensitivity into account and slaughter animals hidden from the public eye. He assured me that as soon as Muslims were in ascendancy in his country, which, he was sure, would happen in his lifetime, one of the first laws to be passed will be sanctioning of slaughtering of animals in the open, like in any Muslim country. While visiting Hindu temples with me, he proudly informed me that Muslims never allow non-Muslim Sri Lankans to enter mosques, as they were unclean. He was also quite sure that if allowed, Muslims being the worthy fighters and jihadis, can sort out the Tamils within a very short time.
In order to understand better the Muslim society in Sri Lanka, I even accepted his offer of a cuppa at his house towards the end of my stay. All that I had heard from this young ‘time bomb’ proved absolutely certain. Indeed, the visit proved even more shocking: the rest of his family members appeared even more radicalized and angrier at their majority countrymen. I felt absolutely horrified at the prospect of what is in store for the affable, but oblivious to danger, non-Muslim Sri Lankans.
For mind of a corrupted Paki click here
Dr. Omar Zia is a Pakistani-born ex-Muslim.
Posted by jagoindia on January 9, 2009
9 Jan 2009, 0325 hrs IST, S Ahmed Ali, TNN
MUMBAI: If the 10 Pakistani terrorists were asked by their handlers to go to the highest floors of their given targets and take hostages why did two
of them — Ajmal Kasab and Ismail Khan — not take hostages at the Cama and Albless hospital?
Sources said Kasab has said that they had clear instructions from their handlers in Pakistan to avoid Muslim casualties so when they saw several burkha-clad women and children at the hospital they decided to leave the place.
Many lower middle class Muslim patients from nearby areas such as Bhendi bazaar, Mohammed Ali road, Dongri, Pydhonie, Byculla and even Sewree and Wadala visit the hospital which is a walkable distance from CST railway station.
On 26/11 after their attempt to climb up to the office of CST failed due to resistance from railway cops, the duo walked out of the station and entered Cama hospital from the rear entrance. At Cama Hospital, a group of policemen (led by additional commissioner Sadanand Date) engaged the two terrorists, who were on the terrace, for 45 minutes. Finally, the duo threw hand grenades in which two policemen were killed and Date and the others were injured.
After leaving Cama Hospital, the duo hid behind the bushes near Rang Bhavan and opened fire on a police jeep, killing three senior officers, including Hemant Karkare. Kasab also told the police that the actual plan to attack Mumbai was in September which was the holy month of Ramzan.
Posted by jagoindia on January 8, 2009
The complete scanned copy of the 69 page dossier on Mumbai terror attacks is contained in three pdf files published by the Hindu newspaper.