Slashdot Mirror

Go back another 1037 years to the Islamic invasions of India:

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/genocide.html

Islam had first reached India in 711 [...] Just as the Muslim rulers of other regions were relatively tolerant of Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism, the Muslim rulers of northern India were similarly tolerant of Hinduism, a religion which originated on the subcontinent, and to which the majority of Indians adhered.

It is as I said previously, and the other AC implied. The Politically correct cultural marxist academia routinely whitewashes history to make Muslims look good as part of their trotskyist campaign of creating a state of "Permanent Revolution" with the Muslims replacing the traditional role of the anti-bourgeoise in Communist atrocities. Read any work written without the political correctness and you will see that the Islamic dhimmification and subjugation of India was the worst genocide in history (Will Durant wrote in "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage" that "The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period." Also this http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/genocide.html).

Also, Muslim records of the period, from Tarikh-i-Yamini, the Chach-nama, the Baburnama, the Maasir-i-Alamgiri (btw these are all mostly Persian, not Arabic, so you may not know of them) and others quite gleefully describe how "the blood of the infidels in al-hind (India) flowed like water as we (Muslims) tore them up like goats, praise be to Allah the honor He bestows upon Islam thus" (that's taken verbatim from the Tarikh-i-Yamini

The very notion that Muslims were "tolerant of Hindus" involves a ridiculous level of cognitive dissonance, given that Hindus are regarded as practising :Shirk" (polytheism) which is immediately punishable by mass death in Islam. Also, the Muslims were the primary agency responsible for the decline of Buddhism in South Asia. Muslim invaders (Persians mostly) called Buddhists "but-parast" (idol worshippers) and were thus subjected to the sword en masse. Afghanistan was predominantly Buddhist before Islamic hordes massacred them all.

I'm certainly not trying to defend the murderers who kill innocents in the name of religion. All life is sacred and cheapening the value of an innocent life is evil. In addition to that, those so called Muslims are more effective in ruining the Islamic world than 10 military invasions.

Fair enough, but then why are there no Muslims actively working against the militants? Where are they?

(Legitimate resistance against combatants of an occupying force is something else, however).

These people were not an occupying force:

http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/

I think strong faith is a great thing. In the first few centuries of the Islamic state (when the Quran and Sunna were followed as precisely as possible) the Islamic world was a beacon of civilization and culture. It spread justice, tolerance and love of science and was one of the factors influencing European renaissance. I'd rather see Muslims revert to the those original ideals and have their strong faith become a catalyst for restoring justice and civilization in the region.

Sorry mate, but this:
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/genocide.html

  is not tolerance, it is barbarism.

Oh, and plenty of people sympathise with the Ramjanmabhoomi. Hundreds of millions of Hindus, and many educated and informed westerners as well:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/368
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/ayodhy a/notemple.html
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/g enocide.html

  You're right about one thing. Mine is a poor country (though not as poor as your Islamic Sharia law infested sewer). We have mud huts, you have yours. The difference is that our mud huts will not remain mud huts because we are building factories and cities in their place. Your mud huts will no longer remain mud huts because Americans are bombing them into little holes in the ground in Waziristan while you people scurry like ants and hide behind Osama bin-Laden. Hah! Pakistan's great hero, bin-Laden, isn't even a Pakistani.

Oh, and plenty of people sympathise with the Ramjanmabhoomi. Hundreds of millions of Hindus, and many educated and informed westerners as well:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/368
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/ayodhy a/notemple.html
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/g enocide.html

  You're right about one thing. Mine is a poor country (though not as poor as your Islamic Sharia law infested sewer). We have mud huts, you have yours. The difference is that our mud huts will not remain mud huts because we are building factories and cities in their place. Your mud huts will no longer remain mud huts because Americans are bombing them into little holes in the ground in Waziristan while you people scurry like ants and hide behind Osama bin-Laden. Hah! Pakistan's great hero, bin-Laden, isn't even a Pakistani.

>Are they? For what crime? For just existing? That is an outright lie.


Yes, and no. I have provided proof in previous posts of human rights abuses of which Hindus are victims in Pakistan. Sorry, your propaganda only works on liberal westerners, not on me.

Hindus are regarded as "Kaffirs" and "Dhimmis" in Pakistan. Pakistani muslims regard all non-muslims as animals and deserving only death. Pakistanis love death. I wonder why they wail so much when our armed forces give it to them.


>Having molten metal poured into ears is a Hindu punishment for a religious crime, not a Muslim one

No, my friend. It was invented by Tamurlang, a muslim. Hindus retaliate, never instigate. We are people, not beasts.

Again, Islamofascist propaganda doesn't work on me. You're wasting your time, my terrorist sympathizing friend.

>but hey, as long as you get people riled up against Muslims, it's all
>good, right?


It's about time people learnt the truth about you terrorist sympathizers and mass murderers.

Support for bin-Laden and al-Qaeda is rampant in Pakistan. Pakistani schools teach how to hate ("Yahood aur Hanood ek sikke ke do hisse hain") before they teach how to read, and Hindus don't harbor suicide bombers.Muslims have murdered over 80 million hindus over the course of their hegemony in South Asia. From Aibak, to Iltutmish, to Babar, mir-Baqr, Aurangzeb and the Bahmanis they have made mountains of Hindu skulls all across the north. During partition the majority of the victims of the riots were Hindus, not muslims:
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/g enocide.html
South Asian muslims spread usury, bribery, Jihad, and how to reproduce by rape. Now they can't stand the fact that we are free, and they are not.
India is us, you are them.

As with many things in society, there is some barrier/level at which 'getting tougher' doesn't do any good, just as there is a barrier of taxes people will endure, after which (if augmented beyond that point) people will search more to avoid it at any costs, instead of paying more (to the detriment of the government which sometimes seem to think more tax equals more income).

Anyway, the idea that giving disproportionate sentences will somehow act as a deterent for others really isn't substantiated by anything. The same argument is made about the death penalty in the USA, also without a shred of evidence it actually helps one iota (but with the major drawback that you run the posibility of killing innocent people).

In ancient china, there once was an emperor who had the same idea, and he took it to the full extreme: anyone convicted of a crime would be beheaded, together with his whole family in the 4th degree. Such draconian measures would surely avoid any crime, because anyone commiting a crime would know dozens of his kin would be killed, right?

Wrong.

As far as historians can tell, crime was commited as frequently before and after then during that period. Not really surprising, since crime-statistics show that, even in comparison, there are slightly fewer crimes in europe *without* death penalty, then in the USA.

I dislike the 'give them as much as you can' policy in the legal arena. It's nothing more then thinly disguised revenge and a feeling of holier-then-thee. It's portrayed as an effective measure to 'scare off' others, while the fact of the matter is, that there is no shred of evidence it has any positive influence at all - meanwhile ignoring the human drama one can cause. It's nothing more then a biased opinion, really; very useful for political slogans and becomming popular with the masses, but nothing else. I dispise this mentality of giving disproportionate sentences 'just to show/scare them'.

Apart from the fact it doesn't, I don't really care for the shock effect; I prefer a state where one is wise enough to sentence someone according to the gravity of his crime. And as much that I hate spam and think those spammer should be brought before court, no sane person can actually claim sending spam is SUCH a huge unforging crime that it deserves 9 years of prison, while phiscally attacking and robbing a person gets much less.

If one would act in proportion, one would give huge fines, and/or moderate jailsentences, depending on recedivism or not. But if you have such absurd disproportionate measures, it's an indication that you have a legal system that is sick and screwed, not healthy and normal. People that think this is all OK, should perhaps convert and live their lives according to the rigid interpretations of the shariat.