ISLAM Q&A

you think I cant do that Brahmin?

All excessively religious people can be divided into the deluded and the dangerously deluded.

didnt say that i thought you couldnt do that now did i ?



i am not religious, let alone excessively so.


maybe. but there are some religions whose followers are neither aggressive nor intolerant of another's existence per se'. unlike two others.

You can get violent extremism and intolerance associated with most religions, Hinduism included as I suspect you well know.

nope.

one broken mosque (which initself is built after razing a temple) and one riot after 56 pilgrims were incinerated is NOT equal to crusades, inquisition, witch burning, genocides of natives in 2.5 continents, pogroms, holocausts, latin american cathocalypse, slaughter (of armenians, hindus, et al) by turks etc....much as you would like to think so.


thats the doing of only 2 religions. historty says so. in bloody letters.
sure, others dont have a perfectly spotless record. but to kill others in millions just cos of who they are??? no way. only 2 are into that.


learn to carry your cross (excuse the pun).

and the RSS VHP BJP?

http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/publications/India/summary.htm

canard after canard !!

no st thomas ever came to india. they've stopped teaching that in europe even !!


muslims came to india as maurauding barbarians and stayed back as illegal aliens.


rss was not found by admirers of nazism.


no point stating the many other broadbrusings in the site.

suffice to say that they could come up with only 3 incidents !!!
1) mosque breaking.
2) riot after 56 pilgrims were incenerated.
3) graham stains's and his 2 children's murder (which is done by one single nutjob - cant blame a billion strong people for that. the way indians cant hold all whites of england responsible for the murder of the Chauhan family)



so thats all they have !!??

3 incidents???

which places us right up there with those who carry out genocides, pogroms, crusades, butcherings, inquisitions, wholescale looting of natural resources (aka colonialism), holocausts, with those who justify slave owning in southern usa with choice quotes from the bible..... ???????!!!

bleh just bleh !!!

you guys dont know math - thats the problem.

for example,

6 million/ 3 (taking graham staines' case) = 2 million.


thats the factor - 2 million, by which you guys out do us at butchery !!


and as for what we got in turn from muslims and christians - i dont want to get into that even. and you best dont try to induce me to drag those skeletons (which the 2 secondary semites have left in india) out of the closet.

besides, i thought i had already acknowledged the miniscule number of pitfalls on our part.

A while back when I asked you what we should do with the Muslims in Britain, you said (if we cant get rid of them) then befriend them, or words to that effect.

So about all the Muslims in India, why do you not make more efforts to befriend them?

I make two points

first. Christian barbarism ended centuries ago, and I am no defender of barbarism.

second. You give the impression of being every bit a hater of muslims as muslim fanatics hate non muslims. So are you willing to tolerate muslims and christians who are just peaceable muslims and christians?

when did we not befriend them??

even personally, i had them for school and college mates. & neighbourhod friends.

these muslims are like you and me - interested in living decent lives. they send their kids to school, and not madrassas. they are the types who are bothered about india and not whats happening to afghanistan.
we have no problems with them - just like i hope londoners have no probs with muslims who arnt into suicide bombing.

though the vast majority of muslims in india have given up the bloodthirsy ways of their ancestors, the few nut jobs that remain sometimes incinerate pilgrims or try to launch a RPG into the raam temple (like they did a couple of days b4 7/7/ happened). thats whan its becomes a bit difficult for us to keep our emotions bottled up - old wounds get opened. you may point out that there was no riot in london post 7/7 like there was in india post incineration - yes. thats cos london does not have a history of suffering from muslims. we do and the train-burning of pilgrims was the last straw.



yes it ended 50 years ago (ie. on us 'colonies". on whites it ended after charlemange did his thing) when the colonials left india for good - after taking a country that had 25% of the world's wealth from the beginning of time to 1800 - and reducing that share to <2% in 1947, and causing a deliberate famine in bengal (about which dr. amartya sen dedicated his live's work in economics) to the tune of 6 millions in between.

so they may have stopped it - but the effects remain.

the deindustrialisation of india during the era where your ancesters did their **** here, will take some time to reverse. & i wont even try to account for the millions who died indirectly (ie. for the loss of livelyhood and food caused by the british looting of all our natural wealth) - cos thats incalculable.

its funny, the western eagerness to shove their many large scale crimes on humanity, under the carpet, while waxing indignant about every graham staines murder (btw how many english news paper have condemned the crime of murdering the chauhan family??), and every godhra riot for millenia. but we indians are hardly alone in this regard.


for example, to this day the english accuse the palmach/irgun of blowing up the king david hotel in israel and killing maybe a dozen poms - while they never ever admit that they denied entry to a million fleeing european jews into trans-jordan (as it was known then), thus sandwiching the jews between the nazis and their (the english's) colony (ie. trans jordan). so the english actually helped the holocaust happen, by doing their bit.




i hate what muslims did to us.
i also hate it that they deny it.

even the germans said sorry to the jews and bent over backwards after ww2, to pay back israel in cash and kind.

are we wrong or unjustified in expecting that muslims in india, and also muslims from the world (all of whom think of each other as "muslim brothers") will at least ADMIT their whole scale barbarity???


that they will say sorry for the 10 hundred temples that no longer exist??


for the 10 million (very easily) hindus who were massacred during their 700 year old misrule - instead of holding us at ransom for lashing out with the breaking of one single mosque????? instead of demanding india be turned into 3 pakistans and the shariat be imposed???


the present day christians india are not colonials and contribute their fair share to society. they are proactive and educated. no indian has problems with them.

the present day muslims of india, as in uk, however are the lowest earning community & the least educated community too. so whereas i have to give it to them (& will give gladly) that 90% of them are not jihadi types (the ones who try to RPG the Raam temple and such like, still are) they contribute abysmally less for their vast numbers. not to sound acusing, but fact remains that they are a burden to our society. they have a presence in proportion to their numbers in not a single white collar sector - and thats after india has a policy of positive discrimation for all minority religions and backward castes. they used to live under the patronage of their muslim barbarian leaders and are still time wrapped in that era. expect the govt to provide them with food and lively hood, like their mullah kings used to.

they need to move on and move with the times. some of them do, but most (actually MOST) dont. however should they choose to do so, they are most welcome.

well thats a bit better than some of your previous intemperate replies, so I have read it with a bit more care.

I dont deny that the idea of having the British Empire was to benefit Britain, but there was an enlightened self interest at work here as well. We introduced railways, telegraph system, civil engineering works and much other "high technology" of its day, so I dont know how you can say we de industrialised the country. In any case India wasnt a country. It was a patchwork of hundreds of little states and cities with hundreds if not thousands of languages. We introduced the English language, which you still find useful, and a sytem of law and jurisprudence which you have adapted. We had at maximum 250,000 "colonialists", it would not be possible to administer 400 million if we had set up the sort of brutal regime you seem to imply. We started drinking tea, you started playing cricket. The most popular meal in Britain is now chicken tikka massala, not fish and chips.

To suggest as you do that we turned India from an industrial power in 1800 into a backward half starved peasant nation is ludicrous.

If nothing else you have to admit that it was only British rule in India which gave modern India a focal point around which to assert its identity.

(I dont know why you felt it necessary to talk about the nazi extermination of the Jews, but to suggest that we were in some way responsible is disgraceful. We were against Hitler and the nazis, many Inidans supported them I seem to recall)

well i am reading your post with more care too - hope you have dished up less of broadbrushing this time.


like its possible to !!


yes british self interest. any benifit we got was by way of consequence. for example they introduced some irrigation - so more crops would grow - whci means more shiploads pf crops can go back to england !!!


to get the crops an other stuff to the posts. to get the british indian army to various places in quick time to curb freedom movements.


ditto. all to further the grip on india, to enhance the degree of colonization and prolong the uninvited stay.


not me who says it. (not that i need to)

here for example is a couple of reports from harvard that does.

here

and http://post.economics.harvard.edu/hier/2004papers/HIER2039.pdf
and another, not so technical a page -
http://www.atributetohinduism.com/European_Imperialism.htm




btw do you know what deindustralisation means??
decreasing the industrial output - not whether the lext level of tech was introduced. we were doing just fine (25% of world economy) b4 you arrived.

and if it was possible to take railway lines back then i am sure the brits would have tried that too. they even tried to take the taj mahal piecemeal (i kid you not).



it always was. it was like germany b4 bismark.
besides i dont see how that justifies your presence here.



it was the world oldest surviving civilization, before muslims plundered it and messed it up and made it ripe for colonization.

and languages were never a problem for us. most indians speak 2 if not 3 languages. always did.



so that you could produce generations of Macaulites, who would help you to prolong the rule. if you read lord macaulay's speech to the brit parliament, still easily available today, you'll know why english was introduced.

"We must at present do our best to form a class who may be ... Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country ...," -

- lord M. minute on indian education 1835.




like i said its no biggie favour for us.

they say mandarin or spanish will become a major language in 50 years - and we will learn both without batting an eyelid.
languages are peanuts for the land of 300+ tongues.


yeah. to this day they have those archaic laws that the brits made - which is why our law and order is in a mess and 30 years workload is piled !!

where as the "system of law and jurisprudence" is something we benifitted from i agree - the "laws" themselves were made again for the same purpose - to tighten the grip.
india needs to get rid of those "laws" soon.


yes. thats why gandhi was an imbecile.

he failed to see that india was just one Den Bien Phu style war away from
getting freedom from england. all we had to do was break the backbone of the raj army.

france had 10000 men or less in dbp and it took one war to make them realise that vietnam was gone from their grip.

with the brits it was even more hopeless - they would have quit without fighting even.
in fact they did - http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v03/v03p407_Borra.html
(read the whole of that ^^^^^ page if possible)
and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3684288.stm



brutal in the way we were looted hollow - yes.

brutal killing?? no. thats just the muslims and the portueguese in goa (the worst inquisition ever, by their own admission)

the english didnt kill, nor attack us religiously, cos thats one lesson they learnt well from the romans - how not to upset a people and quitely go about looting.



yes from china, if i know right.

yes when i tell you that cricket was played between the following teams in bombay - "hindus" "muslims" " parsis" and "europeans" - then you know that cricket too was introduced for the salfsame reason - to divide. we took it up for two reasons - one is obvious - cos thats the way we could get one up on your opressors (its for the same reason that the crappy Mohun Bagan football club of calcutta is still a hero - cos they beat a british football team back then and became a toast overnight).

the other reason may not be so obvious to you - cos you know only cricket and not india and hinduism.


so??



to suggest that you didnt - is like denying the holocaust. i have supplied you the links already.




my ass. thats what it gave by way of focal point.

we were the original first world, the land of ridiculous wealth. read history, read pliny (roman) and megasthenis(greek) and read about history of economies. and you'll know that india and china had 50% of the world's wealth from big bang till 1800 - and dont need no colonial to give them no focal point.

anyway, as the american (btw, india looks at england as a sworn enemy and usa as a friend in need cos they helped us with aid after the poms left us in a mess) douglas mcarthur used to say -
"i have come through - i shall return" - and so shall we.

by the end of this century, hell by 2050ish, the new world order will again resemble the old world order, and james joyce will be vindicated. ("the east shall shake the west awake and ye ahall have night for morn" - finnegan's wake)




nope whats disdraceful is the coldblooded way in which england sandwiched the jews of europe.
do one thing - talk to any sabra (native born israeli) and see what he has to say about chamberlain's decision to deny permits into transjordan to jews. i have jewish acquaintences who's some or the other grand parent had to die in concentration camps, cos this hardass law of chamberlain denied the grand parent the chance to escape to transjordan.





yes. i dont mind indians going after nazis but indians dying in europe in ww1 and 2 to save the very english who hammered us !!!?? thats just rediculous.

we should have attacked the brits in india, during ww1, when they were already stretched, and gotten out independence in 1915-ish instead of waiting till the ww2 took the wind out of the raj.

The papers you refer to suggest the deeper cause of Indian deindustrialisation was the decline of the Mughal Empire and not just increased productivity in England.

you said "i dont mind indians going after nazis"

well i do, then or now

if you read the papers and the other link, you'll see that where as the mughals stopped productivity, the wealth remained in india.

they enjoyed india's wealth in the way brits enjoyed zimbawae's - by dividing it amongst themselves and denying the real owners of their share.

there's just no way you can disporve the ammount that was looted from us by your forefathers.



if you read what i had posted -


it meant " i do not mind indians fighting nazis (ie.going after nazis) but indians dying in europe in ww1 and 2 to save the very english etc etc.
here.


and if you do mind indians not having saved as many english lives from germans as we could have, then we could not care less.

I did read what you posted and I took it to mean going after in the same sense as following. I am well aware of the contribution Indian troops made in ww2.

I find it very difficult to have a reasonable dialogue when you are clearly determined find fault with everything this country ever did.

i dont have to find fault with england's presence in india.

history does. and lots of them.

and thats irrespective of the gobbledygook that do the rounds in western countries about how india benifitted from english presence sice railways came from them blah blah.


you tried to allege that we sided with nazis. -- "
you tried to defend deindustrialization. ----couldnt.
-------------------- introduction of english. ----""
-------------------- the sandwiching of jews. ---""
------------- defend colonization with rail, telegraph etc. -- couldnt (long before you, the raj tried to prolong their stay with rail, telegraph.. and COULDNT)


why keep trying ??


even the germans have admitted their crimes on humanity (except ernest zundel and such like who try to deny it)

cos those are indefensible. undeniable. and unFORGIVABLE.

colonization created the 3rd world out of what was the richest lands throughout history. india and china (which was colonised by no european country but japan instead) were always rich. even africa had and still has loads of mineral resources.

colonization perfected the slave trade to keep the cotton mills of manchester and liverpul well supplied.

colinization wiped out the population of north america and oz. and half that of south america. at least indians are alive and can make a comeback. who brings back the tasmanians?? you ??

colonization did to the maya. inca and aztec what the turks did to zorastrianism.

and it was also to settle colonial scores (if i know right) that germany waged the world wars and it was the colonial white man's sumremacist line of thinking that snowballed into the master race aryan crap there - and the jews had to bear the brunt of it.

colonial slave trade made god knows how many african families go without a family member (cos he/she was send to work as a slave!!) read "roots" and you will know. the congo massacre by belgium.


its one 400 year no-holds-barred attrocity of all kinds on all men that werent white in colour (some white men also got stick.. eg greece which was a colony too).


you are trying to defend that and list its positives??
you asking me why i am finding fault with that ??


ofcourse england wasnt the only one - there were 5 other countrries chiefly (holand, spain, portugal, belgium, france).

our beef is against england alone. sri lanka's is against holland and so on. red indians arnt alive any more - else they'd hav beefs too against many.

well of course brahmin everything was perfect in india before we arrived and everything was perfect as soon as we left.

You know I dont think India has a particularly good track record of peaceful economic development since us Brits left. Perhaps thats why you are so keen to blame all on those far off colonial days.

I'm not defending all that Britain did. I will even concede we kept import tarrifs low to boost our textile industry. Britain was the first industrialised country and our trade with the rest of the world and the empire laid the foundations of the modern world. I'm neither proud of that nor embarassed, just stating it as a fact.

And its a fact too that as Empires come and go, the British Empire was not an ignoble thing. We did not treat people like Leopold did in the Congo, or the Japanese in Manchuria. Slavery was abolished everywhere in the British Empire in 1803, not because we were forced to, but because it was deemed to be the civilised thing to do.

Steady, the Buffs

I have read your posts elsewhere, and the content has been duly noted.

thanks.. i am obliged