Islam in India
Robert Houghton
Northern India and related that in the jihad the Hindus were slaughtered
by the hundred thousand, and that, not content with massacring the
people, the Turkish Muslims also attempted to destroy Indian culture by
demolishing their temples. I was opposed by a Muslim poster, seemingly
resident in the area, who denied all this, but admitted that one or two
temples were destroyed. I hope the following quotation from Koenraad
Elst, "Negationism in India", will show that I was not pulling my
account out of the air:
"In all the lands it conquered Islam has replaced indigenous places of
worship with mosques. In Iran there are no ancient Zoroastrian or
Manichean shrines left. In Central Asia there are no Buddhist temples
left. Similarly, in India (except the far South where Islam penetrated
rather late) there are practically no Hindu temples that have survived
the Muslim period (over 10,000 destroyed). But there are thousands of
mosques built on the foundations of Hindu temples (eg the Ayodhya
temple.)"
Altway
"Robert Houghton" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote
> In a posting some weeks ago I referred to the Mughal conquest of
Northern India and related that in the jihad the Hindus were slaughtered
by the hundred thousand,
Comment:-
Was that the excuse for the Americans to
invade and kill thousands of Afghans and Iraqis
and thousands of those whom they bombed in various parts of the world
or starved and looted.
The fact is that in the times in which the Mughals lived
there were wars everywhere between all kinds of people.
The Mughals established a tolerant regime.
The Mughals settled and contributed to the Indian civilisation
and did not loot and take away the wealth, like the British.
Hamid S. Aziz
robe...@f2s.com
Whatever the facts are about the American war in Afghanistan and Iraq,
those wars have nothing to do with the Muslim jihad against the Hindus:
you are just mounting a distraction from the monstrous atrocities and
subjugation committed by the Mughals in the name of Islam - hundreds of
thousands of innocent people massacred, women abducted and forced into
harems, all the temples destroyed in order to eliminate a religion and
culture, a crushing taxation forced on the Hindu population, and the
Muslim historians rejoice in the bloodshed.
Rather than loot and rob the British brought trade and the rule of law
to India. You've been listening to nationalist politicians. The British
contributed one priceless cultural asset to India - the English
language.
robe...@f2s.com
In an earlier thread I mentioned that the Indian government supported a
movement in India to suppress the Hindu folk memory of the hundreds of
years of massacre, repression, and the destruction of culture and
religion by fanatical Muslim rulers. My interlocutor sneered at this,
but there was no immediate means of enforcing my point. One has come to
hand in the form of a quotation from an official Indian publication, a
directive of the (Indian) National Council of Educational Research and
Training:
"Characterization of the medieval period as time of conflict between
Hindus and Muslims is forbidden."
(I take this from "Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of
Islam" by Koenraad Elst. The book is available on his website.)
The Indian political class and intellectual establishment want to
rewrite Indian history in favour of Islam.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000001c62b4b$8c1fe580$4101a8c0@rhdt...
<snip> ...
> In a posting some weeks ago I referred to the Mughal conquest of
> Northern India and related that in the jihad :-
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What makes you think that the invasion of the Mughal warlord Babur and his
followers, descendants of Timur and Genghis Khan, was a "jihad" and not just
a normal territorial conquest quite common in that part of the world? Wasn't
Babur the ruler of a petty kingdom in what is now Turkestan? Who did Babur
defeat at the battle of Panipat? Didn't his Muhghal invasion force only
consist of twelve thousand men?
Yes, Northern India was invaded by Babur but trying to and trickily suggest
that this was a "jihad" undertaken on behalf greater Islam is just another
one of your "crooked thinking" distortions. You will realise that when you
find out who Babur defeated at the battle of Panipat!
Notwithstanding, I expect you will send a blustering retort offering some
lame and puerile "crooked thinking" excuse. Perhaps, I should repeat, as
William Faulkner adroitly said; "Facts and truth really don't have much to
do with each other.", especially in your posts..
As an aside, what excuse do you offer for the British invasion of India? Can
that be attributed their Christianity or territorial imperialist ambition?
You aren't using the Indian Missionary St. Clair-Tisdall as your source are
you?
--
Peace
--
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly by
weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by
rejudice. - Schopenhauer
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Nima Rezai
> "In all the lands it conquered Islam has replaced indigenous places of
> worship with mosques. In Iran there are no ancient Zoroastrian or
> Manichean shrines left.
wrong:
http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/iran/zoroastrian.htm
http://www.skiouros.net/voyages/2001/iran/ir2001_406.en.html
http://java.nationalgeographic.com/studentatlas/clickup/zoroastrianism.html
So, I see, Robert, your disinformation crusade and quoting dishonest sources
has not finished yet.
Nima
Saqib Virk
<robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1139319686.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I reply to Altway Feb 7
>
> Whatever the facts are about the American war in Afghanistan and Iraq,
> those wars have nothing to do with the Muslim jihad against the Hindus:
> you are just mounting a distraction from the monstrous atrocities and
> subjugation committed by the Mughals in the name of Islam - hundreds of
> thousands of innocent people massacred, women abducted and forced into
> harems, all the temples destroyed in order to eliminate a religion and
> culture, a crushing taxation forced on the Hindu population
SV
I submit that much of Muslim rule was relatively tolerant. Those with
political or religous bones to pick in the present play up and encourage
hatred between Hindus and Muslims. What better way then to claim the Muslims
were responsible for atrocites towards the Hindus and then pointing to a few
examples from a 1000 year era and pretending they are representative of the
whole era. Muslim rule in India was mostly free from excess. The Muslims
were in India for hundreds of years and if they had actually wanted to they
likely could have eradicatd Hinduism through force. The fact the Hinduism
exists and thrives is proof that the Muslims could not have been as bad as
you would like to pretend.
Compare to the sitution in N.America; the Christians came and slaughtered
the Native Americans. They are practically an extinct race. Their land and
identity was taken from them and their culture destroyed. What would have
happened in India if the Muslims were as bad as you pretend or have been
duped into believing? I'll tell you; Hinduism would have been eradicated and
there would be no Hindu monuments or temples dating from the period before
Muslim rule. You can look around and see that is far from the case. Muslim
rule, though maybe not always just, was not nearly as bad as some now cry
about. India today is a majority Hindu country. During Muslim rule about 80%
of the population was Hindu. People today may have some reason to play up
the angle of Muslim barbarity but the reality of the situation is right in
front of them. Compare 1000 years of Hindus under Muslim rule to 200 years
of Native Americans under Christian rule. Do you see the difference?
The Christians have been in America for about 500 years and wiped out an
entire culture within the first 250 years. The Muslims were in India for
about 1000 years and the Hindu religion/culture thrives. Both Christians and
Hindus lived under Muslim rule; their churchs and temples, for the most
part, were not destroyed nor were they killed so Muslims could have the land
all to themselves. In fact, if Muslims had been even one-tenth as brutal as
the Christians who came to North America, Hinduism would not be thriving
today.
> Rather than loot and rob the British brought trade and the rule of law
> to India.
SV
What color is the sky in your world?
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
robe...@f2s.com
You will find a fuller rebuttal of your defence of Muslim rule in India
in my reply to Zuiko Azumazi, if the moderators publish it. There I
give the figures for the deaths in the jihad mounted against the
Hindus.
The killing of the native Americans was in the hands of individuals,
not the State, and it was not done with a religious motive in order to
exterminate pagans on the authority of the Koran. The repression of the
Hindus lasted 500 years: they were in constant revolt and it was
militarily impossible for the Muslims to exterminate them. Hinduism
survives but in a depressed and demoralized state: Islam did everything
to deprive the Hindus of their culture and religion - 10,000 temples
destroyed, and this was calculated policy.
It is an absurd untruth to say that for the most part Hindu temples
were not destroyed: 10,000 were destroyed, and even today Hindu holy
sites are occupied by mosques. Your monstrous untruth is just another
example of Muslim denial.
Yes, the treatment of the Native Americans was terrible, but you use it
as a distraction from the issue: Muslim genocide against the Hindus.
robe...@f2s.com
Your term "disinformation" implies dishonesty on my part, but you
supply no evidence of this. In this case you merely smear and abuse me.
The source of my information is Koenraad Elst, "Negationism in India:
Concealing the Record of Islam". You can find this and much more on his
website. I judge him to be honest, highly intelligent, and very well
informed. Again your description "dishonest sources" is unsupported by
evidence.
Your internet references to alleged Zoroastrian shrines in Iran support
my case and fail to support yours.
You give no instructions for extracting information to support your
case from your first reference, which offers merely a search engine.
Your second reference is a photo of the Zoroastrian temple at Yazd,
which is obviously quite modern. My statement, which you try to refute,
referred to *ancient* Zoroastrian shrines.
Your third reference is to an article on the archaeological site of the
temple of Azar Goshnasp; the sacred fire there was extinguished in the
12th century. Then it ceased to be a shrine. The site was only
rediscovered in 1840.
Your fourth reference is to a temple in Azerbaijan, whereas my
statement averred that there are no ancient Zoroastrian sites left in
Iran.
So your accusation of disinformation and dishonest sources is quite
false; rather you are found guilty of bluffing.
Robert
The precise force of your concluding remark "What color is the sky in
your world?" is lost on me, but I take it that it is a sneer at my
suggestion that British colonialism made positive contributions to
Indian civilization. Let's make a brief comparison.
The British formed a unitary state out of India; that is, it was
unitary until Muslim violence forced partition with great loss of life,
and severe and continuing injustice to Hindus stranded in Pakistan and
Bangladesh. The British formed an efficient and incorruptible
administration and a legal system which the Indians took over on
independence together with English law. (What law does Islam have to
offer the modern world? - the Shariah?) On independence the Indians
adopted the British political system; authoritarianism is the only
form of government that Islam has known. The British from an early date
pursued an educational policy designed to form a stratum of society
educated for the modern world as the alternative to an education based
on Sanskrit, Persian, or Arabic.What is the Islamic tradition in
Education? - memorizing the Koran?
What did Islam contribute to India in its 500 years of rule? It created
a Muslim minority painfully divided from and in conflict with the
culture it was recruited from; this is true now: India is a country
terrorized by the threat of Muslim riots and political violence such as
accompanied partition. The intelligentsia and ruling elite are so
terrified of the Muslim minority that it has literally rewritten
history to deny the truth about the Muslim conquest and suppression of
India. It was in 1931 that the Congress Party first advised the
changing of the history books, and in another posting I have quoted a
government directive that the medieval period should not be described
as one of conflict between Muslims and Hindus.
The Muslims did everything they could to eliminate Hinduism, destroying
10,000 temples and often building mosques on the razed holy sites. The
people were physically eliminated: it has been estimated that the
population of India fell by 80,000,000 between the year 1000 and 1500.
Many thousands of Hindus were marched North to flood the slave markets
of the Islamic world. Taxation was often so grievous that the
population was reduced to abject poverty, and starvation, which led to
epidemics. The Muslim leadership lived in great opulence on the taxes.
The Muslims destroyed all the Hindu universities and did not build new
ones, which is ironical since the Arabs derived their numerals from
these universities, together with mathematics and astronomy. For 500
years the Muslims encountered endless resistance; the Hindus endured
500 years of brutal suppression. It is claimed that the resulting
demoralization can still be seen in India.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1139338123.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> (I take this from "Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of
> Islam" by Koenraad Elst. The book is available on his website.)
Comment:-
Doesn't "I take this from" mean you can weasel out of being held accountable
or responsible for the "cut and paste" posting, even if the contents
subsequently prove to be fallacious or prejudicial in the extreme?
And what does this quick search in Google reveal about the Dr. Koenraad
Elst, from the Catholic University at Leuven, Belgium?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=+%22Koenraad+Elst%22&btnG=Search
Shall we quote a few examples and links:-
http://communalism.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_communalism_archive.html
Reviewed By Ayub Khan
"In the past decade Belgian scholar Koenraad Elst has emerged as the most
prominent advocate of Sangh Parivar in the West. His vociferous defence of
the Hindu right is equally matched by his rabid attacks on Islam. In order
to escape being branded a bigot he follows a route, which is much popular
among anti-Muslim writers these days. He insists: "not Muslims but Islam is
the problem". (See Koenraad Elst review of Thom Blom Hansen's The Saffron
Wave)." ...
http://www.indiastar.com/closepet2.htm
Reviewed by Ramesh N. Rao
"This book is ambitious in scope, pungent in its criticisms, and clearly
pro-Hindu, in the sense that it is a call for the resurgence of Sanatana
Dharma. It is pungent, even vitriolic in its criticisms of the
left/pseudo-secular combine in India that Elst feels is more to blame than
the"Islamic communal leaders" for the present day conflicts, for the lack of
self-confidence among Hindus, and for the confusion that prevails in India."
http://www.indiastar.com/rameshrao.html
Reviewed by Ramesh N. Rao
"At Last, A Worthy Defense of the RSS!
It is de rigueur among BJP and RSS watchers that you use the term "fascist"
to brand them both, and that any attempt at explaining or understanding the
RSS viewpoint be viewed with suspicion if not derision. You have to use the
label "Sangh Parivar" or the "saffron brigade" frequently in any analysis of
the Hindutva movement, or even when expressing your dismay at the vile deeds
of the Afghan Taliban or the traitorous expressions by the Student Islamic
Movement in India. When discussing any matter Hindu, or any modern Indian
social issue like dowry deaths, illiteracy, casteism, religious conflict, or
the status of women you should not fail to drag in the Vishwa Hindu
Parishad, the "unmarried, male gerontocracy" which heads the RSS, and the
BJP's supposedly "contradictory" social and economic policies. You may,
while at this exercise, use the label "the Hindu Taliban" with as much
anger, disgust, and mockery as you can muster. You could also liberally use
the terms "Hindu nationalists", "Hindu fundamentalists", and "Hindu Right"
in your analysis of the "Hindu fascists"." ...
"Unless you swore by the "good works" of Romila Thapar and Gyanendra Pandey,
unless you paid homage to the wisdom of Nehru and Gandhi, and unless you
dismissed and derided Golwalkar, Hedgewar and Savarkar, you would not have
gained membership in the exclusive "secularist" academic clubs. And unless
you had learned to parrot the gobbledygook of the Indian Left and of the
Western post-modernist, feminist, post-structuralist brigade you would have
been called "mediocre" and a Hindu nationalist."
Would any sane subscriber, Muslim or otherwise, believe that Robert's artful
selection of Dr. Koenraad Elst polemical and controversial works is not
meant to act as a "crooked thinking" ploy to intellectually exploit the
unaware?
But Robert will deny it and play the innocent of course!
--
Peace
--
The most perfidious manner of injuring a cause is to vindicate it
intentionally with fallacious arguments. [Friedrich Nietzsche]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
robe...@f2s.com
It is obvious from my posting of Feb 7 that the prolonged Muslim
hostilities in India were a series of jihads. Normal territorial
conquests do not involve massacre on a scale that puts the number of
victims in the same order of magnitude as that of the Nazi crimes. The
conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the
annihilation of the entire Hindu population. Because of the Muslim use
of massacre as a means of repression it has been estimated that the
population of India decreased by 80 million between 1000 and 1525. All
of this was not a mark of barbarism on the part of the Muslim Turks -
the leaders were refined and cultivated men - it was all done in
obedience to the Koranic instruction to kill pagans. The Muslim
chroniclers delighted in it.
Again it is a clear mark of jihad that the Muslims destroyed more than
10,000 Hindu temples in an attempt to eliminate the Hindu religion. The
jizyah tax was imposed, and a compromise with the Hindus, who were
constantly in revolt, led to the extension of the dhimmi system to
Indian pagans. This was part of the policy of Islamization.
I don't see the relevance of your questions about Babur.
You accuse me of trickiness and distortion, but in the absence of any
evidnece of this, it is just abuse.
The British colonization of India is just a diversionary tactic of
yours - it wasn't a matter of jihad and didn't reduce the population of
India by 80 million.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1139437157....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> It is obvious from my posting of Feb 7 that the prolonged Muslim
> hostilities in India were a series of jihads.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Another piece of anti-Islamic fluff wittingly made to a potential audience
that no idea of mediaeval Indian history (which includes yourself I would
expect), Islamic or otherwise. If you were knowledgeable why didn't you
answer these two direct historical question, which I repeat:-
"Who did Babur defeat at the first battle of Panipat? Didn't his Muhghal
invasion force only consist of twelve thousand men?"
Now, own up Robert, why don't you want to answer these simple straight
questions? Isn't it because it would completely demolish your fallacious
Islamic "jihad" argument?
Nevertheless, you will endeavour to deploy every devious "crooked thinking"
trick not to give a direct answer, isn't this correct?
But "straight thinking" bigots, like myself, have the answer that you don't
want to divulge. Aren't you intrigued? Will discerning subscribers, Muslim
or otherwise, pick up on this avoidance or, should I say, using your own
words, "denial by guilty silence"?
--
Peace
--
To illustrate a principle, you must exaggerate much and you must omit much.
[Walter Bagehot]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1139481983.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> You will find a fuller rebuttal of your defence of Muslim rule in India
> in my reply to Zuiko Azumazi, if the moderators publish it. There I
> give the figures for the deaths in the jihad mounted against the
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Well the moderators did publish it. And what did your rebuttal amount to
other than another meagre attempt to weasel out from what you had earlier
posted in the thread, and , I repeat:-
"In a posting some weeks ago I referred to the Mughal conquest of
Northern India and related that in the jihad the Hindus ..."
which now becomes your *series*:-
"It is obvious from my posting of Feb 7 that the prolonged Muslim
hostilities in India were a series of jihads."
Is that a meaningful or adequate rebuttal to my post? If "rebuttal" means an
act of refuting by offering a contrary contention or argument why didn't you
answer any of the simple questions I raised? Or, is your idea of rebuttal
just another agitprop opportunity to post fallacious, dubious and distorted
statistical information that are unsupported by your earlier 'mythical'
statements?
In another post you have said, and I quote verbatim:-
"(I take this from "Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of
Islam" by Koenraad Elst. The book is available on his website.)"
Hasn't Dr. Koenraad Elst accused many well respected Indian historians of
"negationism", who oppose his partisan pro-Hindu version of history? Such
as, "for example, a team of 26 famous Indian historians (25 of them Hindus),
including renowned scholars like Sarvapalli Gopal, Roamila Thapar, Bipan
Chandra, Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, Suvira Jaiswal, Harbans Mukhia, K N.
Pannikkar, R. Champalakshmi, Satish Saberwal, B. D. Chattopadhyay, have
jointly stated that "so far no historical evidence has been unearthed to
support the claim that the Babri Masjid has been constructed on the land
that had been earlier occupied by a temple. This has been confirmed by the
findings and researches of other disputed historians like Sushil Shrivastav
and Aok Mitra. Noted historian R.S. Sharma also confirms the above fact."
[Bharatiya Janwadi Aghadi]
But of course you blindly believe Dr Koenraad Elst, as your historical
"leader", because it fits in with your own preconceived prejudices against
Muslims and Islam? Haven't forgotten about your previous vehement insistence
on peer review? Doesn't this count anymore? Or was that just another
"crooked thinking" trick you use against your opponents when is suits your
argument?
Now, what does the term "Negationism" mean in its historical context?
Doesn't this extract from this link sum it up:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negationism
Extract:-
They argue with Bordiga that the culpability for the Holocaust is the
capitalist system, rather than Nazism and situate the six million Jewish
dead within the context of 50 million human beings during the Second World
War. Vigorous critics of Stalinism, they argue that American, British and
USSR forces all committed atrocities during and after the Second World War.
End extract.
What's your opinion of Dr Koenraad Elst tacit association with the extreme
neo-nazi movement in Europe and elsewhere? See this search link (210 hits)
for details:-
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=elst+%22neo-nazis%22&btnG=Search
Does this association not vitiate his questionable scholarship in your book?
Comment (Tongue-in-cheek):-
But being somewhat Kiplingesque:- The "straight thinking" ferret can always
smell out the "crooked thinking" weasel, as the mongoose emphatically told
the mesmerised snake!
--
Peace
--
A leader is best
When people barely knows that he exists
Not so good when people obey and acclaim him
Worst when they despise him
[Lao-Tzu "The Way of Life"]
Zuiko Azumazi.
azu...@hotmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
news:000001c62b4b$8c1fe580$4101a8c0@rhdt...
<snip> ...
> In a posting some weeks ago I referred to the Mughal conquest of
<snip> ...
Comment:-
In another more recent thread you now write:-
<robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1139437157....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> It is obvious from my posting of Feb 7 that the prolonged Muslim
> hostilities in India were a series of jihads. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Isn't it obvious that you are artfully now trying to weasel out of what you
wrote earlier? How does the specific Mughal conquest of Northern India
become "a series"? Studying the transcripts of your posts, only a confirmed
"crooked thinker" could arrive at that fallacious conclusion.
But you still don't want to answer the simple question who the Muslim
Mughals defeated at the first battle of Panipat, do you? Why is that?
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1139511511.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> ... but I take it that it is a sneer at my
> suggestion that British colonialism made positive contributions to
> Indian civilization. Let's make a brief comparison.
Comment:-
So you now vehemently disagree with your leading authority, Dr. Koenraad
Elst, who wrote; and I cite the following extracts:-
Extract:
"The struggle of Hindu society is not primarily with the Muslim community.
The most important opponents of Hindu society today are not the Islamic
communal leaders, but the interiorized colonial rulers of India, the
alienated English-educated and mostly Left-leaning elite that noisily
advertises its "secularism." It is these people who impose anti-Hindu
policies on Hindu society, and who keep Hinduism down and prevent it from
proudly raising its head after a thousand years of oppression."
"The Hindu fight is not at all with Muslims; the fight is between Hindus
anxious to renew themselves in the spirit of their civilization, and the
state, Indian in name and not in spirit and the political and intellectual
class trapped in the debris the British managed to bury us under before they
left."
(Source: Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society - By Koenraad Elst
p. vi - vii and p. 83 and 356. Voice of India publication).
End extract.
Doesn't this brief extract raise the following questions for yourself:-
1. What "The struggle of Hindu society is not primarily with the Muslim
community" mean in the light of your earlier posts, grounded on this
author's works? Doesn't this undermine your jaundiced polemic against
Muslims and, of course, Islam?
2. What "The Hindu fight is not at all with Muslims" mean in the light of
your earlier posts grounded on this author's works? Wouldn't you say that
this statement completely contradicts your biased posts in this thread about
your perverse idea of the on-going 'mythical' Hindu struggle against
Muslims, in its modern context?
3. What does: "The most important opponents of Hindu society today are not
the Islamic communal leaders, but the interiorized colonial rulers of India,
the alienated English-educated and mostly Left-leaning elite that noisily
advertises its *secularism*.", demonstrate about your mythical idea of the
wonderful British legacy left to ex-colonial India?
4. What does: " the fight is between Hindus anxious to renew themselves in
the spirit of their civilization, and the state, Indian in name and not in
spirit and the political and intellectual class trapped in the debris the
British managed to bury us under before they left.", demonstrate about the
'positive contributions made by British colonialism', to both Muslim and
Hindu in India, baldly asserted by yourself above?
How are you going to rebut these arguments without either discrediting the
works of Dr. Koenraad Elst, or renouncing your triumphal position on the
jingoistic "British Empire"? From what you have been posting recently, one
could conjecture, that you are beginning to sound more like a superpatriotic
BNP stooge rather than just a piously devout Catholic that you are purported
to be.
Notwithstanding, that "straight thinking" bigots, like myself, are utterly
cynical when it comes to the so-called "crooked thinking" merits of colonial
imperialism and empire, whether it be British or Arab. Perhaps, this is why
we differ in principle on so many things!
But all your echoed diatribe is "not Muslims but Islam is the problem" -
right?
--
Peace
--
Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law. [Kant]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1139319686.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> Whatever the facts are about the American war in Afghanistan and Iraq,
> those wars have nothing to do with the Muslim jihad against the Hindus:
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Why do you continue to attack Islam and Muslims on misrepresented
information? Are you really interested in a proper understanding of the
history of Islam and Muslims in India or are you just taking another
gratuitous agitprop opportunity? As you confirm above, "facts ... about ...
those wars have nothing to do with it", as your specious argument confirms.
Elsewhere you talked about the "Mughal" invasion, then you said there was a
"series" of Muslim invasions, and now were back to a "singular" Muslim
invasion, isn't this nonsensical and in defiance of the well-known "law of
non-contradiction"? Which is it in plain language? Not artful "crooked
thinking" and oft repeated anti-Islamic agitprop surely? As you say above,
"facts ... have nothing to do with" it, only if they are artfully selected
by yourself?
Or will you rebuttal, provide you with another opportunity to spread further
misrepresentations and distortions, based on your normal rhetorical praxis,
i.e. "Add a few drops of malice to a half truth and you have an absolute
truth.[Eric Hoffer]?
Have you read what some of these self-same Hindutva movement historians have
devastatingly written about the Portuguese invasions and the Catholic
Church? Of course you will try and fallaciously argue that the Hindutva
movement's historical position on the Portuguese "religious" invasion isn't
relevant? Let's quote another Indian historian, this is what Vaish [1972]
said about Portuguese (Catholic [sic]) imperialism:-
"It was keen on propagating Christianity by means of mixed marriages. They
offered honours to Indian converts. The Jesuits took a prominent part in
education and in conversion. There was a policy of religious intolerance. In
1567 Christians were forbidden to employ infidel servants. The public
worship of Hindus and Muslims was banned. Heathen residents were compelled
to attend Christian sermons on Sundays. Orphaned children were to be brought
up in the Christian faith."
Do I need to go on? One might declare what have your posts got do with it -
that is - religion, Islam, Hindu, or Christianity? "Whatever the selected
facts"... hey? But, as I've reiterated previously; "Facts and truth really
don't have much to do with each other." [William Faulkner] , especially in
your perfidious posts attacking Islam.
Robert
My reply to your posting was rejected by the moderator as not relevant
to Islam.
Robert
Your tactics of obfuscation and dragging out the argument have been
compounded by the Moderator's rejection of my refutations on the ground
that they are not relevant to Islam - though on a larger view they are.
You will note that your last posting is almost in its entirety not
strictly relevant to Islam either. Thus you are, contrary to the ground
rules of soc.religion.islam, able to attack me amd make a number of
scurrilous suggestions but I am unable to rebutt them.
Robert
I suggested that British colonialism made positive contributions to
Indian civilization; that is in no way contradicted by the fact that
the interaction was in other respects painful. But the encounter with
the modern world was inevitable.
Elst says, in your quotation, that the struggle of India is not
*primarily* with the Muslim community; the primary struggle is to forge
a confident Hindu identity in the modern world. But as he amply shows
in his writings the political need to placate the Muslims, who are
prepared to use riot, intimidation, and violence for political ends,
forms a major obstacle to the resurgence of Hinduism.
Nima Rezai
> Your second reference is a photo of the Zoroastrian temple at Yazd,
> which is obviously quite modern. My statement, which you try to
> refute, referred to *ancient* Zoroastrian shrines.
Robert, sorry, but this is becoming ridiculous. Whenever one of your
accusations is refuted you try to super-specialize an earlier statement in
order to make it less vulnerable for the refutation, in vain however.
This is your statement: "In Iran there are no ancient Zoroastrian or
Manichean shrines left."
And this was your starting sentence: "In all the lands it conquered Islam
has replaced indigenous places of worship with mosques"
Now, lets resume and conclude:
You speak of lands "Islam" conquered. Well, apart from the fact that
armies - consisting of people - conquer and not religions, the question is
what you exactly want to articulate? Assuming that you are aware that
"Islam" conquered Iran between 636 and 651, you should also know that since
then never any other ideology ruled Iran. So, even if you could prove that
every single zoroastrian site has been destroyed by "Islam", how comes Iran
(and not only Iran) still have zoroastrian shrines?
Was Iran temporarily reconquered by zoroastrians and "Islam" defeated?
Funnily, you ignored or oversaw a short but very interesting sentence below
that photo: " Inside, you may find the sacred fire lighted in Shiraz 1527
years ago. "
So, again my question: Was Iran temporarily reconquered by zoroastrians and
"Islam" defeated?
How comes that some sacred fire was lighted though your source claims "Islam
has replaced indigenous places of worship with mosques"?
As far as I see this zoroastrian shrine is very beautiful. Why has it not
been turned into a mosque?
>
> Your third reference is to an article on the archaeological site of
> the temple of Azar Goshnasp; the sacred fire there was extinguished
> in the 12th century. Then it ceased to be a shrine. The site was only
> rediscovered in 1840.
So what? Does the extinguishing mean that "Islam has replaced...with
mosques"?.
Did you read the text: " According to various Persian and Arab historians,
the sacred flame of the temple of Azar Goshnasp blazed from the
establishment of the temple until the 12th century. "?
Well, as far as I know, arab Muslims conquered Iran in the 7th history and
since then Iran was ruled by Muslims. If there had been a gerenal intention
to replace or destroy zoroastrian mosques, Azar Goshnasp had not
"functioned" 5 centuries after "Islam".
>
> Your fourth reference is to a temple in Azerbaijan, whereas my
> statement averred that there are no ancient Zoroastrian sites left in
> Iran.
Your lack of knowledge is alarming:
Until 19th century Azerbaijan was iranian territory and only lost during the
reign of the Qajars.
Nima
Robert
I have never used 'scissor and paste' to produce my postings.
Of course, if my sources prove to be unreliable, I will accordingly
withdraw any claims made on the basis of them. There is nothing
intellectually disreputable about that.
You stigmatise Elst as coming from the Catholic University of Leuven.
You display your prejudice. This Catholic Institution is an ancient
and very distinguished university, comparable to Oxford and Cambridge,
and upholding the highest intellectual standards as I know at first
hand. Elst was raised a Catholic but is now a secular humanist.
The review by Khan that you quote is rabidly partisan; Khan, a Muslim
quite evidently, is fanatically opposed to the resurgence of Hinduism
and quite unable to give a dispassionate review of Elst's book. His
review is shot through with emotive cliches: "Islam bashing",
"orientalist", "horrible heritage of the Hindutva movement", "rabid",
"bigot". Elst himself writes like an educated person.
You do not seem to recognise that the last two passages you offer are
in fact favourable to Elst: there's your difficulty - you don't seem to
realise that you can't conduct an argument with bits of quotation. In
short you do not manage to convict me of crooked thinking - that's your
problem.
Robert
There's no inconsistency in referring to both *a* jihad and later a
*series* of jihads. Massacre was a feature of Muslim rule for
centuries.
Not only has Elst accused well respected Indian historians of
rejectionism, that is rejection of the truth about Muslim power in
India, he has made good his case in many publications and explained it
in terms of the intellectual and religious politics of India. I
recommend you to his website. The scholars you refer to may be in a
residual sense Hindus, but they are in all probability Westernized and
Marxist or left-leaning, unwilling to recognize the social division
that Islam represents in India (this has been the Congress Party policy
since the 30s.)
I don't blindly follow Elst; I read him critically and have my
reservations.
None of my opinions about Islam is preconceived: they are all the
result of reading and experience - some, derived from this forum, has
been very illuminating.
Your transition from rejectionism relating to the Holocaust (which has
now become a Muslim phenomenon) to your allegation that Elst is
associated with extreme neo-Nazism is extraordinary. Elst has written
against the neo-Nazi rejectionism, just as he has written against all
attempts to rewrite history with a political motive.
Once again your links are a wild-goose chase: they do not display Elst
in association with neo-Nazis, *just the reverse* - he is at pains to
show that the neo-pagan and New Age movements (however uncongenial, as
Muslim or Christian, one finds them) exclude neo-Nazis, and that the
Nazi smear is a Marxist defamation.
Your charge is anyway one of guilt by association. You do nothing to
show that Elst's scholarship is questionable.
Robert
It is mere fallacious pedantry to say that it is not religions that
conquer but armies.
I am well aware of the fact that Azerbaijan used to be part of Persia;
the fact remains that the existence of the Zoroastrian temple at Baku
does not refute my assertion that in *Iran* there are no *ancient*
Zoroastrian shrines left, and you have NOT shown otherwise; you have
merely produced bluff, bluster, and obfuscation.
I find it remarkable that, in debate with Muslims, denial extends to
failing to acknowledge evident facts and refusing to recognize patent
arguments.
Robert
Note that the words you attribute to me are a quotation from Koenraad
Elst: "In Iran there are no ancient Zoroastrian or Manichean shrines
left." That is, if there are Zoroastrian shrines in Iran, they are
modern. And there are Zoroastrian shrines, as is well known.
See the internet article "Zoroastrian Sacred Sites", which gives an
account of the six major places of Zoroastrian pilgrimage in the Yazd
region. Regarding the six buildings it says:
"Probably the oldest building belongs to Pir-e-Banoo could not be older
than 200 years due to its architectural elements and materials and also
according to the existing inscriptions." (The faulty grammar is in the
original.)
"Shrine" can refer either to an artifact (tomb, altar, casket etc) or a
place. Clearly places cannot be destroyed so in this context "shrine"
refers to the temples. If Elst is right all the Zoroastrian temples in
Iran are not survivals from before the Arab conquest, and all the
evidence I have seen, including yours, supports this.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1139599399....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> My reply to your posting was rejected by the moderator as not relevant
> to Islam.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Which to "straight thinking" subscribers means one of two things:-
1. That your argumentative replies weren't relevant to Islam, or
2. You couldn't, as author, make your arguments relevant to Islam.
We shall never know for certain, will we? But, my conjectural sentiment lies
with the latter. But then again, I'm a "straight thinking" bigot, trying to
'discover the truth' about Islam, wherever that leads us.
Effectively, it's all in the signature below.
--
Peace
--
The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false
appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly
by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by
prejudice. - Schopenhauer
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Me
<robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1139481983.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, the treatment of the Native Americans was terrible, but you use it
> as a distraction from the issue: Muslim genocide against the Hindus.
This is a classic ploy used by Muslims when forced to confront the barbarity
of their own past: "But look what the Christians (or Jews) did (or do)!"
The fact is that the Muslim conquest, occupation and rule of Hindu India
represents the greatest genocide perpetrated in human history. Some
estimates give 60 MILLION dead Hindus as the figure.
It is a fact that any Muslim should be ashamed of, regardless of whether the
Holocaust occured or not.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1139600030.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Your tactics of obfuscation and dragging out the argument have been
> compounded by the Moderator's rejection of my refutations on the ground
<snip>
Comment:-
The underlying question is that you have uncritically adopted the
controversial ideas of one writer i.e. Dr. Koenraad Elst in his book
"Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam".
In response to your puerile jibe, haven't you heard the devil is always in
the detail, that's why I scrutinise things very carefully. Is that
thoroughness deemed "dragging out" in your mind?
As I've competently demonstrated, the vast majority of mainstream Indian,
academic scholars and internationally recognised historians, Hindu or
otherwise, reject this author's works as being historically unreliable and
inaccurate. The essence of the debate between us then becomes: can any
reasonably sensible subscriber believe what Dr. Koenraad Elst has written
about Islam and Muslims, when his peers have vehemently criticised his
works? What you or I believe subsequently is irrelevant opinion since we are
not experts.
If you want to blindly follow Dr. Koenraad Elst's anti-Islamic propaganda
(for that's what it is) then that's up to you. But don't and try and
misinform us by spreading misleading and dubious material as its the one and
only definitive "history" just because it suits your Islamophobic
sentiments. This kind of "ultra-nationalist" (Hindutva) argument is similar
in style, nature and scope, to the infamous David Irving's controversial
historical, (negationism) views about contemporary European history and Nazi
Germany, which can be viewed at this link:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving
Extract:-
Irving sued Lipstadt for libel. In the highly-publicised trial, Irving lost
both the case and any remaining reputation as a historian. [1] The judge
upheld Lipstadt's claims about Irving "that he is an active Holocaust
denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist".
Irving's continued disagreement with mainstream historical accounts of the
Second World War, of Adolf Hitler, and of the Holocaust has earned him
iconic status among neo-Nazis and other Holocaust deniers. Relatedly, his
books and speeches have led to his being barred from entering Germany and
Austria, where it is a crime to claim publically that the Holocaust, or
aspects of it, never occurred, and under similar auspices, barred from
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Irving currently awaits trial in Graz,
Austria for hate speech relating to Holocaust denial.
End extract
Put into this polemical context, over proper history, wouldn't you consider
it possible that many discerning subscribers, Muslim or otherwise, would
view that your continuous vitiole against Islam and Muslims, might be viewed
in this light? Do you wonder why many subscribers question your judgement,
integrity and trustworthiness, when you use such questionable sources to
vindicate your onslaught against Islam?
But, "straight thinking" bigots, like myself, when historically challenged
are likely to exclaim "the rest is history"!
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1139606931.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> There's no inconsistency in referring to both *a* jihad and later a
> *series* of jihads. Massacre was a feature of Muslim rule for
> centuries. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Which raises the ultimate misrepresentative question, isn't it logically
impossible for a "jihad" (holy war) to be conducted against itself? Can
Muslims fight each other in times of war, or skirmishes, or raids, and these
internecine conflicts, or *series* of conflicts, between Muslim factions be
correctly called a "jihad"? Can "jihad" be undertaken against a state or
government that's already Islamic? Can Muslim killing Muslim (Mughals versus
the Delhi Sultanate) at the first battle of Panipat be deemed a massacre of
Hindus? Isn't that tantamount to some idiot saying that the mediaeval
"Crusades" could "Crusade" against its religious self? But, only "crooked
thinkers" would consider that as not being "inconsistent", wouldn't they?
How can the Babar, founder of the Mughal dynasty, and leader of the Muslim
Turkmen expeditionary force that invaded Muslim North India, commonly called
the Mughal invasion in 1524, suddenly be deemed by yourself as being, "I
don't see the relevance of your questions about Babur"? What is relevant
then?
<snip> ...
> Not only has Elst accused well respected Indian historians of
> rejectionism, that is rejection of the truth about Muslim power in
> India, he has made good his case in many publications and explained it
> in terms of the intellectual and religious politics of India. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Interestingly enough, isn't this exactly what the infamous and discredited
"historian", David Irving, accused the European historians of doing? By way
of analogy, do you see any difference in their "intellectual" praxis?
And how do you personally judge that these well respected Indian historians
and scholars have "rejected the truth about Muslim power in India"? What
other opposing views have you studied from amongst these internationally
renowned scholars (that is recognised historians) to derive some balance?
Can you name them? What contrary arguments to Elst's views of have you
considered or digested? Can you share those with subscribers and provide the
appropriate website links?
<snip> ...
> I recommend you to his website.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Why would "straight thinkers" want to waste their time reading any book
whose ideology is founded on overt and outright "fascism", of whatever form?
Is the appalling ideology of "fascism" somehow to your liking? Is that why,
as you said, you "recommend it"? Well at least subscribers now we know where
you are ideologically positioned. Why doesn't that come as a surprise?.
Interesting enough, in your extensive searches of the web, have you managed
to find any websites that didn't have an anti-Islamic slant or weren't you
looking for any?
As I keep repeating, "straight thinkers" desire balance and a modicum of
candour in their reading material, so they can, wherever possible, avoid
puerile recommendations, trite remarks, agitprop and misinformation by the
prejudicial book-load.
<snip> ...
> The scholars you refer to may be in a
> residual sense Hindus, but they are in all probability Westernized and
> Marxist or left-leaning, unwilling to recognize the social division
> that Islam represents in India (this has been the Congress Party policy
> since the 30s.)
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Please, tell us what you are personally in a "residual sense"? I could think
of a few names that are pejorative, even some nonsensical lobotomised ones;
but I certainly wouldn't call you a "residual" straight thinker, even after
the operation, that would be stretching the truth too far! Would any
discerning subscriber (here's your opportunity "Dear All" to participate and
share your opinion) like too share their viewpoint with us on this sole
issue?
Do you mean they aren't supporters of the virulently fascist ideology of
Hindutva, (What's wrong with that?) which is:-
"This right-wing ideology has existed since the early 20th century, but only
came to prominence in Indian politics in the late 1980s, when two events
attracted a large number of mainstream Hindus to the movement.... was the
dispute over the 16th century Mughal Babri Mosque in Ayodhya — built by
Babar after his first major victory in India, allegedly on the site of an
existing temple marking the birthplace of Rama, whom Hindus considered to be
an avatar of Vishnu — which came to a head with the mosque's destruction by
a Hindu mob in 1992 and subsequent rioting across the country." [Wikipedia]
Or don't you care because 'fascism' must be ideologically good if it's
anti-Islamic?
<snip> ...
> I don't blindly follow Elst; I read him critically and have my
> reservations.
<snip>
Comment:-
And what are those unspecified "reservations" from an Islamic perspective?
Is it his anti-Islamic polemic that permeates all of his writings? Is it his
somewhat dubious attack on the 'intellectual honesty' of every Muslim and
Hindu historian of note in the20th century? What have you criticised about
him or his works in any of your anti-Islamic threads? Or are these specious
"reservations" a convenient loophole than you can use when put under
argumentative pressure? Like, for instance, if any of Elst's ideas about
Islam are irrefutably challenged (and there are plenty) you can draw down
the unspecified "reservation" position as a sort of subsequent weasel excuse
to vindicate your behaviour?
Notwithstanding, didn't you state earlier: "I take this from 'Negationism in
India: Concealing the Record of Islam', by Koenraad Elst"? What does your "I
take this from" mean? Is it a full "take", a partial "take", or a highly
selected "take" based on your known anti-Islamic biases? Perhaps, this
"take" is founded on this maxim: "Add a few drops of malice to a half truth
and you have an absolute truth. [Eric Hoffer], a kind of self-fulfilling
hate "take"?
<snip> ...
> None of my opinions about Islam is preconceived: they are all the
> result of reading and experience - some, derived from this forum, has
> been very illuminating. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What "experience" is that? Is it hands-on experience? Have you ever been a
Muslim or practised Islam? Hasn't it been demonstrated repeatedly in the
transcripts of your posts that your highly selected "reading" has been
devoted exclusively to anti-Islamic material? For instance, haven't you
recommended, "Answering Islam", "ibn-Warranq" and now "Koenraad Elst"? What
"result" did you expect other than a "pre-conceived" and "prejudical"
anti-Islamic one? Would you go to a selection of rabid anti-Catholic
website, like in this search, to find out the "truth" about Catholicism?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=rabid+%22anti-catholic+websites%22&btnG=Search
And, if so, what do you think the "straight thinking" researcher would find?
Not, rabid anti-Catholic propaganda, surely? Why is it unexpected that any
search into rabid anti-Islamic websites would be any different?
<snip>
> Your transition from rejectionism relating to the Holocaust (which has
> now become a Muslim phenomenon) to your allegation that Elst is
> associated with extreme neo-Nazism is extraordinary.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
But following your lead 'I'm relying' on what scholarly Hindu and Muslim
historians and critics themselves (see extensive professorial list in second
link below) have written about Elst's anti-Islamic polemic? Have you ever
visted these informative websites about Professor Romila Thapur's, as most
"straight thinkers" have done :-
http://www.sacw.net/Alerts/IDRT300403.html
http://www.sacw.net/Alerts/ProtestLetter17052003.html
<snip> ...
> ... against the neo-Nazi rejectionism, just as he has written against all
> attempts to rewrite history with a political motive.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Well that's another matter of opinion isn't it? What's the difference
between re-writing history from a 'political' or 'religious' motive? Isn't
either way preconceived and prejudicial? Have you read this Elst article on
this "Neo-Nazi" website:-
http://www.vivamalta.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-1059.html
Why would "Neo-Nazi's" want to publish author whose works are purported to
be "against Neo-Nazi rejectionism"? Interesting, don't you think?
<snip> ...
> Once again your links are a wild-goose chase: they do not display Elst
> in association with neo-Nazis, *just the reverse* ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Perhaps the "wild-goose chase" has now become "the chickens have come home
to roost", as has been indicated immediately above?
<snip> ...
> ... - he is at pains to show that the neo-pagan and New Age
> movements (however uncongenial, as Muslim or Christian, one finds >
them) exclude neo-Nazis, and that the Nazi smear is a Marxist
> defamation.
<snip> ....
Comment:-
I like your picturesque and vivid use of inconsequential language. But this
still doesn't answer the vexing question, why a "Neo-Nazi" website(s) would
publish his ideas if they were Marxist in origin?
Another, "straight thinking" angle about rampant "anti-Islamic goverment
sponsored violence" is on the Human Rights Watch website:-
http://hrw.org/wr2k3/asia6.html
"In 2002, India witnessed its worst episode of communal violence in over a
decade, demonstrating the increasingly volatile consequences of a broad and
government-supported Hindu nationalist agenda in the country. In February
and March state-supported anti-Muslim violence in the northwestern state of
Gujarat claimed at least two thousand lives. As in Gujarat, attacks against
historically discriminated groups in other parts of the country, including
Christians, Dalits (or so-called untouchables), and tribals, were carried
out with virtual impunity. Attacks by militants continued to claim many
civilian lives in the disputed region of Kashmir and in the northeast."
<snip> ...
> Your charge is anyway one of guilt by association. You do nothing to
> show that Elst's scholarship is questionable.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Don't you ever read what you write? Where in your SRI transcripts is there
any indication that 'Muslims aren't guilty by association", in your opinion?
Can you link to any article you have posted that doesn't have the "guilt by
association", as its underlying theme?
Of course, aren't you quoting Elst's own works as evidence of his own
scholarship? Isn't that a logically fallacious "petitio principii", often
mistakenly used by the "crooked thinking" brigade?
--
Peace
--
An ideology is a body of widely held but false beliefs that has the effect
of making practice and institution that is not legitimate seem so. [T.
Eagleton - "Ideology- An Introduction"]
Zuiko Azumazi
azu...@hotmail.com
Robert
You do not actually examine the controversy between Koenraad Elst and
his Indian establishment opponents (you have demonstrated nothing, to
use your word) neither do you comment on their imposed rewriting of the
history of Islam in India which I have illustrated, a policy which they
have pursued since the 1930s; all you do is make a head count and go
along with the establishment. There is a mass of vigorous and patently
honest documentation of Elst's case on the internet - you don't go
anywhere near it.
It's absurd to suggest that I present Elst's as the one and only
history of India.
You provide a very neat example of the Muslim practice of
conscienceless reversal in smearing him in the comparison with the
Holocaust denier, David Irving.
I note that you attempt to smear me, my integrity and trustworthiness,
by contriving an association with Irvine - a matter for the moderators,
I would have thought.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:dsloat$jdt$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
<snip> ...
> This is a classic ploy used by ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Yes, this quite correct. All "crooked thinkers" indulge in this practice,
Muslim or otherwise. Many 'politicians' and 'spin doctors' do it all the
time. Can't everyone come up with a few recent examples from the sensational
'print media', Islamic or otherwise? What's your non-partisan favourite?
As Robert H. Thouless, in his excellent little book "Straight and Crooked
Thinking", partly describes this classic ploy as being a: "Statement of a
doubtful proposition in such a way that it fits in with the thought-habits
or the prejudices of the reader." However, all subscribers, Muslim or
otherwise, should be ashamed of that activity, wouldn't you say?
<snip> ...
> Some estimates give 60 MILLION dead Hindus as the figure. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Didn't the same 'evangelicals' estimate that most of these deaths, were
primarily caused by the terrible pagan jauhar and sati rites? Isn't this
just another appalling incidence of mythical exaggeration? The stuff of
urban legend one could add.
As one acute philosopher explained: "The ruthlessness born of self-seeking
is ineffectual compared with the ruthlessness sustained by dedication to a
holy cause. "God wishes," said Calvin, "that one should put aside all
humanity when it is a question of striving for His glory." [Eric Hoffer],
which is a good ending point.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1139604834.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Moderators permitting this is a analysis for subscribers who may want to
learn or protect themselves from the many 'tricks' used by anti-Islamic
antagonists.
<snip> ...
> I have never used 'scissor and paste' to produce my postings.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
When one says, as you did: "I rely on", or "I take this from 'Negationism in
India: Concealing the Record of Islam', by Koenraad Elst"; what does this
mean other than you have "cut and pasted" those ideas? Or are you now saying
those ideas were your own?
<snip> ...
> Of course, if my sources prove to be unreliable, I will accordingly
> withdraw any claims made on the basis of them. There is nothing
> intellectually disreputable about that.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Except that when your anti-Islamic sources and polemic have been 'proven to
be unreliable' you have failed to withdraw, or own up, that's the crunch
line. But you will ask for additional evidence (which is a simple exercise
of checking the archived transcripts) to show that fact. But rather than
actually 'own up' you will deflect and deny the argument by specious
bluster.
But, here's a few search examples, to demonstrate the "own up" point:-
<snip> ...
> You stigmatise Elst as coming from the Catholic University of Leuven.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
So telling the *truth* has now become a stigmatising exercise! Didn't Elst
graduate from the Catholic University of Leuven? Wasn't I plainly stating
that fact? Where did I denigrate this university? If *truth* is now the
displayed prejudice of a "straight thinker"; then *untruth* must be the
displayed prejudice of the artful "crooked thinker".
<snip> ...
> ... This Catholic Institution is an ancient
> and very distinguished university, comparable to Oxford and Cambridge,
> and upholding the highest intellectual standards as I know at first
> hand. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
You mean its similar in stature to the great Islamic Al-Aksa University in
Cairo. But, then again, I wouldn't attempt to argue that Al-Aksa didn't have
a distinct bias towards Islam.
Didn't both Oxford and Cambridge both repeal the religious '39 Articles' in
the 19th century, under pressure from the "Dissenters"?
<snip> ...
> Elst was raised a Catholic but is now a secular humanist.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
How can a "secular humanist" avidly support the religiously motivated
Hinduvta movement?
<snip> ...
> The review by Khan that you quote is rabidly partisan; Khan, a Muslim
> quite evidently, is fanatically opposed to the resurgence of Hinduism
> and quite unable to give a dispassionate review of Elst's book. His
> review is shot through with emotive cliches: "Islam bashing",
> "orientalist", "horrible heritage of the Hindutva movement", "rabid",
> "bigot". Elst himself writes like an educated person.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What you have said is partially correct, see remainder of my reply below.
Nonetheless, what's important is this question after the cited quotes:-
"Would any sane subscriber, Muslim or otherwise, believe that Robert's
artful
selection of Dr. Koenraad Elst polemical and controversial works is not
meant to act as a "crooked thinking" ploy to intellectually exploit the
unaware?"
<snip> ...
> You do not seem to recognise that the last two passages you offer are
> in fact favourable to Elst: there's your difficulty - you don't seem to
> realise that you can't conduct an argument with bits of quotation. In
> short you do not manage to convict me of crooked thinking - that's your
> problem.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
But that's not a *problem* or a *difficulty* for "straight thinkers": to
give a balanced overview of the subject, to give both sides a fair airing,
to evaluate based on all the facts and arguments from both sides, to
conclusions based clear headed, unemotional judgement, it's only "crooked
thinkers" who do precisely the reverse. You see, Robert, it was a carefully
laid trap to force you into a blustering rejoinder, which you did admirably
I might add. Where was I arguing for or against any of the cited cases? No!
You jumped to that false conclusion, as is your habit.! Take this as a
sample lesson of your shoot first and ask questions afterwards method.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> I suggested that British colonialism made positive contributions to
> Indian civilization; ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
And yet elsewhere in this thread you have lambasted Indian historians for
subscribing to that notion. Secondly, Elst's has vehemently criticised the
so-called colonial British legacy that you are artfully now trying to
suggest. So Elst is wrong on the colonial British legacy but right on the
Islamic and Muslim legacy? So, in effect, Elst's "scholarship" is right when
suits your own prejudices but wrong when it doesn't. Is this the Byzantine
"reservations" being referred to in another thread?
<snip> ...
> ... that is in no way contradicted by the fact that
> the interaction was in other respects painful....
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Isn't imperialism always a painful interaction for the vanquished? Surely,
the incisive "historical" question, isn't what the conquerors think or
expound, past or present, but what the conquered think, untainted by
partisan 'religious' or 'political' overtones?
<snip> ...
> ... But the encounter with
> the modern world was inevitable.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Isn't 'modernism' with all its secular trappings the anathema of all
mainstream religions? Is your ideological mantra compulsory? Are old-style
religious encounters, like Catholicism with Protestant modernism then
inevitable or enviable as a prototype for all nonmodern countries?
<snip> ...
> Elst says, in your quotation, that the struggle of India is not
> *primarily* with the Muslim community; the primary struggle is to forge
> a confident Hindu identity in the modern world. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Yes, based on Hindu ultranationalism and supremacy. Which, by anyone's
standards is ideological "fascism" (i.e. philosophy of government that
glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every
aspect of national life) in its modern sense is it not?
<snip> ...
> ... But as he amply shows
> in his writings the political need to placate the Muslims, who are
> prepared to use riot, intimidation, and violence for political ends,
> forms a major obstacle to the resurgence of Hinduism.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Well let's take a "straight thinking", non-partisan look at your bald
assumptions:-
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/india-bck1121.htm
Extract:-
"Hindu Nationalism and Religious Intolerance
The assertion of Hindu nationalism has posed new challenges to India’s
constitutional commitment to secular democracy. The policies espoused by
India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its sister organizations,
collectively known as the sangh parivar, have already resulted in much
violence against the country’s minority populations. We urge you ask Indian
government to take immediate steps to reverse this dangerous trend.
The past three years have witnessed an alarming rise in attacks against
Christians across the country, including the killing of priests, raping of
nuns, and the destruction of Christian institutions, schools, churches,
colleges, and cemeteries. In addition, right-wing Hindu organizations have
also engaged in violence against India’s Muslim and non-Christian Dalit
communities. In most cases, those responsible for the attacks have yet to
be prosecuted."
[Human Rights Watch]
And,
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/indiachr/christians8-03.htm
Extract:-
"Until recently, Christians enjoyed a relatively peaceful coexistence with
their majority Hindu neighbors. In the past several years, however,
Christians have become the target of a campaign of violence and propaganda
orchestrated by Hindu nationalist groups attempting to stem the tide of
defecting low-caste and tribal voters. In 1996, two Catholic priests were
killed in Gumla district, Bihar, their skulls crushed. In October 1997, the
decapitated body of a third Catholic priest was found in a forest in
Bihar.12 Rev. A. T. Thomas was apparently targeted for aiding Dalits in the
area.13 Earlier in the month, Father Christudas was forced to parade naked
through the town of Dumka after being accused of sexually assaulting one of
his students.14 The string of attacks sent shock waves throughout the
country and prompted Christian groups to demand increased protection of
Christian communities in a state notorious for its lawlessness and ongoing
caste wars. The incidents also foreshadowed the deterioration of
Hindu-Christian relations in 1998 and 1999." [Human Rights Watch]
So, according to your preceding analysis of Elst's ideological writing i.e.
"But as he amply shows in his writings the political need to placate the
Muslims, who are prepared to use riot, intimidation, and violence for
political ends, ...", but there's no need to placate Hindus that do exactly
the same thing? Isn't this a direct example of pure hypocrisy and political
double-speak?
Notwithstanding, "straight thinking" bigots, like myself, who are well-aware
of the artful "crooked thinking" tricks employed by those who wittingly, or
unwittingly, want to unscrupulously exploit unaware subscribers, honestly
expose those tricks when they encounter them.
Robert
Regarding the Zoroastrian shrine at Baku in Azerbaijan that Nima has
discovered (though it doesn't falsify my claim about the survival of
Zoroastrian shrines in Iran), she might be interested in the following
information from Mary Boyce of London University, the acknowledged
doyenne of Iranian studies, from her book "Zoroastrians: Their
Religious Beliefs and Practices", p165:
"Even more remarkably there were still Zoroastrians in Khorasan, that
gateway of invasion and slaughter; but no more is heard after the tenth
century of any of the old faithful in Azarbaijan in the north west, and
the community there may well have met its end under Ghazan Khan, who
made his capital at Tabriz."
It seems that the shrine was not demolished in Baku (Azerbaijan), not
in order to demonstrate Muslim tolerance, but because all the
Zoroastrians had been slaughtered or 'converted'.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:1139604834.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> I have never used 'scissor and paste' to produce my postings. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Mining the archive again to find the facts from the transcripts:-
"Robert Houghton" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:000001c62b4b$8c1fe580$4101a8c0@rhdt...
Extract:
'I hope the following quotation from Koenraad Elst, "Negationism in India",
will show that I was not pulling my account out of the air:'
"In all the lands it conquered Islam has replaced indigenous places of
worship with mosques." ...
End extract.
Isn't this quotation cut and paste? Is that still "never" or a lie, Robert?
Let's take another one of your "crooked thinking" gems from:-
"Robert" <robe...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:1139604834.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
"you don't seem to realise that you can't conduct an argument with bits of
quotation"
So, it's alright for you to use the above "quotation" from Elst, to support
your (anti-Islamic) argument, but not anyone else? Doesn't this exemplify,
once more, the hypocrisy of your "crooked thinking" method and sleazy
argumentation?
Nonetheless, you are correct about one thing in this anti-Islamic diatribe:
you weren't pulling your account out of the air, or out of your own "reading
or experience" (as you artfully confirmed elsewhere), you copied it directly
from one of Elst's polemical works. Which is overt agitprop, promoting the
Hindutva ideological cause, if you didn't know. Reference selection of
articles mentioned in this link (118 hits):-
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=elst+%22hindutva+ideology%22&btnG=Search
Saqib Virk
>
> The precise force of your concluding remark "What color is the sky in
> your world?" is lost on me
SV
Much is lost on you. You have failed to comprehend almost everything the
Muslims on SRI have explained.
>, but I take it that it is a sneer at my
> suggestion that British colonialism made positive contributions to
> Indian civilization. Let's make a brief comparison.
SV
Let's not. We can naturally assume my original post on the matter stands.
Your posts to SRI are certainly fascinating curiosities but let's not waste
time trying to take them seriously. I ask, "what color is the sky in your
world", because I have come to the conclusion that you have been
accidentally transported here from a parallel reality where the Muslim were
all villains. I suspect you have not noticed the transition from your
reality to ours because you have been too busy typing up pathetic anti-Islam
tracts in your room. Step outside and you will see you are now in a
different, happier place. Rejoice!
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> You do not actually examine the controversy between Koenraad Elst and
> his Indian establishment opponents (you have demonstrated nothing, to
> use your word) neither do you comment on their imposed rewriting of the
> history of Islam in India which I have illustrated, a policy which they
> have pursued since the 1930s; all you do is make a head count and go
> along with the establishment.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Firstly, why should any subscriber, Muslim or otherwise, waste their time in
reading about Hindutva ideological propaganda just because it contains some
wild accusations against Islam and Muslims? You are welcome to do so, but
don't try and convince any discerning subscriber, with some knowledge of
historiography, that any "post-modernist" writing of history from an purely
"ideological" or "religious" perspective is *not* going to be teleologically
prejudiced in the extreme.
Again you may hold the that opinion, based on Elst's specious "whitewash"
theories, that there has been some sort of establishment conspiracy that
has somehow "rewritten" Indian history from an Islamic perspective. None of
this widespread "post-modernist" speculation proves the fashionably specious
"rewriting" history theory.
Re-echoing Elst's pet 'conspiracy theory' is only repeating that theory not
giving any new insights or illustration. Specious conjecture about Indian
'political' policy isn't absolute certainty only an expressed opinion and
doubtful at that. Doesn't "they have pursued since the 1930s", break many of
Thouless's 'crooked thinking' rules? How many rules are broken do you think?
Are you cognisant of the 'fashionable academic theories' of the 70's, 80's
and 90's that ultimately lie behind this kind of post-structuralist,
post-modern, post-history, ideology claimed by the 'new' theorists? For
instance, they claim that people can only see the past through the
perspective of their own culture - Hindu in this case - and; hence, what
they see in history are their own interests and concerns reflected back to
them. But that's another story and any sensible discussion of it wouldn't
comply with the "relevant to Islam" rules. What "politics" do think lies
behind this trendy bandwagon? Do you defend "traditional" history and its
methods or not? This of course has nothing to do with "India and Islam" per
se; nonetheless if subscribers don't understand the underlying "theories"
they are likely to be unscrupulously exploited and mislead
Have you considered, that by defending Elst you are tacitly supporting
Hindutva ideology? Is politics the game? Is your concern then based on the
maxim, 'an enemy of my enemy is a friend'? Are you in fact a Catholic or a
Hindutva mole? Is your anti-Islamic campaign then not put in questionable
jeopardy, a veritable Sword of Damocles?
<snip> ...
> There is a mass of vigorous and patently
> honest documentation of Elst's case on the internet - you don't go
> anywhere near it.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Which, presumably, just reflects his capacity for self-promotion. Or, is
that because his odd-ball ideas are ignored by mainstream academia and
serious journals (the David Irving syndrome)?
What does "patently honest" mean in an 'post-history' context when a
teleological outcome is desired. I'm sure that Elst's works are 'patently
honest' in furthering the cause of the Hindutva ideology. But as I said
elsewhere, if one makes observations about the past as evidence that an
event really happened, one is always reluctant to take one report as proof
of this. One should prefer the corroboration of observations from many
observers. If I remember correctly, Popper gave a fine treatise on the
corroboration issue, using the death of Julius Caesar around 44 BCE, as a
parallel.
<snip> ...
> It's absurd to suggest that I present Elst's as the one and only
> history of India.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
If you accept Elst's theory then aren't all previous normative histories
written in
the 20th century, by recognised Indian historians, are all tainted with his
outrageous "rewriting" claims? So which histories are you reading not those
written by any Muslim, I would expect?
<snip> ...
> You provide a very neat example of the Muslim practice of
> conscienceless reversal in smearing him in the comparison with the
> Holocaust denier, David Irving.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Isn't the method they have adopted nearly identical? What do you see as
being distinctively different in their methodology? Didn't David Irving
accuse mainstream European historians of "rewriting" history from the
self-same 'left-wing' and Marxist perspective, etc,?
<snip> ...
> I note that you attempt to smear me, my integrity and trustworthiness,
> by contriving an association with Irvine - a matter for the moderators,
> I would have thought.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
This appeal for sympathy is pathetic. You start subscribing to SRI (and
think that it's your right to use it as public soapbox to preach your
one-eyed invective) and from the outset you have caustically attacked Islam
and Muslims because in your preconceived opinion it's "flawed". Every one of
your posts has had this negative sermonising theme. You have used every
"crooked thinking" trick, described by Thouless, to unscrupulously exploit
the unwary. Your transcripts in SRI verify this simple fact. When someone
illustrates these "crooked thinking" tricks, based on fact, which is the
posts themselves, you complain of being smeared. When the basis your
prejudicial opinions are demonstrably paralleled against, for instance,
David Irving's discredited "rewriting" history theory, you complain of being
victimised. You stigmatise and deprecate Muslims at every bombastic
opportunity. You judge and condemn Islam and Muslims by their least worthy
members. Why don't you consider that subscribers, Muslim or otherwise,
shouldn't consider you as being artful and untrustworthy based on this
irrefutable self-incriminatory evidence?
Notwithstanding, when can proof (the transcripts) beyond a reasonable doubt
be an "attempt" to smear when its the truth in reality? Let subscribers be
the judge!
Robert
Show where I have "lambasted" Indian historians for saying the British
made a positive contribution to Indian civilization.
I adduce Elst in order to show the rejectionist rewriting of the
history of Muslim involvement in India; that does not commit me to hold
all of his positions. It is also possible to hold that the British
involvement in India had both positive and negative aspects,
The historical question about colonialism is not what the colonised
think but what the facts are.
Your dialectical play with "modernism" is incomprehensible.
You betray your Muslim anti-Hindu animus when you stigmatize the Hindu
struggle to fashion a confident identity as Fascism. You have been
taken in by the influential Marxist Indian intellectual and political
elite and their journalistic dependants.
The Human rights Watch Document which you quote (2001) warns of a
threat to democracy from Hindu nationalism; it has had five years to
manifest itself, but I know of none of the classical signs of a
Fascist-Nazi take-over: imprisonment and murder of political opponents,
destruction of other political parties, systematic terrorization of
racial minorities, and overthrow of the Constitution. The violence
there has been is, of course, to be deplored, but intercommunal
violence has been the norm in India for many years and has been used as
a political weapon by the Muslims.
I do not say that there is a need to placate Muslims and i say nothing
at all about the need to placate rioting Hindus or otherwise: you
charge of hypocrisy is incomprehensible.
Saqib Virk
news:1139481983.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I reply to Saqib Virk Feb 8
>
> You will find a fuller rebuttal of your defence of Muslim rule in India
> in my reply to Zuiko Azumazi, if the moderators publish it.
SV
Are you just toying with me or do you actually believe the nonsense you
continue to post? You are either a genius or the most deluded anti-Islam
type I have ever met. At first I thought you were just the typical ignorant
anti-Islam type but I was obviously wrong and now I suspect you know exactly
what you are doing and you are some sort of scientist conducting an advanced
experiment on SRI where those who respond to your posts are your lab
monkeys. I resent being treated this way, now get your wires and probes out
of my head!
> The killing of the native Americans was in the hands of individuals,
> not the State, and it was not done with a religious motive in order to
> exterminate pagans on the authority of the Koran.
SV
Agreed, the Christians who were busy engaging in genocide against the Native
Americans were not acting on the authority of the Quran. I assume they
imagined they were acting on the authority of Jesus and your Church.
> Yes, the treatment of the Native Americans was terrible, but you use it
> as a distraction from the issue: Muslim genocide against the Hindus.
SV
There are a billion Hindus in the world, for the most part they possess the
lands they consider theirs and the Hindu culture thrives. In North America
the Native American culture has ceased to exist and their population is
limited to a few "reservations". Where is the genocide?
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Nima Rezai
> "Even more remarkably there were still Zoroastrians in Khorasan, that
> gateway of invasion and slaughter; but no more is heard after the
> tenth century of any of the old faithful in Azarbaijan in the north
> west, and the community there may well have met its end under Ghazan
> Khan, who made his capital at Tabriz."
>
> It seems that the shrine was not demolished in Baku (Azerbaijan), not
> in order to demonstrate Muslim tolerance, but because all the
> Zoroastrians had been slaughtered or 'converted'.
The only reason why Boyce could call Azerbaijan "gateway of invasion and
slaughter" can be the early-mid 9th century clashes of the turkic slave
warriors of the abbassid dynasty with the Khurammy movement of Babak
Khoramdeen, but these clashes were no muslim-zoroastrian clashes since Babak
was not a zoroastrian himself.
Another thing you dont seem to know is that Baku was never part of ancient
Azerbaijan because that region was called Arran until few centuries ago. The
name Azerbaijan in connection with Baku originates from the mid Qajar era.
Thus, when Boyce speaks of Azerbaijan she can hardly be thinking of a
territory that was not called Azerbaijan back then, but only about the
territory in North-West Iran that is called Azerbaijan until today.
The notion that all the zoroastrians were slaughtered or converted is both
ignorant and wrong.
Iran became predominantly muslim long after the Arabs were gone, namely in
late 10th century, and if there had been a general aim to "slaughter" or
"convert" zoroastrians the Arabs would have done so in almost 250 years of
their prrsence in Iran. On the contrary this never happened because the
Arabs were more interested in the Jizya which they extracted from the people
of the book to whom they counted the zoroastrians, too.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> Show where I have "lambasted" Indian historians for saying the British
> made a positive contribution to Indian civilization.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Just go back a couple of threads and discover it for yourself. Here's some
snippets that have been mentioned earlier:
"The scholars you refer to may be in a residual sense Hindus, but they are
in all probability Westernised and Marxist or left-leaning, unwilling to
recognise the social division that Islam represents in India (this has been
the Congress Party policy since the 30s.)"; and,
" ... but the interiorized colonial rulers of India, the alienated
English-educated and mostly Left-leaning elite that noisily advertises its
'secularism'."; and,
"Indian in name and not in spirit and the political and intellectual class
trapped in the debris the British managed to bury us under before they
left."
Aren't these Indian historians, Muslim or otherwise, not now part of this
English-educated elite? Haven't they been "lambasted" (i.e. censure severely
or angrily) as being Indian anglophiles accused of "rewriting" history since
the 30's, to placate the Muslims and Islam in India? Or is it only when they
write history, that is sympathetic to Hindutva ideology, vividly described
in Elst's overt propaganda, that they are innocent of the colonial
"British - English-educated, left-leaning," accusation?
<snip> ...
> I adduce Elst in order to show the rejectionist rewriting of the
> history of Muslim involvement in India; ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Is this self-apparent in your threads from the beginning? Could any
subscriber starting from the first thread transparently "adduce" (i.e.
advance evidence for) what you are now stating? Isn't this a revision a
complete u-turn? Are these pronounced "reservations' not the weasel excuses
that I said you would invoke, when things started to go against your
argument?
<snip> ...
> that does not commit me to hold
> all of his positions. It is also possible to hold that the British
> involvement in India had both positive and negative aspects,
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Is 'yes' and 'no' the correct answer? Anyone can hold two opposing opinions
at the same time to defeat an antagonist, but they are either confused or
just being hypocrites.
<snip> ...
> The historical question about colonialism is not what the colonised
> think but what the facts are. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
And you think that Elst's "facts" are the truth, as David Irving's "facts"
are the truth? How many times do I need to repeat:- ""Facts and truth really
don't have much to do with each other." [William Faulkner]? Or quote your
one of earlier gems in this thread; "facts ... have nothing to do with" it?
<snip> ...
> Your dialectical play with "modernism" is incomprehensible.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Yes, I would agree if one was ignorant of the "war-of-words" that been
ranging over the object of history in academic circles for the last few
decades. As one acute critic declared:- "How literary critics and social
theorists are murdering our past", that is killing history with chic
theorising. The "Heidigger-Gehlen" mindset, in the 70's and 80's, at the
Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis - "Sedes Sapientiae", somehow springs to
mind.
<snip> ...
> You betray your Muslim anti-Hindu animus when you stigmatize the Hindu
> struggle to fashion a confident identity as Fascism. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
When is the ultra-national Hindutva ideology not theoretical fascism
(i.e."Nationalism is a component of other political ideologies, and above
all fascism, ... were marked by a strong combination of ethnic nationalism
and state nationalism." - Wikipedia)? Not every Hindu supports the extremely
nationalistic Hindutva movement and it's concomitant militant ideology.
There are many Hindus who are politically opposed to Hindutva, are they then
all anti-Hindu? Aren't 25 of Indian historians mentioned in an earlier
thread, opposed to Elst's thesis not Hindu? Is the defence of the reputation
of these Hindu historians then deemed by you as being anti-Hindu? Isn't that
canard absurd and nonsensical?
<snip> ...
> You have been taken in by the influential Marxist Indian intellectual and
political
> elite and their journalistic dependants.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
How do you know? When did outright conjecture become such a precise
polemical or political science?
Robert
There is no knowing whether Mary Boyce was giving "Azerbaijan" its
modern or ancient signification. It is certain, however, that she
refers to the slaughter of the Zoroastrians at the hands of the
Muslims. What would be the point of her alluding in her narrative the
clashes of the turkic slave-warriors?
You say that the notion that "all (who said "all"?) the zoroastrians
were slaughtered or converted is both ignorant or wrong." Boyce only
says this with regard to Azerbaijan; everyone knows that there are
still Zoroastrians in Iran. Your charge against Mary Boyce shows your
lack of familiarity with Western Iranian studies: she is the leading
scholar.
You are the victim of Muslim denial and the rewriting of history. The
Arabs massacred Zoroastrians and attempted to destroy their culture and
religion. Under ibn Moslem all Zoroastrian historians and writers were
massacred and their books burned. Within a generation the people were
illiterate. The Persian libraries and the University of Gondishapour
were destroyed. There were many uprisings, massacres, and
decapitations. There was a period of 200 years (the "Two Centuries of
Silence") which, for the Zoroastrians, are an ominous blank.
The problem the Muslims had in Persia was the same as the one they had
in India: there were just too many people to slaughter - they tried but
had to give up and concede dhimmi status to them. But forced conversion
continued even in modern times. Under the last Safavid, Sultan Hossein
(1694 - 1722) the whole Zoroastrian population of Isfahan was
slaughtered or converted, and the same happened in three other towns.
Under Nadar Shah (1736 - 47) the entire Zoroastrian population of
Khorasan and Sistan were massacred.
Robert
There is no justification for the killing of the Native Americans to be
found in the Bible or in the words of Jesus: just the opposite. No
doubt some of the settlers felt, wrongly, that they were justified in
killing pagan savages, but Christianity - unlike Islam - does not
permit this.
I have referred to the Muslim genocide, over 500 years, of the Hindus
in earlier postings. Genocide doesn't have to be complete to be
genocide; Hitler managed to kill less than half of the world population
of Jews. I will merely note that it has been calculated that in the 500
years of Muslim power the population of India fell by 80,000,000. Hindu
culture does not thrive: the Muslim onslaught destroyed the morale and
self-confidence of the Hindus, a fact that can be observed at the
present.
Nima Rezai
> There is no knowing whether Mary Boyce was giving "Azerbaijan" its
> modern or ancient signification.
But this is crucial for the fate of the shrine in Baku. You cited Boyce to
support your claim that the shrine was not preserved because of muslim
tolerance since their had been a slaughter in Azerbaijan. I countered that
Baku is located in a place thats historical name was Arran and not
Azerbaijan.
> It is certain, however, that she
> refers to the slaughter of the Zoroastrians at the hands of the
> Muslims. What would be the point of her alluding in her narrative the
> clashes of the turkic slave-warriors?
No, nothing is certain and your lack of basic knowledge that shines through
your postings is frightening.
The turkic slave-warriors were soldiers of arab abbasid caliph Mutasim. They
fought 20 years long a bloody war against the popular uprising of Babak
Khordamdeen in Azerbaijan, but this war was a conflict arab-persian not
Islam against Zoroastrianism. Not only Babak was not Zoroastrian, but also
he had muslim Persians within his troops.
> You are the victim of Muslim denial and the rewriting of history.
There is no rewriting of history by Muslims. All you, Boyce, Frye, Morony,
Donner or whoever have at hand and use is based on muslim primary sources.
To see how poor, insufficient and full of problems non-muslim history of
that era is read either Walter E. Kaegis "Byzantium and the early islamic
conquests" or Fred McGraw Donners "The early islamic conquests".
> The Arabs massacred Zoroastrians and attempted to destroy their culture
> and religion.
No, the Arabs accepted Zoroastrians as Ahl al Ketaab and let them perform
their religion while they extracted the poll tax from them. It is you who is
"re-writing history". It took more than a 100 years after the Arabs
departure from Iran until Iran became a pre-dominatly muslim country. When
Ma´mun, the abbasid Caliph ordered Khwarazmi to translate some greek book
the latter is mentioned as "the Magian", which implies that he was a
Zoroastrian, that this was known to the Caliph and that this was naturally
tolerated.
> Under ibn Moslem all Zoroastrian historians and writers
> were massacred and their books burned.
Yeah, "all zoroastrian historians". Sure you knew them all before and
checked your list with the deads names, yes?
Qutaybah ibn Muslim was an indeed very brutal governor in Khurasan during
the early 8th century, and in fact Tabari reports of his brutality, his
killings and his burning of many books in Khurasan, however he does not
report/claim:
- that "all" historians and writers were massacred
- that the killings were explicitly directed against zoroastrians
- that Qutaybah ruled over entire Iran
> Within a generation the people
> were illiterate.
This would imply that before this they were literate which is a 180 degree
twisting of history and facts.
The Sassanians did not allow most of the social classes to get educated.
This was due to the regulations of the caste system.
So, it was actually due to Islam and during the post-sassanian times that
Iranians achieved their most and best noted scientific performances!
> The Persian libraries and the University of
> Gondishapour were destroyed.
This is just another hoax like the alleged burning of the library of
Alexandria on orders of Caliph Umar.
There are dozens of internet sites dealing with such hoaxes and their
rebuttals.
Robert
You say "No, the Arabs accepted the Zoroastrians as Ahl-al-Ketaab and
let them perform their religion...". But they did massacre them, and
attempted to destroy their culture and religion while still
denominating them as People of the Book - they even enslaved them
(Boyce, p148). Boyce gives an extract from Narshakhi, "History of
Bukhara" tr. R.N.Frye, pp10 - 11, herself relating that "...after the
conquest of Bukhara, it is recorded, the Arab commander, Qutaiba thrice
converted its citizens to Islam 'but they repeatedly apostasized and
became infidels. The fourth time he made war he seized the city and
established Islam there after much difficulty. He instilled Islam in
their hearts and made (their religion) difficult for them in every
way....Qutaiba thought it proper to order the people of Bukhara to give
one half of their homes to the Arabs so that the Arabs might be with
them and informed of their sentiments. Then they would be obliged to be
Muslims.... he built mosques and eradicated traces of unbelief and the
precepts of the fire-worshippers. He built a grand mosque, and ordered
the people to perform the Friday prayer there...That place had been a
temple...he had it proclaimed: "Whoever is present at the Friday
prayer, I shall give him two dirhams.' ...and one by one the great
urban fire-temples were turned into mosques, and the citizens were
forced to conform or flee." (Boyce p 147.)
As regards ibn Muslim's brutality you say that Tabari doesn't state
that this was directed explicitly against Zoroastrians. This is
pathetic. Who else was there to direct it against? And who else would
he have had a motive to direct it towards. The quotation I have given
above sufficiently puts us in the picture.
I'm sure you're right about the insufficiency of the histories by
Western scholars; but the question is whether they rewrite history with
an ulterior motive. I am sceptical of this, but would welcome any
reference you can give that demonstrates it. Similarly with regard to
hoaxes - which are possible; but I am not impressed by the quality of
Muslim apologetic and controversy on the internet.
Robert
First the issue of ancient versus modern Azerbaijan is irrelevant: my
initial statement was that no ancient Zoroastrian shrine is left in
Iran. The fact that a Zoroastrian artefact survives in Azerbaijan is
neither here nor there. But the fact is that there was slaughter
throughout ancient Iran.
You bring out a philosophical maxim : "nothing is certain". Stop being
philosophical and use your common sense: any one who can read can see
that in her book Mary Boyce refers to Muslim slaughter of Zoroastrians;
it's as plain as that.
You accuse me of rewriting history, but all you do to support your case
is to sneer. But *I* am not rewriting history; I am merely reporting
the work of Western historians of impeccable academic reputation. If
they were guilty of the intellectual crime you suggest they would be
exposed by the academic community. They have no motive to rewrite
history, unlike the Islamic apologists, who have to deny genocide and
crime on a vast scale. If anything Western scholars play down the truth
about Islam: it is politically dangerous to speak out.
Robert
I replied in detail regarding the "illiteracy" of the Zoroastrians
brought about by the Muslim offensive. It's quite an interesting topic,
but in spite of its being relevant to Islam it was rejected by the
moderator.