Radicalism in the US and Europe

[varun]

Very interesting interview by Bill Moyers: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05182007/watch3.html I'd recommend both Bheembhai and CC to see it :devil_smile: (around 25 minutes long) PS: See other Moyers interviews as well in the Archives on the site. He's very objective in all of them

[Guest dada_rocks]

My lips are sealed:regular_smile:

[kumble_rocks]

For crying out loud ,thank god America is not radicalized by these Islamic fundamentalists.

[CC1981]

For crying out loud ' date='thank god America is not radicalized by these Islamic fundamentalists.[/quote'] America's radical retards market is cornered by right wing racist evangelicals. Kind of hard for any other radicalism to break in without help of immigration.

[CC1981]

The thing is we as Indians have been thru 100x the sheet that these guys are going thru but yet there is absolutely no shortage of folks who swear by Gandhian principles. __________________

We have no shortage of dumb hindu fanatics who want to illegally boot muslims off their property and their country (India) too. Pray for reduction of those retards too.

[Lurker]

Good video Varun :thumbs_up: thanks for sharing. PBS does have some very quality programme and it is nice to see a channel that is funded by people's money showing programme without taking any side. That said, the video is directed towards Western audience and Western policies and I fail to see it's co-relation with India(or Indian policies). Take for instance the way Western world has allowed criminal elements to take refuge within its borders, Altaf Hussain is a good example. He now resides in London and I for one can not begin to understand how UK Govt. was so ignorant to let him in. Bear in mind this is not true for Altaf Hussain only, during the heydays of Sikh extremism in India, London and Canada were world headquarters for their activities. Indeed for a long time Europe paid no heed as Islamic militant took refuge within its border. US and Israel Govt would castigate France, Spain, Germany routinely for not taking enough action and it is fair to say many of the concerns have now proved to be right. Moral of the story - Be careful of who you are letting in your country. My gripe is with those who would take such a documentary to try to prove their own point. Of course that is a rather ignorant method since Europe(or US for that matter) has have Muslim migrants in their countries for a matter of few decades, at most 40-50 years. Now would I learn from experience of Muslims in Europe for a period of 50 years or Muslims in India who have lived for 1000 years and counting??? Sharia law? Well a large part of India has been ruled by Muslims for over 400 years, with a good solid population being Muslims. So when was Sharia law imposed on Indian land? Isnt it funny that we look for the answers to our questions outside? xxxx

[CC1981]

As strange as it sound, i agree with the Aussie primier and i hate the Canadian liberal dood Stephan Dion ( who makes even manmohan seem like oozing charm ala Rajeev Gandhi) for the same reason. If you want sharia, go to somewhere where they already have sharia. Sharia is backwards and since no society should move backwards, a place that doesnt have sharia shouldn't be asked to bring back sharia. To do so would be like going to a democratic country and demanding that feudalism comes back with the rajahs, zameendar and uncchee-neechi crap.

[Anakin]

Remind me who was the one that said hindus are ignorant of glorious islamic past and thus are more intolerant towards the peaceloving people. Can't remember if it's lurker or headcoach

[Anakin]

It's really surprising why these fundies of those 3 religions hate each other so much, they're 90% the same.

[Lurker]

That would be me and probably DR .... you dont have to hesitate pointing fingers at me as long as you can stand the cross questioning. As such the Gandhi thread awaits your response. I say this all the times .... my allegiance is towards finding the truth whatever it may be. I say it just as I see it .... very bluntly .... but feel free to dispute the facts if you think they are erroneous.

Two things here. Firstly my statement was directed towards everyone who would take such a documentary and go on saying, "Look what I have been saying all along". If you believe you fall in that career fair enough. If you read my post in its entirety I have clearly mentioned I would much rather judge Muslims by 1000 years history in India and not a 2-3 decade of existence in Europe. Secondly that Gandhi thread descended into utter chaos and was ultimately closed, wasn't it(I hope I am not mixing two different thread here, correct me if I am wrong)

Other than a short period during Akbar the rest of the 800 yrs or so was commmited to implementing Islamic rule (to put it mildly).

That does not answer my question. My question is rather simple straightforward, and no doublespeak here please. India has been ruled atleast for half a millenium(500 years plus) by Muslim rulers. Lets not get into symantics and start suggesting Sikhs ruled in X area, Marathas in Y and so on. The bulk of India was ruled by Muslim rulers for a long time. And that at a time when a large section of sub-continent population was Muslim. If I have to guess a number I would say about 20-30% in the least. So in 500 year history of Indian subcontinent rule by Muslims, with atleast 1/3rd - 1/5th of its subject as Muslims, how many years did Indian subcontinent have Sharia rule? xxxx

[CC1981]

If you find anybody who provides more straight answers than me I would like to know that poster.

Pffft. Have you found a straight answer to the question, what should Gandhi/Nehru have done then ?, yet ?

[CC1981]

te endevour was to impliment Sharia law and extracting the Sharia tax Akbar was the first king who abolished that (much to the chagrin of his Mullahs-in-chief).

False. Razia Sultana and Sher Shah Suri, both before Akbar, abolished Jizya.

since India was never totally under Mughals (or their predecessors ) even during its peak There were pockets were they had total control and there were equally large pockets where they had little control.

False. Shah Jahan onwards, Mughals had complete control over more of India than they didn't. Not equally large pockets of non-mughal control. India/Subcontinent from 1250-1300 CE to 1750 CE was mostly under Muslim control, which begain uninterrupted in the subcontinent around 950 CE.

destruction and intolerence were the order of the day by and large ... Akbar being the noteworthy exception.

Akbar is the most famous exception, by no means the only. Razia Sultana, Sher Shah Suri, Sikander Lodhi, Mohammed Ganesh were all pretty good towards their hindu subjects.

[kumble_rocks]

Jesus, I can't believe that Indians were such wimpy characters (barring few) between 1200 to 1800. Few invaders walked in from Central Asia or Persia and ruled us for over 800 years. :embaressed_smile::embaressed_smile:

[CC1981]

Jesus' date=' I can't believe that Indians were such wimpy characters (barring few) between 1200 to 1800. Few invaders walked in from Central Asia or Persia and ruled us for over 800 years. :embaressed_smile::embaressed_smile:[/quote'] Nothing wimpy man. "On a long enough timescale, the survival of everything goes to zero." Remember that quote ? It is true- look at any culture/civilization in the world and you will see that they've all had their highs and lows. There are times when they've ruled over others, there are times when they've been ruled over by others. All part of the cycle. Name a civilization and you will find this to be true. India is no exception. Oh and i won't lump Persia in that group with Central Asia. From the days of Elam to the multicultural empire of the Achamenid dynasty, Partha, etc, Perisa has always been a mighty nation of arms and culture till the modern era. Its rather sad that its pretty f*cked in the modern era but overall, Persia is a great civilization. Its had its share of tyrants but its also had its share of great emperors.

[Dhondy]

Jesus' date=' I can't believe that Indians were such wimpy characters (barring few) between 1200 to 1800. Few invaders walked in from Central Asia or Persia and ruled us for over 800 years. :embaressed_smile::embaressed_smile:[/quote'] Everybody got ruled by somebody in those days. The all conquering Brits were ruled by the Romans for nearly 500 years starting around the time that Christ was born, pillaged by the Vikings for a couple of hundred years in the 8th and 9th centuries, and nicely topped off by a fella called William the Conquerer from Normandy around 1066 AD.

[Lurker]

Jesus' date=' I can't believe that Indians were such wimpy characters (barring few) between 1200 to 1800. Few invaders walked in from Central Asia or Persia and ruled us for over 800 years. :embaressed_smile::embaressed_smile:[/quote'] It is not the case of Indians being wimps KR. It was more a case of enemy's enemy being a friend. I beleive that philosphy has historical evidence in Indian polity going all the way back to Chanakya, and even before. Kingdoms would try to enhance their influence by trying to have a good relation not with their neighbour but neighbour's neighbour. In medieval/modern India this policy changed into helping your enemy's enemy regardless of their territory in order to extract maxmium mileage. A classic case is 1857 mutiny. A very direct, and rather startling(in many ways distrurbing) analysis that I have read about 1857 revolution was that it was started mostly a predominant Upper caste Hindus from Bihar/Uttar Pradesh, most of them from the Bengal regiment. The mutineers marched to Delhi to fight under a Muslim ruler. The mutineers were called Purabiyas(Purab being East in Hindi, UP/Bihar are East to Delhi) by Delhiites and Pandees(for Pundits or short-form of Pandey, due to Mangal Pandey) by British. The mutineers were then joined by a strong Muslim jihadis who were called Ghazis and who were prepared to die for the sake of Islam. Against these Indians the British put the force of Sikhs, Gurkhas and Pathans. When Indian mutineers lost Delhi the British force was made of 80% natives. I am currently reading The Last Mughal by William Darlymple. I will put a short review once I am done, but trust me everytime I read it and figure out we are responsible for our own misery, it makes me wonder if I read more..And definitely if there should be any reason for 1857 anniversarry celebration. xxxxx

[Lurker]

Yep and that would still be mostly Me and DR with GKD,Gator,Anakin chipping in occasionaly.

That is not relevant to me. I have explained why I wrote what I did and if you, or others, fall under that bracket then so be it.

Ignore the trolls I was mostly responding to your questions backed up by authentic facts and figures and you can continue by responding to those links I provided which verify what Gandhi thought about muslims.

Okay I will do that. My last memory of that thread was that it was locked. And I had no reason to think that the thread would become open simply because we changed software platforms.

If you find anybody who provides more straight answers than me I would like to know that poster. And regarding the Muslim rule in India ... whenever the Muslim kings got to a situation where they had total control of their kingdoms ..... te endevour was to impliment Sharia law and extracting the Sharia tax Akbar was the first king who abolished that (much to the chagrin of his Mullahs-in-chief). After him Shahjahan and Jehangir reversed that ruling but situation was not too bad (baring few temples here and there being knowcked down). Then came Mr Aurangzeb and I need not describe his mullahgiri. This guy was soo popular with the Mullahs and the Nobles that when Mughal empire took a hit after his death and fell into the hands of Marathas for a few years the chief Mullah Mr.Shah-Wali ullah was soo angered by the turn of events that he invited the Afghan Ruler Abdali to wage Jihad on Delhi(that letter still exists BTW) since the Marathas had made the Mughal ruler to pay taxes and that it was no longer Dar-Ul-Islam as in the days of Aurangzeb. Long story short this guy is still considered the ideological guru of Islamic renaisance and is counted among the "heroes" of Pakistan. So yeah whether you want to consider Islamic rule being 100 yrs 800 yrs or 500 yrs is subject to technicalities of what one considers as having being ruled .... since India was never totally under Mughals (or their predecessors ) even during its peak There were pockets were they had total control and there were equally large pockets where they had little control. This power balance kept shifting and is a diff issue but whenever they had total control ... destruction and intolerence were the order of the day by and large ... Akbar being the noteworthy exception.

How is that a direct answer? I repeat my question. So in 500 year history of Indian subcontinent rule by Muslims, with atleast 1/3rd - 1/5th of its subject as Muslims, how many years did Indian subcontinent have Sharia rule? GO ahead show me when/where Sharia laws was used to rule Indians. Lets not move the goal-post. It should be a simple Yes/No answer. xxxxx

[kumble_rocks]

I answered that question already previously ... other than Akbar and one or two borderline exception cases most others went the Sharia route to subjugate the Hindus and impose Islam on them. Are you saying you want an exact figure in years ? Well I dont have an "EXACT" precise figure ... but that number is about 50-60 yrs.

That's not at all true , Bheem. I don't know if I want to get into long discussion during this long weekend , but what CC's is saying is true. People like Sher Shah , Razia Sultan,lodhi etc were liberal and able administrators. They were hardly religious and Jizya was not a practise during Sher Shah's time. Heck, Razia Sultan had a slave lover of African descent and she was a fair skinned Turk. In fact other than Babur and Auragazeb , none of the mughals were fanatics. Heck , they were hardly religious either. I have done reasonable study on their life styles, it is a fact that Jahangir, Shah Jahan ,Humayun etc were drunkards and it was not uncommon for them to take drugs also. They did treat their hindu subjects with decent amount of respect.

[Lurker]

I answered that question already previously ... other than Akbar and one or two borderline exception cases most others went the Sharia route to subjugate the Hindus and impose Islam on them. Are you saying you want an exact figure in years ? Well I dont have an "EXACT" precise figure ... but that number is about 50-60 yrs.

Went the Sharia way? Okay maybe I was not clear. Let me make it clear this time. Can you show me a section of Indian history when the rule of law on Indian subcontinent(and its subjects) was Sharia? xxxx

[kumble_rocks]

It is not the case of Indians being wimps KR. It was more a case of enemy's enemy being a friend. I beleive that philosphy has historical evidence in Indian polity going all the way back to Chanakya, and even before. Kingdoms would try to enhance their influence by trying to have a good relation not with their neighbour but neighbour's neighbour. In medieval/modern India this policy changed into helping your enemy's enemy regardless of their territory in order to extract maxmium mileage. A classic case is 1857 mutiny. A very direct, and rather startling(in many ways distrurbing) analysis that I have read about 1857 revolution was that it was started mostly a predominant Upper caste Hindus from Bihar/Uttar Pradesh, most of them from the Bengal regiment. The mutineers marched to Delhi to fight under a Muslim ruler. The mutineers were called Purabiyas(Purab being East in Hindi, UP/Bihar are East to Delhi) by Delhiites and Pandees(for Pundits or short-form of Pandey, due to Mangal Pandey) by British. The mutineers were then joined by a strong Muslim jihadis who were called Ghazis and who were prepared to die for the sake of Islam. Against these Indians the British put the force of Sikhs, Gurkhas and Pathans. When Indian mutineers lost Delhi the British force was made of 80% natives. I am currently reading The Last Mughal by William Darlymple. I will put a short review once I am done, but trust me everytime I read it and figure out we are responsible for our own misery, it makes me wonder if I read more..And definitely if there should be any reason for 1857 anniversarry celebration. xxxxx

I do see your point as well as that of Dhondy and CC. I just don't know man. Agreed that these invaders took advantage of infighting among Hindu rulers. I will reply in detail later. I am in "read mode " today.