Are all terrorists really Muslims?By Aakar Patel

[kadamba-warrior]

The bottom line of the article got lost somehow, I am afraid. Its primary objective was not to show that terrorism based upon Islamic ideologies does not exist at all, but to emphasize on the fact that irreligious political extremism against the democratic institution poses greater threat for its extensiveness in terms of human lives lost which gets quite unnoticed in Indian societies today.

Don't you think that the bottom line that the article tried to highlight, itself is inaccurate?

If you are talking about extensiveness of the damaged by religious terrorism, in Pakistan alone, Islamic extremism killed 80000 in less than a decade and similar numbers in one Indian state of J&K. I am not even talking about Middle East or Nigeria, Kenya where the damages are far worse.

I don't, for a second, believe that all Muslims are terrorists, but don't you think that the prospects of 200 millions picking up a gun (because some bigot in Muslim community twisted their scriptures and convinced others to pick up a gun, as it so often happens among Muslims) are far more terrifying than those of Bodos or Maoists? Who is more extensive in their reach and threat level?

Similar is the case for any major religion, if they were ever to take up arms - although there are less chances of that NOW! In summary, religion + gun powder is literally an explosive combination!

how come moist are hindus????? they are communist....... being an AAP supporter(who belive in socialism) you should understand the difference between HINDUs and COMMUNISTs... you are very shrewd to dodge the blame of your own communist brothers on HINDUS......

You are all forgetting a very important aspect!

Not all of Maoists are even Hindus!!

There have been enough Muslim members among Maoist ranks - especially along Karnataka/Kerala border districts and Western Ghats. Similarly, I have no trouble believing that might well be some Christian members too!

 

[scorpionx]

For me it does. If a new structure is built on top of the holiest of Hindu shrines to celebrate by defeat and humiliation, I will do my level best to undo it. By peaceful means as far as possible. Without if necessary.

For me it would have, only if the argument was based upon a much less absurd logic. If Babar was a terrorist, its quite amusing and mind boggling that Sangh thought it fit to undo his terror by demolishing a 15th century mosque after almost 600 years; however evidences of Babri built upon a Hindu shrine are least compelling compared to other incidents of temple destruction like Kashi and Mathura (There is a detailed archaeological report available on the excavations there which may have a helping hand here.)which suggest destruction of Babri had motivated as much by political incitements as it was by ugly religious fanaticism.
Lastly, as you ended up with 'Repercussions will be there', well, doesn't that make Dawood Ibrahim philosophically correct, isn't? Or is it too justified to put him in the same category of Hindu armored knights, as you chose to put the others?

@kadamba-warrior

Mr.Patel is far less stupid than the staunch Hindutva enthusiasts have assumed him to be. He has given us numbers, you are giving me speculations which hardly proves anything.

 

[itachiii]

@vegav

"i imagine" - that is not shady or fake, and you think that is analysis? What a loser! As for associating Maoists with Hindus, what were they originally, by religion, assuming for a moment that they are irreligious at the moment?

And less of the oldboy. Be civil, even if you can't be logical.

lol, just bcz majority of naxals are born hindu, u can't ascribe maoism to be a hindu terrorists...by your lozic are nazis to be called as christian terrorists ??

Perhaps you should read it up for yourself?

http://www.nagarikmancha.org/images/1242-Documents-Communal_Riots_in_India.pdf
.

Even that bigoted report of yours proves my point that majority of the riots were not started by hindus...

hey..who gave this slogan.. was written on a wall..
galli galli main shor hai.. sonia gandhi chor hai..
.

what is wrong in it ??

 

[kadamba-warrior]

For me it would have, only if the argument was based upon a much less absurd logic. If Babar was a terrorist, its quite amusing and mind boggling that Sangh thought it fit to undo his terror by demolishing a 15th century mosque after almost 600 years; however evidences of Babri built upon a Hindu shrine are least compelling compared to other incidents of temple destruction like Kashi and Mathura (There is a detailed archaeological report available on the excavations there which may have a helping hand here.)which suggest destruction of Babri had motivated as much by political incitements as it was by ugly religious fanaticism.
Lastly, as you ended up with 'Repercussions will be there', well, doesn't that make Dawood Ibrahim philosophically correct, isn't? Or is it too justified to put him in the same category of Hindu armored knights, as you chose to put the others?

@kadamba-warrior

Mr.Patel is far less stupid than the staunch Hindutva enthusiasts have assumed him to be. He has given us numbers, you are giving me speculations which hardly proves anything.

What numbers? The number of dead?

The problem with counting the dead to determine who is more deadlier, is that it is fundamentally flawed. Because it doesn't take into account the number of times terrorist attacks that were prevented, thwarted and deterred due to stringent policing.

I think you will accept that the quantity of resources put to stop attacks from Islamic terrorists (including military and intelligence assets in places along Pakistani/Bangladeshi borders) is far greater than those against Bodos or Maoists. And that is not even counting international monitoring and co-operation against Islamic terror.

Without that kind of policing against Islamic terrorism, the number of fatalities would have been far higher!

 

[Sine Nomine]

Gosh, this is getting rather lame! The Yezidis in northern Iraq didn't kill any body - forget killing entire family members. Did that stop the IS Sunni extremists from exterminating them quite literally like vermins in their own land just because they prayed to different God? (And now, pls don't indulge in conspiracy theories about who really is training and funding the IS)

The fact of the matter is that extermination of Yezidis was neither the first nor the last such massacre by Islamic terrorists. It was only the most recent demonstration of what religious zealots had done in the past - in all its gory, graphic details!

Nobody talks about what the Islamic invaders did in Indian subcontinent, south east Asia or even in Africa anymore. But by modern definition of terrorism, they all too ought to be considered religion based terrorists!

IS only killed 700 Iraqi soldiers in Tikrit rest is propaganda and about bold Part Muslims ruled India for 800 years if they were like Al-Qaeda then you should not have been there to type my friend.

 

[thesolar65]

about bold Part Muslims ruled India for 800 years if they were like Al-Qaeda then you should not have been there to type my friend.

At that time muslims had swords and so did hindus. Now both have guns and nukes. If Al-Qaeda had guns and hindus had swords, then things would have been different as you said, but both have same weapons (you cannot have present gangs with present weapons and us with past weapons), so I think @kadamba-warrior can still type as to how we eliminated Al-Qaeda!!

 

[Sine Nomine]

At that time muslims had swords and so did hindus.

I think kid Mongols using swords manage to kill millions,i belong to khokhar family we are living for at least 2000 years on same piece of land,my ancestors change religion some thousand years ago after preaching by Kutab Shah,i haven't seen any Arab on my land and same is with rest of India simply Islam was more diverse and Hindu cast system gave Islam a main advantage along with unity,using blade you can make peoples Knee before you but religion is something related to heart and swords can cut heart but not change.

 

[Bang Galore]

......which suggest destruction of Babri had motivated as much by political incitements as it was by ugly religious fanaticism.

Yeah true, you can however thank Rajiv Gandhi for that.

It's simple logic. Wherever the BJP tries to expand, communal riots begin. Look it up for yourself; there are studies on the subject.

That's a bit over the top, don't you think? Seems to suggest no BJP, no communal riots........

 

[kadamba-warrior]

IS only killed 700 Iraqi soldiers in Tikrit rest is propaganda and about bold Part Muslims ruled India for 800 years if they were like Al-Qaeda then you should not have been there to type my friend.

Propaganda? You really have to be brutally cold to think that the persecution of Yezidis is some sort of propaganda!

Don't you see some Yezidis alive even in Middle East after 1400 years of Islamic rule and 2000 years of Christian rule? Does it mean that they have never been persecuted? Same goes for Jews! Human beings have an amazing tenacity to live despite all odds - after all, survival is the strongest instinct.

On the other hand, just because certain people are still alive, it doesn't mean that they have been spared of all the religious persecution.

 

[temp1994]

IS only killed 700 Iraqi soldiers in Tikrit rest is propaganda and about bold Part Muslims ruled India for 800 years if they were like Al-Qaeda then you should not have been there to type my friend.

India ≠ Punjab + Delhi only.

Not even for a single year had Muslims achieved sovereignty in whole of India. Longest time period of Islamic dominance has been in UP which is 500 year long. More than 30% of today's India was never ever conquered and more than 50% never ever was under Islam's sword for a significant amount of time.

And in conquered part, there are more than enough testimonials of Islamic barbarism written by muslims themselves to fill pages upon pages. I can post them all. They would make IS look like junior league in barbarianism.

A telling example would be that of Buddhists in Central Asia who perished totally because they did not had swords to force Islam to tone down its genocidal zeal.

Biggest reason for survival of Hinduism in India was that India was never subjugated completely by Islam.

Aurangzeb has to settle Afghans in Gangetic plains to subdue Rajputs there since he by himself could not put down their rebellion. Even strongest Muslim ghazi and emperor of India was forced to take demographic measures because of his inability to control vast sea of Hindu population.

I think kid Mongols using swords manage to kill millions

No. Mongols used composite bows and horses to run over people with Swords. Sword vs Sword leads to an stalemate.

I belong to khokhar family we are living for at least 2000 years on same piece of land,my ancestors change religion some thousand years ago after preaching by Kutab Shah,i haven't seen any Arab on my land and same is with rest of India simply Islam was more diverse and Hindu cast system gave Islam a main advantage along with unity,using blade you can make peoples Knee before you but religion is something related to heart and swords can cut heart but not change.

Cast system was never ever an issue anywhere before 1800's.It was a social system and one of the most liberal of any medieval social system. The "oppression" under caste system is a modern construct. The excuses that you are giving are just that, excuses to make you feel better.

Every ethnicity has changed its religion on the tip of sword (barring few where a competing religion never existed). There are enough records of that in History; whether it is "Saint " Ambriose ,bishop of Milan, refusing mass to emperor Theodosius bringing Theodosius on his knees. That was the moment that European Paganism lost as from this point authority of Bishops far exceeded those of Emperors. While his predecessors Gratian has passed decree of seizing properties of Pagansn, and Valentine II (both on advise of Ambriose) closed and destroyed all Pagan temples, it was Theodosius who passed death sentence for anyone who does not worship "son of god", Jesus (He also banned Olympic games).

Or your own muhammad who has to wage war to force his prophethood down the throat of Arabs. How many followers he had when he was a peaceful preacher in mecca? only handful.

Why Abu Bakr has to wage Ridda (apostasy) wars on Arabs after muhammad's death, if Arabs were brought over by peace?

 

[Sine Nomine]

India ≠ Punjab + Delhi only.

Not even for a single year had Muslims achieved sovereignty in whole of India. Longest time period of Islamic dominance has been in UP which is 500 year long. More than 30% of today's India was never ever conquered and more than 50% never ever was under Islam's sword for a significant amount of time.

And in conquered part, there are more than enough testimonials of Islamic barbarism written by muslims themselves to fill pages upon pages. I can post them all. They would make IS look like junior league in barbarianism.

A telling example would be that of Buddhists in Central Asia who perished totally because they did not had swords to force Islam to tone down its genocidal zeal.


Even aurangzeb has to settle Afghans in Gangetic plains to subdue Rajputs there since he by himself could not put down their rebellion. Even strongest Muslim ghazi and emperor of India was forced to take demographic measures because of his inability to control vast sea of Hindu population.




No. Mongols used composite bows and horses to run over people with Swords. Sword vs Sword leads to an stalemate.



Cast system was never ever an issue anywhere before 1800's. The excuses that you are giving are just that, excuses to make you feel better.

Every ethnicity has changed its religion on the tip of sword (barring few where a competing religion never existed). There are enough records of that in History; whether it is "Saint " Ambriose ,bishop of Milan, refusing mass to emperor until emprorer Theodosius pass death sentence for anyone who does not worship "son of god", Jesus.

Or your own muhammad who has to wage war to force his prophethood down the throat of Arabs. How many followers he had when he was a peaceful preacher in mecca? only handful.

Your knowledge about Mongols is terrible,how many arrows a person can carry?Muslims were more powerful then Hindus in India,if they wished they would have turned you into histroy like pious hindus did with Buddhists in India.Read about conquest of Mecca and Battle of badar,never forget Mecca was an idol worshiping heaven.Caste system in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[temp1994]

Your knowledge about Mongols is terrible,how many arrows a person can carry?

It is your history's knowledge that is terrible.

Mongols fought pretty much their whole campaign with bows and arrows. They were inferior in heavy cavalry to everyone.

And 50 arrows per horse back is a high number, and not to forget that they carried four horses per head. Also a Horse archer could retreat and reload once he exhaust his arrows.

Six of every ten Mongol troopers were light cavalry horse archers; the remaining four were more heavily armored and armed lancers. Mongol light cavalry were extremely light troops compared to contemporary standards, allowing them to execute tactics and maneuvers that would have been impractical for a heavier enemy (such as European knights).

Mongol military tactics and organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muslims were more powerful then Hindus in India,if they wished they would have turned you into histroy like pious hindus did with Buddhists in India.

Muslims were never powerful enough in whole of India and having large population has its advantage in resilience. Places were they were powerful were converted to Islam.

And Pious Hindus never waged war on Buddhism. There is only one recorded instance of persecution of Buddhist ( during reign of Pushyamitra Sunga) and that too very mild.

Read about conquest of Mecca and Battle of badar,never forget Mecca was an idol worshiping heaven.

Arabia was subjugated completely by Muhammad with no competing power in his region which would have toned down his genocidal zeal. In India, there were Rajputs, Marathas, Ahoms,Hill rajas, Nearly every King of Orissa, Vijaynagar empire on borders of Muslim India which kept Islamic Ghazis in check as Ghazis could not risk an open insurgency by recklessly persecuting their population, since it would tie down military resources and these people could take advantage of that disturbance.

Caste system in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bwaahhhhhhhhh.......


Ancient and Medieval people did not have same expectation of equality as we have today. Of all hierarchical social systems prevalent in medieval era, caste system is one of most liberal. It outlaws marriage and dining but it does not infringe upon person or property of a lower caste person. Compared to this , both Islam and Christianity advocated slavery where a slave would be divested of his property or person.

 

[HariPrasad]

The difference between other extremist and Islamic terrorist is very visible. Other extremist have specific enemies to whom they want to fight with or Kill. For example Maoists shall kill either police or CRPF but not ordinary citizen. For Islamic terrorist all who either do not belong to their religion or sect are their enemy. They can target you though you have no enmity with them.

Most of violence committed by Muslims are actually politically motivated but Islam is a scape goat. I blame Muslims themselves for giving Islam a bad name.

Yes,

Fundamental Muslims are unnecessarily blamed. Actually they are not responsible for violence. They real culprits are those who play politics on the name of Islam and uses islamic theology to justify that.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

It is very clear now.

When a Hindu is a Maoist, he is no longer a Hindu; his acts of terrorism are Maoist acts of terrorism.

When a Muslim is an Al Qaeda supporter, or ISIS, or SIMI, he remains a Muslim; his acts of terrorism are Muslim acts of terrorism.

Very clear.

But Moists dont blow people in the name of religion which is the case for muslim terrorists. So coining Moists as hindu terrorists is not correct.

For instance the suicide bomb attacks or terrorism carried out by Tamils (who were Hindu) in Srilanka or India were done by 'Tamil terrorists' but those done by Al-Qaeda/TTP/ ISIS whatever, were/are the acts of Muslim terrorists.

Because its was a war for the land/separate land for Tamils, but not for establishing or imposing ones religion or ideology on others.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

For me it would have, only if the argument was based upon a much less absurd logic. If Babar was a terrorist, its quite amusing and mind boggling that Sangh thought it fit to undo his terror by demolishing a 15th century mosque after almost 600 years; however evidences of Babri built upon a Hindu shrine are least compelling compared to other incidents of temple destruction like Kashi and Mathura (There is a detailed archaeological report available on the excavations there which may have a helping hand here.)which suggest destruction of Babri had motivated as much by political incitements as it was by ugly religious fanaticism.
Lastly, as you ended up with 'Repercussions will be there', well, doesn't that make Dawood Ibrahim philosophically correct, isn't? Or is it too justified to put him in the same category of Hindu armored knights, as you chose to put the others?

@kadamba-warrior

Mr.Patel is far less stupid than the staunch Hindutva enthusiasts have assumed him to be. He has given us numbers, you are giving me speculations which hardly proves anything.

You are depending on logic. For me it is a matter of honor and faith. Babur may have built it to impress his Hindu girlfriend for all I care. The existence of a foreign structure on one the holiest of our shrines - Not negotiable. Buddhijibis can sit and discuss the pros and cons and the underlying morality or lack of it. I will undo it.

Besides the Asi report itself showed the existence of a temple in the same land. The Court have the verdict based on that report.

Kashi and Mathura also naturally needs to be reclaimed. We have patience. Time is on our side.