Friday, September 02, 2005

Daily Update From the Fjordman Debate

I have been obsessed by the debate going on over at Fjordman's blog. It has been taking time away from CUANAS and IJPP posting. Sorry, but it's just too interesting.

Anyway, Bjoern Staerk, another Norwegian blogger of some renown, is accusing Fjordman of being a Chicken Little on the issue of Muslim immigration. Fjordman, of course, believes that the immigration is part of a cultural Jihad against Western Civilization. Many people have joined in the debated, including me, and some of the comments have been very illuminating, to say the least.

Today, an Indian commenter writes about the Islamofascist Jihad in India:

I am Indian. In India the Islamic Jihad against the Hindu-Buddhist civilization (openly declared - when the Koran talks about Polytheists it IS talking about us) has cost us tens of millions of lives.

If you tell me that in the past everyone was violent so what - well firstly we were not violent on the basis of "religion" (we do not have a word for "religion" in any Indian language - even today - the closest word is "Dharma" which actually means a philosophy or set of duties - like a king (Raja) follows RAJDharma - this obviously does not mean King's separate "religion" - if the concept does not exist how would people fight over it?)

Secondly the latest jihadi genocide was carried out in 1971 when the Pakistani army butchered 3 million Bengalis. Would this be an accurate definition of "genocide"?

Compare the experiences of the following sets of people when "interacting" with Islam

1. Hindus in India

2. Buddhists in Thailand

3. Christians in Eastern Europe

4. Animists/Tribals in Africa.

Explain how all four completely different races and religions have almost the same set of experiences when dealing with Islam?

The very fact that you are denying land-grab means you do not understand the concept of Dar-ul-Harb and Dar-ul-Islam. The creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh was a LAND GRAB for Islam and Jihad. Kashmir is a land grab for Islam.

There is one assumption I have seen in Westerners which colors their thinking. The assumption is that life/civilization will keep advancing over time. This is a false assumption.

It can be rationally observed that both India and Persia were more advanced by any measure of civilization - (art/music/poetry/literature/culture/civic consciousness/town planning/etc. etc- only exception is technology ) 1300 years ago than they are today.

What is the difference from 1300 years and today - there is just one factor - Islam - the society has REGRESSED.

The Bamiyan buddha statues were built by the ANCESTORS of todays TALIBAN.

Can you believe it? - What can those very same people build today?

In India the Muslim invaders came from the NorthWest corner. You can take a bike ride through India from North to South in a straight line. Every 100 kms you will notice an improvement in the status of women.


The farther south you go - the further away you go from historical Islamic influence. By the way all the Indian religions (Hinduism/Buddhism/Sikhism/Jainism) have had female monks for thousands of years - and we still worship goddesses.

Yes, and India is one of the few countries (along with England and the Philipines, and soon to be America) who has ever had a Democratically elected female President. The Hindu religion accords women equality. Thus, societies born out of Hinduism have treated women better than any other societies in the world, until very recent Western Civilization.

And, we know how societies born out of Islam have treated women. Do we want that to increase?