I thought why not share what kept coming to mind as I read the article! Let’s go…
the farther we move away from the September 11 terrorist attacks, the worse discrimination, prejudice and violence against Muslims become.
There’s a simple enough reason for this: Islamophobia has become an industry.
– Sounds a bit familiar; change Sept 11 to 2002 and Islamophobia to Modi-baiting and you’ve got something!
No Sir, Everyone knows Islam and related disturbances are not confined to the Arab and Middle-Eastern world; Africa, South Asia, Burma, Far east up to Thailand, Bali… the world knows them all.
North Africa, Israel, India, most South Asia have been exposed to Islam for an eternity; I don’t see prejudice there ending in a hurry.
Yes, I agree with this. We should start giving more opportunities to Owaisis, Geelanis, Zakir Husains etc to speak and the Raza Academy to stage some protests and let them expose their guts out to us all.
Ooh! That’s too harsh on you. Couldn’t be. Lets have a more realistic figure. not 270 million, may be half of that? One tenth? What’s the acceptable, not objectionable, amicable killing quota allowed to a religion before complaining is allowed, please?
Yes, the political capital centred around Delhi and Agra, but that’s not where the invaders came from. That wasn’t the epicentre of Islam. Pakistan wasn’t the fringes of the empire; that was the actual route they came from. They had to have a stronghold there first before coming to central India. Similarly, the Greater Bengal was the land of rich natural resources just before it wasn’t possible to proceed any further due to the natural boundaries of the region, and hence that area did get ‘special attention’ of the invaders too.
False. India was already extremely wealthy. Muslim invaders didn’t come here looking for empty lands to graze their cattle, they came here to loot the riches of India. Remember Mahmud Gazni and his numerous rampages of Somnath temple through Rajasthan? Heard of the Golden Multan under Hindu kings?
Yes, India has had her share of Jai Singhs, Jaichands and Mir-Jafars and we are sure not proud of them. Also, you’re just pointing out that the Mughals were more imperialists than jihadists. But the Islamic invasion in India doesn’t start or end with the Mughals. Mohammad bin Qasim, Mahmud Gazni, Mohammad Ghouri, Qutbuddin Aybak and his Ghulam (Mamluk) lineage, Temur-Lang, Nadir Shah….
Egypt (Misr), Sumer and Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, Persia all were cradles of early civilisations; not ‘comparatively empty’ pieces of land (unless you are comparing them to modern day India)
Ofcourse, you are talking about 1600s as the end of ‘Muslim daynasties’ rule and jihad (or the absence thereof). Columbus found America in 1492 and the first economical immigrations to Americas didn’t start happening before 1600s. Captain Cook who discovered Australia wasn’t born until 1728. Islam did spread to East Asia, it was in Mongolia and China as early as A.D. 600s (soon after Islam was establishd) and is presently third largest religion in China. Indonesia and Bali, Malaysia, Brunei, all are Islamic nations. How further east are we counting? Samoa?
…But the Islam wasn’t ever forced. Right? Or should I read that even Mongols were milder in comparison?
Hmm, So they killed each other as well as they killed others; and that’s supposed to mean they were a peace-loving bunch. That’s so comforting to know!
Because every human being should. It’s human nature. Religion is extrinsic- human instinct is intrinsic and every single sane human being would like to live a peaceable life; until the extrinsic force manipulates them, that is.
Suddenly ‘We aren’t killers’ argument turns into ‘They’re killers too, not unly us’ in this part. Naaice! Also I like how the author condemns the Nazi as well as the American nukes that finally brought an end to them in the same breath.
I know what everyone else was NOT up to. They were not up to breeding with an agenda to swarm the world. They had other things in life to excel at and achieve.
And the final argument:
So the closing line is; They’re not bad. Not as bad as disease, at least! That’s the best you came with to close your argument, mate?
I couldn’t help notice, the word ‘bigot’ or its function has been used over half a dozen times in the article.