Thursday, September 29, 2005

interesting book review on jihad book

sep 28

forwarded by a friend. looks like it is a jewish person reviewing bostom's book.

the myth of tolerance in the so-called 'golden age' of mohammedanism, claims the review, is just that -- a myth.

perhaps it was only golden in comparison to the christist inquisition in the same time frame. for instance the portuguese inquisition in goa was the most bloody anywhere.

i like the last bit about history as melodrama. same thing is true in india as well: the noble mohammedan and christist and marxist under attack from all these bad hindus. and in point of fact the poor hindu is just trying to survive.

india is the unfortunate nation that has borne the brunt of both brutal aggressions: mohammedan and christist. and today bearing the brunt of these two, plus marxist aggression.

india must be an especially blessed nation just to survive, when every other civilization perished: egypt, persia, china, druids, incas, aztecs.

as a matter of fact, hindus fought tooth and nail against mohammedans, that's how we survived. although the 'eminent historian'-manufactured textbooks omit this part about the heroic resistance for centuries, in fact it is true. the mohammendans were never quite comfortable in their rule in north india. for centuries vijayanagar as the southern bulwark prevented them from expanding southwards. after the betrayal of vijayanagar by mohammedans in their own army, the marathas and rajputs kept harrying the mohammedans. if mohammedans had been able to consolidate their hold on india, all of it would have become like pakistan -- ethnically cleansed, and all non-mohammedans reduced to dhimmis.

so the simple answer for hindus in regards to both mohammedans and christists: resist! fight back! the barbarians can be overcome. same with regards to marxists. esp in their case, there are good case studies all around how they have been reduced to nothing by the godmen in the vatican in alliance with the CIA. we need to study these and figure out how to liquidate them.


September 28, 2005
The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, Edited by Andrew Bostom, Prometheus Books, 750 pp. $28.
Reviewed by Rael Jean Isaac

The famous Jewish philosopher and physician Maimonides, often cited as an example of the fruitful symbiosis of Jewish and Islamic culture, had this to say of Arabs: "The Arabs have persecuted us severely and passed harmful and discriminatory legislation against us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase and hate us as much as they."

If this was the assessment even of Maimonides, how then to explain the widespread view of a golden age of Islamic tolerance? In his introduction to this invaluable compendium of source materials on the religious roots of jihad and the impact on those conquered in its holy wars, Ibn Warraq notes how Jews have contributed to the misperception of Islam. He quotes the dean of Middle Eastern studies Bernard Lewis who makes no bones that the golden age of equal rights was an illusion, noting "the myth was invented by Jews in nineteenth-century Europe as a reproach to Christians."

No one who even dips into Bostom's book can maintain a rosy view of Islam's effect on human welfare. For example, Part 6 chronicles the impact of the Islamic conquests in the Near East, Europe, Asia Minor and the Indian subcontinent where Muslim invaders are estimated to have killed an incredible 70 million people over centuries. Everywhere advancing Islam laid waste to hitherto prosperous regions. An enthusiastic description of an attack on an Indian town noted: "The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously that the stream was discoloured and people were unable to drink it...Praise be to Allah." Often the only reason a remnant of the existing population was left alive -- in a state of dhimmitude or outright slavery -- was the fear of Muslim leaders that there would be no one to provide for the basic needs of the jihadists, preventing them from moving on to further conquests. Section 8 provides poignant eyewitness accounts over 1300 years of the cruelty meted out to subject populations in both Asia and Europe.

This volume makes it clear that Islam is a religion whose mission is conquest (and eventual conversion) of the world. When one group of Muslims assumes responsibility for jihad, others are relieved of this duty. It is thus no wonder that radical Muslims believe they act on behalf of the entire umma. Bostom shows that even terror is an old and familiar tool: according to the book The Quranic Concept of War, "Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved...Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him."

But Bostom does more than show the terrible effects of Islamic warfare. Early sections (after his own lengthy and useful overview) offer primary sources -- texts on jihad (holy war as a religious duty) from the Koran and hadiths and subsequent opinions on jihad laid down by Sunni and Shi'ite theologians and jurists. Bostom also provides analyses from early twentieth century scholars of Islam (before the field of Middle Eastern studies was corrupted by the current crop of academic apologists). Much of this material is available here for the first time: Bostom has included hitherto unpublished sources and had a number of essays translated into English from Arabic and Persian as well as from European languages.

All this is the more extraordinary because Bostom is not a scholar of Islam but a medical doctor, a clinical epidemiologist. It has taken a non-specialist, an autodidact, to fill the gap left by scholars whose education has left them with a "trained incapacity" to portray the reality of Islam. Raphael Israeli, professor of Islamic Civilization at the Hebrew University, praises Bostom for being "sensitive and wise enough to tell the essential from the marginal, meticulous enough to reflect the spirit of the texts, thorough enough to understand the sub-texts, and diligent and conscientious enough to leave no stone unturned in his effort to transmit a complete message."

This is not a book that can be read through in one or even several sittings. Above all it is a resource which should be consulted by U.S. and European legislators, policy makers and media opinion-shapers. At present the public is fed what classics professor Bruce Thornton aptly describes as "a reduction of history to a melodrama in which a noble, tolerant, cultured Islamic world has been unjustly attacked by an intolerant, greedy West addled by Christian bigotry and racist stereotypes of bloodthirsty jihadist warriors. All the problems in the Middle East today, in this Orwellian rewriting of history, thus derive not from anything dysfunctional in Islam or Arab regimes but rather in the sins of the West and its Middle Eastern minion, Israel."

There is no better antidote to this nonsense than Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad.


Kalyani said...

"Frawley argues that one reason there hasn't been an outcry against pseudo-secularism in India is the erroneous interpretation of the ancient doctrine "Sarva Dharma Samabhava, which has been mistranslated as "all religions are equal." In fact, Dharma is "a universal law that we can discover through objective inquiry, questioning all dogmas and preconceptions....The correct term for the common Western idea of religion, which is a particular belief, in Hindu thought is not Dharma but 'mata' meaning a belief, view or opinion. There is no such possible statement as 'Sarva Mata Samabhava' or the equality and unity of all opinions." Western religions are based on dogma or belief. "To equate a belief, like that of Christ's resurrection in Christianity or Mohammed's ascension to Heaven in Islam, with a Dharma, is an error." All religions are not equal. Both Christianity and Islam, based on dogmas, each claiming to be exclusively true, cannot, in principle, be the equal of Hinduism.

In the chapter "Sufis and Militance," Frawley observes the "gullibility" of Hindus to Sufism, "even if it hides the same old fundamentalism and militance Hindus oppose. They will bow down at the grave of a Sufi saint without inquiring about what made the particular person holy. In a number of instances it was his slaughter of the infidels that was responsible for his sanctity, including the ancestors of these self-same Hindus." This chapter is replete with citations to Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi's "A History of Sufism in India," a compendious 2-volume work of scholarship. Sample citation: A prominent sufi of the Suhrawardi order, Saiyid Nuruddin Mubarak of the thirteenth century exhortation of Muslim rulers to "make every effort to disgrace and humiliate Hindus. They should not tolerate the sight of Hindus, and in particular they should exterminate the Brahmans, who are the leaders of heretics and the disseminators of heresy."

About the supposed tolerance of the Sufis, Frawley notes: ". . .even great Sufi poets like Attar and Sanai wrote in praise of Sultan Mahmud's destruction of Somnath as a great victory of Islam over idolatory. ... Some earlier teachers, like the great Persian poet Rumi, were used by Sufi orders as a mystical support for their more militant agendas, just as St. Francis of Assisi, a gentle and saintly figure, was used by the more militant Catholic Church to improve its image." Frawley warns: "One should not think Sufi militance was an affair of the Middle ages and has been given up in modern times. Today there is an effort by Sufis to appear more liberal, not only in India but in the West, but if we look deeply this is often a public relations ploy. Ask such Sufis to criticize traditional Islamic militance. Ask them to honor the use of images in religious worship. Ask them to criticize traditional Islamic law with its cruel anti-blasphemy and anti-apostasy rules. Let their answer be your guide."

In the third section, Frawley writes about the new masks of colonialism such as communism, which ". . . in India remains an anti-Indian and anti-Hindu force that wants to eliminate the traditional culture of the region, for a leftist Western model that has already failed in the West." Among other masks, he sees, are the new economic mask of globalism and the academic historical colonialism. The latter continues to insist on the discredited myth of the so-called 'Aryan invasion of India.' This despite the work of scholars like Subhash Kak, The Astronomical Code of the Rig Veda, S.P. Gupta The Indus-Sarasvati Culture and B.B. Lal The Earliest Civilization in South Asia."

One of the suggestions Frawley offers for awakening India is making Sanskrit the national language: "The soul of India exists primarily in Indian culture or Bharitya Samskriti. This in turn has its roots in the Sanskrit language, which must be revived, much like the Hebrew language has been revived in Israel. Sanskrit should again be made the national language and turned into a vehicle, not only for study of the past, but for the development of the future." At least at present, I am afraid not many will take this suggestion.

Written with remarkable lucidity, this book is a much-needed wake-up call."

Kalyani said...

In the above link Frawley bares the truth quoting none other than Swami Vivekananda!

Kalyani said...
(The Frustration of islam in India)
(Negationism in India;concealing the record of islam)by Koenraad Elst

Kalyani said...

AlwaysIndian said...

Please sign the below petition to show Romila Thapar her place. Like a true big ego commie/pseudo-intellectual/pseudo-secular progressive liberals, she does not even accept that her theories are wrong, contrary to scientific evidence.

By the way, can anyone elaborate on who the h*LL is she. What is her background. Who has given her the authority to ridicule Indians in their own country. Where in britain did she buy her cheap BA history degree from.
The petition, accessible at, includes space for signatories to comment on their opposition to Thapar’s appointment. Entries range from the unintentionally ironic (“Thapar is a pseudointeelectual [sic]” – Ravi Kandula, #1106) to the overtly communal (“Do you know the similaries [sic] between muslims and commies? They are both anti-national (they don’t believe in nations). They believe in killing all non-believers” – V Jayaram, #2072) to expressions of injured Indian honour (“Romila is a hindu-hating marxist who would stoop to anything to denigrate her own country. I hope that New Delhi revokes her citizenship, seizes her assets and declares her and her family persona non grata” – Gautam P Ganesh, #1578) to a sense of American patriotism rooted in anti-communism (“As a proud Indian-American, I feel the US has an obligation not to appoint Communists or Extremists/Leftists to important positions in the Library of Congress” – Raj Mohanka, #490) and even to an ostensible commitment to prevent an unqualified person from receiving an appointment (“How can someone with no knowledge of history and shoddy research be nominated to this post!!!! I protest strongly as a US citizen and active voter!” – Chetan Gandhi, #762). While most signatories chose to leave the comment space blank, the presence of a large number of hostile expressions from Indian-Americans drawing on right-wing strands of both Indian and American nationalisms helps to locate the campaign’s geographic and ideological coordinates. As stated by SRIDHAR, #750, “Romila Thapar is a Indian Traitor”, a succinct statement clear enough in its meaning, notwithstanding the misused article.

KapiDhwaja said...

Saudi Prince buys large share of Fox News.


Its about time India had its own right wing news channel similar to Fox, to spread the good word. And Rajeev should certainly play a big part in it.

KapiDhwaja said...

And from now on the viewership for the Fox news will go down for the simple reason that all those leggy blonde anchors are gonna be wearing burkhas from head to toe!

silopious said...

politically incorrect guide to islam and crusades

Kalyani said...

We (Hindus) ought to read 'Panchatantra Tales' to hone our 'Raja Hooja' brains! Surrounded by 'Tantri the mantris' we cannot afford to let serendipity rescue us always!

Anand Rajadhyaksha said...

Re: Frawley's comment about Sufis et al, by asking them their opinions about whatever others find objectionable about Islam - in the same vein, closer home, one can notice a deafening silence from people like Shabana Azmi or Javed Akhtar or Mulla Yam Singh Yadav on issues involving Muslims against Muslims. Imrana rape, Sania fatwa, the poll in burqa fatwa...did anyone really see these byte kings and queens say anything anywhere? I would be very curious to know, indeed!

Raghu said...

It should be the single-minded objective of every 'Right' thinking Indian to -- as Rajeev said -- liquidate the Pinkos from the country. Communists pose more danger to India even more than Islamists. Rs 1000 cr loss from single day strike. Prakash traitor Karat is gleeful that the strike is a success...

Kalyani said...

Regarding Sania, kudos to Sandhya Jain's incisive analysis:

"Sania Fatwa is different".

".......Yet given Sania's insistence on emphasising her Islamic identity by publicly stating she does 'namaaz' five times a day, it is difficult for outsiders to argue that a faith impervious to change and reform give one girl special freedom on account of her achievements in the secular realm. At the risk of seeming unsympathetic, it needs be said that neither Sania nor her family has credited the secular nature of the Indian State or the famed tolerance of Indian society for her liberty to nurture her talent. Nor did they keep their religious beliefs in the private domain.

Having showcased their Islamic moorings, they will have to publicly join the protagonists of reform in Indian Islam if they wish to satisfy 'secular' cravings, such as an international career, great fame and big money. Else, they should fall in line with the Jamaat-e-Ulema-e-Hind, for it is well known that Islam demands complete conformity from believers and does not permit piecemeal or eclectic endorsement of its tenets (this is a Hindu luxury).
The Sania fatwa presents a grim challenge to Islam's secular apologists. Dynamic Muslim women achievers will no longer be able to use their personal fame and fortune to build islands of security and immunity from the local or national-level maulvi. Indeed, they will now be the new targets of abuse and intimidation, in order to secure the victory of the Shariat and its guardians.

Today, ambitious Islam is challenging the Indian state and the innate decency of the Hindu community. As its first victims, Muslims must insist that the law of the land prevail over personal laws. Sania Mirza is rich and privileged; Imrana poor and disadvantaged. Both are equally threatened by repulsive medieval decrees; Muslim activists must speak up for both of them".

Read the entire article.Don't miss it!

KapiDhwaja said...

Israel to U.S.: stop Iran's nukes -- or we will do it ourselves


KapiDhwaja said...

More from Andrew Bostom's work: About the "pious" Sufi Taimur/Tamerlane


mitra said...

Another typical victim ranting .

If the purpose is to incite hatred against Muslim , this article does its job but does it help to learn lessons from history ? I ,m afraid not . Yes , Islam was an aggressive religion . It had given unity to Arabian tribes and imbued them with the spirit of Jehad . But we must remember that they went in both directions . In the west , Christians put up heavy resistance and the Islamic raids ended with the Turks getting defeated near Vienna in 1311 A.D .The Eastern invasions found easier pickings . Why was it so ? The invaders must have been few in number . And here was a country of millions before them . Yet we lost all battles except the First Battle of Tarain . Did the Arabians / Turks have better artillary ? Better military strategy ? We would like to know .

The Christians not only repulsed Islamic invasions , they also took the fight into enemy territory in form of Crusades . Why is it that we were not able to dethrone a single Muslim Ruler ?

The fact is that Hindu society was totally apathetic and disunited when the Muslims struck . The scriptures proclaim that there are no Kshatriyas in Kaliyug . However Central Asian tribes had been moving in and out of India since about 900 A.D and had also captures territories in the western part of the country . Some of these Hun , Kushan and Saka tribes had adopted hinduism . The ruling classes amongst these forced the Brahmins to declare them as Kshatriya (Rajputs) . The common tribal population was however relegated to Shudra status ( Jats , Gurjars ) . When the Muslims struck , Kshatriyas needed to fight . But only the Kshatriya could fight . The common people were never involved in resistance . They could not even think of fighting . It was the Kshatriya's right and duty . Ditto when the Muslim was on throne . I would also tend to think that the Muslims must have massacred Brahmins and Kshatriyas in larger numbers . Leaders are always killed first in any revolution . There was no concept of nationalism as one's loyalty was primarily to one's own caste . the only external linkages were through the caste hierarchy .

The situation today is not much different . I always detect an undertone of envy when unity of Muslims across the world is discussed . Islam defines the purpose and all follow it . The drawback in Hinduism is that the religious philosophy is individual based . But it has been worsened by compartmentalizing Hindus into exclusive , perpetually fixed hierarchies . This is a recipe for disaster .

Mycos said...

"victim ranting"? Arvind Kumar has a persecution complex unlike any I have seen. He wastes our days with his "poor Hindus get no respect" then blaming his life and the world's problems on everything but Hindus..... and Jews! The last is explained by their long history of oppression, a religion of which I'm sure he secretly wishes Hindus had suffered a similar history, so he actually have something to point too when he makes his ridiculous comments around then web.