double-faced triumphalism -- destruction and mosque-building

aug 21st, 2010

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rajiv
Date: Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 6:19 PM
Subject: Fwd: Some history and pseudo history...
To:

 

Fitzgerald: Islam's Double-Faced Triumphalism: Destruction and Mosque-Building

A Hamas leader recently approved of the mosque at Ground Zero, saying: "We have to build everywhere."

How many mosques have been built in this country already, thanks in large part to the nearly one hundred billion dollars that Saudi Arabia alone has spent to spread Islam over the past few decades, in the United States? How many tens of thousands of mosques in recent decades all over the countries of the West have been built, and how many madrasas? Who pays for such things as the mosque, for only 100 families, that cost fifteen million dollars, in Billerica, Massachusetts? Who pays for all of those lavish palaces all over the place, that could not possibly have been put up by those who go to them? Who pays for the campaigns of Da'wa targeted at prisoners? Who pays for the Qur'ans sent out by the millions in the Western world? Who understands that a mosque is far more than a "place of worship" as some fondly believe but is, rather, a place where far more than that goes on, where politics, and geopolitics, are inculcated, where -- at least in Western Europe and in south Asia -- again and again and again it has been observed that people are whipped up at the khutbas (the sermons at the Friday Prayers), so much so that maddened Muslims coming out of mosques have gone on rampages against non-Muslims.

A particularly memorable example is that of the helpless Hindu who, happening to pass by as Friday Prayers were being let out, was beaten to death by Muslims who were just coming out of that "house of worship." How many raids, on how many mosques, have been conducted in Western Europe, where false papers of all kinds, and weapons, and explosives, were found, some in false ceilings and other hiding places? When Erdogan said that "the mosques are our barracks," he was quoting a well-known line, one that expressed a view that many Muslims have -- the "mosque" is not only or merely a "house of worship" but the "barracks" in the permanent war that exists, that must exist, between Muslim and Infidel.

How many mosques have been deliberately built deliberately using the remains of temples, churches, synagogues? How many mosques were built in India, after Muslim invaders destroyed Hindu temples and temple complexes, including many of the most important ones, and quarried the stone to make mosques? Nor were Hindus the only ones to suffer. Hindu temples and temple complexes disappeared by the hundred, by the thousands. Sita Ram Goel published a two-volume work that simply listed, name by name, those Hindu temples and temple complexes known to have been destroyed by Muslims, and the stone quarried for use in mosques.

We all know, because of the diligent scholarship of Indian and British scholars, along with others from other Western lands, such as Koenraad Elst and Francois Gautier, what the Muslim invaders, the Muslim conquerors, the Muslim masters of India, did to India's Hindus, so damaging "the wonder that was India" that it became what V. S. Naipaul famously called a "wounded civilization." Everywhere the Muslims went they destroyed the monuments, and especially the temples and temple complexes, of the Hindus.The more famous and important the Hindu temple, the more important it was for Muslims to destroy it, to build right on its ruins, to declare - through such destruction followed by such building - that they indeed were visibly and permanently there, and there to stay, as the masters of the land. We have all heard about Babri Mosque built over the temple at Ayodha, but how many other celebrated temples and vast complexes were destroyed?

This practice of deliberately destroying the monuments and artifacts of non-Islamic civilization began at the very beginning of the Muslim conquest of India. Indeed, the very first mosque known to have been built in India was built using stone from a Jain temple (the Jains are those who refuse to kill, to hurt a fly). One opens "The World of Islam" by Ernst J. Grube (Curator, Islamic Department, Metropolitan Museum of Art), part of the series "Landmarks of the World's Art," and finds on p. 165 a picture of the "Kutb Mosque (Quwaat al-Islam) Delhi" shown and described:

"Built by Kutb al-din Aibak in his fortress of Lallkot near Old Delhi in 1193. This mosque is the earliest extant monument of Islamic architecture in India and its combination of local, pre-Muslim traditions and imported architectural forms is typical of the earliest period. The mosque is built on the ruins of a Jain temple..."

So the earliest "extant monument of Islamic architecture in India" was "built on the ruins of a Jain temple" -- that temple being made into "ruins," of course, by the Muslim invaders.

Wherever Muslim invaders went and conquered, they did not do so always by outright military means with an invading army, as in the case of the East Indies, where Hadrami traders came and settled, bringing Islam with them. What began as trading outposts became settlements that, in turn, became fortified, and places from which the Muslims would conduct campaigns of Da'wa. They deliberately targeted local rulers in the East Indies that were once entirely Hindu and Buddhist. And if those rulers, as in Java and Sumatra, could be persuaded to convert to Islam, their people would, in those simpler days of cuius regio, eius religio, would then "convert" their people, who would have little choice but to follow their lead. It happened in Java. It happened in Sumatra.

You can still find, especially on Bali, with its considerable Hindu population, Hindu and Buddhist structures. You can even find the celebrated Borubudur stupa, and you are delighted - are you not, but now with a pang knowing what you know, and what you fear could happen - to find such structures. After all, the two gigantic Bamiyan buddhas seemed exempt from destruction by the Muslims who reduced so much of the Greco-Bactrian civilization to rubble. Why did they wait so long? Because they had to, because until recently they didn't have the right explosives, nor the proper expertise, until Pakistani and Saudi engineers came along to help them.

How many Buddhist structures remain in the most heavily Muslim parts of the East Indies, that is, Indonesia, such as Aceh? Where are all the Hindu and Buddhist temples that once could be found everywhere in the East Indies, for they were Hindu and Buddhist, until the forces of Islam conquered -- not by direct military conquest as in the Middle East, North Africa, and India, but through other means. Where did they all go?

An early Umayyad caliph decided that "the furthest mosque" (al-masjid al-aksa), that mysterious place from which Muhammad was said to ascend to the Seventh Heaven on his winged horse Al-Buraq, and then return within the same 24-hour period, should be located in Jerusalem, a city never of Muslim interest (not mentioned even once in the Qur'an). Why did he decide that surely the place referred to must be Jerusalem, and the very spot from which the "Miraj" or Night Journey took place must surely be right on the highest spot, the one holiest of all those in the world to Jews, that is, the Temple Mount? It was there that the Mosque of Omar and the Dome of the Rock lay claim to Jerusalem for Islam, as over against the claims of the prior-in-time monotheisms, Judaism and Christianity.

If the association and significance of the Temple Mount for Jews is clear, it might be noted that the celebrated Arabic-and-Aramaic philologist Christoph Luxenberg studied closely the Arabic-language inscriptions that are inside and very high up in the dome itself of the Dome of the Rock. He has argued that these are not, as everyone seems to assume, Qur'anic -- i.e., Muslim -- in nature but are, rather, Christian in their content, which suggests a Christian origin for the building.

What Muslims did in placing a mythical mosque ("al-masjid al-aksa") right there, and then building on the holiest site to Jews, in a city holy to Jews and Christians, was staking a claim that only other Muslims might believe. After all, you have to believe that a man named Muhammad had a fabulous creature, Al-Buraq, upon which he went back and forth to the Seventh Heaven, and then you further have to accept that "al-masjid al-aksa" must be a reference to Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

But you do not have to be a Believer in Judaism to know that for more than a thousand years the Jews had made their capital, spiritual and political, in Jerusalem, where their history was made. You do not have to be a Believer in Christianity to know that Christianity has its origins in what Christians call the Holy Land, and especially in events that took place in Jerusalem. That difference matters.

In Damascus itself, the famous Umayyad mosque, the one that is shown to all visiting dignitaries, turns out to have been built on the ruins (or in some cases parts of the church left not in ruins, but simply incorporated) of the famous church dedicated to St. John The Baptist. It took a while, however, for this to happen. After all, whenever the marauding Arabs, bringing Islam with them, conquered, they found established communities of Christians, Jews and, in Persia, Zoroastrians. These people did not disappear; they were not converted in large numbers overnight. It took centuries of having to endure Muslim rule, and the status of being reduced to tolerated dhimmis, that is, a status of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity, that led inexorably to more and more people converting to Islam, to join the group of permanent overlords and masters. The pace of such conversion quickened as those who had remained steadfast saw so many others convert, thereby changing their status and at once improving their treatment. In the 7th century, after the Muslim Arabs had conquered Damascus in 635 A.D., local Christians (who were by far the majority still) continued to worship in several churches. They even continued to worship at St. John's, though now confined only to the western aisle, while Muslims used the eastern. The Muslim overlords were still vastly outnumbered, as they were everywhere in the lands the Arabs conquered, and had to proceed slowly. Eventually, about seventy years after the initial conquest, the Umayyad caliph Abd el-Melek took over the entire St. John's for Muslim use - that is, St. John's became an Umayyad mosque, and with building, and rebuilding, and destruction of parts that had been St. John's, and the use of the stone, and the turning to other uses of some of its walls, what had been the Church of St. John became the Umayyad Mosque we see today, a symbol of Umayyad power and might and of the victory over the local Christians.

In Constantinople, which for a thousand years was the largest, richest, most populous city in all of Christendom, there were hundreds of churches. The greatest of them all was the Hagia Sophia.

On May 29, 1453, after centuries of first the Seljuk, then the Osmanli Turks seizing control of ever larger parts of what had been the Byzantine Empire, the Muslim invaders finally conquered Constantinople. They razed many of the churches in the city. Western visitors can find a diorama of Constantinople, showing its hundreds of churches before the Muslim conquest, and be amazed at how on every corner there seemed to be another church. That diorama is discreetly tucked away on an upper floor of the Museum of Greek and Roman Antiquities, in the Topkapi complex, in present-day Istanbul. But not all the churches were razed. And the Hagia Sophia was not razed, but was turned into a mosque, a sign of what Mehmet Fatih, Mehmet the Conqueror, had done, a symbol of Muslim triumph.

Two decades ago, as Muslims began to make their demands on the host countries that had so generously and heedlessly allowed them to settle deep within Western Europe, that is, behind the borders that Muslims themselves were taught to regard as enemy lines, the lines of Dar al-Harb, the Domain of War, in Italy President Pertino thought that Muslims in Italy might respond with gratitude, and Muslims outside of Italy might even make it more possible for the millions of Christians, both indigenous and among the millions of guest-workers in the rich oil states of the Gulf, to open churches and to practice their faith. It was not to be. Government land was donated for the building of a huge mosque, not a mile from the Vatican, but when it was built, and when the Arab Ambassadors arrived at the ceremonies to open the mosque, there was no talk of gratitude, and certainly no talk of any reciprocal gesture, by any Arab or Muslim state, anywhere. Italian witnesses of the event spoke of the air of triumphalism, the palpable feeling that a beachhead for Islam had, with this giant mosque, been created. Those Italians who watched, with growing unease, would have been still more uneasy, had they known that among Muslims there is a belief, based on a story, or Hadith, about Muhammad predicting that first Constantinople or Rum (Byzantium) would fall to Islam, and then Rome, the Rome in Italy, would fall to Islam. The giant mosque was a symbol for Pertini, and other Italians, of Western, of Italian, tolerance and goodwill and trust. But for the Muslims present, the giant mosque built on land donated by the Italian state had nothing to do with tolerance, or trust, or good will that needed to be, or might be, reciprocated by the Muslim beneficiaries of that tolerance, that trust, that good will.

And Mayor Bloomberg, who has confused himself with President George Washington, and the Grand Zero Mosque with the Touro Synagogue in Portsmouth, Rhode Island, and Feisal Abdul Rauf, a most cunning and most sinister man (to fully understand both adjectives, however, you would have to know him not as Mayor Bloomberg knew him, as an ingratiating, even oily, interlocutor, but through his books, the Arabic and English versions of which can be compared) with Moses Seixas, is now making the same mistake.

Posted by Hugh on August 19, 2010 5:18 AM | 13 Comments 
Print this entry | FaceBook | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us | Buzz up!

Categories:

 

• Islamic supremacism,
 
• dhimmitude,
 
• mosques

« Previous Entry | Home Page | Next Entry »

13 Comments

 Jaladhi | August 19, 2010 5:47 AM | Reply

Hugh, thank you once again for writing this master piece exposing Muslim misdeeds of destroying and occupying holy places of Hindus, Christians, Jews, Jains, Sikhs, etc and building mosques(not places of worship but places to plan and commit murder and other atrocities on infidels)all over the world. It might do some good if the moron Mayor of NY city was sent this article but than again morons don't have inquiring minds.

When would we learn the real truth about Muslims/Islam instead of the Karen Armstrong version of lies and duplicity.

 medhat | August 19, 2010 6:12 AM | Reply

This is what goes on in Mosques, the house of worship of the religion of peace
http://thepersecutiontimes.com/muslim-cleric-calls-for-jihad-coptic-christians-attacked-in-egypt/2010/08/16/

 Knightemplar2 | August 19, 2010 6:59 AM | Reply

" ..the "mosque" is not only or merely a "house of worship" but the "barracks" in the permanent war that exists, that must exist, between Muslim and Infidel."

No More Mosques, No More Korans, No More Islam.
"So long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world." William Ewart Gladstone
(video)
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/05/accursed-book-le-livre-maudit.html

 James Peyton | August 19, 2010 7:12 AM | Reply

As usual your history is impeccable (and surprising in this day of poor education) and your point is on the money. However, the historical record of mosques being constructed over the buildings of religions displaced by Muslims provides too much opportuinty for debate to be as useful. For example, the Spanish often built churches and cathedrals over the Indian temples they destroyed.

 Battle_of_Tours | August 19, 2010 7:56 AM | Reply

"Muhammad predicting that first Constantinople or Rum (Byzantium) would fall to Islam, and then Rome, the Rome in Italy, would fall to Islam. The giant mosque was a symbol for Pertini, and other Italians, of Western, of Italian, tolerance and goodwill and trust. But for the Muslims present, the giant mosque built on land donated by the Italian state had nothing to do with tolerance, or trust, or good will"...

This captures it all, Mohammedan 'triumphalism' in building their grand mega-mosque at Ground Zero in New York City, New York, USA. Did Mohammad have a 'vision' predicting New York would fall, just like Constantinople and Rome? Did Allah tell him of the New World? Islamic 'history' is made or lost on the rubble stones of the conquered. Which will it be on the rubble of Ground Zero in New York?

 Eastview | August 19, 2010 8:02 AM | Reply

Thank you for another great piece, Hugh. It coincides with my finally finishing Andrew Bostum's The Legacy of Jihad. I had to break off Legacyseveral times after becoming physically ill reading the stories of the wanton slaughter of Christian, Hindu and Buddhist populations over the centuries following Islam's irruption from Arabia. I had earlier become depressed reading Bat Ye'or's The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam, but Bostum's book left me much more severely depressed. Parts of it are exceedingly graphic.

It is enlightening to see the same justifications being given by Muslims today for their actions as were given historically. What a monstrous ideology! If mankind is to have any future worth living, Islam in its traditional form must be destroyed. Whether done from the outside or from the inside is a detail, but one way or another it needs to follow the Aztec, Incan and Shinto religions into the footnotes of history.

 Hugh replied to comment from James Peyton | August 19, 2010 8:23 AM | Reply

"For example, the Spanish often built churches and cathedrals over the Indian temples they destroyed." 
-- from a posting above

I am aware, of course -- who is not? -- that Christian churches were built in Europe over the sites associated with pagan antiquity. One example that sticks in my memory is Santa Maria sopra Minerva, in a Roman piazza I found particularly captivating -- that is the Church of Santa Maria, built over the Temple to Minerva.

And no doubt the Spanish in Latin America - the Spanish whose religious ferocity may reflect the influence of having to war against Muslims during the 800 years of the Reconquista andcoming to adopt or mimic some of the attitudes, and ferocity of thsy Muslim foe.

But I do not think you will find, if for example you visit Teotihuacan, for example, any triumphalist churches built between or among or right on, using the stone of, the Temple of the Sun and the Temple of the Moon or the Temple of the Jaguar. Nor among the Mayan or Olmec sites or, in Peru, at Macchu Picchu. Now tell me what you think would have happened at Teotihuacan, or Macchu Picchu, if Muslims and not Christians had conquered and settled in the New World. Do you think Teotihuacan and Macchu Picchu would even exist, or would there be giant mosques, mega-mosques, in their place?

You know the answer to that.

On August 15, at another thread, I posted

 Hugh | August 19, 2010 8:52 AM | Reply

On August 16, 8"40 a.m., at another thread, I replied to acomment from Yusef YK:

Yes, of course, and Santa Maria sopra Minerva, the church in the small piazza that has its obelisked elephant, and many other places, were built on top of pagan temples. But what is this? An argument that "everyone does it all the time"? That is not true, and not the conclusion that one necessarily has to reach. And the sympathetic rediscovery of pagan antiquity, and the attempt to maintain many sites of pre-Christian, i.e., pagan worship, all over Europe, give the lie to that.

But Islam is different. From the Babri Mosque, to a thousand other mosques built on top of, even using the stone from, Hindu and Jain and Buddhist temples and temple complexes, in India, and in India extra Gangem, that is India beyond the Ganges, as it was once known to the cartographers, that is the East Indies, once entirely Hindu and Buddhist, to the placement -- or more likely takeover and refashioning of Christian structures already existing on top of the Temple Mount (see Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam, see the work on the Dome of the Rock by Christoph Luxenberg), to the Hagia Sophia turned into a mosque (until Ataturk turned it into a museum, not daring -- what Turkish government would dare? -- to actually allow it to return to being the second-largest church in all of what was once known as Christendom, to all the other structures, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, that were appropriated.

And then there is the sheer destruction of non-Muslim monuments and artifcats. Look at what happened to all the Buddhist steles wherever, in Central Asia, and near the Gobi, Muslims conquered or passed. Look at what happened to the artifacts -- the pitiful few that remain in the tiny National Museum of Kabul -- of Greco-Bactrian civilization in Afghanistan. Look at what happeend to the churches and Hindu temples that were in Pakistan, and Bangladesh, at the time of Partition. Look at what happens to them now.

And look at what happened to all 37 synagogues in the Old City of Jerusalem, some of which were ancient, systematically blown up by the Arabs when the seized the city, who also uprooted Jewish tombstones from the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, and used those tombstones to line the latrines of the Jordanian army.

Do you want to know more? I could fill up a book -- and so could any Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, or Christian, or atheist like me- about the treatment of non-Muslim artifacts by Muslim conquerors.

That's just a little bit to whet appetites, so that others may continue, and even devote books to the subject, for the subject merits books, upon books, upon books.

 Enragedsince1999 | August 19, 2010 10:26 AM | Reply

The United States of America bombed and destroyed Serbia, murdered thousands of Serb Christians, aided the rabidly racists, sadistic, genocidal Kosovar Albanian KLA terrorists in kidnapping, raping, torturing and murdering thousands more and brutally eradicated Christianity from Kosovo. All to please the Muslims. As the huge, heavily armed US and NATO "peacekeepers" stood there watching, the Kosovar Albanian hordes looted and destroyed 150 magificent ancient Serb Christian churches and monasteries, 100 of them not just Christian places of worship but treasures of world culture, on UN's UNESCO World Heritage Site list. Those churches had survived 500 years of the brutal Islamic Turkish rule and 4 years of the brutal Nazi German occupation, but did not survive even the 1st year of the US and European "peacekeeping".
Now, the same United States of America readily allows the construction of a monstrous Mega Mosque right next to Ground Zero. For the same lowly reason: to please the Muslims. Speaks to the sheer degeneracy of our government, political, "cultural" and media elites. I know the Muslims inside out. As I posted here before, it is the Global Jihad, relentless and brazen, TESTING the Americans for the degree of cowardice and stupidity, probing relentlessly to find out what can they get away with in this country, even after 9/11. The Muslims are satisfied with the result: our elites have failed the brazen test. The Muslims have discovered that no low is too low for our cowardly sociopathic establishment. But this must be also a wake-up call for those of us, Americans who still have some dignity left. This public slap in the face of the families of the 9/11 victims and the entire American people should jolt us into launching an all-out American Resistance against the Global Jihad. The Republican and Democratic parties are useless there. Both are disfunctional. A new Center Psrty must be immediatelly created thst will unite the wholesome parts of the Republicans and Democrats.
JW folks: please invite Rudy Giuliani and Paul Sperry to your 9/11 rally & get them together with Geert Wilders to learn from him how to create such a party.

Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999. 

 Steffen Larsen | August 19, 2010 12:44 PM | Reply

No foreign armies marched through Denmark to kill and loot when faith changed from the Norse gods to Christianity per Royal decree before written history began. We hear of the odd priest, but there's absolutely nothing about foreigners settling in order to push out the resident population. 
And so Danes continue to live in a world in which there is simply no tradition of massive forced conversions by a congueror. It is not taught in schools, it never did exist here, it is unimaginable it can exist here and ever will, and the tenets of religion are always benevolent: human sacrifice to please a god was left behind long ago, although it is admitted the crusades were a bad thing.
Not much notice is taken of the Serb, the Greek, the Copt, the Assyrian, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the African, the Jew, North Africa, Southern Europe, Asia etc etc. Places far away, and if we are to blame someone for violent cultural changes the peoples who dare resist and oppose Islam are certainly not excepted.

 Courreges W replied to comment from Steffen Larsen | August 19, 2010 1:02 PM | Reply

"although it is admitted the crusades were a bad thing"

Incredible.

The Crusades were defensive, Denmark. But, I suppose you think that Jews and Christians don't have the right to defend themselves against Islamic Jihad?

For 450 years Muslims had been perpetrating Islamic Jihad attacks that had conquered and Islamized over half of Christendom long before the first Crusade was even called (1095), and to which the Crusades were a late and small-scale defensive reaction to stop Muslims from mass-murdering Jews and Christians in the Holy Land. Which said mass-murdering had begun with the Islamic "prophet" Mohamet.

IOW, the Crusades were not acts of unprovoked aggression by Europe against the Islamic world, but a delayed response to centuries of Muslim aggression (Jihad), just as the Muslims' are perpetrating upon the world today.

With thanks to RS.

 Battle_of_Tours replied to comment from Courreges W | August 19, 2010 2:25 PM | Reply

Yes, the Crusades were in response to centuries of Islamic attacks. Here is a list:

https://sites.google.com/site/islamicthreatsimplified/a-religion-or-political-ideology/islam-has-done-it-before

Note, the Islamic attacks started 613 AD, and kept at it until Europe launched the Crusades in response to Islam's attacks, 1095 AD. We're talking about 476 years of European 'patience' in the face of this determined foe, taking slaves and booty, rape and pillage, as their 'prophet' taught them.

Let's hope today with instant communications, jet travel, and the internet override on 'official' dhimmi news, it will take less time to respond. Even in Denmark, Islam is at war with us. History must be learned, or we'll be forced into the Crusades all over again. But this time with devastatingforce.

 Crows&Cows replied to comment from Hugh | August 20, 2010 1:10 AM | Reply

Hugh is right.

Mohammedans resorted to mass incineration of places of worship and several precious Scriptures.

Serendipitously , British prevented India from getting talibanised.

The various Nehruvian-Leftist coalitions have ensured that history books are whitewashed to show the Westerners as bad guys.

Masochistic Gandhi & Gandhian apologists were more guilty of slaughter and impoverishment of Hindus with swadeshi chants. What would have happened to India if all had been spinning at charkha?

In Aeri Katha Ramar Temple , English Collector Colonel Lionel Place constructed a separate shrine for the Lord's Consort Goddess Sita, known as Janakavalli Thayar who is ever solicitous to Her devotees. With the prayer that the strongly rebuilt waste-weir would be protected by Her from the fury of floods.

He camped at Maduranthakam during the monsoon and on one night when the tank was full and almost overflowing he visited the tank bund and saw Rama and Lakshmana keeping guard at the tank.

The Upanishads etc of Hindus were studied in detail by the West. And translated into English & many European languages. When one of Aurangazeb's sons showed some interest in reading Upanishads he was instantly beheaded by his own father Aurangazeb.

For hindus like me who were denied study of Sanskrit & Classics the English translations are of immense value.

However Churchill was so prophetic when he said power was getting transferred to the hands of unscrupulous "rascals".

As the wry bitter truth is that the Indian establishment and Indian leftists have outdistanced the Moghals in systematic looting of Hindu Temples by diverting all collections of money to " development of constituencies " rapacious grabbing of lands belonging to Hindu Temples. The lands are meant to nurture precious flora including trees , flowers , fruits , herbs & fauna like sheltering cows , beehives etc .

They have been confiscated by Indian politicians ( most of them hindus) leasing them to various votes conferring lobbies very much including dalits setting up shops that sell alcohol , meat in tandem with coconuts , bananas and stale flowers.

To be fair Indian Muslims did not ask for Haj
subsidies. It is the Indian politicians that wantonly pamper them to get their votes and stay in power.

I have been living in a Gulf country since 1993. It is from this Arab country I carry pure unadulterated honey , rosewater ( made in Germany , USA , Australia , Lebanon )to be used in Temple Rituals like Anointing.

Thanks to corrupt depraved debauched India you get only faux honey , faux rosewater , faux sandalwood paste within India.

Recently an European stranger who has never visited India sent a breathtaking amount of money asking it to be utilised exclusively for daily rituals in Rameswaram Temple. That was brazenly diverted to power sector by hindu ministers in Tamil Nadu. And this looting was welcomed by an overwhelming number of Indians including the hindus.

Today it is the Muslims who command my respect when pitted against hindus. They worship their Allah. They have invested judiciously in infrastructure & take better care of their citizens. Hindus living in Gulf countries don't perish in bomb blasts , cholera , dengue and malaria.

Whereas hindus elect such leaders who sit and debate the very existence of Ram and Krishna. And care for cricket with fanatic zeal. Indian Ambassadors promote bollywood actors & bollywood fare as " representative of Indian culture ".

A Dawood Ibrahim it is alleged was behind Mumbai blasts. A Dawood Ibrahim or Musharraf DID NOT arrest , incarcerate and persecute Kaanchi Shankaracharya ( Pontiff of Kaanchi Mutt). As a hindu I feel more at home here than in India.