www.islam-watch.org

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Is America the Father of Islamic Jihadism?

E-mail Print PDF

Nope! Instead, Communist Russia is the true father of today's resurgent Islamic Jihadism, which anyone having a little discerning mind can tell.


True or not, that has been the widely claimed, and generally accepted, wisdom. Such claims are generally made by Left-Communists, and often seconded by the so-called moderate Muslims. And given nobody, not even the American centre or right wing activists, ever offer disagreements or rebuttals to this Left-Marxist accusation, it has apparently become an evident truth accepted by all and sundry, including opponents of the Left-Marxists.

While this claim has rather become stale and boorish to neutral observers because of its too-often repetitions, but it will never become so to its professors and propagators. They continue citing the same relentlessly at every valid or nonvalid opportunity. For example, in response to my recent article analyzing Julian Assange activities, Shamsul Alam, a Bangladeshi scholar and friend, quite irrelevantly wrote in a Bangla website that "America had once nurtured the Afghan Mujahideen forces with huge sums of money and arms to fight against the Soviet forces” (translated). In the same vein, a regular reader of islam-watch.org website, nicknamed vbv, commenting on author Andrew Stunich's article, Would Iran Achieve Its Apocalyptic Goals?, somewhat relevantly wrote:

USA is the main cause of resurgence of islamic fanaticism and terrorism. They spawned many a jihadi groups to evict the erstwhile USSR from Afghanistan… Look at their close allies in the developing world – Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc.

Much has been said of the US role in igniting Islamic Jihadism by assisting Islamic militant groups in Afghanistan, the horror outcome of which we witness today. But evidently, it is the USSR that is real culprit for igniting Islamic militancy, not only through the occupation of Afghanistan, but also by helping foster totalitarian Communist movements in Islamic countries, because pious Muslims saw Communism as the worst antithesis of Islam, and took to Islamic theology to orchestrate movements and politics to confront the USSR-fostered Communism.

It is a plain and evident truth, although obscure or invisible to Left-Marxists, that the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was the primary cause of the birth of Jihadist groups in that country. Only after the Soviet occupation had given birth to militant Islamist groups did America exploit them to her advantage so as to confront what the West saw as their mortal enemy at the time. We mustn't lose sight of the fact that Communism was born with the professed aim of destroying the democratic and free economic enterprise orders of the world.

We may also take note of the fact that India, Mr. vbv’s motherland, was one of Communist USSR’s best friends, and her biggest economic and trade partner. So, it is needless to say that India was key to totalitarian USSR's lifeline and therefore a partner in its professed campaign for destroying the democratic capitalist order of the free world. Thus, India can also be duly held responsible for playing a culpable hand in the Communist Russia’s igniting of Islamic radicalism and militancy in Afghanistan and the wider Islamic world.

Even if the US didn't exploit the Islamists to confront the Communist occupation of Afghanistan, these Jihadi groups would still be thriving, probably with the only difference that their strength of today would have been achieved 5 or 10 years later. It couldn’t be otherwise.

We must also remember that America did not only exploit Islamist groups to confront Communism, they also exploited other religious groups, and certainly Christian groups for fighting Communist totalitarianism in countries of Eastern Europe and Communist East Germany, or to prevent Communist revolutions in other parts of the world. It is the religious elements that fought and first dismantled Communism in Poland in Eastern Europe, and that battle was spearheaded by the former Pope John Paul II. America supported clandestine groups in those countries that propagated anti-Communism message through secret church sermons and other religious congregations.

Given the kind of horror the Communists had perpetrated in every country they successfully completed Marxist revolutions, the free democratic capitalist West was absolutely correct in identifying Communism as a grave threat to humanity. And to confront it, the US and its allied used any groups that extended a hand, and was successful in taming the threat of Communist totalitarianism. And from hindsight today, it seems one of the allies amongst many it used, namely the Islamists, was not a right one, but in those days, it was nearly impossible to guess that things would turn out as it has today.

We may also take note of the fact that it is Marxists/Socialists, from those in Kolkata and elsewhere in India to those in the West (Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, Noam Chomsky and such), are the ones who are nakedly fostering and emboldening Islamic radicalism today, despite the havoc Islamic militancy wreaking all over the world. On the other hand, it is mainly the anti-Marxists, who are most vocal in defeating the Islamic threat effectively, given the evident danger it has posed to humanity.

I will also like to affirm that irrespective of whatever role America or former USSR, India’s good friend of the yesteryear, may have played in igniting and nurturing Islamic militancy and Jihadism, the trouble of Islam would still have come to haunt the world because of the very nature of Islamic doctrines. Islamic threat is causing death in hundreds, while the Communists killed in thousands. Communists have gone down in history, thanks to resolute stand of the West, and the battle against Islamic threat has started, more in West, and much less in India if at all any.

It is the West that rather successfully confronted Islamic threat on its own frontiers in the past (even tamed it significantly elsewhere in the colonial age), while the rest of the world, including India, surrendered to it rather meekly, thereby, offering it sustenance and confidence of conquering the entire globe that Islam calls for. The world had gotten into a lull about the Islamic threat in the mid-20th century – given the relative success of secularization of Islamic societies (Turkey and Iran was socially more liberal than even India in the 1960s-70s) – but it turned out a false signal. With the growing realization today that the Islamic core lies at heart of the Muslim militancy and Jihadism (the West realized in the past and realizing again), and a different sort of battle is now being waged targeting the Islamic core in the West, there is a glimmer of hope of winning this battle once and for all.

We must also realize that Islam has been a continuous devastating threat particularly to non-Muslim humanity for much of its 1400-year existence, except the relative lull during the limited period of Western interference in Islamic countries, it may not be easy to win this battle – especially through civilized means. But it is undeniable that any tangible battle for a permanent solution to the Islamic problem is originating exclusively in the West, and nowhere else.

Comments (44)Add Comment
0
Is America the Father of Islamic Jihadism?
written by kope , September 30, 2012
actualy jews father islamic jihadism
0
to Kope
written by Infidel and More Proud , September 30, 2012
Now that I know who your father is (Jew/s) can you also tell who your mother is?
0
...
written by kope , September 30, 2012
jews are not human that cant be my father?
0
Jews are angels.
written by Worldpeace , September 30, 2012
Please do not racist. In all comparison, Jews are angels.
0
...
written by Jye , September 30, 2012
Jews are not human. LOL and the intolerant Muslim exposes himself.
0
if jews ar not humans, then what are they?
written by human , September 30, 2012
are we runing a racist contest here or what?
0
Muhammad knows what and where Jews are
written by fineliving56 , September 30, 2012
They are the ones, who hide behinds trees and rocks to avoid to be killed by Muhammad and, the trees and rocks blabbered to Muhammad, on the whereabout of the Jews and Muhammad was able to kill.

Hadeeth is such a fun read
0
kope.
written by Reed Wilson , September 30, 2012
Jews shall have same reward by Allah as virtuous believers. No discrimination. Quran 2:62 says:

"Rest assured that whosoever from among the Muslims or the Jews or the Christians or the Sabaeans believes in Allah and the Last Day, and performs good deeds, he will have his reward with his Lord and he will have no cause for fear and grief."

Similar promises are found on other places in Quran.
0
To Reed Wilson
written by Archpagan , September 30, 2012
And when the Jews reused to accept Mohammad as messenger of God:

7:166 But when even after this they disdainfully persisted in that from which they were forbidden, We said to them, "Become apes—despised and disgraced!"
0
To Kope
written by Archpagan , September 30, 2012
Actually, Mohammad is the father of Zionism. He ordered for wholesale massacre of the Jews.
0
Reed Wilson
written by kope , October 01, 2012
i do not denied that

did i ?
0
Archpagan
written by kope , October 01, 2012
white people put jews in gas chamber
0
The father of jihadism
written by Montegue , October 01, 2012
Mohammad was the father of jihadism, which he invented for other men to kill and rob to provide him an inexhaustible leisure. The Jews used to be as fanatic as Muslims, but their willingness to sacrifice themselves for religion in ancient time was not near like the jihadists, who yearn for sex with virgins of paradise. The Jews were tolerated by the Romans until the rancor they infused into the Romans' heart become intolerable. At such time the tenacious hope of a Jewish Messiah coming to their rescue was dash to piece. Only after they saw the ruins of their temple in Jerusalem that they begin to accept to live along with others unlike them. This to must happen to Islam. After all the Jews and the Arab brothers. Both are equally as obstinate and anti-social. Haredi Jews as you can see are much like their ancient cousins, although as obstinate as Muslims, they are not near as suicidal as jihadists.
0
Monkey not Apes.
written by Reed Wilson , October 01, 2012
Archpagan. Thanks for remembering RW. You write "7:166 But when even after this they disdainfully persisted in that from which they were forbidden, We said to them, "Become apes—despised and disgraced!"

It is not apes Archpagan. It is monkey not monkeys even. Singular.

It is symbolic and has semblance with monkey. Having no permanent abode. Neither monkeys nor apes are despised and disgraced!" It was naughty or disobedient to his lord who is despised and disgraced.

Disobedient Muslims also are no different.

These translations Archpagan!!

Jews as people are nowhere condemned. They are rather fondly mentioned in Quran. Mary, Mother of Jesus is also a Jew who occupies highest place in Quran. And

نَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالنَّصَارَىٰ وَالصَّابِئِينَ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّـهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ وَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

"Surely the believers and the Jews, Christians and the Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and whosoever does right, shall have his reward with his Lord and will neither have fear nor regret."

Jews are not less than believers.


0
...
written by Reed Wilson , October 01, 2012
Archpagan. You write and write at the cost of quality "Actually, Mohammad is the father of Zionism. He ordered for wholesale massacre of the Jews."

To whom he ordered? Pope has confessed and apologized for this massacre.
0
...
written by Reed Wilson , October 01, 2012
Archpagan. And who issued the fatwa for Jews to leave Spain or get killed? Did Muhammad do this also. Poor Muhammads stars!!

0
To Reed Wilson
written by Archpagan , October 01, 2012
Mohammad expressed his desire to pray at the Jewish temple of the mount of Jerusalem and accordingly it was demolished and Al aqsa mosque raised at its place. Learn history, Allah(of koran) is ignorant of history.

Spanish people long abandoned that fatwa, but Arabs carry that Mohammad's wish faithfully till date.
0
Super power in the ME
written by The Strategist , October 01, 2012
Say anything bad about the Jews but they are an intelligent race n had produced many Nobel prize winners n had made Israel the super power of the ME.
0
Super power in the ME
written by The Strategist , October 01, 2012
Say anything bad about the Jews but they are an intelligent race n had produced many Nobel prize winners n had made Israel the super power of the ME.
0
...
written by Reed Wilson , October 01, 2012
Archpagan. You write "Arabs carry that Mohammad's wish faithfully till date."

This you claim. Aqsa mosque was not there in Muhammad's life. It is history.
0
Jews "donkeys" or "Nobel winners"
written by ex-Muslim , October 01, 2012
The Quran says Jews are equivalent to "donkeys", "apes" and "swine". Kope, the Muslim, suggests the same. So should believe the world's 1.6 billion Muslims, Reed Wilson included. But reality says, Jews produce the highest proportions of Nobel Prize winners per capita, Muslims the lowest.

So who is the real "donkey", if humans can at all be compared to other animals, as the Allah and His slaves do?
0
what a twisted argument to justify whatever west does...
written by continuum , October 01, 2012
LOL...these are the author's argument to justify what west did for selfish reasons (Oil, power and money)..

1. Forget about west supplying arms, technologies, funds and training to jihadists in Afghanistan, it is Russia who was responsible for birth of Jihadist groups by attacking and ruling them on their turf (ISLAMIC lands), thereby giving rise to Jihadist groups....

(By the way just turn a blind eye to Pakistan state sponsored terrorism in Kashmir even before Soviet Invasion eg..JKLF founded in 1977)

2. India is also responsible for igniting Jihadist uprising...why? because India is key trading partner of Russia, which invaded Afghanistan, which lead to Jihadists being born, which forced Americans to exploit these jihadists just to protect the capitalistic free world (read western world) from communist onslaught...So there you see, its Russia and its key ally India responsible for birth of Jihadists...

(mmm....really convincing argument indeed for numb nuts or dim wits indeed...)
0
what a twisted argument to justify whatever west does...
written by continuum , October 01, 2012
3. Even if American did not support these Jihadists, they would still be thriving today, only 5-10 years behind time...(implies America is not to be blamed for enabling almost the major terrorist jihadist orgs that is known on global scale and have carried out attacks internationally..)

(forget about without American weapons and training these orgs would have been decimated and grounded to powder by Russian army by now)..

4. Since America supported other religious groups (red christians) just as it did with islamists, in order to defeat communists..(Therefore America is not be blamed for enabling Al-Queda with technology and training to make attacks similar to 911 attacks.)

(Americans never thought that these savages would be able to cross oceans and attack America, although they knew a few backward third world nations savage infidels were murdered, raped by these jihadist savages in thousands. They did not care much about attacks in China or India. Actually it helps the capitalistic free world's cause (Read western nations) by weakening these nations.)

5. Americans just did not guess then that it would turn out as today..

(yes ofcourse...Americans did not give hoots about thousands of Islamic women (even kids) being raped by Afghan jihadists...they just underestimated their resolve and capcity to cross oceans and attack Americans..Had they known this before Americans would have made sure they killed every sob jihadist after exploiting them..Poor Americans did not know this when they left these murderous savages behind to ruin Afghanistan to make it amenable for poppy cultivation and weaken potential competitors, namely India, china, around them..)
0
what a twisted argument to justify whatever west does...
written by continuum , October 01, 2012
6. Marxists support Islamists...

(So did Americans....the rule is same for both these scoundrels, support islamists in lands where you do not have rule to weaken and make the country amenable to you...)

7. Irrespective of America's role or that of Russia, islamic militancy would have grown...

(So why did you blame Russian invasion in the first place or how in the world India could be blamed?)

8. It is only West which has retarded islamic progress in west in past and is the only place where any permanent solution to Islamic problem can come?

(First of all, Islamic resurgence itself started because of west...if you can blame Russia for inciting jihadists by invasion, then west can be held responsible for inciting jihadist response by making films on profiteer muhammad...in your twisted mind this argument did not figure out perhaps..

Second, west's success in handling Islamic savages cannot be used to justify whatever west did/does...especially enabling all the terrorist orgs that were responsible for numerous murders of Hindus in India, Chinese in China and people all over rest of the world, including those in Europe like Spain, London etc.

Third, India did anything but meekly submit to Islamic savages...Although it was continuously attacked for over 1000 years almost continuously, it did survive as a Hindu nation until today, where as west merely attacked for a few decades at a time and that too only in the southern borders of Europe...Islamic savages were busy conquering other parts (Asia and Africa) of the world for majority of time.

West was able to survive because of the remoteness of western world, harsh climate and large size relative to Islamic power centers and not due to its inherent strength as compared to India. Even the one time Islamic savages attacked, they could convert the whole of Spain into Islamic land in no time, while India despite repeated attacks over 1000 years, Islamists were not able to make it Islamic completely. Spain recovered simply because reinforcements from other untouched parts of Europe arrived.
0
what a twisted argument to justify whatever west does...
written by continuum , October 01, 2012
Fourth, what solution is west really providing? The problem is largely militant in nature....one cannot solve this issue by writing internet articles..it requires on the ground action..namely military power to crust this enemy....is west really able to do it? America (and Europe) with all its resources cannot confront stone age country called Afghanistan, cannot control Islamic mobs in their own countries, example France, UK, Germany...hell even in NY, USA...So what solution are you blabbering about...There are many Indian intellectuals exposing Islam in articles...Arun Shourie, etc. The real permanent solution to Islamic problem in military, not talking....

When capitalistic free world's (western world's) aim is profit and nothing else, such a solution will never come...I do not see any solution to this problem arising in west exclusively....it is your hallucination...if you think there is one show me a tangible proof of the same and not mere talk...until today, America and Western world in general have not taken one good action against Saudi barbaria, the center of islamic power in the world, any tangible measure to improve religious freedom in middle east...when West does such a thing, then you can shoot your mouth against rest of us, until then its mere gas talk..)
0
to KOPE
written by Infidel and More Proud , October 01, 2012
Agree Jews are not your father..

They cannot be for they are far too intelligent..
0
@Continuum
written by Alamgir Hussain , October 01, 2012
I didn't justify anything. I'm just try to tell the fact -- Even if America never went to Afghanistan, Jihadis, Oasama would be coming at us, just because Russia went there. This is a simple fact that anyone can understand. There wouldn't be otherwise. So, blanket blame on America for giving birth to Jihadism that has been in vogue is not accurate. Osama, Jiadism was born due to Russia -- plain and simple.

My main argument was that it is the nature of Islam that is the root cause of Islamic Jihadism. Whether or not America or Russia had any role, Jihadism would still be coming to haunt us. Only difference would have been a delay by a few years. That's it.

So, let us focus where trouble lies than heaping all blames on the US for giving birth to Jihadism. And if we really have to point fingers elsewhere: start with Russia and allies followed by America and allies. That's the truth.
0
what a twisted argument to justify whatever west does...
written by continuum , October 01, 2012
Dear Algamir,

In that case, osama would have come at us, eve if Russia did not invade Afghanistan, because they would find ksahmir as a reason then...do islamists really need a reason, just like the muhammad movie? Did Pakistani ISI need a reason to attack India? Did muslims need a reason to create their own country Pakistan? If not osama, then it may be abdullah? Who knows...So why blame Russia? Osama would have come, just because of the presence of Americans in Saudi barbaria, even without afghanistan...

Do not think I am supporting Russians or communism...I hate it as much as Islam....The problem is America and West has its fair share of blame as much as communist idiots to instigating Islamic terrorism for advancing their selfish ambitions (access to energy resources) and severely short sighted plans disregarding several millions of peoples' lives...do not sugar coat America's actions here...

If Americans and west want to fight against Islamic terrorism, then they have to weed out their weaknesses in their societies and political establishment just as Indians, chinese etc. need to weed out problems in their societies and political establishments....and one does it by exposing the same...
0
To Alamgir Hussain
written by Archpagan , October 01, 2012
Your article is over-simplistic. It was due to the machinations of the Anglo-American alliance that a virulently Islamic state of Pakistan was created out of India. India was forced to surrender the military advantage achieved in the battles against Pakistan in 1965 and 1971 due to secret agreement between the then superpowers viz. America and USSR. Indira Gandhi was forced by the USSR to declare unilateral cease-fire just after 1,00,000 strong Pakistani army had surrendered to India in Bangladesh. Similarly Lalbahadur Shastri was forced by the USSR to surrender the strategic Haji Pir Pass captured from Pakistan in 1965 battle in the face of strong opposition from Indian military establishments.

Communists and Islamists enjoyed happy married life in Central Asia, Albania and South Yemen as late as the early eighties. In Afghanistan, America went by the principle 'my enemy's enemy is my friend.' They could not imagine that such principle would ever backfire. I once believed that Communism have capacity to dilute Islamic Jihad.
0
Continuum...
written by Alamgir Hussain , October 02, 2012
"The problem is America and West has its fair share of blame as much as communist idiots to instigating Islamic terrorism for advancing their selfish ambitions"
This is first time I heard someone mentioning Russia, alongside America, for the blame of giving birth to Jihadism. If that was the standard wisdom, this article would not be necessary.

Every country sees its interests. Russia has been a faithful ally and friend of the Islamist Iran -- another Islamic movement that was the true initiator of Islamic fundamentalism and, by extension, of modern-day Jihadism (India has been a faithful business partner of the Islamist Iran too (maybe one of the top-three). Yet, Russia's name never come up when blaming for what pundits see as the cause of modern-day Jihadism.

I hope, next time, more people will talk or write like you than putting all blames on America.
0
Iclamic conquests on Western and Asian fronts
written by Alamgir Hussain , October 02, 2012
Third, India did anything but meekly submit to Islamic savages...Although it was continuously attacked for over 1000 years almost continuously, it did survive as a Hindu nation until today, where as west merely attacked for a few decades at a time and that too only in the southern borders of Europe...Islamic savages were busy conquering other parts (Asia and Africa) of the world for majority of time.
Continuum, you absolutely have no idea about history. Except the days of Muhammad Qasim, the central Islamic power never really took any aim at Hindustan. India was conquered and ruled by some peripheral central Asian Muslim warlords. Islam's real focus in the Middle Ages remained the West. It is the West that was Islam's enemy par excellence in the Middle Ages, and Islamic central powers spent the highest amount of energy to engulf the West. Had it not for Islam's sustained and unsuccessful focus on the West, the fate of the East would have been much much much worse. Had the West succumbed easily, the picture of the world would be very very different from what we see today.
0
To Alamgir Hussain
written by Archpagan , October 03, 2012
India and erstwhile U S S R were not natural friends. Actually India was driven to the U S S R camp by the west through their policy of supporting Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir. A theocratic and dictatorial Pakistan appeared far more attractive to the west than a democratic and secular India. Perhaps the west too was dominated by evangelists to whom a fellow monotheist Pakistani Muslim was far more acceptable as friend than a benighted heathen Hindu. It was due to repeated veto by the erstwhile U S S R that India could retain a larger part of Kashmir.

U S S R extracted heavy price for their support to India over Kashmir in the U N Security Council. India was forced to carry on trading activity with U S S R at an absurdly high Rupee- Rouble exchange rate. When in reality, one Indian Rupee was worth 1.5 Rouble, India was made to pay 10 Rupees for one Rouble.
0
That is one BS Alamgir
written by continuum , October 04, 2012
Continuum, you absolutely have no idea about history. Except the days of Muhammad Qasim, the central Islamic power never really took any aim at Hindustan. India was conquered and ruled by some peripheral central Asian Muslim warlords. Islam's real focus in the Middle Ages remained the West.


Alamgir,

I do not know when and where Islam attacked the heart of Europe and which history you are blabbering about....What western power? unless you are referring to Byzantine empire as western power...You want history....

lets start with muhammad...this fellow started with

1. Medina and then Mecca....
2. Arabian peninsular..
3. Byzantines then..
4. Persia and Iraq
5. Then came approaching Europe from Turkey up till Southern Italy...This is conquest of Europe for you at the most ...Islam did not even penetrate anywhere in Europe as the Islamic savages were busy with other parts of Asia and Africa...Consequently your claim that west fought against Islam is pure hallucination on your part...

Now coming to history of India, which you are completely ignorant about...

1. Arab invader Muhammad bin Qasim tried....they occupied present day pakistan...arab savages entered Rajasthan and were defeated by Rajputs who literally ran away to the other side of Indus river...now compare this to Persia which was islamized completely or say the entire byzantine empire collapase under arab invasion...(711-738 AD)

2. Muhammad Gazni (997-1030) invaded 17-18 times Indian subcontinent. He was defeated 17 times (actually routed up to the last man Gazni himself and was pardoned 17 times) and won the 18th time when he gathered another army...You can claim he was mere warlord. But the fact remains, that he was supported by Abbasid empire...Ghazanvid's empire ruled Indian subcontinent for 175 years...
0
get your history right Alamgir before writing nonsense articles...
written by continuum , October 04, 2012
3. Then came Muhammad Ghori (1150-1206), an Afghan conqueror...He tried to enter Gujarat...was defeated by Solanki rulers of Gujarat...Ghori joined with some local Hindu ruler (inLahore) and defeated the existing Gazni empire...
Then Ghori attacked Rajasthan and Punjab...was defeated by Prithviraj once, but he attacked again with 120000 horse men and won.

His successors established Malmuk dynasty...

4. Here is what wiki says..

Several Turko-Afghan dynasties ruled from Delhi: the Mamluk (1211–1290), the Khalji (1290–1320), the Tughlaq (1320–1413), the Sayyid (1414–51), and the Lodhi (1451–1526). Muslim Kings extended their domains into Southern India, Kingdom of Vijayanagar resisted until falling to the Deccan Sultanate in 1565. Certain kingdoms remained independent of Delhi such as the larger kingdoms of Punjab, Rajasthan, parts of the Deccan, Gujarat, Malwa (central India), and Bengal, nevertheless all of the area in present-day Pakistan came under the rule of Delhi.

5. Then came the Mughals (1558-1707) or Mongols from central Asia, babur and established Mughal empire...His army consisted of central Asians, arabs etc...Mere warlords cannot afford to have such a large army of various nationalities. He was a descendant of Timur, and son of ruler of Fergana valley.

6. Remember, in addition India had to endure Portuguese invasion and inquisitions in Goa, Dutch invasion in South India, French invasion in Pondicherry and British Invasion.

This clearly shows, the extent to which Indian subcontinent had to endure savage Islamic invasions and savage European invasions for nearly a thousand years and yet survived as Hindu nation.

Points to note:

1. Remember that India did not have armies or wealth arriving for back-up from other parts of world, unlike Europe which had back-up armies from untouched heart of Europe to fight savage Islamists, funds from different sources of Europe etc.

2. Europe was at the most attacked only in the periphery, Southern Italy.

3. Europe never had to sustain 1000 years of Islamic attacks in its own home..It sustained only attacks for a few decades at the most.

4. All christian empires/cultures in middle-east and Africa disappeared and succumbed to Islamic invasion, while Hindu nation still stands. This should tell you something about Hindu resistance and resilience, unlike christians. Persian culture/empire is wiped off the map of the world now.
0
get your history right Alamgir before writing nonsense articles...
written by continuum , October 04, 2012
Had it not for Islam's sustained and unsuccessful focus on the West, the fate of the East would have been much much much worse. Had the West succumbed easily, the picture of the world would be very very different from what we see today.


What focus you are blabbering about here? Historical facts clearly show that Islam hardly focused on West, rather its focus was Asia and Africa, and India in particular. Even European savages' focus' was to loot India. British did not call India as their crown jewel for nothing.

It is clear you are the one completely ignorant about world history and your love for west blinds you against facts and logic.
0
False argument
written by continuum , October 04, 2012
India was conquered and ruled by some peripheral central Asian Muslim warlords.


Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Ajuuraan, Adal, Warsangali in Somalia, Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, Safavids, Mughals, and Ottomans were among the influential and distinguished powers in the world.

Among these Umayyads, Abbasids, Ghaznavids, Mughals attacked and ruled India. These are hardly warlords, but central and powerful Islamic power centers in history. Your lies are exposed once again.
0
To Continuum
written by Archpagan , October 04, 2012
Sorry, your observation -"Certain kingdoms remained independent of Delhi such as the larger kingdoms of Punjab, Rajasthan, parts of the Deccan, Gujarat, Malwa (central India), and Bengal, nevertheless all of the area in present-day Pakistan came under the rule of Delhi" , does not appear convincing to me. You should have mentioned Assam and Odisha in place of Bengal, Malwa and Punjab.

Actually, Hinduism survived on two factors. One of them is casteism based on occupation/ profession. It created a self-sustaining society denying the foreign rulers any leverage to influence people. Second is of course the Rajput sword. Despite every effort, all Muslim rulers including Alauddin Khilji and Aurangzeb failed to impose Muslim Nawab (Governor) on any Rajput dominated areas e. g Mewar, Jodhpur, Jaipur etc. Actually, Rajputs formed the core of Moghul army. Hindus refused to accept Muslims as their civilizational rival and out of own volition Muslims conceded cultural and intellectual superiority of Hinduism. Many Muslim rulers had Hindu Minister(s).
0
To Archpagan
written by continuum , October 04, 2012
That was a quote from wiki Archpagan...not my statement...but thanks for the insight...Hindus always considered foreigners as beneath them to allow them to rule over them...Yes...many Islamic armies consisted of Hindus (Rajputs in particular) to sustain their rule...Muslims, Arabs in particular, were/are considered savages by Hindus....mlechchha is the condescending word used for foreigners and before Alexander, no foreigner was even allowed to step his foot into India...Decline of Indian warriors (Kshatriyas) started with the whole sale killing of Kshatriyas (warriors) by Nandas, who were NOT Kshatriyas..Rapid descent into dark ages started immediately after Nandas captured power in Hindu civilization...Chanakya opposed Nanda on these grounds..Before Nandas, there was never any intrusion by foreigners in Indian sub-continent...actually Kshatriyas were so powerful, they kept at bay the entire mlechchha world from Indian subcontinent by force and even enforced their rule outside India. This is the reason, why savage Arabs and even the savage Europeans (from Vasco-da-gama to Columbus) were looking for India...as it was known for its wealth and power.
0
mr
written by bill carr , October 04, 2012
Yes indeed your mind obviously descerns little
0
@Continuum
written by Alamgir Hussain , October 04, 2012
Influential historians---Nehru, Bernard Lewis, PK Hiitti amongst many more---says that Christian West was Islam's enemy par excellence, and remained its focus of conquest. Hiiti says, Islam relentlessly attack Europe at its head, bottom, back and belly. Nehru says, world would be Islamic had the Islamic army succeeded in defeating the French army in 732. You may read my recently published essays, Islam and the West to get some idea on Islam's assaults on the Western front.

Islam's central powers were the Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and the Ottomans. Under Umayyads Qasim succeeded in initiating Islamic rule in India with only 6000 soldiers. At about the same time, Islamic army was almost decimated on the Byzantine front, which 100,000+ Islamic soldiers perished. Islamic army perished in such large numbers on multiple occasions on the Europe front.

However, the Abbasids, Fatimids, and the Ottomans never really had an aim at India.

Certainly those Islamic warlords, who attacked and conquered India had power, but far from the central powers. Babar was a renegade, who ran away from the central Asian overlord and with a few thousand soldiers attacked and gained foothold in India. The Mughals became a name as a significant power only after conquering India, not before.
Islam did not even penetrate anywhere in Europe as the Islamic savages were busy with other parts of Asia and Africa...Consequently your claim that west fought against Islam is pure hallucination on your part...
If that is how you read history, then it is pointless to argue any further. Does Islam's inability to conquer Europe mean Islam didn't try to conquer her. On the India front, Qasim came with 6000 soldiers, Babar with a few thousands, Taimur Long with 15,000. On the Europe front, on multiple occasions, Muslims lost soldiers in the rage of 50,000 to more than 100,000.
0
you know very little about Indian history
written by continuum , October 08, 2012
Islam's central powers were the Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and the Ottomans.


Again...

Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Ajuuraan, Adal, Warsangali in Somalia, Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, Safavids, Mughals, and Ottomans were among the influential and distinguished powers in the world.

Among these Umayyads, Abbasids, Ghaznavids, Mughals attacked and ruled India. So your claims are all nonsense that these were mere warlords...

At about the same time, Islamic army was almost decimated on the Byzantine front, which 100,000+ Islamic soldiers perished. Islamic army perished in such large numbers on multiple occasions on the Europe front.


Byzantine army is NOT Europe..so my point stands that west hardly had faced any attacks in the first place.

Byzantine empire completely disappeared and the areas under that empire has turned into Islamic nations.

Third, your numbers are erroneously blown out of proportions...if anything Byzantine army had similar numbers because of its mere size...

Forth, Arabs conquered Syria, North Africa, Anatolia, Constantinople...

None of these territories are Europe...

Majority of Byzantine empire is Islamic now....This is what you call defeating them...Reality shows your christian army failed miserably as compared to Hindus....From last 1000 year sand more, muslims cannot penetrate Hindu nation yet even after 1000 years of attacks, while huge lands of Byzantine empire and christianity has vanished for ever in these areas.

I do not know how long you will live in lies...

Under Umayyads Qasim succeeded in initiating Islamic rule in India with only 6000 soldiers.


First of all do you even know that Sindh was a kind of wild frontier and NOT properly India...

Second, the part which Qasim attacked was protected only by about 4000 soldiers...

Third, Qasim hardly penetrated India...Did you even what I wrote earlier? Qasim and his arab army was defeated by Rajputs in Rajasthan and they left even Sindh part after that...Do you understand Indian geography? If you do not read and follow your own hallucinations, I need not repeat...If I need to know world history, i can read from history and books, not your uninformed selves.

What do you mean "initiating Islamic rule"? This is hardly initiating any rule for that matter...If you mean this lead to entry/introduction of Islam into subcontinent, then agreed...but this ain't any rule...
0
you know very little about Indian history
written by continuum , October 08, 2012
On the India front, Qasim came with 6000 soldiers, Babar with a few thousands, Taimur Long with 15,000. On the Europe front, on multiple occasions, Muslims lost soldiers in the rage of 50,000 to more than 100,000.


Qasim hardly invaded India...

By the time Babur invaded, do you even know that Lodi dynasty (Islamic Pashtuns from Afghanistan) was ruling Delhi sultanate (not all of India)....There were already many more attacks on India from Islamists already. Babur defeated existing Islamic Lodi dynasty with his army, not the Hindu Rajputs. Even Babur nor was not able to touch Vijayanagar Kingdom.

If Babur was mere renegade, where did he get the army resources from? So top lying again...he was the ruler of Fergana and then was betrayed by his uncles and enemies....He escaped with his army to take over Kabul and India....No islamic ruler could rule India without Indians as administrators...every one of them appointed Brahmins as admins and Hindus as officers...all of them had Hindu soldiers in their army...else their rule would have disappeared...

Now on the European front, it never reached Europe..so please stop lying again...Byzantine empire is hardly European...

Second the Byzantine empire as such today has become non-existent and is islamic now. When you have 40,000-50,000 Byzantine army, it is not difficult to cause casualties in that range in th eopposing army...

Now whether they caused casualties or not, the land is lost, the culture is lost, the religion is lost...so what use it is? Europe awaits a similar fate..they are not fighters...but Hindu India still stands, despite over whelming opposition in history from christians, and muslims and this is fact...

Islam has not concentrated on west yet....it concentrated mostly in India and Asia/Africa (Byzantines)...
0
Islam on the European front
written by Alamgir Hussain , October 09, 2012
Continuum, I will conclude this discussion by adding the following, which will give readers some idea of Islam's assaults on Europe:

1.In Toulouse, France, in 721, says Muslim sources, a 375,000-strong Islamic army was thoroughly destroyed by a Franko-Aquitanian confederate force, led by Duke Eudo of Aquitaine (O’Shea S, Sea of Faith: Islam and Christianity in the Medieval Mediterranean World, p. 70)

2.On the 732 Battle of Poitiers (France): Had Muslims succeeded in this battle, there was no one to stop them in Europe; Europe would be Islamic today. [Nehru J, Glimpses of World History, p. 146]

3.Muslims at some points ruled the whole of Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania. They ruled parts of France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. (Daniel Pipes, In the Path of God)

4.‘Europe had been threatened or attacked in its front, rear and soft belly (by Muslims),’ (Hitti PK, The Near East in History: A 5000 Year Story, p. 308)

5.‘Europe was by far the most important infidel enemy. …the great Jihad per excellence, the major battlefields of the House of Islam and the House of War, was in Europe,’ (Lewis B, Islam and the West, p. 10)
0
Our forefather's resistance to Islam
written by Indian Infidel , October 10, 2012
Mr. Alamgir, it needs no explaining that our forefathers resisted valiantly against submission to Islam. India is the only land that stands out in terms of the fact that Islam ruled that country for a thousand years, and still 80% of her people remained non-Muslims.

What becomes apparent from the reading of history, such as by K S Lal, is that 2 things were key to our forefathers' resistance to Islam:

1) Huge swaths of jungle all across India were the biggest recourse for our ancestors to save their life and preserve their religion and culture from the marauding Jihadi Muslim armies. Often times, before Jihadis arrived, our ancestors packed up, and burnt up the remaining and fled to the jungle. Memoirs of Taimur Long, Babar and those belonging to the Abkar and Jahangir's period says exactly that. The same happened in the Sultanate period.

2) Another thing that helped our forefathers resist conversion was the Hanafi Law in India, which was designed for the benefit of Muslim rulers to let the non-Muslims of India to keep their religion, but pay Jizya and all sort of taxes. Our valiant forefather suffered those economic extortions but didn't sacrifice their religion.

Here lies the greatness of our forefathers, the greatness of India. Christian West Asia disappeared completely, Hindu India stood up holding her head high.

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.

busy
 

About the book || Reviews by: Steven Simpson | Abul Kasem | Prof Sami Alrabaa | Ibn Kammuna

islamic-jihad-cover


'Islamic Jihad' in Bangla
islamic-jihad-bangla
Aasma Riaz: "Thank you so much for your book "Islamic Jihad" and showing me the "Big Picture". For 7-8 days, I was glued to your book, absorbing so much information that I did not know existed. You have crisply covered so much in your book and quoted historical references extensively. I am just overwhelmed with different emotions after reading your book..., a priceless tome."

Editor: M A Khan | Site design: Dan Zaremba
Founded on 20 November 2005


Announcements

Sign petition:  Grant Imran Firasat Asylum in the USA

imran-firasat

Proxy Server: To view blocked websites, use this: iwebproxy

Syndication