Thiagan,

I am NOT interested in what you say about Malaysia or what you quote from the the Koran! These are NOT relevent to the principle that all citizens of  India (including Muslims) have the same rights and freedoms as all others. This is an ethical principle that is non-negotiable -- hence please spare us your displays of disgusting xenophobia.

You said, "I sponsor intolerance only towards barbarsim..."

This is EXACTLY what Osama bin Laden says! If you thought that Osama "sponsors" intolerance and terror against those whom he regards to be angels or harmless adverseries, you are mistaken!

The reason you give for hating Muslims (but not the Jews or Parsis!) is the SAME as the reasons given by xenophobic people of ANY religion or ethnicity -- this is that the particular object of their own hate is evil or barbaric.

Sorry, those whom you regard to be evil and barbaric have the SAME rights and freedoms in India as you do. And we will do our darnedest to see that these traditions of modern India are preserved....

Anand

30/06/08

1)   I have  mentioned about Malaysia earlier. Please read the latest in the body stealing Islamic barbarism. You cane be proud of your composite culture:

"Kuala Lumpur (AsiaNews/Agencies) - B. Elangesvaran, aged 34, hanged himself on June 22.  After the autopsy, the Parit Buntar hospital in Penang did not give his body back to his family, because the Islamic religious department says that the man had converted to Islam, and must be given an Islamic funeral.

His brother, S. Selvam, contests that there is no proof of the conversion, and that they showed him "only a police report alleging that my brother had embraced Islam at the Penang Islamic religious department . . . and a letter with some scribbling allegedly done by Elangesvaran that he had converted", but this was unsigned and does not indicate any witnesses to the conversion.

Now Selvam has appealed to the high court for the restitution of the body, and for permission to conduct a Hindu funeral "without interference".  About 60 percent of the 27 million Malaysians are Malay Muslims, and Islam is the state religion.  The other 40% are mainly Chinese and Indians, who generally practice their religion without problems.  But it is not rare to see disputes over alleged conversions, and in 2008 prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi establish that those who convert to Islam must advise their families, precisely in order to avoid disputes after their death, as has already happened a number of times."

2)   Again a secular lie. I never said that I had quoted Durant selectively.
 
3)   Aryan invasion is irrelevent to the discussuion; do not attempt at dialectical disarray.

4)   It is not the most countries but all countries with muslim majorities are theocratic ad totalitarian; treats their minorities shabbily.  The reason is not accidental as you try to white wash but the the theology underlying Islam. There is no space in it for other religionists.  

5)   I am not of the same kind as those of the muslim fanatics; I sponsor intolerance only towards barbarsim. We have treated Jews and Parsees extremely well. Ask them.

6)   Shahsi Tharoor is wrong; does he know that muslims want economic betterment? I suggest that they are not interested in better material welfare; their intentions are elsewhere. 

Thiagan,

I am happy that you candidly admit that your intent was to show that "Islam treats its minorities shabbily" -- and so you selectively quoted Will Durant's vivid description of the Muslim invasions of India (which occured hundreds of years back).

The point is that by quoting Will Durant, you made the presumption that he is an indisputable authority on historical events. This presumption does not hold water unless you would also agree that Durant's description of the "Aryan invasion"  is accurate. (I am sure you don't agree with Durant on this, right? Or else, this may lead to stupid conclusions such as that Aryans "treat its minorities shabbily"!

You do not really need to repeat your views on the evil nature of Islam! You are entitled to these views, and I will defend your rights to hold on to these views.

The present circumstance that most countries where Muslims live are politically dominated by religious fundamentalists would suggest that there is even a grain of truth in your statement that "Islam treats its minorities shabbily".

So far, there is no disagreement between you and me! The disagreement starts when you seek to bury this grain of truth under a sand hill of misplaced hatred.

You pose the question, "why should others treat the followers of Islam differently?" with intent to convince us that we too should treat our minorities (Muslims mainly, but Christians too, I am sure) "shabbily". Which shows that you too are of the same kind as the Muslim fundamentalists -- the type that seeks to treat minorities "shabbily".

As for me, I oppose the policies of Muslim nations that treat the minorities shabbily. I would equally (in a consistent manner) oppose the policies of any nation (whatever is the composition of the majority) that treats the minorities shabbily. Therefore, I oppose you and Narendra Modi (and Osama bid laden too) who seek to treat the Muslim minorities "shabbily".

I think you are no better than those Muslims who think that it is okay to treat minorities shabbily! I agree with Shashi Tharoor's views on this subject.

Anand

SandeepH,

You have got your facts woefully wrong! No, the reason for doubting the veracity (accuracy and appropriateness of context) of the quotes is NOT as misrepresented by you.

The reason for legitimate doubt was because the person who made the quote could not produce the references for this (so that the quote could be independently cross-checked by others). Even as the doubt was raised, I had repeatedly averred that I would stand corrected when the references are provided.

Subsequently you did provide the reference -- along with a link to the text of Will Durant's opus, "The Story of Cilization". This reference was indeed useful to me to check out the accuracy of the quote as also the context. The findings are as under:-

a) I was absolutely right that the original quote by Thiagan was inaccurate -- this being only a sanitised portion of the full passage. He had omitted the disparaging remarks that Durant made about Buddhism and Jainism in the original.

b)  I was right that the quote was taken out of context. The context is that Will Durant was a prolific writer; and from his works, selective quotations can be dredged out to support all kinds of mutually contradicting propaganda purposes. For example Durant's quotable views on the nature of Aryan "invasion" (and the consequent "subjugation" of the original residents of India) are not likely to be regarded as accurate by Hindutva guys.

Thus, it is not appropriate to selectively quote from Durant with the presumption that Durant is an unquestioned authority on the nature and conduct of various invasions of India. No, the presumption (of Durant being a relaible authority) does not stand up to informed scrutiny.

Anand

27/06/08

"Thus, I was absolutely right that the quote by Thiagan was inaccurate -- this being only a sanitised portion of the full passage (he had omitted the disparaging remarks that Durant made about Buddhism and Jainism). I was right that the quote was taken out of ........."

Comrade is an incorrigible liar and a persistent prevaricator. What is the subject of discussuion?  The subject is: Since Islam treats its minorities shabbily, why should others treat the followers of Islam differently. I had quoted Durant in that context and any mention of aryan invasions etc is incompetent, irrelevent and immaterial. You are dead wrong to claim that the quote was given out of context.  Your logic that since we do not accept his views on aryan invasion, we should not accept his other statements as well is plain absurdity. Durant does not need your certificate for his erudition and scholarship. The quote is valid and the proof is there that even today muslims are indulging in mindless violence all over the world.    

This is a marxist dialecticel diversionary tactics of the comrades. What Islam is, I can see in Darfur, Lal Masjid, Malaysia and in other muslim countries.  It is an evil ideology masquerading as religion. They provide the proof and I accept, unlike the secular fanatics, who furnish convoluted explanations for their violence, except the truth that the theology is the problem. This is what that Shashi Tharoor has attempted at; by abolishing poverty among the muslims, terrorism can be eliminated. When a neurosurgeon, diabetes specialist and a Ph.D in aeronaughtical engineering join together for driving a bomb laden SUV into the Glasgow airport, where is poverty is comingin ? These are the fanatical attempts by the secularists to cheat the non muslim majorities; to some extent they have succeeded in West and could not do the same since Hindus resist.
     

Comrade Blufferuddin, after having floated a conspiracy theory that exploded in his face now sporting egg yellow (EXTENSIVE SEARCH nothing less, said the con-man) , continues with his bluff game:

>> It is absolutely legittimate (and even desirable) to doubt the veracity of quotations that are NOT supported by references

This is another fascinating facet of a narrowminded bigot. A narrowminded bigot, when he is exposed , concocts self-serving definitions. His strategy is to bluff that "Will Durant, Story of Civilization" is NOT a reference to look up.Yet at the same time, the con-artist will also make the claim that he did an EXTENSIVE SEARCH  based on this refernce.

Those who are genuinely liberal and open-minded  follow the process below:

Step #1. develop doubts for  rational and logical reasons, not because they belong to a lunatic commie fringe that is indoctrinated to view quotes from the rival camp with hatred and suspicion

Step#2 before airing their doubts, attempt to validate their doubts by doing real extensive search, not by bluffing -- as bigots do --  that they have done it

Step #3 AFTER having acquired the evidence disproving the existence of the quote, they investigate how the false quote came into existence, and acquire evidence showing that it was a Hindutva fabrication. Then they produce both evidences.

Step#4  At the very least, only AFTER having acquired the evidence disproving the existence of the quote, they put forth their own SPECULATION that the quote is a Hindutva conspiracy

Step #5 If in this process anywhere they are proved wrong, they immediately acknowledge their mistake, anbd learn from their mistake. Matter ends there.

Bigots on the contrary follow a different process

Step #1. They "reason" as follows: This quote is saying that Islamic conquest was deadly for India. This goes against what they taught me in CPIM camps. Therefore this must be a massive Hindutva conspiracy

Step #2. They start the propaganda that the quote is a Hindutva fabrication

Step #3. When they are shown wrong, knowning that they exposed themselves as bigots, they try to shift discussion from their conspiracy-mongering  on the EXISTENCE of the quote, to a seeming debate on the CONTENT of the quote.

Comrade Nair is following the exact process as outlined above. Ergo, point is:

East Germnay, a communist state, claimed to be democratic, as in German Democratic Republic. It killed thousands of people, as outlined in "blackbook of communism".

Comrade Conspiracykhan claims on his profile page that he is liberal-minded person. He needs to do it, like GDR.  To camouflage the fact that in reality he is a narrow-minded bigot indoctrinated in a genocidal ideology that leaves no room for openminded thinking.

QED :-)

Sandeep,

You claimed, "Genuinely liberal-minded people, do not, in the first place, make lunatic claims like, "the Durant quote is a Hindutva fabrication".

I disagree!

It is absolutely legittimate (and even desirable) to doubt the veracity of quotations that are NOT supported by references -- with the proviso that one is prepared to stand corrected if in future the references are provided. This is what is known as scientific scepticism...

On the other hand, it is unethical to insist that a quote or claim is accurate -- even in the absence of references that are made available to others for checking. It illiberal to object when people cast doubts on the accuracy of such unreferenced and unverifiable quotes.

In this case, the reason why the references (of the Durant quote) were kept hidden by the hate propagandists is guessable when we read more passages from Will Durant's "Story of Civilization". I must thank you again for providing the link with the full text!

A quick review of the book reveals the true context -- Durant is a prolific writer and from his works, selective quotations can be dredged out to support all types of mutually contradicting purposes. I have seen passages from his books quoted at fundamentaist Islamic sites too!

To show just this, I had earlier reproduced a passage where Durant talks of the "the marauding Aryans" who  "swept down violently upon the settled and pacified south". And how the Aryans with their "ready brutality ... fought with bows and arrows, ... wielded battle-axes and hurled spears." And the opinion that the invading Aryans "were too primitive to be hypocrites: they subjugated India without pretending to elevate it"

I am quite sure that the Hindutva sites will not quote the above passages (that are not exactly complementary of the Aryans) from Durant's book -- though from the same book, they so gleefully quote about the brutality of the Islamic invaders! No wonder that the references required to be hidden while these selective quotes are made!

Thus, I was absolutely right that the quote by Thiagan was inaccurate -- this being only a sanitised portion of the full passage (he had omitted the disparaging remarks that Durant made about Buddhism and Jainism). I was right that the quote was taken out of context. Given the context that Durant's views on Aryan invasion are not regarded as accurate by Hindutva guys, he cannot be selectively cited as if he is an unquestioned authority or a reliable source of information in case of other invasions.

Anand

Genuinely liberal-minded people, do not, in the first place, make lunatic claims like, "the Durant quote is a Hindutva fabrication".

If they do so at all, they back it up with solid evidence.

In the event that they are shown wrong, liberal minded people accept with humility that they were wrong, their opponent was right all along.  And the public matter ends there. But privately, liberal-minded people learn a lesson. They vow not to make lunatic claims of conspiracy again.

But narrowminded bigots, when caught with pants down, continue their bluff game.  They put up a brave face, pretend that evidence rubbishing their propaganda proved nothing and try to continue to bluff.

As comrade's histrionics show. :-)

A cornered Comrade Blufferuddin was earlier confining to writing a paragraph or two (the second one in bold screaming text) issuing war-whoops and challenges about the authenticity of Durant quote. Now, cornered like a rat, HE NO LONGER CLIAMS THAT THE QUOTE IS A HINDUTVA CONSPIRACY. THE CHAP NO LONGER CLAIMS THAT THERE IS NO ACCURATE VERSION OUT THERE. Instead, he is issuing lengthy essays desperate to discredit Durant . Reason? The cover blown, his bluff is called, the bluffoon is despearte to shift focus away from his lunatic claims. Just as predicted. :-)

>>My core stand was and is consistent.

And Sandeep's core stand is consistent. Comrade is no liberal-minded human being. He is a communist bigot intent on running propaganda, not a reasonable debate. Proof: The Durant quote maddened the chap. Since he is a thrid-rate intellect who is a mental slave of the white-skinned, and since  opinions of the white-skinned counteing communist falsities infuriate him more than desi ones,  the bluffoon felt compelled to discredit the quote. His gameplan: He bluffed that the widely-cited Durant quote is a Hindutva conspiracy. He bluffed that he did EXTENSIVE SEARCH.

And when he has been disproved and his nose  was rubbed in dirt, he became desperate to shift focus away from his claims of Hindutva conspiracy of  fabricating a non-exisitng quote :-)

Genuinely liberal-minded people, do not, in the first place, make lunatic claims like, "the Durant quote is a Hindutva fabrication".

If they do so at all, they back it up with solid evidence.

Narrow-minded bigots on the other, react nastily to any opinion or fact  that questions the beliefs they were indoctrinated in. Communists, *by nature*, cannot be open-minded.

To conclude, as I predicted earlier:

Now watch the fun as our conspiracy-peddling bluffoon, egg on his face, strikes a brave face pretending that he wrested a victory. Liberals of the world, untie. You have to let Comrade loose. to have fun ;-)

sandeep H,

Content of The Story of Civilization is quite interesting -- though not always accurate or particularly perceptive! I have a feeling that the Hindutva guys will not like most of the contents (beyond what they love to quote). Such as the one about "Aryan Invasion"! Let me quote Durant from the link you gave (CHAP. XIV THE FOUNDATIONS OF INDIA 397):-

"The invasion and conquest of these flourishing tribes [Dravidians] by the Aryans was part of that ancient process whereby, periodically, the north has swept down violently upon the settled and pacified south; this has been one of the main streams of history, on which civilizations have risen and fallen like epochal undulations. The Aryans poured down upon the Dravidians, the Achaeans and Dorians upon the Cretans .., the Germans upon the Romans, the Lombards upon the Italians, the English upon the world. Forever the north produces rulers and warriors, the south produces artists and saints, and the meek inherit heaven.

Who were these marauding Aryans? They themselves used the term as meaning noblemen (Sanskrit arya, noble), but perhaps this patriotic derivation is one of those after-thoughts which cast scandalous gleams of humor into philology.* Very probably they came from that Caspian region which their Persian cousins called Airyana-vaejo "The Aryan home". About the same time that the Aryan Kassites overran Babylonia, the Vedic Aryans began to enter India.

Like the Germans invading Italy, these Aryans were rather immigrants than conquerors. But they brought with them strong physiques, a hearty appetite in both solids and liquids, a ready brutality, a skill and courage in war, which soon gave them the mastery of northern India. They fought with bows and arrows, led by armored warriors in chariots, who wielded battle-axes and hurled spears. They were too primitive to be hypocrites: they subjugated India without pretending to elevate it. They wanted land, and pasture for their cattle; their word for war said nothing about national honor, but simply meant "a desire for more cows." 90 Slowly they made their way eastward along the Indus and the Ganges, until all Hindustan was under their control."

Anand