Discussion:
Spreading Western Values By The Sword
(too old to reply)
Mujahid
2004-02-26 02:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Spreading Western Values By The Sword
Abid Mustafa

A close study of Islamic history contradicts the popular myth that Muslims
are bloodthirsty people anxious to wipe out the rest of mankind in the name
of Islam. The same however, cannot be said about the West. The West, armed
with its secular doctrine and materialistic world-view exploited, plundered
and colonised vast populations in order to control resources and maximise
wealth. In pursuit of these newfound riches the West succeeded in destroying
civilisation after civilisation. Those who survived were forcibly converted
to Christianity, stripped of their heritage, and sold into bondage to
western companies. Rather than show remorse towards such atrocities, the
West could only gloat at its achievements.

Read More... http://www.world-crisis.com/more/437_0_1_0_M/
drahcir
2004-02-26 02:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mujahid
A close study of Islamic history contradicts the popular myth that Muslims
are bloodthirsty people anxious to wipe out the rest of mankind in the name
of Islam.
CHAPTER 9
ISLAM IN ACTION I

It was around 627 A.D. that prophet Mohammed raided
the Jewish tribe of Qurayza. The Jews were defeated in the
fight and many prisoners were taken. They were either sold or
assassinated. In one place alone some 800 Jews were beheaded
in cold blood. One Jew was let go as he renounced his
ancestral religion and accepted Islam. In the year 629 A.D.
after the battle of Khaybar and the defeat of the Jews the
same play was enacted. All the Jews were put to the sword.
The raids undertaken by the prophet and the methods followed
became the guide-lines for the caliphs that followed him. The
blood that flowed in Persia when caliph Umar conquered that
land still horrifies the present-day Iranians. To indicate their
happiness at the demise of Umar, Iranians dress themselves up
in festive clothing on the death anniversary of this caliph,
even to this day.

a) THE PATTERN

The thoughts and deeds of prophet Mohammed and his caliphs
became the honorable examples to be followed by all Moslems
in later years. In his famous book 'Story of Civilisation' Will
Durant has written that "the Mohammedan conquest of India
was probably the bloodiest story in history". The magnitude of
crimes credited to Moslem monarchs by the medieval Moslem
historians is beyond measure. What strikes as significant is
the broad pattern of those crimes. The pattern is that of a
'jihad' (holy war) against the infidels in which the 'ghazis'
(religious warriors and conquerors) of Islam undertake
'ghazzuas' or raids in order to

1 invade the lands of the infidels;

2 massacre as many infidel men, women and children as
they like after winning a victory;

3 capture the survivors to be sold as slaves and some
retained in their harems as slave-girls;

4 plunder every place and person for war booty, a fifth
of which (including the slaves) went to the caliph or
some other religious head;

5 demolish the places of worship of the infidels and
build mosques in their places; and

6 defile and desecrate the deities and other symbols of
the infidels' religions by throwing them into public
squares or making into steps leading to the prayer
area of the believers.

What is still more significant is that this is exactly the
pattern

1 revealed by Allah in the Koran;

2 practiced, perfected and prescribed by the prophet in
his own life-time and meticulously followed by the
caliphs that followed;

3 elaborated in the Hadis (the other religious book of
Islam) with great attention to detail;

4 certified by the mullahs in all ages including our own;
and

5 followed by all Moslem kings and leaders who aspired
after name and fame in this life and houris hereafter.


b) ALEXANDRIA, VISALDEVA, NALANDA, DACCA

When the conquering Moslem invaders arrived in Alexandria
and stood in front of the famous library there, the Moslem
general did not know if he should destroy such a renowned
store-house of knowledge. He sent his horseman to caliph
Umar for his instructions. The caliph replied: "If these
writings of the Greeks agree with the book of Allah, they are
useless and need not be preserved: if they disagree, they are
pernicious and ought to be destroyed". There was thus only
one fate for the infidels' seat of learning. The library of the
Ptolemies was thus burnt down and the episode settled for all
time, in the minds of the Moslems, the method of dealing with
libraries, universities, schools and colleges, which had nothing
to do with warfare, but belonged to the infidels.

Thus the capital of Gujarat was attacked by Qutbuddin Aibak
in the year 1196 A.D. and the famous Sanskrit College of
Visaldeva was destroyed and a mosque known as 'adhai din ka
jhompada' was built on the same foundations. The famous
Buddhist University of halanda had the same fate, in the year
1200 A.D. when Muhammad Bakhtyar Khalji attacked the
township and massacred the harmless Buddhist monks and
violated the nuns. When, in recent years, the Pakistani
Moslem army attacked the then East Pakistan (now
Bangladesh), the first attack was launched on Dacca Univer-
sity. Even the women students were not spared. They were
raped and then murdered.

c) NO CODE OF HONOR IN ISLAM

India before the advent of Islamic imperialism was not exactly
a zone of peace. There were plenty of wars fought by Hindu
kings. But in all their wars certain time-honored conventions
were observed by the warring factions. The priests and monks
were never molested. The houses of worship were never
touched. The chastity of women was never violated. The non-
combatants were never killed or captured. A human habita-
tion was never attacked unless it was a fort. The civil
population was never plundered. War booty was an unknown
item in the calculations of a conqueror. The martial classes
who clashed, mostly in open spaces, had a code of honor.
Sacrifice of honor for victory or material gain was deemed as
worse than death.

Islamic imperialism knew no code of honor. The only rule of
war they observed without fail was to fall upon the helpless
civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the
battlefield. They sacked and burnt down villages and towns
after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The priests,
monks and nuns invited their special attention in a mass-
murder of non-combatants. The houses of worship were their
special targets in an orgy of pillage and destruction. Those
whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves.
WOMEN WERE THEIR PRIZE; THEY SEIZED THEM TO VIO-
LATE THEM AND CARRY THEM AWAY WITH THEM AS
BONDED SLAVES INTO THEIR HAREMS. As late as in 1971,
the Moslem army of Pakistan killed thousands of young
women, mostly Hindus or infidels in their language. The most
attractive among them were held to become sex-slaves in the
military cantonments. When a few of the girls attempted to
hang themselves with their saris or clothing, their garments
were taken away from them and held in captivity stark naked.
And these were the followers of the 'ghazis' in the service of
Allah and Islam.

The Hindus found it very hard to understand the psychology of
this new invader. For the first time in their history, the
Hindus were witnessing, as their counterparts, the Christians
did at the outset of Islamic invasion of Europe, a scene that
went beyond their imagination. One historian wrote: "The
conquering army burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered
people's wealth, took priests and children and women of all
classes captive, flogged with thongs of raw hide, carried a
moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into
obsequious Turks."

d) MAHMUD OF GHAZNI

Utbi, the historian at the time of Mahmud of Ghazni wrote
about one such raid by the Moslem invader: "The Sultan
returned in the rear of an immense booty, and slaves were so
plentiful that they became very cheap and men of respecta-
bility in their native land were degraded by becoming slaves of
common shopkeepers in Moslem lands. BUT THIS IS THE
GOODNESS OF ALLAH, WHO BESTOWS HONOR ON HIS
OWN RELIGION AND DEGRADES INFIDELITY."

e) MOHAMMED GHORI

Mohammed Ghori attacked the Hindus several times and after
each attack a general massacre followed. Rapes and pillage
came afterward. The Gahadvad treasuries at Asni and
Varanasi were plundered. Moslem historian Hasan Nizami
rejoices that "in Benares which is the center of the country of
Hind (India), they destroyed one thousand temples and raised
mosques on their foundations." According to Kamilut-
Tawarikh of Ibn Asr, "the slaughter of Hindus at Varanasi was
immense; none were spared except women and children, and
the carnage of men went on until the earth was weary."

f) FIRUZ TUGHLAK

Firuz Tughlak attacked Orissa in 1360 A.D. and destroyed the
temple of Jagannath. After the sack of the temple, he
attacked an island on the sea-coast where "nearly 100,000 men
of Jajnagar had taken refuge with their women, children and
kinsmen". The swordsmen of Islam turned 'the island into a
basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers'. A worse
fate overtook the Hindu women. Sirat-i-Firuz Shahi records"
"WOMEN WITH BABIES AND PREGNANT LADIES WERE
HALTERED, MANACLED, FETTERED AND CHAINED, AND
PRESSED AS SLAVES INTO SERVICE IN THE HOUSE OF
EVERY SOLDIER".'

g) TIMUR

Then came Timur the Terrible. Timur, in his Tuzk-i-Taimuri
starts by saying "O Prophet, make war upon the infidels and
unbelievers, and treat them severely. My great object in
invading Hindusthan had been to wage a religious war against
the infidel Hindus. . .the army of Islam might gain something
by plundering the wealth and valuables of the Hindus."

To start with he stormed the fort of Kator on the border of
Kashmir. He ordered the soldiers "to kill all the men, to make
prisonerS of women and children, and to plunder and lay waste
all their property." NEXT HE "DIRECTED TOWERS TO BE
gUILT ON THE MOUNTAIN OF THE SKULLS OF THOSE
OBSTINATE UNBELIEVERS."

Soon after he laid siege to Bhatnir defended by the Rajputs.
They surrendered after some fight and were pardoned. But
Islam did not bind Timur to keep his word given to the
"unbelievers", His Tuzk-i-Taimuri records: "In a short space
of time all the people in the fort were put to the sword, and in
the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut
Off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the
infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the
grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort
became the spoils of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses
and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and
the fort to the ground."

At Sarsuti, the next city to be sacked, "all these infidel
Hindus were slain, their wives and children were made
prisoners and their property and goods became the spoils of
the victors." Timur was now moving through the land of the
Jats, a martial people. He directed his soldiers to "plunder
and destroy and kill everyone whom they met". "And so the
soldiers plundered every village, killed the men, and carried a
number of Hindu prisoners, both male and female."

Loni, which he captured before he arrived at Delhi was
predominantly a Hindu town. But some Moslem inhabitants
were also taken prisoner. TIMUR ORDERED THAT "THE
MUSULMAN PRISONERS SHOULD BE SEPARATED AND
SAVED, BUT THE INFIDELS SHOULD ALL BE DESPATCHED
TO HELL WITH THE PROSELYTISING SWORD".

By now Timur had captured 100,000 Hindus. As he prepared
for battle against the Tughlak army after crossing the Jumna
river, his advisers told him that on the great day of battle
theSe lOo,ooo Hindu prisoners could not be left unattended and
that it would be opposed to the rules of war to set these
idolators and enemies of Islam at liberty. ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND UNARMED HINDU PRISONERS WERE SLAUGH-
TERED FORTHWITH [1].

Then came the sack of Delhi. Tuzk-i-Taimuri concludes:
"Many of the Hindus drew their swords and resisted. . . The
flames of strife were thus lighted and spread through the
whole city from Jahanpanah and Siri to Old Delhi, burning up
all it reached. The Hindus set fire to their houses with their
own hands, burned their women and children in them and
rushed to fight and were killed. . .On that day, Thursday, and
all night of Friday, nearly 15,000 Turks were engaged in
slaying, plundering and destroying. When morning broke on
Friday, all my army...went off to the city and thought of
nothing but killing, plunderin~s and making prisoners...The
following day, Saturday the 17th, all passed the same way, and
the spoil was so great that each man secured from fifty to a
hundred prisoners, men, women and children. There was no
man who took less than twenty. The other booty was immense
in rubies, diamonds, garnets, pearls and other gems and jewels.
Gold and silver ornaments of Hindu women were obtained in
such quantities as to exceed all account. EXCEPTING THE
QUARTER OF THE MULLAHS AND SOME AREAS WHERE
OTHER MOSLEMS LIVED, THE ENTIRE CITY OF DELHI WAS
SACKED."

h) MUZAFFAR SHAH

IN 1391 A.D. THE MOSLEMS OF GUJARAT COMPLAINED TO
NASIRUDDIN MUHAMMAD, THE TUGHLAK SULTAN OF
DELHI, THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNOR, FARHAT-UL-MULK,
WAS PRACTISING TOLERANCE TOWARD THE HINDIdS OF
GUJARAT. The sultan immediately appointed Muzaffar Khan
as the new governor sending Farhat-ul-Mulk away. Soon the
sultan of Delhi died and Muzaffar Khan declared himself an
independent king and took the name of Muzaffar Shah. In 1393
A.D. he led an expedition to destroy the famous temple of
Somnath which had been rebuilt by the Hindus after the pillage
by Mahmud of Ghazni. Muzaffar Shah killed many Hindus on
that occasion to "chastise' them for having had the 'impudence'
of rebuilding a temple that had been destroyed and desecrated
by a servant of Allah. He raised a mosque on top of the
foundation of the destroyed temple. The Hindus however
restarted restoring the temple. In 1401 A.D. the iconoclast
Sultan came back with a huge army and once again killed a
great number of Hindus and rebuilt another mosque at the
same place.

i) MAHMUD BEGARHA

Mahmud Begarha who became the sultan of Gujarat in 1458
A.D. was the worst fanatic of this dynasty. One of his vassals
was the chieftain of Junagadh who had never withheld the
regular tribute to the sultan. Yet in 1469 A.D. Mahmud
invaded Junagadh. IN REPLY TO THE CHIEFTAIN'S PRO-
TESTS, MAHMUD SAID THAT HE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN
MONEY AS MUCH AS IN THE SPREAD OF ISLAM. THE
CHIEFTAIN WHO WAS A HINDU WAS FORCIBLY CON-
VERTED TO ISLAM AND JUNAGADH WAS RENAMED
MUSTAFABAD. In 1472 A.D. Mahmud attacked Dwaraka,
destroyed the Krishna temple and plundered the city.
Jaysingh, the ruler of Champaner and his minister were
murdered by Mahmud for refusing to accept Islam after they
had been defeated and their country pillaged and plundered.
Champaner was renamed Mahmudabad.

j) MAHMUD KHALJI

Mahmud Khalji of Malwa (1436-69 A.D.) also destroyed Hindu
temples and revelled in building mosques at the same place.
He heaped many insults on the Hindus.

k) ILYAS SHAH

llyas Shah of Bengal (1339-79 A.D.) invaded Nepal and destroy-
ed the temple of Swayambhunath at Kathmandu. He also
~nvaded Orissa and demolished many temples and plundered at
many places. THE BAHMANI SULTANS OF GULBARGA AND
BIDAR CONSIDERED IT THEIR SACRED DUTY TO KILL A
HUNDRED THOUSAND MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN
EVERy YEAR. They demolished and desecrated Hindu tem-
ples all over South India.

l) BABUR

The scene shifted once more to Delhi after Babur came out
victorious against the Lodhis and the Rajputs. The founder of
the great Mughal empire has received much acclaim for his
fortitude in adversity, his daring against heavy odds, his
swimming prowess, his love of flowers and pomegranates, and
so on and so forth. But his face, presented by himself in his
Tuzk-i-Baburi, suffers an irreparable damage if denuded of the
rich hues of horrible cruelties in which he habitually indulged.

The lurid details he provides of his repeated massacres of the
'infidels' leave no doubt that he was very proud of his
performance. He was particularly fond of raising higher and
higher towers of Hindu heads cut off during and after every
battle he fought with them. He loved to sit in his royal tent to
watch this 'spectacle'. The prisoners were brought before him
and butchered by his tbrave' swordsmen. ON ONE OCCASION
THE GROUND FLOWED WITH SO MUCH BLOOD AND BE-
CAME SO FULL OF QUIVERING CARCASSES THAT HIS
TENT HAD TO BE REMOVED THRICE TO A HIGHER LEVEL.
He lost no opportunity of capturing prisoners of war and
amassing the booty. He only missed the merit of demolishing
temples and breaking images because his predecessors Firuz
Tughlak and others had hardly left any for him in the areas he
traversed. In the dynasty founded by him, it was incumbent
that every king should style himself a'ghazi', that is a warrior
for Islam who took part in 'ghazzua' or raids on infidels or
kaf irs.

m) SHER SHAH SURI

Sher Shah Suri's name is associated with the Grand Trunk Road
of North India, extending from Peshawar to Dacca, with
caravanserais and several other schemes of public welfare. It
is true that he was not a habitual persecutor of the Hindus.
But he did not betray Islam when the test came at Raisen in
1543 A.D. Shaikh Nurul Haq records in Zubadatul-Tawarikh as
follows: "In the year 950 Hijri, Puranmal, a Hindu chieftain,
held occupation of the fort of Raisen. . .He had 1000 women in
his entourage and amongst them several Moslem women. Sher
Khan's Moslem pride was offended and the servant of Allah
resolved to attack the fort. After he had been engaged in
investing the fort for some time, an accommodation was
prOposed It was finally agreed that Puranmal will be allowed
safe conduct along with his family and children as well as 4000
Rajputs.

SEVERAL MULLAHS GAVE HIM THE OPINION THAT ISLAM
DICTATES THAT THESE INFIDELS SHOULD ALL BE KILLED
NoTwlTHsTANDlNG THE AGREEMENT, FOR A MOSLEM IS
NOT BOUND BY ANY AGREEMENT MADE WITH AN INFI-
DEL. Consequently, the whole army was brought and placed in
position to attack the Rajputs when they were the most vulne-
rable. They were all killed to a man.

n) AKBAR THE GREAT

Humayun, the son of Babur and father of Akbar had hardly any
time free from troubles to devote in the service of Islam and
'kafir-kushi' [2] (killing of infidels). But his son Akbar made
quite a good start as a 'ghazi'. He struck the half-dead Hindu
king Himu with his sword after the second battle of Panipat.
The ritual was then followed by many more tbrave warriors" of
Islam led by Bairam Khan who stuck their swords in the dead
body. In 1568 A.D. Akbar ordered a general massacre at
Chitor, Rajputana after the fort had fallen. Abul Fazl records
in Akbar-nama as follows: "There were 8,000 fighting Rajputs
collected in the fortress, but there were more than 40,000
peasants who took part in watching and serving.

From early dawn till midday the bodies of those ill-starred
men were consumed by the majesty of the great warrior.
Nearly 30,000 men were killed. . . when Sultan Alauddin Khalji
took the fort after a siege of six months and seven days, the
peasantry were not put to death as they had not engaged in
fighting. But on this occasion orders were given for general
massacre. Akbar thus improved upon the record of Alauddin
Khalji. WATCHING AND SERVING WERE REINTERPRETED
AS ACTS OF WAR.

o) JAHANGIR

Jahangir was too indolent to keep his promise, given to Nawab
Murtaza Khan at the time of accession to the throne, that he
would uphold the laws of Islam or Shariat. He was just too
much devoted to the wine-cup and women of his harem and did
not care so much for Islam in his private life. But he
encouraged conversion to Islam by offering daily allowances to
those who renounced their ancestral faith and accepted the
Moslem creed.

In the eighth year of his reign he destroyed the temple of
Bhagwat at Ajmer. He persecuted the Jains of Gujarat. He
tortured to death the Sikh holy man and leader Guru Arjun
Dev. Guru Arjun Dev was murdered in a terrible way. THE
GURU WAS MADE TO SIT BY FORCE ON A HOT STEEL
PLATE WHICH HAD A BIG FIRE UNDERNEATH. HE WAS
THEN COVERED WITH HOT SAND POURED FROM OVER
HIS HEAD. AND TO INSULT HIM FURTHER, HIS BODY WAS
WRAPPED WITH THE SKIN OF A FRESHLY SLAUGHTERED
COW. The manner of assassination resembles what the Koran
advises for killing the infidels.

The fault of the Sikh Guru was that he had refused to give up
his own religion for Islam and to include some verses from the
Koran in the Sikh holy book, the Granth Sahib.

p) SHAH JAHAN

The pendulum started to swing toward the true spirit of Islam
at the very start of Shah Jahan's reign in 1623 A.D. Its outer
symbol was the reappearance of the beard on the face of the
emperor. Abdul Hamid Lahori records in his badshah-nama:
"It had been brought to the notice of the Emperor that during
the last reign, construction of many Hindu temples had been
started, but remained still unfinished in Benares, the holy city
of the Hindus, the infidels. The temples were now to be
completed. The emperor issued orders to destroy all temples
of Benares as well as elsewhere in his domain, before they
were finished. It was reported from the province of Allahabad
that 76 Hindu temples had been destroyed in Benares alone."
The year was 1633 A.D.

At the beginning of his reign, the people of Kashmir, both
Hindus and Moslems used to live amicably. They used to
intermarry, and the wife, whatever might have been her
fatherts faith, accepted the faith of the husband. In October,
1634 A.D., Shah Jahan forbade the custom and ordered that
every Hindu who had taken a Moslem wife must either
embrace Islam and be married anew to his wife, or he must
give her up to be wedded to a Moslem. The order was
rigorously enforced.

In 1635 A.D. Shah Jahan's soldiers captured some ladies of the
royal Bundela family after Jujhar Singh and his sons failed to
kill them in the time-honored Rajput tradition to avoid falling
into the hands of the enemy. In the words of Sir Jadu Nath
Sarkar, the eminent historian: "A terrible fate awaited the
captive ladies who survived; mothers and daughters of kings,
they were robbed of their religion, and forced to lead the
infamous life of the Mughal harem - to be the unloved play-
thing of their master's passions for a day or two and then
doomed to sigh out their days like bondwomen, without know-
ing the dignity of a wife or the joys of a mother. SWEETER
FAR FOR THEM WOULD HAVE BEEN DEATH FROM THE
HANDS OF THEIR DEAR ONES THAN SUBMISSION TO A
RACE THAT KNEW NO GENEROSITY TO THE FALLEN, NO
CHIVALRY TO THE WEAKER SEX."

Shah Jahan himself made a triumphal entry into Orchha, the
capital of the Bundelas, demolished the lofty and massive
temple of Bir Singh Dev and raised a mosque in its place. Two
sons and one grandson of Jujhar Singh who were of tender age,
were made Moslems. Another son of Jujhar Singh, Udaybhan
and a minister, Shyam Dawa, had fled to Golconda where they
were captured by Kutubul-Mulk and sent to Shah Jahan.
Udaybhan and Shyam Dawa were offered the alternative of
Islam or death. Both chose the latter and were sent to the hell
described in the Koran.

Shah Jahan was a notorious bigot. His early hatred of
Christians had been noticed by Sir Thomas Roe. After his
accession he grew averse to giving high posts to Rajputs who
were Hindus. The demolition of Hindu temples and desecra-
tion of images mark his reign only to a less extent than his son
Aurangzib'S He refused to release the Hindu Rajah of
Dhamdhera (Malwa) from prison for a ransom of Rs 50,000 and
insisted on his turning Moslem as the price of his liberation.

SHAH JAHAN ALSO COMMANDEERED THE FAMOUS SHIVA
TEMPLE OF AGRA KNOWN AS TEJO MAHALAYA BELONG-
ING TO THE MAHARAJA OF JAIPUR. HE COVERED THE
EDIFICE WITH OUTER STONE COATING-WALLS WITH
KORANIC INSCRIPTIONS AND TURNED THE TEMPLE OF
LORD AGRESHWAR INTO A SO CALLED MAUSOLEUM AND
NAMED IT THE TAJ MAHAL. Pandit P.N. Oak's research
work on this subject is irrefutable. Several beautiful palaces
belonging to the Hindus were similarly commandeered by the
Moslem rulers and turned into Imambaras as can be seen in
Lucknow, even today. Thus some of the Hindu edifices were
saved from complete destruction (unlike the Krishna Temple
of Mathura, the Vishwanath Temple in Benares or the great
temples of Dwaraka and Somnath and Puri), but were instead
covered up like the Imambaras and the Taj Mahal. Please see
Index II for more information on the subject. The picture of
Taj Mahal or Tejo-Mahalaya shown has been published on the
1983 calendar of the Amar Jyoti Ashram, Boulder, Colorado
with the legend mentioned on the picture.

Shah Jahan was imprisoned by his son Aurangzib in the fort of
Agra before his death. The old man at first held out and did
not give in to his son who cut off the supply of water from the
Jurnna river. The old man was dying of thirst and eventually
capitulated. At that time, he wrote to his fanatically Islamic
son:

Praised be the Hindus in all cases,
As they ever offer water to their dead.
And thou, rny son, art a marvelous Musalman,

As thou causest me in life to lament for (lack of)
water!

q) AURANGZIB

Aurangzib became the king after Shah Jahan. In the process
he murdered two of his brothers held in captivity and banished
the third to the Arakan Hills to die in the hands of hillmen
there. Aurangzib was an infidel-baiter of exceptional hatred.
HE USED TO DESTROY ALL NON-MOSLEM HOUSES OF
WORSHIP IN INDIA AND SEND MONEY TO THE SHERIF OF
MECCA, THE HOLY CITY OF ISLAM. Those were the days
when there was no oil wealth in the desert kingdom and the
faithful had to eke out a precarious living from the pilgrims'
contributions. Aurangzib's heart went out to help the Moslem
mullahs of that distant holy land. However, he soon stopped
his direct contribution after a few payments when he became
suspicious about the actual disbursements going elsewhere and
not to the needy. He made some attempts to help the needy
of Arabia directly himself through an agency and not through
the Sherif of Mecca any more.

Aurangzib had started his life of an infidel-baiter long before
he ascended the throne. In 1645 A.D. he destroyed the temple
of Chintaman in Gujarat and built a mosque on top of it, with
the same building material obtained from the demolished
temple. On hearing that the Hindus had rebuilt some of the
temples destroyed by him earlier, he sent his order as the king
to the Moslem governor of Gujarat: "In Ahmedabad and other
areas of Gujarat in the days before my accession, temples
were destroyed by my order. They have been repaired and
idol-worship resumed. Carry out the former order."

In 1666 A.D. he ordered the police chief of Mathura, a holy
Hindu city, to remove a stone railing which had been presented
by Dara Shikoh, his elder brother and son of Shah Jahan, to the
temples of Keshav Rail HE EXPLAINED: "IN THE MOSLEM
FAITH IT IS A SIN EVEN TO LOOK AT A TEMPLE AND THIS
DARA HAD RESTORED A RAILING IN A TEMPLE!"

A general policy toward Hindu temples was proclaimed in
April, 1669. Maasir-i-Alamgiri records: "It has reached the
ears of His Majesty, the protector of the faith, that in the
provinces of Thatta, Multan and Benares, especially in the
latter, foolish Brahmans were in the habit of expounding
frivolous books in their schools and that students, Moslems as
well as Hindus, went there, even from great distances, led by a
desire to become acquainted with the wicked sciences they
taught. The Director of the Faith, consequently, issued orders
to all governors of provinces to destroy with a willing hand the
schools and temples of the kafirs and they were strictly
enjoined to put an entire stop to the teachings and practices of
idolatrous forms of worship. IT WAS REPORTED THAT IN
gEDIENCE TO HIS ORDER, THE GOVERNMENT OFFICERS
HAD DESTROYED THE FAMOUS TEMPLE OF VISHWANATH
AT BENARES."

Maasir-i-Alamgiri continues: "In the month of Ramazan
(January, 1670 A.D.) this justice-loving monarch, the constant
enemy of tyrants, commanded the destruction of the Hindu
temple of Mathura known by the name of Debra Keshav Rai,
and soon the stronghold of falsehood was levelled to the
ground. On the same spot was laid, with great expense, the
foundation of a vast mosque ...GLORY BE TO ALLAH WHO
HAS GIVEN US FAITH OF ISLAM THAT IN THIS REIGN OF
THE DESTROYER OF FALSE GODS, AN UNDERTAKING SO
DIFFICULT OF ATTAINMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO A
SUCCESSFUL CULMINATION. THE RICHLY JEWELED
IDOLS, TAKEN FROM THE INFIDELS' TEMPLES WERE
TRANSFERRED TO AGRA AND THERE PLACED BENEATH
THE STEPS LEADING TO THE NAWAB BEGUM SAHIB'S
(JAHANARA'S) MOSQUE IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY BE
PRESSED UNDER FOOT BY THE TRUE BELIEVERS.
MATHURAlS NAME WAS CHANGED TO ISLAMABAD AND
THIS WAS THE NAME THAT WAS USED IN ALL OFFICIAL
DOCUMENTS."

In the same year Sitaramji temple at Soron was destroyed as
also the shrine of Devi Patan at Gonda; news also came from
Malwa that the local governor had sent 400 troopers to destroy
all temples around Ujjain. The order was: "Every temple built
during the last 10 or 12 years should be demolished without
delay. Also, do not allow the despicable Hindu infidels to
repair their old temples. Reports of the destruction of
temples should be sent to the court under the seal of the Kazis
(Moslem judges) and attested by pious Shaikhs."

In Mathura, not being able to take this kind of persecution, the
JatS rebelled. The Jat leader Gokla and his family were taken
prisoner. The Jat leader's limbs were hacked off one by one on
the platform of the police office of Agra, his family forcibly
converted to Islam, and his followers were kept in prison in
charge of the provost of the imperial camp.

In 1672 A.D. several thousand Satnamis were slaughtered near
Narnaul in Mewat and in 1675 A.D. Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur
was tortured and finally beheaded for his resistance to forcible
conversion of the Hindus in Kashmir. His disciples were
slaughtered in front of him to frighten the Guru. The pictures
on pages 42, 44 and 46 show the manners in which the disciples
were murdered. The beheading of Guru Tegh Bahadur is shown
on the front cover of the book.

The special tax called the 'jiziya' was reimposed on the Hindus
and other non-Moslems after a lapse of several years. The
Hindus of Delhi organized a peaceful protest and presented
their case to the emperor while he was on his way to the
mosque. AURANGZIB ORDERED HIS ELEPHANTS TO BE
DRIVEN THROUGH THE MASS OF PEOPLE TRAMPLING
MANY TO DEATH.

It was specially during the reign of Aurangzib that the moral
degeneration of Moslem gentry became unbearable to the
kafirs. The prime minister's grandson, Mirza Tafakhkhur used
to sally forth from his mansion in Delhi with his ruffians,
plunder the shops in the bazaar or market, kidnap Hindu
women passing through public streets in litters or going to the
river for bath and prayers, and dishonor them; and yet there
was no judge to punish him or his friends, no police to prevent
such crimes. Everytime such an occurrence was brought to
the attention of the emperor, he referred the matter to the
prime minister and nothing was done. At last after a Hindu
artillerymants wife had been forcibly abducted and his com-
rades threatened mutiny, Aurangzib merely ordered the licen-
tious youth to be prevented from coming out of the mansion.

In Aurangzibts time in particular, the settled principle of Islam
ended by making the Moslems a privileged class, nourished on
State bounties taxed from the kafirs. The Moslems became
indolent in peace time and unable to stand on their own legs in
the arena of life. Public office came to be regarded as the
birthright of the Moslems and so every inducement to display
Superior ability or exertion was taken away from them. The
enormous areas of land given away by Moslem kings as grants
to mosques and other Islamic institutions, nourished thousands
Of Moslem families in a life of slothful ease, while the natural
increase of every succeeding generation turned their com-
petence into deepening squalor. The vast sums spent by the
Islamic state in maintaining Moslem poor houses and scatter-
ing alms during Ramazan and other Moslem holy days, were a
direct premium on laziness. It was more lucrative to be a
'faqir' (beggar calling Allah in the street) at the capital than to
earn an honest living as a cultivator, subject to the caprices of
the seasons and the worst caprices of the revenue underlings
and officials on tour. Thus a lazy and pampered class was
created in the empire, who sapped its strength and was the
first to suffer when its prosperity was arrested. Wealth bred
indolence and love of ease; these soon led to vice; and vice
finally brought about ruin to the followers of Allah. The kafirs
of course had to bear the entire burden of these parasites all
along.

Although Aurangzib hated idolatry, he used to go round the
pretended foot-prints and hair of the prophet Mohammed, as if
these were representations of the Deity. From his death-bed
he wrote letters to his warring sons Azam and Kam Bakhsh
advising them not to fight and to cultivate brotherly love
which the emperor himself was unable to do in his life time.
Aurangzibts another name was Alamgir (conqueror of the
world) and many used to say about him: "Alamgir- zinda Fir",
meaning Alamgir is a living saint, referring to his highly reli-
gious and Islamic conduct, an attribute that failed to generate
brotherly love in him. Blood, hatred, fire and sword, cunning
and subterfuge were his instruments for spreading the message
of his religion and the edifice naturally did not last long.

The kafirs had a terrible time under the Moslem king Aurang-
zib. A learned Kazi called Mughis-ud-din had declared that in
accordance with the teachings of the Islamic juris-
prudence: "The Hindus are designated in the Moslem law as
payers of tribute' (kharaj-guzar); and when the revenue officer
demands silver from them, they should without question and
with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer
throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance
Open their mouths wide to receive it. By these acts of
degradation are shown the extreme obedience of the 'zimmi',
the glorification of the true faith of Islam, and the abasement
Of false faiths. Allah Himself orders them to be humiliated, as
He says, 'till they pay 'jiziya' with the hand and are humbled."

Aurangzib had a queer sense of humor. He used to tell his
temple-destroying soldiers that there was no need to hurry.
They could take their time as the temples could not go away
and escape by themselves. Aurangzib got his elder brother
Dara Shikoh murdered by his harem eunuchs. Murad, another
brother was invited to dinner, drugged with a somniferous
potion and finally arrested and murdered. Dara's beheaded
body was paraded in the streets of Delhi on the back of an
elephant. Dara's children were also murdered by opium
poisoning in the state prison at the orders of Aurangzib. His
own son, Muhammad Sultan, who once rebelled against the
father, was poisoned slowly with opium in the prison at
Gwalior.

Even for Allah, such actions were hard to take. Only two
centuries later a grim fate overtook the sons and grandson of
the last Moslem emperor of Delhi when in 1857 they were shot
in cold blood by an English soldier, while the royal heirs were
vainly protesting their innocence and crying for an inquiry into
their past conduct. The place they were executed is not too
far from Humayun's tomb.

Aurangzib, on ascending the throne of Delhi, declared himself
the 'Khalifa' or caliph of the entire Moslem world. He thus did
not give his recognition to the caliph of Turkey who had been
Considered by many as the temporal leader of all Moslems. It
Is an inscrutable twist of fate that several centuries later, a
Hindu named Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, born and brought
up among the Moslems of Gujarat, would declare his faith in
the caliph of Turkey as the temporal leader of all Moslems,
when most of the Islamic world had already renounced their
allegiance to this potentate.

r) ABDALI

This Afghan Moslem invader attacked India and destroyed the
Hindu holy city Mathura once again after all the ravages done
by his predecessors. His sacking of Mathura, the Bethlehem of
the Hindus, is worth recounting. After having killed thousands
of Hindus on his way, he finally arrived at the holy city. The
invader had issued his orders to sally and plunder (March 3,
1757 A.D.). His soldiers were assured that everyone would be
allowed to keep whatever plunder he took and would be paid
Rs 5 (a sizeable amount at the time) for every enemy head
brought in. It was midnight when the camp-followers went out
to attack. One horseman mounted a horse and took ten to
twenty others, each attached to the tail of the horse preceding
it, and drove them just like a string of camels. When it was
three hours after sunrise they were seen to come back. Every
horseman had loaded up all his horses with the plundered
property, and atop of it rode the girl-captives and the slaves.
The severed heads were tied up in rugs like bundles of grain
and placed on the heads of the captives...Then the heads
were stuck upon lances and taken to the gate of the chief
minister for payment. It was an extraordinary display! Daily
did this manner of slaughter and plundering proceed. And at
night the shrieks of the women captives who were being raped,
deafened the ears of the people...All those heads that had
been cut off were built into pillars, and the captive men upon
whose heads those bloody bundles had been brought in, were
made to grind corn, and then their heads too were cut off.
These things went on all the way to the city of Agra, nor was
any part of the country spared. . .Ahmed Shah Abdali also
destroyed the holiest temple of the Sikhs in Amritsar. To
desecrate the holy Golden temple, he slaughtered hundreds of
cows and filled the sacred tank of the temple with the cows'
blood.

s) TIPU SULTAN

Tipu was another Moslem ruler who claimed to be a good
believer and so quoting f rom the Koran used to carry out
abhorrent practices such as whipping in public, cutting away
limbs of kafirs and burying them alive, stoning to death and
beheading on the slightest pretext.

Tiputs well-known boast was: "I am the chosen servant of
prophet Mohammed, predestined in the eternal book of fate to
root out the infidels from India and cast them into the
bottomless pit of hell." He used to capture the children of the
Europeans and when he felt the urge, he ordered them out of
the dungeons into his private chamber. There, he defecated
and urinated upon them, lashed them, hung them over slow-
burning fires, and having drugged thern to insensibility, mur-
dered each by decapitation. Sometimes he would employ a
pair of Abyssinian slaves who would twist the children by the
heads and legs to death.

Tipu forcibly circumcised thousands of Hindus and compelled
them to eat cow-meat, a monstrous act of impiety. He once
seized two thousand Nair women and delivered them to his
troops as prostitutes. His rule became unbearable to the non-
kloslem population living in his kingdom.

t) SIRAJ-UD-DAULA

At the age of twenty years Siraj-ud-daula had already made
the life of his Hindu subjects quite miserable. It was at the
hands of the British that this 'lion of Islam' met with defeat
and made an attempt to escape in disguise. He was captured
and brought to Murshidabad, where the British, unlike the
Hindus, cut him to pieces and paraded his remains through the
streets on an elephant before throwing them to the dogs in the
street. Thus ended the uneventful Islamic rule of fifteen
months headed by this young king.

u) YAHYA AND ZULFIKHAR ALI BHUTTO

Only recently the Islamic government of Pakistan enacted
similar dramas in Bangladesh, erstwhile East Pakistan. It was
1971 A.D. and while negotiations were still in progress be-
tween the two wings of Pakistan, the Moslem government of
West Pakistan UNLEASHED A SURPRISE ATTACK ON THE
UNARMED POPULATION OF EAST PAKISTAN.

Throughout the long night three battalions of soldiers (one
infantry, one artillery and one armored) killed defenseless
Dacca Bengalis with bayonets, rifles, machine guns, mortars,
artillery pieces, rockets, flame throwers and tanks. The
targets were: Dacca University, the police barracks, Sheikh
Mujib's home, the radio station, offices of pro-Mujib news-
paper and of course HINDU HOMES. Several hundred young
men, the cream of the country were mowed down at the Dacca
University. AT THE HINDU STUDENTS' DORMITORY, THE
STUDENTS WHO SURVIVED THE ATTACK WERE FORCED
TO DIG GRAVES FOR THEIR SLAUGHTERED FELLOW STU-
DENTS, EXACTLY LIKE THE 800 JEWS OF QURAYZA, AT
THE TIME OF MOHAMMED, THE PROPHET OF ISLAM. Then
they too were shot and stuffed into the graves dug with their
own hands. THOUSANDS OF HINDUS DIED THAT NIGHT.
MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED MOSLEM TROOPS
ATTACKED THE GIRL STUDENTS OF ROCKEY HALL,
DACCA UNIVERSITY. STRIPPING THEM NAKED, THE
TROOPS RAPED, BAYONETED, AND MURDERED LOVELY
BENGALI GIRLS. Dozens of girls jumped to their death from
the roof of the building rather than suffer the fate of their
sisters.

Simultaneously with the attack in Dacca, other units of the
Islamic Pakistani army smashed into cities and towns across
the country. They followed the same scenario now perfected
over the years: kill, rape, loot and burn. THE SECOND
ATTACK LAUNCHED AFTER A CALCULATED WAIT BY
THE PAKISTANI ARMY IN ANOTHER COLD-BLOODED
ORGY OF KILLING, RAPE, PLUNDER AND ARSON, SMASH-
ED THE COUNTRY'S .VIAIN POPULATION CENTERS.
WORKING FROM CAREFULLY PREPARED LISTS, SPECIAL
COMMANDO UNITS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE HUNTED
DOWN AND EXTERMINATED ALL BENGALI LEADERS, IN-
TELLECTUALS, PROFESSORS, STUDENTS, DOCTORS, LAW-
YERS, JOURNALISTS AND HINDUS, THE PRIME TARGET
OF ALL. THE TALES OF BUTCHERY AND BRUTALITY
WERE ENDLESS.

As the killings continued on land, Pakistani jets strafed and
rocketed defenseless villages. Strong mechanized units moved
out to execute a different kind of raid or 'ghazzua' making
them 'ghazis' too. The message of the Koran was interpreted
in a devious way. One would say that Allah did not like this
conduct from His followers and so eventually victory was

snatched away from the hands of Islamic Pakistan. The kafirs
of India not only defeated the Pakistanis but captured 90,000
of these ruffians passing off as soldiers. And, the soft-hearted
kafirs did not even try these murderers and punish those
among them who were guilty of such heinous crimes against
humanity, but let them go scat free, without even making a
few go to jail for a day. This act of misplaced kindness stands
in great contrast with the treatment meted out to helpless,
unarmed Hindu prisoners, hundreds and thousands of them, who
were summarily butchered by the Moslem kings, in the name
of Islam. The few Hindu and Sikh prisoners that Pakistan had
captured were of course liquidated right away for Pakistan
failed to return them saying that they had no Hindu prisoners
in their hands, worth the mention.

That Allah did not listen to the prayers of the believers after
this dastardly incident is also proven by the fact that the main
actor in the drama, Zulfikhar All Bhutto, was himself hanged
later by his own countrymen. And the then president of
Pakistan, a general named Yahya, was dismissed and died a
death devoid of glory or satisfaction because the land of
Islamic Pakistan became very much reduced as a result of the
diabolical enterprise of imperialism, slaughter, loot, arson and
murder undertaken by Pakistan.

v) SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

Moslems in India and elsewhere have been led to believe by
mullahs and Moslem 'historians' that the conquest of India by
Islam started with the invasion of Sindh by Muhammad bin
Qasim in 712 A.D.; it was resumed by Mahmud of Ghazni in
1000 A.D. and completed by Mohammed Ghori when he defeat-
ed the Chauhans of Ajmer-Delhi and Gahadvadas of Kanauj in
the last decade of the 12 century.

Moslems of India have been persuaded to look back with pride
on those six censures, if not more, when India was ruled by
Islamic kings. In this make-belief, the British rulers are
treated as temporary intruders who cheated Islam of its Indian
empire for a hundred years, and the kafir Hindu, who succeed-
ed the British in 1947 A.D., as usurpers of what rightfully
belongs to Islam.

If we compare the Arab struggle on the frontiers of India with
their record elsewhere we will see some difference. Within
eight years of their prophet's death, they had conquered
Persia, Syria and Egypt. By 650 A.D. they had advanced up to
the Oxus river and the Hindu-Kush range. Between 640 and
709 A.D. they had reduced the whole of North Africa. They
had conquered Spain in 711 A.D. But it took them 70 long
years to secure the first foothold on the soil of India. No
historian worth his name should have the cheek to say that the
Hindus have always been an easy game for the invaders. THE
HINDUS' HUMANITARIANISM PLAYED A GREAT PART IN
GIVING UNNECESSARY ENCOURAGEMENT TO THE MOS-
LEMS AND THE INDO-PAKISTAN WARS, ALL THREE OF
THEM PROVED THAT THE KAFIR CAN HOLD HIS OWN
AGAINST ANY ISLAMIC INVADER.

SPAIN, GREECE AND ITALY HAVE ALL THROWN THEIR
MOSLEM INVADING POPULATIONS OUT AND THERE IS NO
REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE SAME WILL NOT HAPPEN
ON THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT IF THE SITUATION SO
DEMANDS. Times have changed but the lessons of history
should not be forgotten. The past is not only history; it is also
a prophecy.


Footnotes

1. Compare this with the liberation of 90,000 Pakistani
soldiers that committed incredible crimes in East Paki-
stan.

2. The word Hindu-kush stems also from the fact that
many Hindus were butchered by the Moslems on that
Himalayan range at the time.

CHAPTER 10
ISLAM IN ACTION II

Islam appeared on the world scene some 630 years after
the birth of Christianity. By the time Mohammed proclaimed
himself a prophet in 610 A.D., Christianity had already spread
over those countries in Europe, Asia and Africa which had
formed parts of the Roman Empire at the height of its
expansion. One would say that the desert of Arabia did not
count for much in the eyes of the Christian missionaries.
Some however had visited the southern parts of the peninsula
and made some converts. But the 'chosen ones' had been left
to live alone in the company of Arab 'heathen' and the
accursed Jew' who had quite a few colonies in the oases
spread over the central and northern parts of the desert.
Little did the Christian missionaries suspect that the
'heathens' of Arabia were to challenge very soon the dictates
of the Christian Church.

'Islam' is derived from the Arabic word 'salam' and has
been presented to mean 'peace' or 'surrender', depending upon
the time and place of presentation. IN A COUNTRY AND AT
A TIME WHERE AND WHEN MOSLEMS ARE NOT IN POWER,
IT IS PRESENTED AS 'PEACE'. BUT AS SOON AS THE
MOSLEMS BECOME DOMINANT IT MEANS 'SURRENDER',
AND THAT TOO AT THE POINT OF THE SWORD. The
surrender is supposed to be made to Allah the only God
according to Islam. But Allah is sure to spurn the surrender
unless it is preceded by a surrender to the prophet, the sole
Spokesman for Allah. In effect, it means a surrender to
whichever mullah happens to be hailed as authentic interpreter
of the Koran and the Hadis, in the eyes of the sultan who
wields the sword, the sole arbiter in matters moral and
Spiritual. In fact, even in Islamic jurisprudence, the Arabic
word 'faisalah' which means 'settlement' is derived from the
Word 'faisal' which means 'sword'. While Jesus was not the
founder of the Christian Church and had nothing to do with the
dogmas of Christianity, the 'umm' or 'millet', which means
'society', became the vehicle of Islam. The 'millet' was
founded and given a finished form, as well as a fanatic
ideology, by Mohammed himself. Again, while the personality,
preachings and performance of Jesus can be pitted against the
Church and its dogma, there is little in Islam which is not
derived directly from the personality, preachings and perfor-
mance of its prophet.

a) ALLAH AND HIS PROPHET

What exactly happened to Mohammed in the mountain cave
outside Mecca has remained a controversial question. We are
told by the theologians of Islam that his 'experience' is not
verifiable by any other human being, nor his 'revelation'
subject to human reason. One has to accept Mohammed's word
that he was the 'last' and the 'most perfect' prophet, and that
whatever he said or did in a state of 'wahi' (trance) or
otherwise was the pronouncement and precription from
'almighty' Allah.

Those who took Mohammed at his word and accepted his
prophethood were acclaimed by him as 'momins' while those
who rejected his mission were denounced as kafirs. The word
'momin' means 'believer' in Mohammed and Allah. The
'momins' did not have to be better men than the kafirs in
terms of consciousness or character. They had only to recite
the 'kalima' (incantation) - 'there is no god but Allah, and
Mohammed is His prophet' - and they become qualified to kill
as many kafirs as they could or pleased, looting and burning
their belongings and enslaving their women and children in the
process.

Allah himself had been a part of the Arab pantheon at Mecca
for many centuries past. He had shared his divinity with a
large number of other gods and goddesses worshipped by the
Arabs in Mecca, though he enjoyed a certain primacy. The
Bedouin, who roamed the desert, flocked to Mecca at appoint-
ed times for pilgrimage, and worshipped his gods and goddesses
with whatever offerings he could spare from his meager
possessions. Neither the Bedouins nor the settled citizens of
Arabia had ever suspected that their Allah was soon going to
become the sole @#%$ of the walk and the cause of a bloody
and prolonged strife in many parts of the world.

It is also debatable why Mohammed chose Allah alone, out of a
large-sized Arab pantheon. He could have easily bestowed this
singular honor on any other god or goddess in Mecca, or in the
temple of some other town in Arabia. The gods and goddesses
had obviously no choice in the matter. THE ONLY RATIONAL
EXPLANATION IS THAT THE SOUND OF THE NAME ALLAH
WAS NEAR TO THE SOUND OF ELOHIM [1], THE GOD OF
THE JEWS. Jesus had also cried out to Eli before he died on
the cross. There are too many Judaic elements in Islam to rule
out this explanation. But whatever the reason for
Mohammed's choice, there is no reason to doubt that Allah
would not have assumed the status he did without the help of
Mohammed. It is small wonder that Allah in his turn felt so
tender toward Mohammed, and proclaimed the latter to be the
last and the most perfect prophet in human history.

Things started happening soon after the covenant between
Allah and his only prophet was struck in the mountain cave
outside Mecca, through the good offices of an angel named
Gabriel. The 'Qurayza' who were the dominant tribe in Mecca
would not have minded a number of their clan acclaiming
Allah as the only God. They were used to such prophets
appearing in Mecca and other Arabian towns, every now and
then. They were a liberal people in matters of religion and did
not mind how a man fancied himself or his God. But they were
painfully surprised by the proclivities of this new prophet. He
had started frequenting the forum outside the kaaba to de-
nounce, in a rather strong language, all that they had cherish-
ed so far - their gods and goddesses, their cultural traditions,
their social system, and what not - day in and day out.

Moslem mullahs have made a martyr out of Mohammed during
his 12 years of prophethood at Mecca. They have explained
away or justified the vindictiveness of Mohammed toward his
own people of 'Qurayza' by citing the 'many injustices includ-
ing violence' which Mohammed had 'suffered' at Mecca. No
contemporary records of the 'Qurayza' have survived to tell
the other side of the story. But there is enough evidence in
the contemporary Islamic record to clinch the issue as to who
was the aggressor and who the aggressed against. Here was a
man sending all ancestors of the Arabs, including his own
mother and father, to an eternal hell, and promising the same
hell to the present and future generations of the Arabs, unless
they accepted him as the only prophet of the only Allah. The
'Qurayza' would have been a dead people indeed if they had not
reacted, and told Mohammed to leave their city for wherever
he could find a more attentive audience.

It is for this 'crime' of the 'Qurayza' that Moslem mullahs
have blackened the religion and culture of pre-Islamic Arabia
as 'jahiliya' or ignorance. THE MULLAHS FORGET THAT
THE ARABIC LANGUAGE WHICH IS THEIR PROUD POSSES-
SION IN THE KORAN AND THE HADIS WAS NOT INVENTED
BY THEIR PROPHET AT THE MOMENT, NOR 'REVEALED'
BY ALLAH OUT OF THE BLUE. The rich language had a long
ancestry, and reflected the genius of a culture which was deep
as well as endowed with diverse dimensions. The pre-Islamic
Arabs were a pagan people who allowed a god or goddess each
according to his or her need and who respected worship from
each according to his or her capacity. They had many other
qualities of head and heart which the post-Islamic Arab
society and culture came to lose progressively. A glimpse of
pre-Islamic Arabia is given in appendix IV.

Islam professes to have brought peace to the warring tribes of
Arabia. But its own chronicles tell of nothing except wars,
more fierce than ever before, which the Arabs fought, first
among themselves, and later on with their near and distant
neighbors on all sides, soon after they were forced to surren-
der to Islam.

b) THE 'MOMINS' AND THE KAFIRS

If we leave aside the myths and legends which Islam borrowed
from Judaism - lock, stock and barrel - the message of Islam
was very simple, almost simplistic.

To start with, it divided the Arabian society in two tight
compartments, the 'momins' and the kafirs. The 'momins' were
asked to muster together into a militant'millat'- armed to the
teeth, and ready to use force and/or fraud according as
occasion demanded. The 'millet' surprised the settlements and
the caravans of the kafirs in a series of armed raids or
ghazzuas'. The kafirs who were always caught unawares had
no choice but to surrender, many a time without a single
skirmish. The swordsmen of the 'millet' selected and slaugh-
tered, in cold blood, all kafirs who were capable of bearing
arms. The movable and immovable property of the kafirs were
appropriated by the 'millet'. The women and children of the
kafirs were captured and sold as slaves or freed for ransom,
after members of the 'millet' had their pick of the maidens

Once in a while, the 'millet' discovered that the kafirs were in
no mood to surrender in spite of the surprise, and that the
armed conflict might turn out to its disadvantage. Then the
'millet' made overtures of peace on the condition that the
kafirs got converted to Islam. The lives and families of the
converts were spared but not their properties which were
taken away as booty.

The mullahs take pride that Islam did away with tribal ties and
united all Arabs in one brotherhood. It must be admitted that
the 'millet's' method of doing away with tribal ties was very
effective indeed. Quite often one or several members of a
family or tribe happened to be 'momins', while their other
kinsmen were ranged against them as kafirs. The 'millet'
encouraged a brother to engage his brother in armed combat,
so that one of them was sure to get killed. In case of kafirs
who had to be slaughtered after the war, the 'millet' searched
its own ranks for the nearest kinsmen to perform the 'pious'
deed. A 'momin' was supposed to retain or recognise no
relationship except that of a common creed. All other
humanities were now rendered irrelevant.

The 'mominst were not of course risking their lives for nothing.
Four-fifths of the booty and prisoners captured in war was
theirs in accordance with a 'law' laid down by the prophet
himself. The prisoners included quite a number of fair and
young maidens who could set any tmomin's' mouth watering.
No wonder that the infant state of Islam at Medina was able to
assemble very soon quite a number of 'dedicated' swordsmen
without spending a penny from its own coffers. The principle
of free enterprise applied to plunder and pillage was function-
ing with full force.

In case a 'momin' got killed in the 'holy war', he was promised
a permanent place in heaven. The Koran said: "They shall
recline on jeweled couches face to face, and there shall wait
on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of
purest wine (that will neither pain their heads nor take away
their reason); with fruits of their own choice and flesh of fowls
that they relish. And theirs shall be dark-eyed houris, chaste
as hidden pearls: a guerdon for their deeds." According to one
tradition, quoted by Will Durant, each 'momin' was promised 72
of these houris, who would never age or stop being solicitous
According to other traditions, the number could be many times
more. It was surely an added attraction.

The balance one-fifth of the booty and prisoners of war were
assigned to the Islamic state which the prophet had set up at
Medina to start with, and which moved to other cities in due
course, under the caliph or 'amir-ul-mominin'. This one-fifth
had to be the pick of the bunch before members of a military
expedition could claim their share. No wonder that the
Islamic state at Medina was very soon rolling in riches. The
wealth which flowed to the Islamic state in later times grew
progressively in volume and variety, and the stage was set for
the flowering of that Islamic 'culture' in which the 'millet'
takes such mighty pride. The prophet and the earlier caliphs,
who controlled and commanded these riches, were inclined to
lead a life of 'poverty'. This 'piety' impressed the 'momins'
who had to be satisfied with much less, and served to create
many myths about Islamic 'ideal of equality'. The "equality'
never made any difference to the despotic power which the
prophet and later on, the caliphs had at their disposal.

c) SWEEP OF THE ISLAMIC SWORD

The prophet of Islam had proclaimed that Allah had assigned
the whole world to the 'millet'. Not a patch was to be left for
the kafirs to dwell. And no corner of the world was to be
bereft of mosques from which the 'muezzin' could call the
'faithful' to prayer. But it seems that Allahts knowledge of
geography was not so good. His prophet had not heard of many
lands beyond Syria, Iraq, Persia, Ethiopia and Egypt. He knew
nothing of El Cid's Spain, or Conrad de Montierrat's France or
the land of Richard the Lion-Hearted. He knew nothing about
India and the Hindus which want of knowledge was to lead to
an interesting theological controversy later on.

Notwithstanding this lack of geographical knowledge, the
prophet divided the world into two contending spheres: 'darul-
slam' (the zone of peace where the Moslems were the
dominant element) and 'darul-Harb' (the zone of war, where
the non-Moslems or kafirs held sway). The inhabitants of
'darul-lslam', that is, the Moslems were commanded to wage
unceasing war upon 'darul-Harb' till the latter was converted
to 'darul-lslam'. The frontiers of the Islamic empire were to
be pushed progressively in all directions. The theory of
Islamic imperialism was thus perfected by the prophet himself,
like the later-day theory of communist imperialism which
Lenin elaborated as international proletarian revolution'.

The whole of Arabia had been terrorised into surrendering to
the sword of Islam by the time the prophet passed away in 632
A.D. The militarised 'millet' which had 'elected' an 'amir-ul-
mominin' in the same year, now started seeking fresh fields for
the misson of Islam. Persia had exhausted herself in unceasing
war with the Roman Empire. The provinces of the Roman
Empire in Asia and North Africa were seething with rebellion
against persecution of 'heresies' by the Church at Rome which
had by now reduced every other ecclesiastical dispensation to
a subordinate status. Persia and the Roman provinces fell in
quick succession after the armies of Islam had first found out
the feebleness of their defenses, and then delivered decisive
blows.

Thus within a hundred years after the death of the prophet,
the 'amir-ul-mominint at Damascus became the master of a
mighty empire, spread over Spain, Sicily, North Africa, Egypt,
Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Persia, Khorasan and Sindh. It was a
military triumph unprecedented in the annals of human history
so far. The triumph could be easily explained in terms al
political and military causes and consequences. But the
mullahs chose to attribute it to the might of Allah which has
been 'fully and finally thrown on the side of Islam'. Hence-
forth, there was no justification for anyone to dwell in the
'darkness of 'kufr". The 'light' of Islam was now accessible to
all.

The newly conquered countries were inhabited not by thinly
spread out tribal settlements but by populous societies, urban
and rural. It was no more possible for the 'momins' to kill all
kafirs who rejected Islam or capture and carry away all their
women and children. Besides, the properties the kafirs pos-
sessed, and the lands on which they lived were so voluminous
and vast. The mullahs, therefore, developed a more elaborate
theory of an Islamic state, out of the embryo of principles
which the prophet had already propounded.

The 'millet' led by the 'amir-ul-mominin' was, of course, the
master class under the Islamic state. But this state had a
mission larger than providing power and privilege to the
'millet'. The state had to see to it that the kafirs who had
been conquered were brought into the fold of Islam as fast as
possible. The kafirs were, therefore, given a new status- that
of 'zimmis' to start with. The 'zimmis' were allowed to live
under the aegis of an Islamic state, provided they agreed to
pay 'jiziya' (poll-tax) and other discriminatory taxes, and
accepted a status of second class citizens placed under draco-
nian disabilities. It was expected that the burden of taxes and
the disgrace of disabilities would force the kafirs to get
converted into Islam before long.

The expectation was more than fulfilled in most countries
except Spain, Sicily and India. THE KAFIRS IN OTHER
COUNTRIES WERE NOT ONLY CONVERTED TO ISLAM BUT
WERE ALSO BRAINWASHED TO FULMINATE AGAINST
THEIR ANCIENT HERITAGE, AND FORGET THAT THEY
HAD BEEN CONQUERED BY A FOREIGN RACE AND
CREED.

The mullahs applaud the concept of a 'zimmi' and describe it
as a privileged position because, Unlike the 'momins', the
'zimmis' are exempted from military servicer. It is difficult to
know how the mullahs arrived at this self-congratulatory
conclusion. They certainly did not consult any kafir to find
out if he wanted to become a 'zimmi' and be 'exempted' from

military service. THE WHOLE THING WAS A DELIBERATE

EVICE ADOPTED IN ORDER TO DISARM AND EMASCU-
LATE A SUBJECT POPULATION. People who could not bear
arms were in no position to defend themselves against Islamic
barbarities which became more pronounced with the passing of
every day, in direct proportion to the establishment of 'salam'
or Peace' under the Islamic state.

The Islamic state allowed some time to the kafirs to 'mend'
their ways and receive the 'true revelation'. But it had no
patience for the religious and cultural institutions of the
kafirs. IT SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED AND DESE-
CRATED THE TEMPLES AND SHRINES OF THE KAFIRS,
KILLED THEIR PRIESTS, BURNT THEIR SCRIPTURES AS
WELL AS SECULAR LITERATURE, CLOSED THEIR
SCHOOLS AND MONASTERIES AND HEAPED INSULT AND
INJURY ON EVERY PRECEPT AND PRACTICE THAT THEY
HAD CHERISHED SO FAR. It completed the job of 'cleaning
up' the scene thoroughly. The conquered lands were at the
same time 'adorned' with mosques and 'mazars' [2] in which the
mullahs mugged up the Koran and the Hadis, the sufis ser-
monised on the sublimation they had 'attained'.

d) ISLAM: AN ALIBI FOR IMPERIALISM

For several centuries after its advent, Islam was an alibi for
Arab imperialism. And it was an imperialism of a type which
the world had not known so far. THE ARABS NOT ONLY
IMPOSED THEIR RUTHLESS RULE AND TOTALITARIAN
CREED ON THE COUNTRIES THEY CONQUERED; THEY
ALSO POPULATED THESE COUNTRIES WITH A PROLIFIC
PROGENy WHCH THEY PROCREATED ON NATIVE WOMEN.
Every Arab worth his race 'married' scores, sometimes hun-
dreds of these helpless women after their menfolk had all been
killed. Divorce of a wedded wife had been made very easy by
the 'law' of Islam. A man could go on marrying and divorcing
at the rate of several women during the span of a single day
and night. What was more convenient, there was no restric-
tion on the number of concubines a man could keep. The Arab
Conquerors used these male privileges in full measure. And in
a matter of a hundred years, Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Egypt and
North Africa which had been non-Arab countries for countless
ages became Arabic-speaking countries. Arabic did not spread
like English, French or other similar languages that spread
through commercial and diplomatic excellence of the lending
nation and filtered through the top strata of the receiving:
countries. Arabic was injected through all strata of the
conquered population which did not have much choice in the
matter. Thus we have a series of countries that are 'Arabic' in
race, culture and language extending from Iraq to Morocco.
CONVERSION WAS NOT CONFINED TO CREED ALONE, IT
COVERED ONE'S ANCESTRY AS WELL.

The Arab power declined in due course. The mission of Islam
was next taken over by the Turks whom the Arabs had
converted earlier. It was the Turks who succeeded where the
Arabs had failed - conquering Asia Minor, invading Central
Asia, India and Eastern Europe. ASIA MINOR WAS WRESTED
FROM CHRISTIANITY, CONVERTED EN MASSE, AND POPU-
LATED BY A PROLIFIC TURKISH PROGENY. IT IS KNOWN
AS TURKEY TODAY. Central Asia, which was already
Turkish, became Islamic as well. It was only in Eastern Europe
and India that the Turks failed in the final round. But in both
places, they crystallized colonies of native Moslems to carry
forward the politics of conversion under changed circum-
stances. How far that politics will progress in the future
depends upon whether the kafir societies in these lands under-
stand it or not, at present.

Footnotes

1. See appendix IV for another view

ISLAM IN ACTION III
A.GHOSH

a) KAFIR-KUSHI A LA SURAH VIII, VERSE 12

Around 1689 A.D. the Hindu king Shambhaji, son of Shivaji,
was captured by Aurangzib's men. The Hindu king was
murdered along with his minister Kavi Kalash. There are
many ways of killing a defeated foe. Freeing a defeated foe
after the battle, like the Hindu kings used to do or the Indian
government did when they freed without trial the criminal
elements of the Moslem Pakistani prisoners captured in the
then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), was of course unthink-
able in Islamic ethics and more so if the foe was a kafir, an
enemy of Allah and the prophet Mohammed. Kafirs were
killed in a more sophisticated way, the way prescribed by the
Koran. Chopping a kafir's head off at a single stroke of the
sword or crushing his head in a single blow was considered too
mild. The idea was to make the pain last, as long as possible.
Thus in Islam's hell, a kafir burns but his skin goes on growing
to be burnt continuously so that the pain becomes everlasting.
Death is the termination of all pains and so it must be delayed
to teach a lesson and to prove without fail the greatness of
Allah's religion.

SHAMBHAJl WAS FIRST BLINDED AND KAVI KALASH'S
TONGUE WAS PULLED OUT. ON MARCH ll, 1689, THEY
WERE PUT TO A CRUEL AND PAINFUL DEATH. THEIR
LIMBS WERE HACKED OFF ONE BY ONE AND THEIR
FLESH THROWN TO THE DOGS.

It was in the year 1669 A.D. that the Hindu king Gokla was
Captured by Aurangzib. THE HINDU KING'S LIMBS WERE
HACKED OFF ONE BY ONE ON THE PLATFORM OF THE
POLICE STATION OF AGRA, THE CITY OF TAJ MAHAL.
HIS WHOLE FAMILY WAS FORCIBLY CONVERTED TO
ISLAM.

One might think that such gruesome murders committed in
accordance with the injunctions of the Koran are a thing of
the past. But it is not so. The following incident proves it.

Bengal in pre-partition India was then being ruled by Suh-
rawardy, the Muslim League leader. Suhrawardy had laid a
diabolical plan to destroy the Hindu city of Calcutta. One Mr.
Haren Ghosh, a music teacher who used to give lessons in
music to the girls of Suhrawardy's family, came to know of the
plot and he informed the authorities. Calcutta was saved at
the nick of time and eventually Suhrawardy came to know that
his plans were divulged by his music teacher. Mr. Ghosh was
kidnapped, his limbs were hacked off one by one and his cut up
body was found in a box that was left in a Calcutta street.
And this happened in the 1940's. Islam has not changed and
those who think otherwise only fool themselves.

Even today the Sheikhs of Arabia make sick jokes when they
ask their non-Moslem friends if they had a choice which one
would they choose for their death: death by a single stroke
severing the head or death by chopping their limbs off one by
one.

b) ISLAM AND KAFIR WOMEN

The chapter on the Koran and Moslem women gives us some
idea on Islam's injunctions on Moslem women. They should
cover their bodies from head to foot. Khomeini's Iran forces
the women to go under the 'chador'. They must not go outside
to work where other men might see them. They may not be
rulers or judges in an Islamic state. Women lawyers are
frowned upon in today's Pakistan which is an Islamic state.

But such regulations are valid for Moslem women only. The
non-Moslem or kafir women are to be handled differently, as
the Islamic codes are not birding on them. The kafir women
are considered to be the property of Moslems; they are their
'slaves'' and the wife or daughter of a 'zimmi' can be molested
by a Moslem with impunity in a Moslem state ruled by the
'Sharia' or Islamic jurisprudence. The idea comes from the
treatment meted out to kafir women who were captured in the
battlefield. The first fifth of all booty went to the prophet or
the caliph or whoever happened to hold the position of the
amir-ul-mominin. It could be the Moslem king of the land or
even a petty chieftain. This so called leader 'examined' all
booty, inspected and sometimes 'felt' by touching it. The
women, all of them were paraded in front of the leader, naked
or scantily clad, so that the leader could make his choice.
These women were NOT brought in front of the 'amir-ul-
mominin' dressed in 'chadors'. It was thus that the prophet
himself used to inspect his captives and chose Rehana and
Juwairiya' both Jewish women whose male relatives were all
killed by the Moslems. Juwairiya eventually gave up her
religion and married the prophet and became one of the ten or
eleven wives of his harem. Rehana was a courageous lady and
she did not give up her Jewish faith and so was turned into a
concubine of the prophet. She thus took her place on the side
of Mary, another slave woman, and a Christian, who after
Khadija gave birth to a male child fathered by the prophet.

Although the number of legal wives for Moslems is limited to
four, there is no limit to the number of concubines a faithful
servant of Allah could have. The practice eventually gave rise
to immense seraglios or 'harems' in Islamic lands. IN INDIA,
THE CAPTIVE WOMEN OF THE KAFIRS WERE INSPECTED
BY THE MOSLEM KINGS IN WOMEN'S MARKETS CALLED
MINA BAZAARS (MARKETS OF PEARLS) WHERE NO MALES
OTHER THAN THE KING AND HIS PALS WERE ALLOWED
ENTRY. They used to choose their favorite girls for the night
and then let them circulate among their Moslem friends.

These unfortunate women had usually a very sad end. Anyone
who has visited the Mughal palaces and forts in India must
have seen the steep tunnels from the 'harem' opening on to the
waterway below. The women, once they were no longer
required, were dropped through these tunnels the head first.
Near the bottom of the tunnel, just above the waterline, is a
big boulder which is supposed to be struck by the head when
the body gets to the bottom. The kafir woman died then and
there and later the body floated out at high tide.

In 1947 A.D. at the time of partition of India, the Moslems on
the Pakistani side killed the Hindus and Sikhs of West Punjab.
They then forced the Hindu and Sikh women to come out in the
streets completely naked and took out a procession. No
chadors or veils for kafir women. When the terrible news
arrived in East Punjab, the Moslems of India had to undergo
the same treatment and this put a stop to such dastardly
behavior by the followers of Allah.

In Bangladesh, during the genocide of kafirs there perpetrated
by the soldiers of Islamic Pakistan, Hindu women were taken
captives and kept in the army barracks without clothes for the
enjoyment of the 'believers'. Kafir women are to be treated as
slaves of Moslems and the treatment is clearly indicated in the
Koran and the Hadis.

Kidnapping of Hindu women by Moslem gangs was once a
common feature in India. This led to many riots and many
lives were lost. In Bangladesh today, it is practically impossi-
ble for Hindu girls to go out alone in the streets to attend to
daily chores without being teased, insulted or kidnapped by the
Moslem ruffians. The recent Hindi movie entitled Umrao Jan
depicts the life of a singer named Umrao Jan. She sings very
well and is a kind of high class prostitute. The movie features
a number of songs and also shows how the inglorious life of
Umrao Jan started. She was kidnapped by a bunch of Moslem
ruffians who sold her to a Moslem woman brothel-keeper.
Umrao Jan was shown to be a Moslem girl in the movie
however. (But in real life most of the kidnappers were Moslem
ruffians and the kidnapped were kafir women.)

A number of cases have happened where Moslems have dressed
up as Hindus and then followed Hindu girls on their way to the
river for the holy bath. On the way, they pounced upon these
girls, kidnapped them, raped them and in some cases killed
them. In many instances such incidents were unreported for
fear of shame and loss of face.

c) THE WOMEN OF RAJASTHAN

Many battles were fought in Rajasthan in Northern India. The
Moslem hordes attacked the Rajput kingdoms many times and
the Rajputs fought back heriocally and defeated the Moslems
over and over again. There never was any attack on the
Moslem womenfolk or the non-combat/ants by the Rajputs.
On the other hand, if the Rajputs lost in the battle, the
Moslems let loose terror on the entire population. The
Rajputs' houses of worship were destroyed, their women raped
and carried away, their children taken away as bonded labor
and all non-combat/ants murdered.

The Rajputs soon came to know the way of the Moslems. If it
appeared that the battle could not be won, then they them-
selves killed their women and children, Masada style, and then
went to fight with the Moslems until death. In many cases,
the Rajput women took their own lives by taking poison and
then jumping into a deep fiery pit. This was called the Jauhar
Vrat or 'sacrifice of fire'. The men of course went out to fight
and died to a man.

Now, the question is why did the women jump into the fire to
be burnt alive when they were going to die of the poison
anyway? The answer is simple. If the Moslems got hold of the
dead bodies of the kafir women after victory in the battle,
they would then rape even the dead bodies of these women. It
was to prevent such 'desecration' of their own bodies after
death by poison that the Rajput women used to jump into the
pits of fire. Thus, when the Moslems finally came to the city,
they did not find a single woman's body, dead or alive. A great
disappointment!

Showing disrespect to a dead body is a typically Islamic trait.
Displaying the cut off head, or cut up body to the public to
generate terror in the minds of the public is an effective
method of subduing an otherwise rebellious population. In
Islamic states, one is forced to witness an execution often
done in public. Lashing of men and women is also often
displayed to the public and now-a-days in Pakistan they
arrange a microphone near the mouth of the victim of such
torture so that people at a distance could hear his cries.

Stoning to death of course has to be in public as otherwise all
the furniture would get damaged.

d) AFZAL KHAN'S CONCUBINES

Afzal Khan was a notorious womaniser and he had a 'haremful'
of Hindu or kafir women. No one exactly knew how many
women he had in his harem. It is estimated that he had some
300 Hindu women as slaves or concubines, not counting the
legal Moslem wives that he wedded and divorced from time to
time.

Afzal had to meet the great Hindu king Shivaji in a mortal
encounter. Afzal eventually died in the hands of Shiveji and
his forces were routed. It is said that Afzal Khan had a
premonition about his death in the hands of Shivaji who was a
great fighter. He decided to murder all his concubines before
he set out to meet the Hindu king. He himself beheaded a
great number of these unfortunate women.

When someone asked him, what if he returned safe and sound
from his meeting with the Hindu king, this Moslem chief
replied that he could procure for himself the same number of
kafir women for his 'harem' on his return, perhaps even a great
number and more beautiful ones in the bargain.

e) BRICKING UP OF WOMEN AND CHIDREN

Anarkali

The Koran says in Surah IV, Verse 15 that guilty women should
be confined to their house till death overtakes them. It is also
called the punishment of 'char-diwari' or the ~four-walls'. In
Islamic lands this is a well-known punishment.

The Mughal king Akbar once suspected a young dancer called
Anarkali (pomegranate flower) of romance with his own son,
Salim. He disapproved of this relationship as the old man
wanted the girl for himself. He had to punish her as he would
not even dare to punish his own son for this was his only Son
fathered after many tries and at the specific blessing of a holy
man called Salim Chisti. But someone had to be punished and
so it was the poor girl.

The girl was bricked in and left there to die a slow death
Even today one can visit the place where Anarkali was
murdered in this brutal manner. Her tomb is in Lahore
Pakistan.

The Daughters of the Hindu King Dahir

Dahir, the Hindu king of Sindh was defeated by the Moslems
The women of the royal family were all raped and carried
away by the ruffians after a merciless carnage. However, the
two young daughters were safely taken to West Asia for the
Moslem king who had stayed back in his capital. The girls
were presents from the general who had conquered Sindh.

The girls were supposed to be virgins which they were. But to
spite the cruel, old sex-fiend, the girls said that they were no
longer virgins and that they were made to have sex with the
general before being sent to the king. The enraged king got
his general murdered but later discovered that the girls had
lied. They were punished by being placed inside a thick wall
where they were left to die.

The Sons of Guru Gobind Singh

The Sikh Guru Gobind Singh who was eventually murdered by
the Moslems had his two sons captured by the Mughals. These
two boys were murdered the same way.

f) THE TERROR TACTICS OF ISLAM

In order to terrorise the kafirs they were murdered in other
ways too with a view to generating mortal fear in the minds of
the infidels. Akbar, after a victory on the battlefield, used to
get hold of the more prominent members of the kafir society
and impale them publicly. Any visitor visiting the dead city of
Sikandra once built by Akbar, will notice structures on either
side of the road leading to Sikandra, on top of which lances
were placed for impaling the kafirs. The great pain and the
shrieks of the unfortunate victims scared the hell out of the
Hindus who were forced to watch the gruesome scene, While
the Moslems howled for joy.

Another method was to flay alive the victims. In fact, this
ractice is very much in vogue even today in the Moslem
POuntry of Afghanistan. In Islamic Turkey too this practice
was widely followed. In Islamic Pakistan, the practice has
given rise to the common threat: "I will skin you alive". Truly
inscrutable are the ways of the faithful!

During the reign of Abdul Hamid II, called the 'great assassin',
the Turks were responsible for the torture, robbery, slaughter
and rape of thouands of Armenians. The marauding Bashi-
gazouks of this mad sultan were notorious for running down
and ravishing women and girls while on horse-back. All
Christian males that fell into their hands were forcibly cir-
cumcised and sodomized.

The great festivity in El-Obeid upon the defeat of Hicks
Pasha's infidel army is noteworthy. The mad Messiah, E1-
Mahdi, built a pyramid of the skulls of the Christian army. In
a well near by, they threw the sex organs of the infidels.
About ten thousand Christian soldiers were thus butchered.

During the Crusades too, the Christian soldiers who fell into
the hands of the followers of Allah, had their penis cut off for
every true believer had to destroy the generative power of the
infidel before he could gain admittance into Allah's paradise.
Castration of the infidel was not only an act of piety for the
Moslems but one of shame to the kafir. The infidel's head was
severed and placed between his thighs, the seat of dishonor.

During Mughal rule in India, captive Hindus were also tortured
by infibulation or artificial phimosis (mobri, muzzling), elonga-
tion of the prepuce or foreskin and constriction of the orifice,
a painful punishment. With the Hindu women captives, often
their vulva was sewed up. Other practices involved mutilation
of the uterus by means of iron prongs, burning the breasts and
excision of the clitoris. A VERY PAINFUL PUNISHMENT
WAS SPLITTING THE PENIS OF A HINDU. THIS WAS
CALLED SUB-INCISION.

g) MURDER OF SIKH GURUS AND THEIR DISCIPLES

Guru Arjun Dev, the Sikh Guru was murdered by the Mughal
king Jahangir by forcibly making him sit on a red hot iron
plate and then pouring hot sand over him.

The murder of Guru Tegh Bahadur was no less horrendous
reminding one of the sceres of hell described in the holy
Koran. Tegh ahadur was asked by the Moslem king to
renounce his religion, the faith of Guru Nanak or Sikhism. He
refused. Moslems tried to Irighten him. They brought him to
the prison in a cage like he was a wild animal. Three of his
disciples were murdered in front of him. One was cut in two
by sawing alive as shown in the picture on page 42. Another
was boiled alive in a big cauldron (See page 46). And the third
was wrapped up in a blanket and then set on fire (See page 44).
The last fits the Koranic injunction prescribed in Surah XXII,
Verses 19-22.

h) SODOMY AMONG THE BELIEVERS

The Koran tells us of boys graced with eternal youth who will
attend the faithful in paradise. The practice of sodomy is
frowned upon in the Koran if the act takes place between two
Moslems. There is nothing mentioned about a Moslem so-
domising an infidel. This seems to have the silent approval of
Islam. Many European travelers and Christian missionaries,
unfamiliar with sodomite propensities of many Moslems, suf-
fered sexual molestation in Persia in the hands of even
government officials.

During the Napoleonic war in Egypt, Marshal Jaubert wrote to
General Bruix that: "Les Arabes et les Mameloukes ant traite
quelque~uns de nos prisonniers comme Socrate traitait, dit-
on, Alcibiade. 11 fallait pe'rir ou passer". (The Arabs and the
Mamelukes have used some of our men captured by them like
they say Socrates used Alcibiades. It was a case of letting
them do it or die.)

Sheikh Nasr, the governor of Bushire, once said to an English
missionary: "I stopped a caravan of Jews bound for
Afghanistan, penetrating all forty of their females in one
night. They protested that such action was an outrage, but I
said the outrage was justified in that all of their offspring
would be Moslems".

i) INFILTRATION AND SUBTERFUGE

During the Crusades, the Christians had a rough time. Their
humanitarianism made them an easy prey to the Moslem spies
that had infiltrated into Christian ranks as Armenian Chris-
tians. No secret could thus be kept from the invading Saracen
armies. The situation became so serious that the Christians
had to take drastic action. The Christians had to employ the
same cruel methods of the Moslems to get rid of the false
Armenians.

One evening at dinner time, a bunch of Turkish prisoners were
killed by slitting their throats. They were then spitted and the
cooks set about roasting them. The camp was informed that
some spies had been caught and they were being roasted on the
skewer. The whole camp came running up to see if it was
really true for the Moslems did not believe that the Christians,
followers of the dictum of turning the other cheek, could
really kill the spies that way. But behold! Nothing could be
more true: the Turks were truly cooking over a hot fire. The
next morning, all the spies had disappeared in horror, even
without waiting for their wages.

j) ATTACK ON THE US EMBASSY IN PAKISTAN

The diabolical nature of the attack on the US embassy became
apparent after the fact. Some Moslems had attacked the holy
shrine at Mecca and this enraged the Moslems of Pakistan
against all non-Moslems. They just assumed that the attack
was organised by the Americans. The following extract from
Masurashram Patrika of India dated March 1982 will make one
shudder in horror:

"A typical Pakistani Islamic reaction reported in Ameri-
can papers was that while some Pakistanis themselves
mounted an attack on the Kaaba, their compatriots back
home, apparently angered by the assault, caught hold of
some helpless American women and urinated in their
mouths, obviously believing that they were in fact dis-
charging an Islamic obligation against the kafirs and an
oblation to Allah".


http://www.hinduunity.org/articles/islamexposed/islammain.html
x***@erols.com
2004-02-27 03:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mujahid
A close study of Islamic history contradicts the popular myth that Muslims
are bloodthirsty people anxious to wipe out the rest of mankind in the name
of Islam.
Burying them in facts a mile deep I see.
Do you think any moslems will read a word of it?
Rick Zuma
2004-02-27 13:52:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@erols.com
Post by Mujahid
A close study of Islamic history contradicts the popular myth that Muslims
are bloodthirsty people anxious to wipe out the rest of mankind in the name
of Islam.
Burying them in facts a mile deep I see.
Do you think any moslems will read a word of it?
Muslims won't read it. But someone new to this board will notice the
difference between those of us with the facts and Muslims with pure
dogma and evasions. It makes Muslims look stupid (what else is new).
OK, it's overkill. But why not?

Rodrigo Diaz
2004-02-26 05:43:08 UTC
Permalink
One good turn deserves another. Islam was and is, spread by the sword.
Post by Mujahid
Spreading Western Values By The Sword
Abid Mustafa
A close study of Islamic history contradicts the popular myth that Muslims
are bloodthirsty people anxious to wipe out the rest of mankind in the name
of Islam. The same however, cannot be said about the West. The West, armed
with its secular doctrine and materialistic world-view exploited, plundered
and colonised vast populations in order to control resources and maximise
wealth. In pursuit of these newfound riches the West succeeded in destroying
civilisation after civilisation. Those who survived were forcibly converted
to Christianity, stripped of their heritage, and sold into bondage to
western companies. Rather than show remorse towards such atrocities, the
West could only gloat at its achievements.
Read More... http://www.world-crisis.com/more/437_0_1_0_M/
Rick Zuma
2004-02-26 20:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mujahid
Spreading Western Values By The Sword
Abid Mustafa
A close study of Islamic history contradicts the popular myth that Muslims
are bloodthirsty people anxious to wipe out the rest of mankind in the name
of Islam.
Lie.

Read history: Serge Trifkovic's, "The Sword of the Prophet" reviews
the full bloody history of Islam with a no-holds bar approach. If you
want to face the ugly side of Islam (what other side is there?),
Trifkovic has it all. The Muslim invasion of India is horrific.
Historians have described it as the bloodiest atrocity prior to the
20th century. Remember, Hindu and Buddhism aren't "religions of the
book".

Sure, Muslims would like to keep Christians and Jews in virtual
slave-like conditions - dhimmis - that make Jim Crow look like "Mr.
Rogers". However, many of us are secular and would be killed under
Islamic rule.
Post by Mujahid
The same however, cannot be said about the West. The West, armed
with its secular doctrine and materialistic world-view exploited, plundered
and colonised vast populations in order to control resources and maximise
wealth.
What bull. The West created the liberty and prosperity that makes
civilization great - once it marginalized religion and defeated
collectivism.

Stop lying about Islam - we know the truth. It's too late to lie.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...