The clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.

by Wafa Sultan
adapted and edited from http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD110706 and taken from [the] February 21, 2006, MEMRITV . . . clip featuring an interview with Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan on Al-Jazeera TV. During the interview, Dr.Ibrahim Al-Khouli accused Sultan of being a "heretic" for attacking current aspects of Islamic society.

This English adaptation can be considered the equivalent of "Le choc entre la civilisation et l’arriération, entre le civilisé et le primitif, entre la barbarie et la rationalité. " by Wafa SULTAN, the preceding post at this blog, reprinted from Kabylia Info, where it was posted on Mon, 07/06/2009 - 13:16 by Fernas

The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: 'I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger.' When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to stop this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma; another time he calls them the 'People of the Book'; and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians 'those who incur Allah's wrath.' Who told you that they are 'People of the Book?' They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them 'those who incur Allah's wrath,' or 'those who have gone astray,' and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.


The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to
respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling.
Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish
scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work
and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have
not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.

The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy.

Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results.

The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that
humankind respect them.

Wafa Sultan

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD110706
TO VIEW THIS CLIP, VISIT: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1050.htm . [Registration and Log-in required]

Le choc entre la civilisation et l’arriération, entre le civilisé et le primitif, entre la barbarie et la rationalité.

From Kabylia Info

Le choc entre la civilisation et l’arriération, entre le civilisé et le primitif, entre la barbarie et la rationalité.
Wafa SULTAN

Posted Mon, 07/06/2009 - 13:16 by Fernas

"Le choc que nous voyons dans le monde n’est pas un choc des religions ou un choc des civilisations ; c’est un choc entre deux opposés, entre deux ères. C’est un choc entre une mentalité qui appartient aux temps médiévaux et une autre mentalité qui appartient au XXIem siècle. C’est un choc entre la civilisation et l’arriération, entre le civilisé et le primitif, entre la barbarie et la rationalité. C’est un choc entre les droits de l’Homme d’une part, et la violation de ces droits d’autre part. C’est un choc entre ceux qui traitent les femmes comme des bêtes, et ceux qui les traient comme des êtres humains. Ce que nous voyons aujourd’hui n’est pas un choc des civilisations. Les civilisations ne se heurtent pas, elles rivalisent.

Les musulmans sont ceux qui ont entamé le choc des civilisations. Le prophète de l’islam à dit : "J’ai reçu l’ordre de combattre les gens jusqu’à ce qu’ils croient en Allah et en son messager" Quand les musulmans divisèrent les peuples en musulmans et non-musulmans et appelèrent à combattre les autres jusqu’à ce qu’ils partagent leurs croyances, ils déclenchèrent ce choc et débuta cette guerre. Pour mettre fin à cette guerre, ils doivent réexaminer leurs Textes et leurs plans islamiques, qui sont remplis d’appels au takfir (accusation de mécréance) et à combattre les infidèles.

Quelle civilisation de cette terre lui permet d’appeler d’autres gens par des noms qu’ils n’ont pas choisis par eux-mêmes ? Tantôt il les appelle "le peuple des dhimmis", tantôt il les appelle "les gens du livre" et tantôt il les compare à des singes ou à des porcs, ou bien nomme les chrétiens "ceux qui encourent la colère d’Allah" Qui vous a raconté qu’ils sont les "gens du Livre" ? Ils ne sont pas les gens d’un livre, ils sont les gens de beaucoup de livres.

Tous les livres scientifiques salutaires que vous avez aujourd’hui sont les leurs, le fruit de leur pensée, libre et créatrice. Qui vous donne le droit de les appeler "ceux qui encourent la colère d’Allah" ou "ceux qui se sont égarés" et puis venir ici dire que votre religion vous commande de vous abstenir d’offenser les croyance des autres ?

Je ne suis pas une chrétienne, une musulmane ou une juive. Je suis un être humain laïc. Je ne crois pas au surnaturel mais je respecte le droit des autres à y croire. Frères vous pouvez croire aux pierres (réf. aux rituels mecquois) tant que vous ne me les jetez pas. Vous êtes libres d’adorer ce que vous voulez, mais les croyances des autres, ce ne sont pas vos affaires, qu’ils croient que le Messie est Dieu fils de Marie, ou que Satan est Dieu fils de Marie. Laissez les gens avoir leurs croyances. Les juifs sont sortis de la tragédie (l’Holocauste) et ont forcé le monde à les respecter avec leur connaissance pas avec la terreur, avec leur travail pas avec leurs lamentations et leurs cris. l’Humanité doit une majeure partie des découvertes scientifiques des XIX° et XX° siècles à des scientifiques juifs. Quinze millions de personnes dispersées de par le monde se sont unies et ont gagné leurs droits par le travail et la connaissance. Nous n’avons pas vu un seul juif se faire exploser dans un restaurant allemand ! Nous n’avons pas vu un seul juif détruire une église, nous n’avons pas vu un seul juif protester en tuant des gens. Les musulmans ont transformé trois statues de Bouddha en gravats ; nous n’avons pas vu un seul bouddhiste brûler une mosquée, tuer un musulman ou incendier une ambassade.

Seuls les musulmans défendent leurs croyances en brûlant des églises, en tuant des gens et en détruisant des ambassades. Cette façon de faire ne donnera aucun résultat.

Les musulmans doivent se demander ce qu’ils peuvent faire pour l’humanité avant d’exiger que l’humanité les respecte."

Wafa SULTAN
http://www.kabylia.info/islam/le-choc-entre-la-civilisation-et-l%E2%80%99arri%C3%A9ration-entre-le-civilis%C3%A9-et-le-primitif-entre-la-barba

Iranian Civilization and Islam - (Can Iran recover from Islam?)

Civilizations Destroyed By Islam:

Civilizations in Arabian Peninsula: 1. Nabatian Kingdom 2. Hejaz Civilization 3. Heira Kingdom (Protectorate of Persian Empire) 4. Yemenese Civilization (Protectorate of Persian Empire) 5. Lakhmid Kingdom 6. Mazun State Society (Protectorate of Persian Empire) 7. Humyarite Kingdom 8. Hadramaut Civilization

Civilizations in Africa: 1. Egyptian Empire 2. Carthaginian Empire (Tunis) 3. Siranaeek Kingdom (Libya) 4. Nubian Kingdom (Sudan)

Civilizations in Asia: 1. Phoenician Civilization (Lebanon) 2. Sham Civilization (Syria, Colony of Rome) 3. Anatolia (Turkey, Colony of Rome)

Civilizations Struggling Not To Die: 1. Persian Empire (Present Iran)

We have been struggling with Islam for 1400 years now. We are still alive! Lets keep our holy Persian Culture alive so we will not join the long list of old civilizations extinct by the Islam & presently called "Just another Arab Muslim State"!


the reason we are still alive is that we still have our:

Persian Language Persian Traditions Persian Celebrations (Norouz, Mehregan, Sadeh, Yalda Night, Chahar Shanbe Souri, Sizda Be Dar, etc.) Persian Values Persian Philosophy (Zoroastrianism, etc.) Persian Literature Persian Traditional Music Persian Poetry (Ferdousi, etc.) Persian History

Yazdgird III, Rostam Farokhzad, Apranik, Babak-e Khoramdin, Maziar, Banoo, Negan, Abu Moslem, Yaqoob Leise Saffari, Ferdousi Toosi, Dr. Ahmad Kasravi, Dr. Kourosh Aryamanesh, Dr. Cyrus Elahi, General Ayat Mohaqeqi & thousands of others did not die in vein. Prove it that they did not die in vein.

They died so Iran could live, so Iran would not become another Arab Muslim Nation, another Iranistan (Pahlavi II), another Cesspool.

10. Lets take a good look at the fundamentals of Islam, what has Islam brought to us Persians? A Religion of Terror which openly preaches martyrdom & destruction of all Non Muslim's (exact verses of Quran listed on other articles of IPC) lives & property, a prophet who was a thief, bandit, assassin, murderer, rapist, child molester, & most of all a charlatan! The most fanatical, ignorant, superstitious religion which ever existed in the whole world! What is the true legacy of Islam?

Aba: Islamic Cape Amameh: Turban Ghaba: another Islamic cover Hejab: women's covering Chaghchoor: women's head cover Charghad: Islamic Scarf Lachak: Traditional Islamic Scarf Roobandeh: Women's face cover Maghana'eh: Women's specific head cover Chador: Veil Giveh: Islamic shoes Nalein: Islamic Flip Flop Aftabeh: Islamic toilet Pitcher Tonban: Islamic Pajama Quran: A 1500 years old pile of garbage torn paper, creation of a sick evil charlatan's mind called Muhammad the Bandit. Muhammad: the prophet of terror himself, a delusional, epileptic, schizophrenic, pedophile, child molester, murderer, assassin, rapist, assaulter of women, female slave holder, criminal charlatan! and of course, 1400 years full of history of blood, murder & terror, Islamic Style, which we are still involved with it specially during the last 22 & 1/2 years as we know it as the Islamic Republic of Iran! And we are still denying that the true Islam is not what IRI practices or Taliban practices, but the true Islam is beautiful as Roses & holier than the holy! Give yourselves a break & open your eyes & mind & smell the true stench of Islam all around you & not just inside the mosque!

11. Do you possibly believe that it is only us, the historians that know of the true nature of Islam? do not kid yourselves! Do you really believe that the President of United States, the Vice, & as a matter of fact the whole government of United States & rest of the Western & civilized world does not know of the true nature of Islam?! Of course they do! All logical knowledgeable politicians do know about the true nature of Islam. Then you might ask that why are they saying & pretending that the true Islam is innocent & all these terrorist movements are sacrilege to Allah & Islam?! I tell you why!

US & The West cannot possibly declare war on Islam & all Muslim. It will be a loosing battle, the same battle that the communism lost, the same battle that USSR lost! Religion is so deep in the blood of the masses & Islam is proposing itself as a religion; therefore, it will be disastrous to fight against people's religion. Remember that religion is the opiate of the masses!

Another reason that the West specifically US, will not declare a war on Islam, is that the best way to fight this so called religion & a dangerous political ideology, is to attack the very roots of it & not the pretty branches of it! By roots, I mean the Fundamentalist Islam which is the original Islam & by the pretty branches, I mean the Neo Islam which is trying to sell the civilized face of Islam to the world. If the West manages to destroy the world wide terrorism of the Islamic kind, it will manage to destroy the fundamentalist Islam & that is where Islam gets it's power from. Once the roots of an ideology is destroyed, the branches shall fall! Neo Islam of the modern Muslims like Shariati, Soroush, Bazargan & Yazdi is nothing but a beautiful facade without a content. Once you take the fundamentals of this ideology out of it, then you have to revise it, & revisionism is worst than the "Death of an Ideology"! the destruction of Soviet Union started when they started to revise Communism. First they revised a bit here & a bit there, until there was nothing left of Leninism & Stalinism. And next thing you know, Communism, Russian style, died out! The power of Islam comes from it's fundamentals, it's fanatical beliefs to control the cattle-like masses of illiterate people & to keep the masses ignorant. Once you take that out of Islam, there will be nothing left but the liquidy Soda Pop Islam of Shariati which is a revision of Islam & an insult to the true Islam. By then, most of the battle will be already fought for!


So have in mind that to declare war on the whole Islam, is nothing but a bad tactic to achieve the ultimate strategy of winning the war against Islam. So why not separate the two Islam to the:

Good Islam, Revised Islam, Neo Islam, True Islam, Holy Islam & Bad Islam, Fundamentalist Islam, Fanatical Islam, Fake Islam, Terrorist Islam

And by the end, when the world's battle against Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorism is done & it will be won, then there will be nothing left of the Islam, but only a facade wallpaper made of revised meaningless confused politically correct Islam of the Modern Neo Islamists which does not even look, sound, or tastes like Islam! And of course this is the best way to get rid of the power of this ideology, divide it in two fractions of fundamentalist & moderate or reformist & then just sit & watch them eat each other alive & chew each other out! Politics at it's best with a spice of logic! So West, specifically US, is doing the best tactic that they can play for the ultimate strategy of weakening Islam & making it loose it's credibility. It is all well calculated my friends.

12. Why is Islam & Islamic nations way behind the world? As I, mentioned in the past, we can notice many reasons:

a. Lack of individual freedom in Islam. b. Lack of independence of free thought in Islam. c. Renaissance happened in Europe, but it never happened in Islamic Nations! There was a Martin Luther in the West, but there was never one in Islamic world! d. Islam did not give anything to history of human civilization, but it only took & took from the cultures which it destroyed, until there was nothing left to take!

Lets expand on this, When Islam invaded the civilized world, it took over one of the two major super powers (Persia) & it took over all Asian colonies of the other one (Rome). Now, if at the time, Islam had a great navy & capability to invade Europe through Constantinaple, & during it's golden days, then Italy would have been also a Shiite Hole like Iran! Thanks & many fortunes that they could not invade main land Europe back then, or the whole Europe would also end up as backwarded as the Muslim states are! Europe would have ended up being as the middle east or North Africa now!


When Islam took over the so many of the world's civilizations, it had nothing to give, yet it had everything to take & gain. If we study the whole history of Islamic Empire in it's glory days, we will notice that the whole Empire ran by the ingenuity of the occupied country's specialists. All the people who ran the Islamic Empire from scientists, politicians, poets, artists, philosophers, writers, etc. were mostly Persian & leastly from other destroyed occupied civilizations under Islam like Egypt, Cartage or Phoenicia! The Arab Savage Barbarians of the peninsula truly had nothing to offer! Due to the reactionary & oppressive nature of Islam, the Islamic Regime did not let any new creative ingenuity to grow in the Empire, yet purposely, it helped killing every ounce of ingenuity & intellectualism which bloomed in the region! Finally all these bloomed flowers from the occupied nations died out & there were nobody else to replace them! suddenly there were left only, Arabs & their oppressed occupied mongrelized nations under occupation with no present or future sign of ingenuity or creation, & thats when Islamic world died out & fell behind the progressive world.

Many, mistakenly name the major Persian minds as Arabic or Islamic! Minds like:

Omar Khayam father of Algebra, Modern Astronomy, & a famous poet Zakaria Razi father of Chemistry Ebne Sina father of Medicine Kharazmi, Birooni, & so many more were all Persian.

Please do not give the credit to Arabs or Muslims! Look at the Moorish example, for about 800 years Moors owned Spain & Iberian Peninsula. The first 400 years, were the glory days of Islam due to the fact that Persians & other defeated civilization's bright minds were carrying the burden of running the Islamic Empire. Even, Booran (Pretty) The Persian Prime Minister of Islamic Empire during Khalifat of Mamoon the Abassids dynasty, during the occupation of Iran by Arab oppressors, daughter of Hassan Sahl was Persian. Yes even the prime minister of Islamic Empire was a Persian Woman! How odd can it get?! the oppressed women of Iran by the evil of Islam, have sent their candidate to the main court house of the Khalifat to rule! and that is what Persian women are made of! during the first 400 years, all the different local khalifats were sending the share of the central Khalifat of Baghdad to the capital, they were all together pillaging & stealing the world, blind! They were united & strong, but during the second 400 years, every little local Khalifat started singing their own songs, & did not send Baghdad's share to them! they all got separated without the support of Baghdad, they all got weak, even the Baghdad Khalifat! And eventually the last strong hold in Europe, the Khalifat of Granada in Spain surrendered & people like El Sid & Queen Isabelle kicked out the last of Muslims out of Iberia. Moorish Empire of Berbers & Arabs destroyed itself in a way & this finished the 800 years of Muslim supremacy in Iberia including Portugal, Spain, & once even as far as the middle of France! Now Muslim Arab Barbarians just occupied Iran for 171 years & finally got kicked out by The Great Yaghoob-e Leis-e Saffari of Saffarids Dynasty, the greatest freedom fighter of them all & the freedom fighting masses of Iran, yet the roots of oppression & the rotting mentality & corps of Islam remained in Iran & in Iranian's brains until it destroyed Iran once more @ 1979 by Khomeini & his Islamic Reaction!

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:_ahsQvveY2IJ:www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_719.shtml+site:iranian.ws+iranian.ws&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.persian-journal.com/


POLL:

As an Iranian, If (or when) time comes to choose between 'Islam or Iran', which one will you support?

Islam 8.2%

Iran 91.8%

Total votes: 13213

want to add your comment?
http://www.iranian.ws/poll/poll-13.php?action=results&poll_ident=13

ISLAM IN THE PUNJAB (of India)

ISLAM IN THE PUNJAB

(of India)








THE MOSLEM MUGHALS (TURKIC/MONGOLS)

IN THE PUNJAB (India)


MUGHALS is also written as MOGULS


Baba Banda Singh Bahadur (pronounce like this: Banda- "Bun-tha", Bahadur- "Bah-Ha-'th'ur" {'th' pronounced as 'th' in 'the'}

THE SHORT OF IT

In 1713, Banda Bahadur wanted to establish a Sikh State in the Punjab. For this he fought relentlessly with the Mughals. His state lasted just under a year before its collapse. However, after a number of years he was caught in a seize and executed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_region



LYING IS PART OF MOSLEM TRADITION

Towards the end of November 1715, the remaining defenders were running out of ammunition and food. They were trying to exist on boiled leaves and the bark of trees, and were gradually reduced to mere skeletons. Then on December 17, 1715, Abdus Samad Khan, one of the Mughal commanders, shouted across the separating moat, that he would not allow any killing by his men, if Banda opened the gate to the fortress. When Banda ordered the gate be opened, the Mughals rushed in to spear or stab as many as three hundred of the half-dead and helpless defenders. About two hundred were captured alive and handcuffed in twos. Banda had chains round his ankles and his wrists, and was then locked in an iron cage. The Mughals were still afraid that he might escape and so they placed a guard on each side of the cage with swords drawn and the cage was placed aloft an elephant, which led the procession, which paraded through Lahore, before proceeding towards Delhi. Zakarya Khan, the son of the Lahore Governor, then ordered his men to lop off more Sikh heads on the way. The prisoners were first taken to Lahore, and thence to Delhi.


Torture and execution

The cavalcade to the imperial capital was a grisly sight. Besides 740 prisoners in heavy chains, it comprised seven hundred cartloads of Sikh heads with another 200 stuck upon pikes. On February 26, 1716, the procession neared Delhi, and Farukh Siyar ordered his Minister, Mohammed Amin Khan to go out to receive them and to prepare them for a suitable display in the city. On February 29, the citizens of Delhi lined the streets, to get a good sight of the procession.

First came two-thousand soldiers, each holding a Sikh head impaled on his upright spear. Next followed Banda's elephant. A gold-laced red turban was placed on his head, and to add further mockery to his plight, a bright printed scarlet shirt was slipped on his body. Then came 740 prisoners (500 had been collected on the way). These men were chained in pairs and thrown across the backs of camels. Their faces were blackened, and pointed sheepskin or paper caps were clapped on their heads. Behind this line came the Mughal Commanders, Abdus Samad Khan, his son Qamar-ud-Din Khan, and his son-in-law Zakaria Khan. Their men lined both sides of the streets.

For seven days, executions were carried out, until all the ordinary captives had been disposed off. Their bodies were loaded on wagons and taken out of town to be thrown to the vultures. The heads were hung up on trees or on poles near the market-place to be a lesson to all rebels. The jailors next turned their attention to the 20 major leaders, including Baj Singh, Fateh Singh, Ali Singh and Gulab Singh. These men were tortured to the extreme and were asked to divulge the place where they had buried all the treasures that had been looted from Sirhind, Batala and other towns during their better days.

Failing to get any clues after three months, they prepared to put an end to their lives on Sunday, June 9, 1716. Banda's cage was again hoisted on top of an elephant, and he was dressed in the mock attire of an emperor, with a colourful red pointed turban on his head. His four-year old son, Ajai Singh was placed in his lap. The twenty chiefs marched behind the elephant and this procession then passed through the streets of Delhi, and headed for the mausoleum of Bahadur Shah, near the Qutub Minar. On reaching the graveyard, the captives were again offered a choice of two alternatives: conversion to Islam or death. All chose death. They were tortured again before being executed. Their heads were then impaled on spears and arranged in a circle around Banda who was now squatting on the ground. There were hundreds of spectators standing around watching this scene.

Banda was then given a short sword and ordered to kill his own son, Ajai Singh. As he sat unperturbed, the executioner moved forward and hacked the little child into pieces. Banda sat through all this without any display of emotion.

Mohammed Amin Khan, who was standing nearby remarked: "It is surprising that one, who shows so much acuteness in his features and so much of nobility in his conduct, should have been guilty of such horrors."

Banda replied, "Whenever men become so corrupt and wicked as to relinquish the path of equity and abandon themselves to all kinds of excesses, then Providence never fails to raise up a scourge like me to chastise a race so depraved; but when the measure of punishment is full then he raises up men like you to bring him to punishment."

On June 9: The executioner then stepped forward and thrust the point of his dagger into Banda's right eye, pulling out the eyeball. He then pulled out the other eyeball. Banda sat through all this as still as a rock. His face gave no twitch of pain.

The cruel devil then took his sword and slashed off Banda's left foot, then both his arms. But Banda's features were still calm as if he was at peace with his Creator. Finally they tore off his flesh with red-hot pincers, and there being nothing else left in their book of tortures, they cut his body up into a hundred pieces, and were satisfied. (These details of the torture are given in full, by the following writers: Mohammed Harisi, Khafi Khan, Thornton, Elphinstone, Daneshwar and others).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banda_Bahadur#Torture_and_execution

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php?title=Banda_Singh_Bahadur


THE MUGHALS

Mughal is the Persian word for Mongol, and was generally used to refer to Central Asian nomads who claimed descent from the Mongol warriors of Genghis Khan. The Mughal rulers were adherents of Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire

The Mughal Empire (Persian: سلطنت مغولی هند‎ , Urdu: مغلیہ سلطنت), self-designation Gurkānī, گوركانى (which was also the self-designation of the Timurids in Central Asia and Khorasan) was an empire that at its greatest territorial extent ruled most of the Indian subcontinent, then known as Hindustan, and parts of what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It was established in 1526 by the Timurid prince Babur, enjoyed expansion and consolidation until about 1707 and survived, even if in drastically attenuated form, until 1857. The empire was founded by the Timurid leader Babur in 1526, when he defeated Ibrahim Lodi, the last of the Delhi Sultans, at the First Battle of Panipat. Mughal is the Persian word for Mongol, and was generally used to refer to Central Asian nomads who claimed descent from the Mongol warriors of Genghis Khan. The Mughal rulers were adherents of Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire


WHO WAS THE MOGHUL EMPEROR WHEN BANDA BAHADUR WAS TORTURED AND EXECUTED? (see "Torture and Execution" above)

[The Mughal emperor] Jahandar Shah [not him, he wasn't the Moghul emperor then] was defeated at Samugarh near Agra on 10 January 1713. Following this, the Saiyad brothers, who were the king-makers of that era, placed Farukhsiyar on the throne as nominal emperor. He took the throne On June 11, 1713, at the age of 30. His reign marked the ascendancy of the Saiyid brothers who monopolized state power and reduced the Emperor to an effective figurehead. Saiyid Huseyn Ali became Wazir or chief minister while his brother, Abdullah, became commander-in-chief of the army.

Farrukhsiyar [he was the one when Banda Bahadur was executed] was irked by their supremacy, but could did little to change the situation. Various plots to overthrow the influence of the Saiyad brothers failed. The ensuing internecine strife affected the administration of the empire. Taking advantage of the situation, the Maratha and Sikh factions created anarchy in the provinces. Farrukhsiyar enjoyed some success in his campaigns against the Sikhs; recovered Lohagar from them and executed Banda Bahadur in 1716 AD.

The constant plotting eventually led the Saiyid brothers to depose the Emperor. Farrukhsiyar was imprisoned and starved; later, on February 28, 1719, he was blinded with needles at the orders of the Saiyad brothers. Farukhsiyar was strangled to death on the night of April 27/28, 1719. After accomplishing his assassination, the Saiyid brothers placed his first-cousin, Rafi Ul-Darjat on the throne. Rafi-ud-durjat's father and Farukhsiyar's father had been brothers.

[edit] Trade concessions

It was during Farrukhsiyar's reign, in 1717, that the British East India Company purchased duty-free trading rights in all of Bengal for a mere three thousand rupees. It is said that the Company's surgeon, William Hamilton, cured Farrukhsiyar from some ailment and the emperor was moved to grant trading rights to the Company.[1] This favour aided the British in later years to establish a firm foothold in India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furrukhsiyar


Bābur

the Mughal empire was founded by
Zāhir ud-Dīn Mohammad, commonly known as Bābur (February 14, 1483 – December 26, 1530) (Chaghatay/Persian: ظﮩیرالدین محمد بابر‎ , Hindi: ज़हिर उद-दिन मुहम्मद; also spelled Zahiruddin, Zahiriddin, Muhammad, Bobur, Baber, Babar, etc.), was a Muslim Emperor from Central Asia who founded the Mughal dynasty of India. He was a direct descendant of Timur, and believed himself to be a descendant also of Genghis Khan through his mother.[1] Following a series of set-backs he succeeded in laying the basis for one of the most important empires in Indian history, the Mughal Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babur

He subdued the population of India with enthusiastic savagery and took joy in unbridled slaughter.


Zahiru'd-Din Muhammed Babur (1526 C.E. - 1520 C.E.)

Babur's Own Words on Killing Hindus:
For the sake of Islam I became a wanderer,
I battled infidels and Hindus,
I determined to become a martyr
Thank God I became a Killer of Non-Muslims!

From Baburnama, the Memoires of Babur Himself:
In AH 934 (2538 C.E.) I attacked Chanderi and by the grace of Allah captured it in a few hours. We got the infidels slaughtered and the place which had be Daru'l-Harb (nation of non-muslim) for years was made into a Daru'l-Islam (muslim nation).

Guru Nanak on Babur's atrocities:
Source:Rag Asa Guru Nanak Dev witnessed first hand the atrocities Babur committed on Hindus and recorded them in his poems. He says: Having attacked Khuraasaan, Babar terrified Hindustan. The Creator Himself does not take the blame, but has sent the Mugal as the messenger of death. There was so much slaughter that the people screamed. Didn't You feel compassion, Lord? pg (360)

On the condition of Hindu women in Babur's monster rule:
Those heads adorned with braided hair, with their parts painted with vermillion - those heads were shaved with scissors, and their throats were choked with dust.They lived in palatial mansions, but now, they cannot even sit near the palaces.... ropes were put around their necks, and their strings of pearls were broken. Their wealth and youthful beauty, which gave them so much pleasure, have now become their enemies. The order was given to the soldiers, who dishonored them, and carried them away. If it is pleasing to [Allah's] God's Will, He bestows greatness; if is pleases His Will, He bestows punishment pg(417-18)

On the nature of Mughal rule under Babur:
First, the tree puts down its roots, and then it spreads out its shade above. The kings are tigers, and their officials are dogs; they go out and awaken the sleeping people to harass them. The public servants inflict wounds with their nails. The dogs lick up the blood that is spilled. Source:Rag Malar, (pg.1288)

http://www.hinduholocaust.com/HinduHolocaustMuseum.htm


The Sikhs

The Sikhs are one of the most prosperous and politically important religious minorities in India. The religion itself is of comparatively recent origin—it dates from the time of Babur—but the history of its community, called Panth , or "Path," by the faithful, is a deeply rooted aspect of Sikh life. Since its inception, the Sikh community has been one of the major factors in Indian history. The Mughals understood that Sikhism was a separatist movement, and by the eighteenth century, the Sikhs had established a separate kingdom with its capital in Lahore. The Sikhs were a major force in the British Allied army as the British gradually annexed the whole of India in the 1850's, and after Indian Independence, the Sikh community, half of which had to flee Muslim Pakistan after partition, became economically and politically the most significant and successful minority community in India. The Sikhs are unique as a religious movement. Founded in the deepest spirituality and mysticism, they are a radically egalitarian group rooted deeply in their sense of community, called "brotherhood" (khalsa ) , and history. The khalsa is unified by one aspect: all Sikhs are disciples of the founding Gurus of the religion—the word, "Sikh," means disciple. They are also, however, a highly militant religion and society; the community has to be protected with the highest martial vigilance and ability. Since the seventeenth century, Sikh fighters have been feared throughout India for their ability and sheer courage. The British, who employed them in their army in the nineteenth century, referred to them as the greatest of the "martial races." It's an odd mixture. On the one hand, Sikhism is one of the most deeply spiritual and profoundly mystical religions of the world, advocating a social harmony and egalitarianism unrivalled by any other major religion, with the possible exception of Buddhism. On the other hand, the Sikh community is a militant, warrior community, willing to fight, sacrifice, or assassinate to protect or further the community.

* * *
To this day, the Sikh community is economically and politically very powerful and is one of the most restive of India's minorities. It has demanded greater autonomy and has militantly defied the government(1). India's Prime Minister was assassinated by her Sikh guards, and Sikh militancy has led to military intervention, including the the invasion of the Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar. . . . . . As a separate and militant community, the Sikhs still find themselves partly foreigners in their own country, suspicious of and suspected by the dominant government.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MUGHAL/MUGHAL.HTM



THE FOLLOWING IS FROM
Muslim League Attack on Sikhs
and Hindus in the Punjab 1947
Compiled for the SGPC
by S. GURBACHAN SINGH TALIB

That the Sikh (and Hindu) attack on the Muslims in East Punjab was retaliation under terrible and unbearable provocation is now admitted to be a fact by all impartial people; though it is not known everywhere of what horrible nature, of what prolonged duration and diabolical character was the provocation offered to Sikhs by Muslims over a period of several agonizing months-beginning from December, 1946. There was a war unleashed by the Muslim population of the Punjab to cow down Sikhs, and as a means to that, to carry on among them a total campaign of murder, arson, loot and abduction of women. Sikhs passed through the experience of this war as a people for months; and not thousands, but millions of them were forced to quit their homes for safety in the process. Without a clear knowledge of this part of the story a just and balanced view of the situation cannot be formed.

The details of atrocities committed on Sikhs and Hindus given in these paces are not full or even a fairly large proportion of what actually befell. They are only representative episodes of what happened in a few villages and towns all over West Punjab and other West Pakistan areas. Imagine such things happening in thousands upon thousands of villages and hundreds of towns, and you will then be able to take in the proportions somewhat close to what the reality was-which, in the last analysis must, however, remain inexpressible in its full horror. The facts drawn upon are statements of sufferers of these horrors, recorded from complaints made to the authorities, from reliable press reports and from statements recorded with scrupulous fidelity and signed by those who made them, in the refugee camps in East Punjab.

Sikhs left behind their homes, the richest land in the Punjab, their factories and prosperous businesses, their holy shrines, schools and colleges-all under the pressure of the Pakistan terror, so that according to unbiassed estimates 40% (and these perhaps the most enterprising section of the community) were rendered refugees. They came out of their homes-hammed, despoiled and in unending trudging caravans. This vast human tragedy is too large even for the imagination to take in without the help of facts presented in a telling way.

This record is intended in the first place to rehabilitate the Sikh name, maligned by false propaganda of the leaders and press of Pakistan, and secondly to serve as part of the material for anyone who should set out to write a full history of the Punjab of these terrible 1947 months.

* * *

[HOW FAR CAN A NON-MOSLEM TRUST MOSLEM MEMBERS OF THE POLICE? lw]

A Sikh constable was beaten to death by a wild mob in the civil lines, the Additional District Magistrate was brutally assaulted and a murderous attack was made on a Sub-inspector by a demonstrator who was killed by police fire. . . . C. & M. Gazette-25.2.1947)

Firing had to be resorted to by the Police on this day in Rawalpindi. The Lahore Courts were raided and files tempered with. At Kasur there was violence too.

Regarding the murder of the Sikh police constable at Amritsar, certain details of it are very revealing. The Muslim mob asked the police to withdraw, which the police did. This helpless Sikh constable was beseiged by the Muslim mob, and stoned to death in a most brutal manner. The Muslim members of the police party, among whom there were only a few solitary non-Muslims, did nothing to rescue their comrade from the clutches of the murderous mob. The lesson of it was clear - that a Sikh had been murdered, solely because out of a party of policemen he was the only Sikh. In Congress agitations the police used to be attacked, seldom physically though, as the Police, as the instrument of foreign rule, and no discrimination was made between its Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christian personnel as such. But here was a case of such discrimination.

FROM
Muslim League Attack on Sikhs
and Hindus in the Punjab 1947
Compiled for the SGPC
by S. GURBACHAN SINGH TALIB
Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947 by S. Gurbachan Singh Talib

Muslim League



MOSLEMS LOOKING FOR CONVERTS--OR SIKHS TO KILL (rape the women first THEN kill them)

from
http://www.sikhlionz.com/1947-Rawalpindi-Shaheedis.htm

The Muslims thugs got angry hearing such answer from Sardarni Lajavanti Kaur. They moved forward towards her. Sardarni jee was holding her 5 year old granddaughter and a grandson. She loudly said the jaikaara, “Bole So Nihaal!! Sat Srree Akaal!!”. Saying this she jumped in the well, in order to avoid getting her granddaughter and herself raped by the Muslims. Within seconds all Sikh women jumped in the well. All 90 jumped in. A person came running to me and told me the whole incident. After hearing this incident, all Sikhs present there said, “Dhan Gursikhee!! Dhan Guru Kalgidhar! I dashed towards the well”.

“At that time what to talk about the pathaans but all aggressors were shaken from within. They were saying that who can kill such people who can sacrifice their lives to save their honour.”

“When I reached the well, my granddaughter, Harbhajan Kaur, my daughter-in-law Kartar Kaur and one sister-in-law Sardarni Ram Rakhee were crying as the well was full and they did not drown. By then 87 lives had been taken. They were taken out of the well. I was baffled. I uttered, “Dhan Gurdev, these daughters of yours have passed your test. Please show me the way too. At that time I had clear darshan of Dhan Guru Nanak Dev jee and Hazoor said, “You still have to see more of this bloodshed. You have to do some more sewa of sangataan”.

“After this bloody massacre, the Muslims got scared and started running away but some scoundrels were left. All Sadh Sangat came to my house and stayed there for the night. Muslims tried to find a lone Sikh to convert but could not convert anyone”.

http://www.sikhlionz.com/1947-Rawalpindi-Shaheedis.htm


Also,

This is an excellent resource for what the Moslems did to the non-Moslems (Hindus and Sikhs)

http://www.geocities.com/hindoo_humanist/partition.html



Turnabout or do onto others as they have done onto you

Finally, the Sikhs of the Punjab rid themselves of the Moslems that had long tortured Sikhs while trying for forceful conversions with the alternative being death.

This contribution is from an East Indian correspondent:

[quote]

"As a rule of thumb, muslims are peaceful as long as they are below a
certain
critical threshold
As soon as they cross that threshold, they are a menace

The key then is to dilute muslims below the critical mass

This critical mass is a function of the local kafir community

For example, among a sikh host, the critical % for muslims is about 65%
Among PC infected white Europeans, this critical % is 5%
* * *
The first and foremost is to recognise that the lands of islam are lost
forever
and the only thing to do is to evacuate the residual kafirs
A cordon sanitaire needs to be imposed on darul islam
mid-east xtians, bangladeshi hindus, etc this extra 20 - 30 million
kafirs
will dilute the muslims below critical mass
In addition, east asians, south americans can be imported to dilute
muslims
below critical mass

Indian Punjab was 33% muslim in 1947, the sikhs reduced it to 0% in 2
months
The sikhs used islamic method on muslims
When the sikhs ruled Pakistan, they shut down all the mosques and
mullahs
were thrown to
their deaths from minarets
When the mullahs declared jihad agains the sikhs, the sikhs invaded
Balakot
( near Afghanistan )
and cut up the chief mullah and burnt his body
The sikh general Nalwa used mass reprisal terror against muslim
civilians
and it was very effective
For any act of islamic terror, he burnt down the nearest muslim town
and no
one allowed to escape
The sikhs have an interesting method to prevent PC
The golden temple has a muslim atrocity museum
You can see sikh gurus tortured to death for refusing to convert to
islam
etc
This is kind of a holocaust museum
In addition, sikhs have a daily evening prayer called Ardas wherein
they
remember all the sikh victims of muslim atrocities

Next is a policy of active containment
For example strict law enforcement
In Gujurat, Modi has tamed the muslims by periodically cutting off
electricity to muslim areas
and getting them to sweat in the hot Indian sun
and giving the police a free hand to thrash muslims
Strict law enforcement has a side effect, each time the more jihadist
elements come out to protest, thrash them
and the rest get tame
Interestingly the only 2 areas in India free of islamic terrorism is
Indian
punjab, where sikhs solved the problem in 1947 and Gujurat where Modi
used
islamic methods on muslims
* * *
Also another tactic used by hindus in India is economic boycott
For example even in Mumbai, no hindu rents a house to a muslim

My favorite is guided tours of kafir women inside muslim ghettos, where
they
can see lecherous islamists
in action first hand and get cured of PC

I would also advice on switching to bio-diesel
Jatropha grows in semi-desert and many trains and cars in India are
switching to biodiesel from Jatropha
Jatropha is far more effective than ethanol

I also suggest setting up pig abbotoirs near muslim neighborhoods
Remove halal food from schools based on animal cruelty
Any other tactic for making their daily life miserable
* * *
The spanish inquisition took 120 years to get spain rid of muslims
The sikhs managed it in east punjab in 2 months

[close quote]


That this de-islamization worked can be gathered from the following:

The following though is written by a Moslem, hence its reliability as to truth and fact must always be in question. their founderr condones lying and deceit in the service of making the entire world Moslem.


Muslims in disguise

Contrary to popular perception, there are still thousands of
Muslims living in Punjab with a disguised identity

By Omar Khalidi
On a sunny afternoon in Kapurthalla town of east Punjab, in the famous ‘Moroccan’ mosque, a man looking every inch a Sikh - with turban, beard, and kada - looks over his shoulder, then with a quick movement of hands does what appeared to be wuzu, and joins me for Zuhr prayers. Being a stranger, I was immediately recognised by the rest of the four namaazis. Then followed an animated conversation about the state of the Muslims in the area. Of the namaazis, two were Bihari labourers, the other two were Kashmiri merchants. As I conversed with them, the absence of Punjabi Muslims struck me. Where are they? Instead of an answer, a meaningful silence stopped the conversation.

Meanwhile, the ‘Sikh’ joined us. Making sure that no non-Muslim was around, he told me, “Janab I am a Muslim, my real name is Allah Ditta, son of Piran Ditta, Arun Singh is my fake name. I belong to a village in Amritsar district. When the partition disturbances took place, we were too poor to travel to Pakistan. Our family of potters was so well integrated in the village that we did not think of migrating hoping that the dark nights of killings would end. Soon, surrounding villages were emptied as a large number of Muslims did cross the border. When the massacres stopped in late 1947, the social pressure of our Hindu and Sikh neighbours and the arrival of the refugees compelled us to hide our faith. Men and women adopted Sikh and Hindu appearances: turbans, beards, bindis, names, and the like.” The story of Allah Ditta/Arun Singh and thousands of others like him forms a tragic chapter in the history of modern India.
http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2001/march01/history.htm

COMMENT by lw:

This could possibly be the miniscule persentage remaining in the area that Moslems would have taken over had they not been discouraged by Sikhs.



The idea of "multiculturallism" in the UK--which could work to replace Moslem immigrants with non-Moslems--good idea, but you can forget-about-it. Why? Read on:


BRITISH "MULTICULTURALISM" ONLY FOR MOSLEMS

A WAY OF PLACATING MOSLEMS IN THE UK



UK Government Ignoring Sikhs ?

Jan 20, 2007 - 3:19:44 PM

uk_flag.gif
The Sikh Commission on Race & Cohesion points to a long running pattern of government statements and initiatives which display “alarming evidence of non-inclusion of Sikhs and Sikh aspirations”. The Sikh Commission says the PM’s landmark speech on ‘multi-culturalism’ and ‘integration’ on 8th December 2006 and similar Queen’s Christmas Day speech (25th December 2006), have brought the issue to a head for Britain ’s 700,000 Sikhs. The Commission says “Sikhs are much concerned at the conspicuous exclusion of Sikhs in the media, in government policy and by the Commission for Race Equality”.

“Over the course of the last five years, Sikhs have been left out of many Home Office, CRE and public discussions, declarations and initiatives on ‘community engagement’. Despite active attempts by Sikh organisations to engage British Ministers and the CRE on community issues, Sikhs have found themselves repulsed by a dismissive and apathetic attitude. There has been zero government or CRE initiative on Sikh racist attacks, Sikh ethnic monitoring and Sikh inclusion in community cohesion discussions.” Says the Sikh Commission. Official comments, statements, reports and declarations by Ministers, Parliamentary Committees and senior public figures on matters such as community relations after 9/11, racist attacks and community cohesion; have omitted Sikh topics and Sikh representation.

The Sikh Commission says Sikhs have made a substantial contribution to life in Britain over the last 100 years. “Over 80,000 Sikh soldiers’ lives were sacrificed defending Britain from attack in the two world wars. Sikh soldiers’ qualified for14 Victoria Crosses for distinguished courage. Since migrating in the 1960s, we have proved to be an exceedingly self-sufficient, hard-working, enterprising community. We have excelled in education, employment, business and home ownership. This is despite decades of social and political racism. Our hard-work, independence and social perseverance; has ensured that we have been a minimum burden on state funds and resources and that our tax contribution to the British state has far exceeded anything our community has taken in terms of resources and monetary benefits.” Sikhs stress they have contributed positively to social life and cohesion, through historic Sikh values of family, community, social interaction, diversity, tolerance and kind-heartedness to their English and British neighbours. “Instead of celebrating this contribution, the Prime Minister and his government, together with the CRE, national media and public bodies choose to exclude Sikhs at all levels.”

The Sikh Commission says the government’s agenda on community cohesion and integration is “incoherent, selective in application, and lacking in equal and wholesome inclusion”. The government’s approach includes some and excludes others. “Integration is about equal and authentic inclusion of all communities that make up British society – both indigenous and migrant. Cohesion, integration and race equality is about everyone being included and everyone participating”.

By: Jagdeesh Singh

© Copyright 2007 by SikhSangat.org




______________________________________
NOTES

1. [indira] Gandhi's later years were bedevilled with problems in Punjab. In September 1981, Bhindranwale was arrested in Amritsar, but was released twenty five days later due to lack of evidence. After his release, he relocated himself from his headquarters at Mehta Chowk to Guru Nanak Niwas within the Golden Temple precincts.[1]

Disturbed by the spread of militancy by Bhindranwale's group, Gandhi ordered the Army to storm the Golden Temple to remove Bhindranwale and his followers on June 3, 1984. Thousands of innocent Sikh pilgrims were killed in the process, leading to widespread anger over the desecration of Sikhism's holiest shrine. The blatant disregard for the thousands of civilians within the temple and excessive use of military force has remained a source of great controversy to this day.

In response to this desecration of the Golden Temple, on October 31, 1984, two of Indira Gandhi's Sikh bodyguards Satwant Singh and Beant Singh assassinated her in the garden of the Prime Minister's Residence at No. 1, Safdarjung Road in New Delhi. As she was walking to be interviewed by the British actor Peter Ustinov filming a documentary for Irish television, she passed a wicket gate, guarded by Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, where they proceeded to open fire with their semiautomatic machine pistols before being shot themselves by other bodyguards. One bodyguard was killed and the other wounded. She died on her way to the hospital, in her official car, but was not declared dead until many hours later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Gandhi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star


1984 Anti-Sikh Riots took place in India after the assassination of Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984. India's Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two of her Sikh guards acting in the aftermath of Operation Bluestar.

Over the next four days nearly 3000 Sikhs were massacred in systematic riots planned and led by Congress activists and sympathizers. The then Congress government was widely criticized for doing very little at the time, if not acting as a conspirator, especially since voting lists were used to identify Sikh families. The then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, son of Indira Gandhi allegedly made a statement "When a big tree falls, the earth is bound to shake" on the Sikh carnage [1][2]. His widow, Sonia Gandhi and current President of the Congress Party, officially apologized in 1998 for the events of November, 1984. The most affected regions were neighborhoods in Delhi.

It is alleged that the anti-Sikh violence were conducted at the behest of the Congress party who actually instigated masses. Many ordinary Indians of different religious dispositions made significant efforts to hide and help Sikh families as outlined in affidavits of Sikh victims and have been active in seeking appropriate justice[citation needed].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Anti-Sikh_Riots

History of Jihad against the Mongols (1050-1258) - History of Jihad

Also see

RACE AND ETHNICITY IN AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN

You can take Arabization out of the Amazigh . . .

. . . but, can you take the Amazigh out of Islam?

Under the Arabs, the Berbers became Islamized and soon formed the backbone of the Arab armies that conquered Spain. However, the Berbers repeatedly rose against the Arabs, and in the 9th cent. they supported the Fatimid dynasty in its conquest of N Africa.
from Islamization of the Imazighen

Islam, however, that came with the Arabs, appears to have been embedded deeply into the
Amazigh psyche.

A Moroccan with whom I corresponded, told me of the Moroccan troops that not only broke through German SS troops but terrified them with their ferocity.

I suppose that he was referring to the following incident cited by the American General Mark Clark, The Allied commander, [who] paid tribute to the Goumiers and the Moroccan regulars of the Tirailleur units:

In spite of the stiffening enemy resistance, the 2nd Moroccan Division penetrated the Gustave [sic] Line in less than two day’s fighting. The next 48 hours on the French front were decisive. The knife-wielding Goumiers swarmed over the hills, particularly at night, and General Juin’s entire force showed an aggressiveness hour after hour that the Germans could not withstand. Cerasola, San Giorgio, Mt. D’Oro, Ausonia and Esperia were seized in one of the most brilliant and daring advances of the war in Italy... For this performance, which was to be a key to the success of the entire drive on Rome, I shall always be a grateful admirer of General Juin and his magnificent FEC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goumier

My Moroccan correspondent believed that the Jews owed an expression of gratitude to these Moroccans, although I doubt that the French Moroccans fought to save Jewish lives.

In the next sentence, my correspondent wrote that what he wished most for was to go to Israel and kill Jews.

When I mentioned to him that his people had been defeated by Arabs who had foisted their Islam on them, he replied that Allah had willed it.

AND . . .

from http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/151288 a COMMENT:

Submitted by Charles Martel, Feb 27, 2009 10:34
This is a quote from one of the Berber writers blasting the Islamists:

The (Islamists) author's second error is that he has limited solidarity with Palestine to participation in marches organized by the political current to which he himself belongs [i.e. the Islamists], in cooperation with the pan-Arab current - whether in its left-wing, nationalist salafi, or right-wing liberal forms.

Daniel: Can you explain these three apparently anti-Islamist strains of pan-Arab nationalism?

Daniel Pipes reply:
You mean anti-Islamist strains of anti-Arab nationialism. The Berbers, like the Kurds, see themselves as a separate ethnic group and resist Arabization.

Most Berbers reject radical Islam. Some go further and see Islam as part of the Arabizing package and are cool or even hostile to Islam.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/151288

Reader comment on: Berbers as Anti-Islamists and Anti-Arab Nationalists
The So-Called Arabs Who Built The Pyramids ??
Submitted by Rebecca, Mar 4, 2009 11:21
[excerpt]
The Muslims are always talking about the 'colonizers' - but here is the ultimate example of colonization - and Arabia barely had to lift a finger - now these people are so devoted to Arabia - they have called themselves Arab - even the Egyptians - who's ancestors built the pyramids - are now ditching their history and calling themselves Arab. - Talking to the North Africans there - is even more interesting - they seem devoid of knowledge about their own history - except to say they were conquered by the Arabs (something which they seem extremely happy about!) - it is a great crime !! To do anything at all - they must be in synch with Arabia - which of course is a lot richer then they are - to show how subservient the mindset is - many North Africans will tell you - their country is not rich because they don't have oil ~ perfectly logical in the Arab alternate reality ! - I would venture to say that until the North Africans are free of this Arab slave-like mindset and until they establish their own unique identity - that part of the world will see little or no progress for some time to come - I'm with the Berbers on the identity issue !! I predict that Ethiopia might well emerge as a powerhouse in this region - here are a people who respect their history and so their identity -- this coupled with a respect for human rights - could place them in a good position to bring their country into the modern world -- the other surrounding countries you could say are a part of the wider Arab harem !
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/151620
　
[from] "'Berbers, Where Do You Stand on Palestine?'" As the MEMRI introduction explains:

Throughout the recent fighting in Gaza, the mainstream North African press was nearly unanimous in its support for the Palestinians and its condemnation of Israel. Some Amazigh (Berber) activist groups, though, made a point of distancing themselves from this mainstream view - for which they were attacked by the Islamist press. While a number of conservative and left-wing Amazigh groups expressed support for the Palestinians, others expressed contrary views, to underline their non-Arab identity and their belief that North Africa should detach itself politically and culturally from the Middle East.

Then follow six excerpts from the Moroccan and Algerian media concerning Berber attitudes towards the war in Gaza. Some of it is bitter indeed, as, for example, a commentary by Moha Moukhlis, a Berber activist:

And the so-called 'Arab street[?]' A brainless herd that has been indoctrinated and riled up and that has lost all sense of gravity and direction. They express their hatred for the Jews, whom they hope to exterminate from the face of the Earth… Yet this 'Arab street', which sees itself as the voice of the [world's] peoples, never dared to lift a finger against the crimes committed by the Hamas fundamentalists, or by the Arabo-Islamist regimes against non-Arab populations in Darfur, Kurdistan, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Algeria, or Niger. No! [And] the rights of the Amazigh people are supposed to be sacrificed on the altar of [this] Arab fundamentalism.
Translations of this item (entire Pipes article) into French
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009/02/berbers-as-anti-islamists-and-anti-arab-nationalists.html

[Selected] COMMENTS
　
Submitted by Atlas Kahena, Mar 27, 2009 03:26
[excerpts]
Before we attempt to answer the question Where do the Amazigh Stand in regard to this or to that issue, we first need to define who the berbers are.
***
If we ask an arab-islamist, for instance, the answer would be that the Amazigh are Muslims and he/she may even add that they are more Arabs than the Arabs themselves. Another extreme view would only find the truth in one place and one only - The middle Ages: "the Almoravids who established a brutal and bigoted regime on southern Spain in the Middle Ages were Amazigh." What this view failed to mention is that this was done – if it was done at all, in the same exact terms – under the arab-islamist ideology.
The berbers didn't just conquer Spain. It happened with the Arab-Muslim push and conquest that has swept the berbers of North Africa on its way to Spain. Otherwise, why hadn't they done it before? Approaching the Amazigh question is quite a controversy unless we check with the Amazigh themselves. The whistles of the current identity crisis of the berbers were not blown by the copy-cuts of the arab-islamists because those are the ones who lost their Amazighity and if they don't have it, they won't give it.
***
If Israel is an enemy of the Palestine and of the Arabs and I don't see myself as a Palestinian or as an Arab, I don't see why the berbers should be dictated what position to take in this matter. The berbers hardly have the weight to change their own economic conditions, how in the world would they have the power to alter a deeply rooted historically intertwined political problem – More than that, if the Arab countries have not only watched the problem go on for so long but they have contributed to it, what would the berbers do? – knowing that the berbers hardly exist in the eyes of the Arabs.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/152835
　
Submitted by Farid H., Mar 25, 2009 05:01
[excerpts]
As a Moroccan (of Arab ethnicity), I'd like to add a few points:
***
3. With respect to Berber Anti-Islamism, I'm rather skeptical and I don't think that it holds much water, and you can't count on it. There is a small minority within the Amazigh movement that is anti-Islamic and a very, very small fraction that is even openly pro-Israel. But this is statistically totally insignificant. Considering that most hardened Islamists are actually MREs (marocains résidents à l'étranger), and that this group consists of many, many more Amazighs than Arabs (proportionally, when compared to the ethnic make-up in Morocco itself), it is quite evident that Islamism is more prevalent amongst Amazighs (at least outside Morocco).

And while this is objectively verifiable with statistics, my own subjective non-verifiable impression is that when talking about the M.E. conflict, the most radical anti-Israeli comments are more often made by Amazighs than by Arabs. On this point, I may have the wrong (or biased?) impression, but it strikes me as being very visible.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/152736
　
Submitted by Peter Herz, Mar 19, 2009 15:21
[excerpt]
I wonder how many Amazigh stood up for the Jewish communities of the Maghreb when they were being expelled after Algerian independence; or for the right of Muslims to convert to Christianity.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/152503

Recovering Lands Previously Conquered by the Moslems - Italy

[The following has been gathered from Wikipedia]

The Islamic conquest and rule of Sicily, Malta, and parts of southern Italy was a process whose origin can be traced back through the general expansion of Islam from the 7th century onwards.[1] Though the Muslim presence was ephemeral on the peninsula and limited mostly to semi-permanent soldier camps—the Emirate of Bari existed for only twenty years or so[2]—their rule over the island was effective from 902, but their complete rule of Sicily lasted only from 965 until 1061, though they were not completely evicted until 1091.[3]

The Muslim conquest of Sicily and the subsequent Christian reconquest by the Normans was the major event in the history of Islam in Italy.[4] The conquests of the Normans established Roman Catholicism firmly in the region, where Eastern Christianity had been prominent during the time of Byzantine rule and continued with the natives during the time of the Muslim overlords.[5][6] Widespread conversion ensued, which coupled with the re-latinisation of the inhabitants led to the disappearance of Islam in Sicily by the 1280s.

Norman conquest of Muslim Sicily (1061–1091)
Main article: Norman conquest of southern Italy

Southern Italy in 1084, showing the remains of the Kalbid emirate, then fought over by multiple claimants, on the eve of the final Norman conquest.

In 1038 a Byzantine army under George Maniaces crossed the strait of Messina. This included a corps of Normans which saved the situation in the first clash against the Muslim from Messina. After another decisive victory in the summer of 1040, Maniaces halted his march to lay siege to Syracuse. Despite his conquest of the latter, Maniaces was removed from his position: the subsequent Muslim counter-offensive reconquered all the cities captured by the Byzantines.

The Norman Robert Guiscard, son of Tancred, invaded Sicily in 1060. The island was split between three Arab emirs, and the sizeable Christian population rose up against the ruling Muslims. One year later Messina fell, and in 1072, Palermo was taken by the Normans.[15] The loss of the cities, each with a splendid harbor, dealt a severe blow to Muslim power on the island. Eventually all of Sicily was taken. In 1091, Noto in the southern tip of Sicily and the island of Malta, the last Arab stongholds, fell to the Christians. By the 11th century Muslim power in the Mediterranean had begun to wane.[16]

The Norman Kingdom of Sicily under Roger II was characterised by its multi-ethnic nature and religious tolerance.[17] Normans, Jews, Muslim Arabs, Byzantine Greeks, Longobards and "native" Sicilians lived in harmony.[18][19] Rather than exterminate the Muslims of Sicily, the Roger II's grandson Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1215—1250) allowed them to settle on the mainland and build mosques.[citation needed][dubious – discuss] Not least, he enlisted them in his — Christian — army and even into his personal bodyguards.[20][21]

A large scale Muslim rebellion broke out in 1190, triggering organized resistance and systematic reprisals[22] and marked the final chapter of Islam in Sicily. The Muslim problem characterized Hohenstaufen rule in Sicily under Henry VI (1194-97) and his son Frederick II (1197-1250). In the 1220s, in order to stamp out the Muslim rebellion, Frederick adopted a programmatic system to remove Islam from Sicily entirely, as it had been prior to their invasion. This was achieved with the expulsion and forced deportation to the Apulian town of Lucera where they were isolated. The annihilation of Islam in Sicily was completed by the late 1240s, when the final deportations to Lucera took place.[23]

Islamic and Arabic influence and legacy

See also: Arab-Norman culture

Ibn Hawqal, the eminent Arab traveler, visited Sicily in year 972 and described the city of Palermo in his book Al-Masalik wal Mamlik as "the city of the 300 mosques". This Islamic and Arabic identity of the island was still preserved even 100 years after the arrival of the Normans[24] as described by the Spanish-Arab geographer Ibn Jubair who landed in the island after returning from a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1184.

To his surprise, Ibn Jubair enjoyed a very warm reception[citation needed] by the Norman Christians. He was further surprised to find that even the Christians spoke Arabic, that the government officials were still largely Muslim, and that the heritage of some 200 previous years of Muslim rule of Sicily was still intact.[25][24][dubious – discuss]

Arabic art and science continued to be heavily influential[24] in Sicily during the two centuries[citation needed] following the Christian conquest. Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Sicily in the early 13th century, is said to have been able to speak Arabic (as well as Latin, Sicilian, German, French, and Greek) and had several Muslim ministers. The heritage of the Arabic language can be still found in numerous terms adapted from it and still used in Sicilian language.

A community of Muslims, especially fishermen from Tunisia, has deep roots in the history of the town of Mazara del Vallo, on the south-western coast of Sicily.[citation needed] During the 1970s, a prosperous Italian economy spurred the immigration of Muslims from Jordan, Syria and Palestine to the area.[26]

Another legacy of Muslim rule is the survival of some Sicilian place-names of Arabic origin, for example "Calata-" or "Calta-" from Arabic Qal`at… (قلعة) = “castle of”.

Also, a genetic study in 2009 revealed a significant genetic contribution of Northwest African genes among today's inhabitants near the region of Lucera[27].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam_in_southern_Italy


How the Moslems were driven out of Italy

Islamic period in Lucera, Italy
In 1224 AD, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, responding to religious uprisings in Sicily, expelled all Muslims from the island, transferring many to Lucera over the next two decades. In this controlled environment, they couldn't challenge royal authority and they benefited the crown in taxes and military service. Their numbers eventually reached between 15,000 and 20,000, leading Lucera to be called Lucaera Saracenorum because it represented the last stronghold of Islamic presence in Italy. Muslims in Lucera were predominately farmers. They grew durum wheat, barley, legumes, grapes and other fruits. Muslims also kept bees for honey.[1]

The colony thrived for 75 years until it was sacked in 1300 by Christian forces under the command of Charles II of Naples. The city's Muslim inhabitants were exiled or sold into slavery,[2] with many finding asylum in Albania across the Adriatic Sea.[3] Their abandoned mosques were demolished, and churches were usually built in their place, including the cathedral S. Maria della Vittoria.[4]

After the Muslims were removed from Lucera, Charles tried to settle Christians in the city. Those Muslims that converted to Christianity got part of their property back, but none was restored his former position of political or economic influence. As time progressed, grain production fell in the city, and in 1339 the city was hit by a famine. While Christians were allowed to farm as the Muslims, the loss of Muslim farmers may have been a cause of the famine.[5]

A significant genetic Northwest African contribution among today's inhabitants near the region of Lucera was revealed by a very recent genetic study in 2009[6].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucera

Morocco, conquered by the Arab-Mohammedans, still under the rule of Arabs and Islam

The Arabs conquered Morocco coming from Egypt into North Africa. The inhabitants of what the Arabs called the "Maghreb" were either forcefully, by circumstance, or voluntarily converted to Islam.

[quoting Robert Spencer of
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025440.php]

Many people frown on proselytizing. I have no problem with it from any group. If someone wants to convert me to another religion or point of view, I'll be glad to discuss it. If, however, someone who rejects an invitation to convert must be killed [as is the case with Islam] -- well, that does seem to cross a line. So in Morocco, why not let Christians preach, and anyone else who wants to preach also? If Islam is true, its truth will shine forth in comparison to error, will it not? Actions like this one from the Moroccan government manifest a deep insecurity that can also be found all over the Islamic world.

COMMENT

Sorrow01 • 94p
It is actually an inadvertent admission on the part of the Morrocan authorities that Islam, even when in a dominant position, cannot tolerate any competition.


http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025440.php