London Targeted: Numbers Game

Romair #119

`` 1. Members of which relgion, in today`s world, produce the most suicide bombers? ``

Sri Lankan Tamils have never invoked Hinduism to launch their suicide bombings.
The only religious factor in the Sri Lankan civil war is the hardline opposition of the Buddhist monks. Even their opposition is based on nationalism rather than religion.

`` 2. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world

3. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
4. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world

5. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Jewish inhabitants

6. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Muslims, agaisnt the wishes of its Christain inhabitants
7. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Hindu inhabitants

8. Is there any piece of land occupied by Jews, against the wishes of its Muslim inhabitants
9. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Christians, agaisnt the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants
10. Is there any piece of land occupied by Hindus, against the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants ``

It is funny everything you ask is Muslim and some other non-Muslim religion. That should answer your question.

Anil #120: ``As rule I do not go into statistics, but you were nice enough to no drag State Terrorism I would certainly answer give from the binary answers. Just let me know the period / duration you want to cover and why you want to cover only that period, so that I can give you the binary answers.``

Hard cold statistics are usually the best way to objectively look at issues, and gauge them, without letting subjective religious, social, national and ideological biases get into the way. I refuse to believe that a phenomenally successful businessman and entrpreneur like yourself would disagree. In all the discussions that you and I have had, on business issues, the one thing I have learned from you, is that VC etc. want numbers. Statistical numbers ( ROI, IRR, EPS, FV, PV, AC etc.). They don`t want fuzzy emotinal reasonings or religion, or gender or historical events like Dunkirk etc..........

So, I will not accept as an argument from your side, that statistics and numbers do not tell a clear story. Or at least the clearest story, of any other available method. I am quite convinced that such an argument would go against your well-developed sense in business.

The timeframe I am looking for is the current day. So you can say over the past twenty years, or so. It is the events of this timeframe that is driving current day events. Also, kindly remember, you are speaking as a Martian, with no attachments to anyone, any country, or any religion, on Earth. So just the cold statistics, without worrying about any personal views about State Terrorism, or individual terrorism, etc.

Also, kindly look at the correction I posted in the previous reply........

Romair#122

As long as you keep talking about Muslims and I about political Islam, we will keep talking past each other. As my response to Ranjit shows, I do not buy everything that Hindutva people say about Muslims or Islamic rule in India. Let me repeat for the upteenth time that Muslim individuals are no different than others; as in other religions there are good and bad Muslims, honest and dishonest Muslims, kind and cruel Muslims and bigots and tolerant Muslims.

Your replies show that you are either somewhat economical with truth, or ignorant in which case you have not even been looking at the verses and ahadith that have been posted several times at chowk. However, since you have been kind enough to answer my questions, you deserve an answer to your questions. So, here goes:
``1. Members of which relgion, in today`s world, produce the most suicide bombers?``

Most of the suicide bombers in today`s world are Muslims. If you had asked this question ten years ago, the answer would have been Tamil Hindus and Christians. In that answer is implicit the fact that they identified themselves as Tamils and not Hindus. I would compare them to the Palestinians whose suicide missions until recently were based on ethnicity and not religion; the situation has changed somewhat as the recent suicide missions by Palestinians seem to be more religion inspired.

``2. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
3. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world
4. Are Muslims killing more Hindus, or are Hindus killing more Muslims in today`s world``

I do not know the statistics. The only significant countries with Hindus are on the subcontinent. I would say that more Muslims are killed in India and more HIndus in Bangladesh. Pakistan`s case is similar to that of Nepal; the number of Hindus in the former and Muslims in the latter are too small to pose any threat.

In case of India, Muslims do bear the brunt of communal killings. There are several reasons for that but the main reason is that pseudo-secular Hindu politicians have not taken effective steps to protect the life and limbs of their Muslim citizens. Shame on them!
But there is another reason, too. Generally speaking, when kitchen gets hot, Hindus leave the kitchen; so they have left or converted to another religion in Bangladesh and Pakistan rather than tough it out; heck, they even fled Kashmir valley even when the military was on their side. Muslims are made of sterner stuff; they not only continue to struggle in the face of adversity, they also like to live with an in-your-face attitude. I am saying this more in admiration than as a criticism. There is no reason why a citizen of a country should not have complete rights to his or her protection because of his assertive identity.

``5. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Jewish inhabitants
6. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Muslims, agaisnt the wishes of its Christain inhabitants
7. Is there any piece of land occupied by Muslims, against the wishes of its Hindu inhabitants

8. Is there any piece of land occupied by Jews, against the wishes of its Muslim inhabitants
9. Is there any piece of land occupeid by Christians, agaisnt the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants
10. Is there any piece of land occupied by Hindus, against the wishes of its Muslims inhabitants``

The only place for which this question makes sense is Palestine where a jewish state has occupied Palestinian (not Muslim) lands. Bush is not representing Christians and Sonia Gandhi-Manmohan Singh are not ``occupying`` Kashmir because they are Christian or Sikhs but because they represent a nation-state dealing with a provincial insurgency.

dost-mittarji (#131):

But there is another reason, too. Generally speaking, when kitchen gets hot, Hindus leave the kitchen; so they have left or converted to another religion in Bangladesh and Pakistan rather than tough it out; heck, they even fled Kashmir valley even when the military was on their side. Muslims are made of sterner stuff; they not only continue to struggle in the face of adversity, they also like to live with an in-your-face attitude. I am saying this more in admiration than as a criticism. There is no reason why a citizen of a country should not have complete rights to his or her protection because of his assertive identity..

oh no! i am no hindu or muslim, and there are some days when i even question whether i am still a christian, but please tell me that in your admiration for those of sterner stuff, you in fact are not labelling these hindus you have described as cowards. please tell me that you are not reaffirming that kashmiri hindus (pandits) are not refugees but cowards?

are these labels/ comparisons/oppositions really all that simple?

ana:

No ana, I am not describing them as cowards and was critical of FV when she said so in her article about Kashmiri Pandits. But I do see the difference in response of Hindu and Muslim minorities, and not only in the subcontinent. Many Hindus gladly put up with the Saudi conditions of staying there on the condition of not practising their religion or blacking all references to Hindu Gods and Godesses in the Indian-run schools` texts in Gulf countries. Hindu faiths survived the long Islamic rule in India mainly because of this ability to roll with the punches. If the 9-11 attackers had been hindus, my guess is that saris and bindis would have disappeared from North America.

Dost-mittar #131: ``As long as you keep talking about Muslims and I about political Islam, we will keep talking past each other.........Your replies show that you are either somewhat economical with truth, or ignorant ``

I asked some simple questions to Anil. The reason I asked these questions to Anil was because he had, first, asked me, himself, to explain certain things related to Muslims, to him. Which I am trying to do. I did not, ``talk about Muslims.`` He asked me.

You jumped in, half-way (uninvited might I add :-)) to add you age-old Islam teaches Muslims to rape, pillage and burn-routine. You keep saying this, and then say I am misunderstanding you. I have no clue how to convince you otherwise. Nor is it my job to do so. If you want to continue on that line, please be my guest. I really have no interest, nor motivation to convince you, otherwise. Best of luck........

You have answered my questions, to some extent. However, once again, you have added a mile-long justification to each answer. This is why I specifically asked Anil to answer them, statistically. Assuming he is a Martian, and not a Hindu or Indian. You obviously, have not answered them as a Martian.

Cold statistics cut to the facts. They cut through all the spin-doctoring. This is why they scare people, and people feel obliged to bury them in all kinds of subjective justifications. I did not answer your questions, with any kind of subjective justifications, or ifs ands or buts. I answered them straightforwardly, with either, ``I don`t know,`` or roughly one-word answers. Even though most of your questions were quite subjective, based on interpretations and opinions, while mine are all very objective, based on hard cold facts and figures.........

Perhaps you could do the same, for the questions, I asked........They merely require a Yes/No, and/or one word answer........Or, ``I don`t know`` type answers.......let`s leave aside, the motivations for why someone is killing anohter. Let`s just, first, look at who is killing whom.......

dostmittarji:

thank you for your response.

all ``minorities`` respond differently to and in different situations. i have been critical of how some christians have responded to behavior and actions towards them in pakistan. but i also see why some would not want to make waves and be ``in your face``, and some of them are no less admirable for how they conduct themselves within their own community and without.

and i disagree with your conclusion of if the 9/11 attackers had been hindu. i think we should give some of our hindu sisters and brothers a little more credit. and besides, many north americans would not have allowed saris and bindis to disappear from north america. :)

Re: # 134

Romair:

I have been struggling to answer the questions that you have aksed me. I left the color of religions behind many decades ago. Ever since never looked back and immensely enjoyed myself. I cannot see the religious characterization of societal problems. I detest all such characterizations. I do not believe an Arab`s hunger or disease, can be characterizes as Islamic, or a hindu`s homelessness be characterized as Hindutva. A refugee`s home being taken away and resulting pain can be neither be Jewish not Islamic in color. Fascism comes out of such characterizations. I cannot allow myself to be party to any such characterizations.

I am sorry to disappoint you that I cannot live upto the challenge you have thrown at me. However, should you choose to answer my questions, please do so. I am very interested in your answer, mainly as the student of change in society. I do not understand answers to these questions, especially the one about co-existence of Islam with the ugly side of the others. As an outsider, I feel Islamic thoughts and practices would go through reforms that will originate from the within.

You can see from all my interacts on Chowk with which you are familiar or can easily become familiar, one thing that is consistent is that I do not get involved in religious characterization of societal issues. To me religion is limited to mind space, and does not extend beyond into a larger personal space, to fulfill the spiritual needs of the person, whatever they are.

Sorry to disappoint you, I hope others can answer your questions.
Anil Kapuria

To add to DM`s post about stern comment.......

TWO qualities help muslims succeed - that Hindus and Sikhs lack.

The most important quality they have is UNITY - Muslims unite against all outsiders, and come to aid of their fellow berthen no matter how wrong or evil s/he is.

Sikhs are notorious for fighting like roosters amongst themselves. Their petty squabbles have undermined the entire brotherhood. They take the `individuality` stuff too far.

Hindus are infamous for aiding the enemy that would make any leftist/liberal 5th colunm to shame. They are like the jews who worked the Nazi camps to save their own skins. As individuals, they are picked up by mob mentalities of muslims - and are dying a slow death in Bangladesh.


Regarding the ``sterner`` stuff. DM made the mistake of equating cruelty and lack of humanity to sternness. Muslims do roll with the punches too. They are good at begging for quarter when they are down, and never giving quarter when they are up.

These are keys to their `success` as a religious body....and expansion.

The Muslim extremist on trial in the slaying of filmmaker Theo van Gogh confessed Tuesday, saying he was driven by religious conviction. ``I don`t feel your pain,`` he told the victim`s mother.

Mohammed Bouyeri stunned the courtroom when, in the final minutes of his two-day trial he declared: ``If I were released and would have the chance to do it again ... I would do exactly the same thing.``

``What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. ... I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet,`` he said.

At one point, he addressed the victim`s mother, Anneke, who was sitting in the public gallery. ``I have to admit I don`t have any sympathy for you,`` he said. ``I can`t feel for you because I think you`re a nonbeliever.``

Romair:

Next time you might consider sending an email to Anil :-)

I thought my answers were quite precise and succinct. I would have given one-word answers if I could do so without misleading. For example, the one-word answer to your first question (sucides) would have been Muslim, but that would have overlooked the fact that this is rather recent and that Tamils were in fact leaders in this respect not too long ago.

Regarding my views about political Islam, they are no different from that of any other non-Muslim who has tried to study Islam (chowk itself is a rich source for an Islamic student!) and quite a few enlightened Muslims who differentiate between introspection, rationalisation and obfuscation. But unlike my friend ferozk, I am not pessimistic. I think that with the advent of the Internet it would be difficult for young and educated Muslims not to introspect even though some of them will also be attracted by the powerful message of political Islam.

Now, you can have the last word if you wish.

Dost-mittar #139: ``Next time you might consider sending an email to Anil :-)``

Anil and I have actually exchanged countless emails........I am not sure if I should disclose this fact without his permission. But you have pulled it out of me.....He is perhaps one of the most accomplished business personalities on Chowk.......And I am constantly on the look out to learn from people.............My tentacles into the Indian diaspora go far deeper than many people may realize........

``For example, the one-word answer to your first question (sucides) would have been Muslim``

If that is the answer, than that is what you should have answered. I would have probably agreed with you. Though I have to still do some calculations on the total suicide bombings by Tamil Tigers and the 420+ that have occured in Iraq. Remember you are a Martian, at the moment.......

``chowk itself is a rich source for an Islamic student``

I think this is where you got onto the wrong path. If you are using Chowk as a source on Islam, then I think you may want to quit while you are still behind, on this subject......

``I think that with the advent of the Internet it would be difficult for young and educated Muslims not to introspect``

Let me tell you why I object to this statement. It seems, at least to me, to have quite a bit of arrogance in it......Though once again, I may be misunderstanding you.......

``Now, you can have the last word if you wish.``

ibtada-y-ey ishq hai rota hai kia;
agay agay deekhiyay hota hai kia

Believe me, someday you will thank me for enlightening you.............

Re:dost-mittar#122

``-Most Muslim rulers did not forcible convert Hindus.
-After the armed conflict was over and the Hindus accepted a secondary status, they were allowed to practice their religion more or less freely, including their caste practices. etc.``

Shall I be brutally honest here? These above acts of ``tolerance`` from your perspective, happened due to one and only one reason - the massive population of hindus. Otherwise, muslims were in no mood for coexistence. Muslims simply got exhausted trying to convert this huge population to Islam. There was one exception Akbar but he renounced Islam anyway. All the other rulers simply gave up converting the ocean of hindus.

Muslims started out in full force by whole sale conversion in present day areas of Pakistan. There are innumerable accounts vouching for the scale and extent of this holocaust. By the time they reached Delhi, they realized that there was 7 times that work ahead of them in the rest of India. It was just too much. On top of that, hindus with their typical liberal attitude were more than willing to be servants to muslims and live peacefully as slaves. So the muslims finally decided to suspend the violence and just enjoy ruling over hindus. Of course, from time to time, their memories would get jogged and a Aurangzeb would pop out hoping to complete that task started by Mohd. bin Qasim.

The fact of the matter is that hindus have always tried to coexist with muslims. After living like slaves for centuries, hindus were willing to forget all that and live together with muslims. But the muslims suddenly decided that they had had enough of coexistence and wanted Pakistan. No matter, that millions would get killed. Of course, the hindus in their slavish mode, decided to let the muslims in India stay in spite of being completely expelled from Pakistan. On top of it they established a ``secular`` nation to give the muslims full equality.

For the past 60 years, Pakistan has shown relentless, non-stop hostility against India on every issue big or small. Their lust for Kashmir is unquenchable, as they try every trick in the book to get it, no matter how our relations are. They sponsor militancy in Punjab for 10 years, jihad in Kashmir for 15 years running, their people sneak in and blow up temples like Akshardham, Ayodhya, you name it. Now they are talking peace mainly due to pressure from the US. But the reality is that muslims, especially Pakistanis will never accept the status quo in the subcontinent and will keep trying to change it in their favor.

Re: # 142

Hindvi:

Indeed you have written a lot. If I am not wrong, it is not problematic to throw someone out of the Hindu Tent, neither it is for someone leave the Hindu tent. The entry is unclear. I have not read Torah so I cannot comment on it. I read Dr. S. Radhakirshnan`s book on Hinduism where he has analyzed Manu Smriti and quoted the verses out it to say that coming societies can change the law of society, which is what Manu Smriti is.

Even more, important in my view why would someone go back to Manu Smriti to define the laws of knowledge based society? Let Manu Smriti be Rest In Peace. Human thoughts and knowledge have evolved much more. Hinduism in Riga Veda, according Carl Sagan, says challenges ``Is Man the bests Creation of God or Is God the best Imagination of Man``. I subscribe to this thought.

If Islam (I differentiate muslim) really in peaceful co-existence with the ugly side of other beliefs in Jerusalem, then why there is so much turmoil. Sophia Mosque, now as a museum, is an example of peace existence of ugly side of what? I think it is a great example of secular Turkey. I have been there it is indeed beautiful example of secularism. I would not see it as an example of peaceful co-existance of the ugly side of other beliefs.

My entire thought process is at the stage to identify the drivers of change and evolution in Islam. The peaceful change in society comes from co-existence. That is how moderate thoughts evolve too.

Other examples you have given, I will interact with out as I understand them more.

Anil

Kapuria sahib

I am not putting up a defense of any faith or system of beliefs here, and am writing my own personal views from a perspective agnostic of faith and nationality. The basic assumption one has to start with is that at a basic level all human condition and motivations are the same. No one can deny that islam was an expansionist religion, but which religion wasnt? did not Constantine the christian impose christianity all over the roman empire by decree after his victory with the cross as his battle standard and did not the vedic aryans invade India defeating dravidians who did not follow Sanatan dharam?, didn’t harsha remove budhism from the land of its very birth? very few religions can claim immunity from this its all a question of who has power at a particular time. An example are the jews because if you read the old testament u will see that it is even harsher than the Quran, reveling in smiting the enemies of the jewish tribe and state, making slaves of them and their women and children or putting them to the sword, it is full of an avenging god who imposes the harshest punishments like stoning to death and amputating of limbs etc. they are the source for all abrahimic religions. (And can the laws of manu escape from the charge of inhumanism?)

it is just that the jews havent had that kind of power to impose their laws for the past 2000 years but before that you just have to read the history of the Judaic kingdoms

even vedic litreature and ramayan/ mahabharat is full of negativitytowards Dravidians/Dasas, all the Rakshas and asuras are dark, black evil barbarians, these are the people the fairer aryans would have first confronted.


But the operative word here is that all this is in the past tense. in today`s world there exist two problems which have become intertwined.

first is that of jehadis, is it possible to declare a stoner of an adultress a non jew, when it is written in the torah? is it possible to declare a man who practises cast discrimination or sati a non - hindu, when it is prescribed in the vedas and the laws of Manu? No. similarly the jehadis are following a part of the Quran and can not be technically declared non muslims, we could say they are misguided and that they come from primitive cultures etc. the muslims are more backward and feudal, and development would take a few more decades to come here, after all remember the state of Europe 1400 years after christ? what a mess of religous warfare they were, the 30 years war alone destroyed between a fourth to a third the population of western and central Europe. I am not saying development will follow in the same fashion as Christianity because the specifics of the faiths and their historical conditions are different. To get a better idea of whether muslims are regressing or not one has to look at middle class educated muslims vis a vis other muslims. are the middle classes as a group more liberal and open minded or not whether you compare them in Pakistan, India, iraq or Egypt (I am leaving out places in the west where they have recently migrated). This is not to say that there are not specifics in islam that forestall it and keep muslims regressed but is it any thing that human nature which always tends towards its own material gain cannot over come , I think not.

Hindus were in this respect luckier than the abrahimic faiths because their books were not considered unalterable (they also benefitted from westerrn colonisation), in abrahimic faiths that cant be done, the books cant be changed one has to just ignore certain parts of the book and this takes a while as it took in christianity and judaism with economic, political, cultural and social development (these are much older faiths than islam and the regions they ruled achieved a climax between the church and the state much earlier than Islam because in islam the church was never as powerful and that is why its clash between temporal and spiritual authority is much milder than that of christianity.

the second problem, that plagues some muslim regions along with other is that after the 30 years war came the treaty of westphalia and the prevailing political environment is one of nation states these states also needed a glue and that was provided primarily by language and ethnicity and to a lesser extent religion, all these three things go to make culture that is why there are over a dozen states in europe in an area smaller than India today. Also scientific and organizational advances have made the sates of today far more powerful and intrusive than even the mightiest empires of the past.

This leads to problem in states that are dominated by one ethnicity (but with minority dominated regions) even with out the added difference of religion for example Kurds are running separatist movements in iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria despite all of these being muslims states, Tibetans are running one in china despite there religions being very close. Then there are states in which both ethnicity and religion differ where there are/were problems like East Timor and Indonesia, Jaffna and Sri Lanka, Checheniya and Russia, and the former Yugoslavia where actually Slovenians were the first to break away, followed by the catholic Croatians who fought a bitter war, and only then Bosnians, which itself was a multi religious state where the world’s most secularized wine drinking muslims formed a 6% majority and were ethnically cleansed. Even developed countries like chezcoslovakia broke away along ethnic/linguistic lines. Here I am not even counting the dintegration of the former Soviet union along linguistic/ethnic lines into Byelorussia, Ukraine, Baltic states and the central asian states.

The two issue of jehadism and nationalism have gotten mixed in recent times, with the ethnic nationalists taking support from where ever they can for obvious purposes (I call them ethnic nationalists because nowhere where they won did they establish a theocracy neither in bosnia or kosovo and nor in the semi independent Iraqi Kurdistan not even the temproraly free checheniya of the latter 90s) and the jehadis as well as ayatollahs being created because of several factors such as religious revival in the modern muslim search for identity and their trying to overcome their scientific, political and economic inferiority in the modern world. As well as due to the historical circumstances of the soviets invaiding Afghanistan and the nationalist resistance movement becoming an Islamic one due to Zia’s and US support.

The rise of jihadism is complex and has other causes as well outlined eloquently by Fareed zakaria in the Newsweek article called “why they hate us” part being the support of the US to regimes in the middle east and most being the unconditional US support to Israel, which helped convert a secular/leftist ethno nationalist struggle into a jihad as Arafat increasingly saw the ineffectiveness and weakness of his organization and Israeli intransigence he saw usefulness in using hamas and Islamic jihad as bargaining chips with Israel.
Infact having seen Palestinian houses being demolished, neighbourhood being bombed, land being resettled and areas being carved into occupation zones on middle eastern television every day I am surprised at so low a level of support for them from other Arabs as I am by the Pakistanis for Kashmir, this more than anything gives me evidence that this jihadist threat is over blown.

The issue of muslims in the west is a separate one concerning the fragility and absoluteness of islam and a minority faced with identity issues and assimilation into a culture that they look upon as degenerate while trying to overcome their own material inferiority and should not be confused with the ethno nationalist struggles I have outlined above.

Re: # 143

Hindvi:

````...Alongwith it I ponder why the Islam cannot be what I see in Agra or in Istanbul and ask where are the Islamic institutions to do this? Where? ``

This question is not clear to me.``

In this question I meant that at probably the peak of Islamic World, Taj Mahal and Istanbul Mosques etc. were created. To create such fine examples of architecture, the economic, academic, political, and social institutions must have existed to produce such capabilities and resources. I do see wealth created from oil in Arabic hands but do not see other institutions that must have existed then.

Thanks.
Anil