Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 20 Feb 2012 21:55

Status of Border with TSP in order of priority, in the near future (1-2 generations or 10-50 years)

1. Controlled Border - (Both sides have complete control)
2. Peaceful Border - (deescalation of forces that threaten each other)
3. Pass Through Border - (easy access to each others territories for goods and services and trans shipments of goods, through agreed points)
4. Open Border for Goods - (goods can travel as if it travels in an internal province)
5. Open Border for Services - (People can travel for short durations, as if they travel in an internal province)

So, a border always exists. It is hard and sovereign. But it is no longer an impediment to economic integration. The two nation states exist in the foreseeable future.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 20 Feb 2012 23:12

shiv wrote: India cannot simply declare war to attack and take over Pakistan without mobilizing support and creating a mood for war in the country. It is a different matter if anyone attacks. All this has nothing to do with "strong leader" "spine" etc which is so much hot air.

Oh no Sir, a strong leader with spine, can indeed create the mood quite easily if based on real needs and interests of the nation. That is why he/she is called a strong leader.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 21 Feb 2012 07:23

Sanku wrote:
shiv wrote: India cannot simply declare war to attack and take over Pakistan without mobilizing support and creating a mood for war in the country. It is a different matter if anyone attacks. All this has nothing to do with "strong leader" "spine" etc which is so much hot air.
Oh no Sir, a strong leader with spine, can indeed create the mood quite easily if based on real needs and interests of the nation. That is why he/she is called a strong leader.

Sankuji no use arguing with you but I will state my opinion at my own risk. Typing words is easier than getting such a leader.

"with spine", "can", "if", "real" needs. Many conditions required

"If a leader with ABC personality does X and based on widespread support of real need Y and achieves Z he will be a strong leader. Therefore we can have a strong leader"

Yes of course you are right. That statement can never ever be wrong. It may never become true, but it cannot be wrong.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Feb 2012 20:25

When India and China dominated the world economy, this was the trade route.

The image below represents the current world order. Like the Portuguese and later the brits with their naval dominance, the US has converted the East-West land routes used by China and India to a North South route used by the US alone.
2.5 billion people in India and China are now cut off from their traditional land connections.

If India and China cooperate to pacify Pakistan, the US can be neutralised or at least made to see the wisdom of open East west land routes.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Feb 2012 00:18

One way of looking at the aftermath of the Partition is both TSP and India had to participate in the Western allaince against FSU aka containment policy either actively or passively.

TSP chose to be an active member of SEATO and CENTO as Afghanistan was a buffer state for Caroe's formulation of the post colonial Indian sub-continent.

India had to be non-aligned and not support the FSU and thus fail the containment strategy.

By and large India did support non-alignment after Independence but the 1962 Chinese aggression forced India's hand towards defacto support of FSU.

So the 1962 Chinese aggression whoever or whatever precipitated it forced India to go easy on non-alignment.

In the 80s, India went back to non-alignment as it already had the defacto bomb proofed in 1974.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Feb 2012 22:30

X-post....

Aditya_V wrote:cross posting from Shiv link. right from cricket to defense, Indians are interested in forgiving , helping others at the cost of their nation.

The Pakistan Army

A very tortured hagiographic article. However confirms my kabila theory of TSP.

Note how the TSPA chiefs were chosen and changed. Ayub chosen for being a Pathan, Yahaya chosen for being not a Pakjabi und so weiter.

Yet the Army did not revolt except when Mushy was dismissed by Badmash. This was because so long as the leader is bent upon Jihad on kafirs(even the Brits used them on non Anglo Saxons which was war on the kafirs) it doesn't matter who or what he is. See all those refs to Khalid bin Walid and other razakars of yore.
The only time the BIA contingents got messed up was when it was used in Iraq during WWI against the Ottomon Turks.

Despite its image of spit and polish in the BIA days, it was a jihadi army at the core and that came out after 1971 when the new motto of "jihad-e- fistula" was adopted openly.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 29 Feb 2012 01:46

Thanks ramana ji and Aditya_V ji, that Article by Maj (Retd) Agha Humayun Amin, is an excellent piece. It confirms my vague earlier understanding that Armed forces composition and exclusion of Bengali's initiated by Ayub Khan, a Pathan Hindko speaker, who reversed a policy of Bengali recruitment by Jinnah, in the end doomed Pakistan and broke it apart in 1971. This was mainly because his personal low opinion of Bengali people (Martial Race myth) and it kind of debunks the theory that Pakjabi's were solely to blame for the breakup. The picture is more complex when one dig's under the surface. A more correct view is that entire non-Bengali Pakistani people starting from Hindustani Mohajer to everyone in Western Pakistan were involved, it was not a purely pakjabi thing. But since Pakjabi's are majority in that population group, their contribution is of course more than others. This also neatly fits into the centuries old Islamic race hierarchy theory and practice that existed in the subcontinent since the migration of Muslims and spread of Islam in this space. Racism is a pernicious human problem that is still at the root of much evil in this world.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 29 Feb 2012 01:54

This was mainly because his personal low opinion of Bengali people (Martial Race myth) and it kind of debunks the theory that Pakjabi's were solely to blame for the breakup.

The Pathans are not an enemy of Pakjabis. either post-47 or pre-47, there is no solid history of Pathans showing any significant vendetta against Pakjabis. they, of course, hate the non-muslim Punjabi, but the Muslim Punjabi was never considered *worthy* of enmity by the Pathans. so Ayub Khan angle in Pak is merely the Pakjabi guboing to "more white" Pathans. ultimately, the capacity and ability of Ayub to carry out his actions rested on the Pakjabi power base. only with the willing support of Pakjabi base did Ayub carry out his activities.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 29 Feb 2012 02:43

Yes of course, Pakjabi's were never one of the Islamic "master" races, but Pathan's and other Persian sedentary people were, although lower in comparison to nomadic Turkics and Turko-Mongol (Mughals), all of whom we have as the ancestor lineage of Bengal Ashraf class. Whiteness of skin in this case was a secondary factor, as some Turkics and Turko-Mongols were more "Asian" with yellow and darker skin tones compared to Persians and Pashtuns.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 29 Feb 2012 02:51

I was talking in the context of the assertion that Pakjabi not solely responsible for actions against Bengalis. simply pointing out that all roads lead to Pakjab, on that issue. including the power base from which the justifications for the actions were sourced. no need to bring in Turkics/Mongols/Persians into the Bengal episode. 1971 and the preceding events are a unique product of Pakjabi racism having the dominant hand in Pakistan.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 29 Feb 2012 03:12

Sorry if I have mentioned irrelevant matters. But devesh ji, if you have not noticed, I have already stated your conclusion in my first post in this topic:

But since Pakjabi's are majority in that population group, their contribution is of course more than others.

I mentioned Bengal Muslims because I have personal knowledge of it, but it is true for all subcontinental Muslims. Pathan's are considered higher in hierarchy because they have descendants in most subcontinental Ashraf community, which is not true in case of Pakjabi's. Pakjabi racism is actually an example of "Hindu Jat" (Saka, Scythian?) racism against more darker races in the East and Southern part of the subcontinent and does not have much to do with Islam or Muslim history, in fact, I would venture to say that it is probably an integral part of "Punjabi" racism. But that opens a whole other can of worms.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 29 Feb 2012 03:48

oh! so now, "a new way of looking" at Pakistan is the highly relevant and supremely accurate topic of "Hindu Jat racism"?! fascinating. I wasn't aware that Bengal genocide had anything to do with "Hindu Jat racism", whatever that means. Is that racism the reason why Suraj Mal provided safe passage to "darker skinned" Maratha women to safely move from his territory back to Maharashtra? indeed, this "Punjabi racism" or "Hindu Jat racism", whatever the parameters for measuring it are, seems to fall severely short of the track record of "Islamic racism" when it comes to committing genocide, isn't it? and yet, in one stroke, somehow this "Hindu Jat racism" is the equivalent of Islamic racism!!! waah! it takes a lot of stretching to reach this conclusion. I am glad I chose to take you up on that assertion of "Pakjabi racism is not the only factor" for 1971 issue. I was surprised when I saw that, especially coming from a Bangladeshi. But some digging always helps in figuring out the thought process of people. especially, where it leads to, is very enlightening.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 29 Feb 2012 05:29

If It was Punjabi racism then they will say "Put Towel on Poaq face'' during the raping session. Poaqjabis simply dont know and are empty from both in and out. This is very insecure "Nasal" who try to compensate insecurities with emty boasting ,blaming everyone except looking into their own rootless self. All they are have been doing is enjoying the numerical advanatage in Temporary State of Pakistan. Eliminate couple of hundred thousands in few specific districts and wacth them scatter like flies from Pu. Uncle has insulted B52 capabilties by not using them on Poaqjaab ,making them part of human history.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 29 Feb 2012 06:47

devesh wrote:oh! so now, "a new way of looking" at Pakistan is the highly relevant and supremely accurate topic of "Hindu Jat racism"?! fascinating. I wasn't aware that Bengal genocide had anything to do with "Hindu Jat racism", whatever that means. Is that racism the reason why Suraj Mal provided safe passage to "darker skinned" Maratha women to safely move from his territory back to Maharashtra? indeed, this "Punjabi racism" or "Hindu Jat racism", whatever the parameters for measuring it are, seems to fall severely short of the track record of "Islamic racism" when it comes to committing genocide, isn't it? and yet, in one stroke, somehow this "Hindu Jat racism" is the equivalent of Islamic racism!!! waah! it takes a lot of stretching to reach this conclusion. I am glad I chose to take you up on that assertion of "Pakjabi racism is not the only factor" for 1971 issue. I was surprised when I saw that, especially coming from a Bangladeshi. But some digging always helps in figuring out the thought process of people. especially, where it leads to, is very enlightening.

Do you mean to say that racism did not exist in the subcontinent before advent of Islam? What I am saying is that Punjabi Muslims, Sikhs and Hindu's feel themselves to be superior to most people in the subcontinent, because they are more TFTA than most and this has nothing to do with Islam or Muslim invaders that came from Central Asia, so where does this come from? By "Hindu Jat" I meant that it has been there since before Islam set foot in that region:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jat_people

We Bangladeshi's know what that racism felt like, because we had to live with it and we lost a huge number of our people due to it, when Pakistan Army was let loose on an unarmed civilian population, just like Assad is doing now. As I said, Islam has racial hierarchy, but Pakjabi's has no claim for any higher elevated position in it, Pathan's do. Pakjabi's lost their sovereignty to Sikh's, a minority population among them, and it was the British who saved them. This did not happen in Bengal. Maybe they forgot about it when they drank the Martial Race Koolaid that the British fed them with. Major Amin, to his credit, points this out in his article in the above posted link.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 29 Feb 2012 07:00

Yes, very superior.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Feb 2012 07:02

AKalam wrote:
devesh wrote:oh! so now, "a new way of looking" at Pakistan is the highly relevant and supremely accurate topic of "Hindu Jat racism"?! fascinating. I wasn't aware that Bengal genocide had anything to do with "Hindu Jat racism", whatever that means. Is that racism the reason why Suraj Mal provided safe passage to "darker skinned" Maratha women to safely move from his territory back to Maharashtra? indeed, this "Punjabi racism" or "Hindu Jat racism", whatever the parameters for measuring it are, seems to fall severely short of the track record of "Islamic racism" when it comes to committing genocide, isn't it? and yet, in one stroke, somehow this "Hindu Jat racism" is the equivalent of Islamic racism!!! waah! it takes a lot of stretching to reach this conclusion. I am glad I chose to take you up on that assertion of "Pakjabi racism is not the only factor" for 1971 issue. I was surprised when I saw that, especially coming from a Bangladeshi. But some digging always helps in figuring out the thought process of people. especially, where it leads to, is very enlightening.
Do you mean to deny that racism did not exist in the subcontinent before advent of Islam? What I am saying is that Punjabi Muslims, Sikhs and Hindu's feel themselves to be superior to most people in the subcontinent, because they are more TFTA than most and this has nothing to do with Islam or Muslim invaders that came from Central Asia, so where does this come from? By "Hindu Jat" I meant that it has been there since before Islam set foot in that region:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jat_people

We Bangladeshi's know what that racism felt like, because we had to live with it and we lost a huge number of our people due to it, when Pakistan Army was let loose on an unarmed civilian population, just like Assad is doing now. As I said, Islam has racial hierarchy, but Pakjabi's has no claim for any higher elevated position in it, Pathan's do. Pakjabi's lost their sovereignty to Sikh's, a minority population among them, and it was the British who saved them. This did not happen in Bengal. Maybe they forgot about it when they drank the Martial Race Koolaid that the British fed them with. Major Amin, to his credit, points this out in his article in the above posted link.

It is interesting to note what you say about the specificity of Punjabi "Hindu Jat" "racism" before the advent of Islam.
(1) what sort of "racism" was this - was it colour based? was it specfic ethnicity based?
(2) can you please quote the source narratives where such racism is displayed by "Hindu Jat" in Punjab before the advent of Islam?

This would really help in a new way of looking at Pakistan. But maybe you will also have to clarify what you mean by Punjab before the advent of Islam, and why you attach "Hindu Jat" to it. It can be shown that "Jats" apparently also lived much further down close to the sea.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 29 Feb 2012 08:36

AKalam,
if you are going to make such a sweeping claim, you should be able to prove it. there need to be primary sources which clearly reveal a feeling of racial superiority. there has to be some document that is sourced from the Panchanadi/Sindhu area which clearly shows that the people there looked down on easterners. a good way to start is look at interactions between Sindhu+Panchanadi dwellers and Malwa region. if you can find such narratives, then you have a right to claim "pre-Islamic" racism. otherwise, it's a bunch of cockamamie BS.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Feb 2012 08:43

AKalam wrote:I mentioned Bengal Muslims because I have personal knowledge of it, but it is true for all subcontinental Muslims. Pathan's are considered higher in hierarchy because they have descendants in most subcontinental Ashraf community, which is not true in case of Pakjabi's. Pakjabi racism is actually an example of "Hindu Jat" (Saka, Scythian?) racism against more darker races in the East and Southern part of the subcontinent and does not have much to do with Islam or Muslim history, in fact, I would venture to say that it is probably an integral part of "Punjabi" racism. But that opens a whole other can of worms.

interesting. when facts become uncomfortable invent new theories. I raise my tinfoil hat to your rather colourful imagination.

a couple of facts for the clueless

a) jats are not sakas or scythians.
b) discrimination by skin complexion was introduced and first practiced in India by central asian muslim invaders. in a country like India where there always was huge variation in skin complexion this was unthinkable before.
it is no wonder that this practice reached its most monstrous form in the country that held the said central asian invaders as heroes, namely pakistan. obviously, it is more convenient to blame the 'hindoos' than do introspection.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 29 Feb 2012 08:54

Rahul M ji,
it is in an incessant need to blame the "Hindu". in this aspect, we see Bangladesh following the same trajectory as Pakistan. The "Hindu" is becoming the ultimate straw man, to be beat up and spit on, for any and every reason plausible. now we have Bangladeshis indulging in a similar kind of drivel that Pakis indulge in when they are talking about "Hindu Baniya mentality". we see shades of the same thinking spreading to the neighbors that we helped liberate. btw, I'm sure there were a fair number of "Hindu Jats" who participated in the liberation of Bangladesh. I'm sure they are feeling happy that their work has been a stellar success.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Feb 2012 09:28

Its called blaming the heathen for the believer's faults.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 29 Feb 2012 09:35

AKalam Sahib now qualfiy for the nomination of Digvijay DharmBhrasht Academy Award .

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 29 Feb 2012 10:18

X-posted.

Probably, it is related to human psych. Every human is a composition of good and bad. Some of the ideologies (Dharma) suppress the bad, and some religions encourages bring forth the id (ugliness) to open, and if some really really bad people get their bad out of it, the ideology and society does not discourage these, it will bring a human tragedy to others.

In the case of pakjabis, the ROP is getting the beast out of some men (Jat), and society has failed to curb these extremes for fear of becoming wajib ul qatal or some ideology like brotherhood, concept of kafir, jihid, etc.

In simple terms, rest of the society follows somewhat stricter do's and do not's and if there is any deviation that is noticeable and is duly condemned. For ROP's, no body questions or condemns if anybody crosses do not's and yet fail to do their do's for fear of religious prosecution, more over the such deviations are revered making sane persons shut their brain.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 29 Feb 2012 14:30

I have not been feeling well for the last few days which is my excuse for making OT posts. But regardless, my apologies for making sweeping statements, specially about "Hindu Jat" racism from pre-Islam era, without knowing the history of Punjab region really well.

About 1947-1971 period of Pakistan history, racism did play a role that went hand-in-hand with economic deprivation and unfair treatment of the Eastern wing. But I should not single out the Pakjabi people for it, all non-Bengali ethnic groups in Pakistan were participants in this, but not all individuals in these groups are responsible. It was mostly a very small number of people, members of the military-feudal-business elite that was responsible. After 1971, this same military-feudal-business elite continue to make a mess of Pakistan, till today.

As said many times before, we in Bangladesh remain ever grateful to Indian state and people for helping us in our time of need, that good deed cannot be paid back in any way. My apologies if I have hurt the feelings of Jat citizens of India with my statements, for that matter, my apologies to Muslim Jats as well, whether they are in Pakistan or India. The perpetrators in 1971 were few individuals after all and this includes some among our East Bengal Muslims, the rest of us have been unfortunate victims.

Racism is a human condition. Relation between different ethno-linguistic groups are never easy and straight forward. There is no simple solutions to these problems. There is racism and discrimination in all societies for disadvantaged groups. Hopefully over time we human beings will find ways to overcome these negative feelings and hatred for fellow human beings, who happen to belong to "the other".

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 29 Feb 2012 15:29

Hindu Jats as an ethnic percent are possibly the largest component of the IA. Casual perusal of lists of casualities in Kargil and 71, you'll find not surprisingly large chunks of names of Hindu Jats, They would have been instrumental in the Eastern and Western sectors, and hence stopping the genocide in 71. Bit of a stretch from Kalam Ji there. Hindu Jats are spread in 3 regions, Punjab, Haryana and North Western UP. Traditionally they were farmers or soldiers although lately they've branched out to many other professions. Virender Sehwag, Ashish Nehra are Hindu Jats. Large numbers converted to Arya Samaj in Western UP and North Haryana belts. Arya Samaji's for example rejected many culturally discriminative practices prevalent in those areas.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Mar 2012 04:33

OK more fodder to the whiteness debate. Straight from TSP intellectual:

Arav wrote:How to become a successful ‘rent-an-expert’ By Ayesha Siddiqa

If you are a white-skinned foreigner trying to make a career in journalism or academia, here is an opportunity of making it big by becoming an expert on the ‘most dangerous country’ in the world — Pakistan. The colour of the skin is critical for success because those guarding information inside the country about the country do not prefer darker complexion as it reminds them of what they were before being invaded and exposed to genetic re-engineering through processes that are better be kept secret.

Being a female helps tremendously as powerful circles in Pakistan believe that women are most effective in conveying messages to the world. A genuinely pretty face is not a prerequisite as long as the female has a man-attracting-magnetic personality, can speak English well, and falls in the category of a ‘liberal scum’ (most likely she will never be a true liberal). Although domestically numerous versions of females are now available, some of them original and other clones, to communicate the views of the ‘state within the state’, there is always the need for the superior version: the white-skinned female who can naturally speak with an accent and easily make inroads in the western system. A well-dressed woman with airs is certainly a huge advantage.

Now they want double whiteness:white and female.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Mar 2012 07:31

^^Not the single variety? Or they never allow screening of that film?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 01 Mar 2012 07:42

Akalam bhai,
Chachnama is freely available in translation - in fact there are two translations available. The two original Persian versions onlee differ in the number of "Hindoos" killed. Go through it and try to find any possible ref to "racism" - colour or otherwise. If at all, by whom. Jats are mentioned in the texts. Check on which side of the struggle they were and those who sided with the muslims were the urban "Samanis" [not Persian - in this case direct Persianization of "sraman" or Buddhists] who apparently also lived in style in great houses and with slaves etc. The Buddhists travelled with Qasim's negotiators to try and convince "non-Buddhist" lay people to surrender to Qasim - but in spite of all that convincing, the town still decided to resist.

This shows that the "Buddhists" were not commoners, [there were Jats on both sides of the struggle], and that lay townspeople were not Buddhists or not swayed by them. Since the Buddhist elite were in competition with an increasingly hostile non-urban population getting out of buddhist control - and this resurgence would be seen as being led intellectually by the "Brahmin" [Chach himself is described as a Brahmin who wonder of wonders marries the widowed queen of he previous king and also fights with weapons in battles - no "suttee" whatsoever] priests of the numerous and growing "Nilakantha" temples [Hieuen Tsang] - we can immediately see a possible source of the neo-Islamists to fuel the pre-existing racism of the Arabs and early Islamics in general against the "Brahmin". This would be a solid basis of constructing so-called "caste-based" repression and painting the Brahmin racially as the evil.

[Muslim chroniclers show their hatred by colour in numerous narratives - against the "dark" Hindu, and arab scholars lead the way].

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 01 Mar 2012 11:56

brihaspati ji,

If you say that its there in the original or translation, I will take your word for it. Racism was and is a very common human trait. I do not think it started with Islam in Arabia or Central Asia. You are making Islam into the reason for racism, which I cannot agree with. But you do have a point that since Muslims were there in the subcontinent since around 700 AD, Muslims had a part in the formation of later societies and may have inadvertently contributed to evolution of Caste system for non-Muslim societies in India. For Muslims themselves, it was simply a need for them to keep their gene pool pure and avoid mixing with locals as much as possible, which was impractical, as these migrants did not usually bring their women with them. But they tried anyways which created a caste system among Muslims as well.

I think skin color or phenotype based racism is much older. It could be as old as human origin, since Homo Sapiens moved out of Africa about 60-100,000 years back and mixed with different Neanderthal type older cousin species which were already there and had evolved for several hundred thousand to a million years, in different parts of Eurasia. Sub-saharan Africans are the only major group today that do not have any of these older genetic imprints, which is now present in all Human, including Australoids in Asia and Oceania. So the difference among various groups could be because of the different older Neanderthal types the recent African migrants mixed with in different parts of Eurasia. For East Asians, there was talk about a similar Homo Pekinensis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus_pekinensis

Racism also sometimes come from a need for the feeling of overt superiority. An example is the Khalsa movement within Sikhism, which apparently elevated the Jatt or Jat from Shudra to casteless elevated position of warriors. I did some web search on this and I found that Jat Sikhs do not mingle well with Dalit Sikhs. So this is another example of social dynamics that was created indirectly because of Muslim rule. But it could also be a transformation of pre-existing social attitudes and mores. White supremacy was used as a justification for colonial imperialism in the last few centuries. Sometimes they serve definite social and economic purpose, but once the ball starts rolling, it continues rolling because of momentum, although the original reason or purpose is no longer there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence

Now, about your plans for cleansing Pakistan of the offending memes, how do you plan to accomplish it, considering that Pakistan has nukes? Also, what is the plan for Bangladesh, or is Hasina rule a part of this plan? Should we expect an all out attack from India sometime in coming decades when India accumulates sufficient means to handle this project? What is the desired end goal? I understand that your goal is to eliminate the Mullah's, but Mullah's are just common people who go to Madrasa and learn Quran, Arabic etc. What do you want to do with the vast educated middle class, who will be standing on the way?

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 01 Mar 2012 12:30

AKalam wrote:Racism was and is a very common human trait. I do not think it started with Islam in Arabia or Central Asia. You are making Islam into the reason for racism, which I cannot agree with.

AKalam ji, you are right that racism of one kind or another is a human problem. However, certain theologies do promote it, and it even becomes a central part of theologies. Of these, the Abrahamic theologies are certainly racist at their core, because the idea of a chosen race and a God that chooses one race over others is a central part of their theology. That includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is over and above their being exclusivist in terms of doctrine and affiliation. On the other hand, the Vedanta Sutras - the central principles of Hinduism that define the elements of reality, including Godhead - clearly state that the Personality of Godhead must be free of the qualities of vaishamya (partiality) and nairghrnya (pitilessness). These qualities disqualify a theological proposition from defining God. According to this viewpoint, humans can be classified only based on degree of civilization and cultivation of spiritual merit. For example, at various times in history, Indics labelled other peoples as Arya (noble) or Anarya (ignoble) depending on their degree of acceptance of culture and habits. This included Chinese, Iranians, Afghans, etc. At times ehty would be spoken of as Arya, and at other times become fallen races, depending on the cultural memes they imbibe. But in Abrahamic religions, the narrative is about a God who first chose the Jews as a chosen race. Then the Christians claim that Christ threw open the doors of Israel to the gentiles too. Then the Moslem claim that the same God became fed up with Jewish behavior and changes His mind to choose the other lineage of Abraham - via his slave girl - and the next revelation came to an Arab - and the last and final one at that, after which He will not be changing His mind or speaking again until the end of the world.

Secondly, as a general rule, there is no theological justification for bodily designations (upAdhi) in Indic religions, and in fact they tend to explicitly derogate such designations.

Thirdly, as a consequence of the above point, one can easily see that in the political spectrum, Dharmic religions tend towards the left, while Semitic religions tend towards the right. In Abrahamic societies, conservative, xenophobic attitudes easily find support from religious texts and history, whereas the liberal side has to appeal to humanistic qualities like love, tolerance, compassion, reasonableness, etc. Whereas in India and other Dharmic societies, one finds that the liberal type easily finds support in scripture and religious history, whereas the right-wingers have to appeal to baser human emotions such as "national security", "sense of hurt", "ethnic pride", etc. This is a phenomena that can be easily observed historically, and it says something about the character of the underlying religious traditions.

Because of these and other factors, it is not wrong to say that racism and slavery are easily able to find justification in Semitic religions, whereas that is not the case with Indic religions. In fact, in the case of Indic religions, once access to scriptures is provided, all unfair social hierarchies are exposed as fraudulent, and the only way for them to historically protect their interests has been to keep the common man ignorant of the Vedanta. Whereas we see continuation of hierarchies and ethnocentric politics even though Christian and Islamic scriptures are thrown open - in fact we see it building up in a bizarre crescendo centered on the disputed site in Jerusalem.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 01 Mar 2012 20:16

Excellent post Carl Ji.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Mar 2012 23:30

BijuShet wrote:From "The News" (posting in full).Opinion piece by Roedad Khan
Our descent into chaos
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Just when you think our situation couldn’t possibly get worse, the United States manages to get it down another notch. First, it was the totally unprovoked attack on the Salala check post resulting in the killing of more than 24 jawans of the Pakistan Army. Now it is the highly inflammatory and provocative call by US Representative Dana Rohrabacher for the secession of Balochistan. It is a harbinger of covert US plans for the dismemberment and balkanisation of Pakistan.

The current crisis in Balochistan, triggered by General Musharraf, has a long history. In a television interview on January 4, General Musharraf issued a stern warning to the Baloch nationalists. “Don’t push us. It is not the 70s, when you can hit and run, and hide in the mountains”, he said, alluding to the military operation to quell the insurgency in Balochistan in the 1970s. “This time, you won’t even know what hit you”. “Oh God”! I said to myself. “Not again”. Unfortunately, generals do not learn from history because they do not read history. They make history.

The crisis in Balochistan is a throwback to the 1970 insurgency that resulted from Bhutto’s dismissal of the National Awami Party government and the detention, on conspiracy charges, of 55 nationalist politicians and student leaders. Nearly three divisions were deployed to crush the insurgency and restore normalcy in that troubled province.

On July 5, 1977, the Bhutto government was toppled in a military coup led by General Zia, I was asked to take over as secretary ministry of interior. Within days, I met General Zia in the GHQ in the presence of Ghulam Ishaq Khan, secretary general-in-chief. The Hyderabad Conspiracy case came up for discussion. Mr Bhutto had earlier banned the National Awami Party.

Top Pakhtun and Baloch leaders were arrested and detained in Hyderabad jail and put on trial under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Special Courts Act of 1976. The government was in a state of armed confrontation with the people of Balochistan. The army had been deployed to crush what was officially described as an insurgency. Both sides had suffered heavy casualties.

Ghulam Ishaq Khan told General Zia that Bhutto had launched the army operation in Balochistan, not because there was an insurgency, but because he could not reconcile himself to a non-PPP government in Balochistan, which he had sacked without any justification whatsoever.

He told General Zia that Bhutto was using the army to punish his political opponents and advised him to call off the operation, drop the conspiracy case, release the Baloch and Pakhtun leaders and defuse the situation. We assured Zia that he would never regret this decision. He said he agreed with us but would have to discuss the matter with his colleagues.

When we met him again, he told us that his colleagues did not agree. We pressed him again to ask his colleagues to reconsider the matter dispassionately. This time Zia had better luck. He had secured their agreement. He went to Hyderabad, met all the Baloch and Pakhtun leaders in jail, and had lunch with them. He called off the army operation, dropped the Hyderabad Conspiracy case and what is more, sent Ataullah Mengal, a heart patient, to the United States for medical treatment. All this had a dramatic effect. In no time, the situation returned to normal. All military operations in Balochistan were ended and troops were withdrawn; a general amnesty was granted to all those who had taken up arms against the government; all sentences were remitted; properties confiscated were returned to their owners. With one masterly stroke, Zia defused the situation. For eight long years, Balochistan gave us no trouble.

The use of force against the people did not succeed in East Pakistan and led to tragic consequences. How can it succeed in Balochistan? Why use force to resolve what is essentially a political problem? That is what happened to us in East Pakistan. Why repeat the same mistakes in Balochistan?

We lost our independence and sovereignty on General Musharraf’s watch when he capitulated, said yes to all the seven demands presented to him, as an ultimatum, by Colin Powell, the then US secretary of state. No self-respecting, sovereign of an independent country, no matter how small or weak, could have accepted such humiliating demands with such alacrity. General Musharraf executed a U-turn, disowned the Taliban and promised “unstinted” cooperation to President Bush in his war against Afghanistan.

Pakistan joined the “coalition of the coerced”. There were no cheering crowds in the streets of Pakistan to applaud Musharraf’s decision to facilitate American bombing of Afghanistan from US bases on Pakistan soil. Musharraf had to choose between saying no to the American diktat and shame. He chose the latter and opted for collaboration. Thus began Pakistan’s slide into disaster.

Is it, therefore, surprising that the American footprint in our country is growing larger and heavier by the day? Nuclear Pakistan is now an American colony and is used as a doormat. American military personnel criss-cross our border without let or hindrance. Their drones violate our air space with the agreement of our government and kill innocent men, women and children. No questions asked. No public outrage. No country-wide protest demonstrations. No self-respecting country, big or small, would tolerate such intrusions.

Our country is in grave danger. Sixty-three years after Mr Jinnah gave us a great country, little men, mired in corruption, have hijacked it and destroyed his legacy. It is hard to exaggerate the baleful impact of Zardari’s rule: the oligarch and the mafia who have stolen every asset of any value, the inflation that has ruined the middle class and the poor, the corruption that has corroded all values and humiliated every decent citizen; and the insecurities that have filled everyone with fear and anxiety.

Pakistan is descending into chaos and is caught between a hard place and many rocks. The political arena seems more like a forum of mass entertainment than a place of serious deliberation. Parliament, the chief instrument of democracy is cowed, timid, a virtual paralytic, over-paid and under-employed, totally insensitive to the sufferings of the people it claims to represent.

The present leadership is taking Pakistan to a perilous place. The course they are on leads downhill. It appears as if we are on a phantom train that is fast gathering momentum and we cannot get off.

Why are people who owe everything to this country so silent? The tragedy is that each person feels what is wrong and knows what is required to be done; they all lament over it, ritualistically, in drawing rooms across the country but none has the will or energy needed to seek something better; all have lofty ideals, hopes, aspirations, desires, regrets, sorrows and joys which produce no visible and durable results.

What will become of poor Pakistan? “What the end will be”, Carlyle wrote, “is known to no mortal; that the end is near all mortals may know”.

The writer is a former federal secretary. Email: [email protected], http://www.roedadkhan.com

-----
What happened in Sept 2001 was TSPA got defeated without firing a shot by US and surrendered. The mess we are seeing is the consequence of that. Everything in Roedad Khan's rhona/dhona can be explained by this.

War was avoided but the defeat was not overt, public and clear. What this did is to promote an internal civil war among various factions in TSP which is now a Temporary State of Pakistan being held together for Westphalian reasons.

- The Baloch civil war
- TTP in FATA/WANA
- The Karachi uprisings
- General breakdown of law and order
----------------

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Mar 2012 01:27

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/s ... 120301.htm
Talks later, let Pakistanis sort out Pakistan first
Vikram Sood

In dealing with Pakistan, India's first step should be to stop treating it exclusively as a Muslim nation, writes Vikram Sood
( Cesspool full of fools and Djinoods)

Old shibboleths and half truths take a long time to wither away. Pakistan still likes to believe or, at least its leadership does, that India is determined to undo the partition and grab Pakistan. It is essential that Pakistan be convinced through force of logic and reality, and not by hopeful pacification bordering on appeasement, that India is simply not interested no matter what state Pakistan is in. This is more so, when it is in the present state of economic destitution and political isolation, because of its own international misdemeanours. As soon as Pakistani leaders understand this, as soon as its military jihadi complex that has made hate India its USP, understands this, the sooner peace will break out.

WKKnizers

It is true that that there many sane voices in Pakistan today who speak of the need to normalise relations with India and feel confident in their own nationality that they can be true Pakistanis without hating their neighbour.
Their numbers are small, their voice limited largely to the English-speaking class, and the Pakistani middle class, the country's ruling class and the feudal, who control the levers of power are dependent upon the army for their survival and even prosperity. The voice of reason is unfortunately drowned in the voice of hatred and fear; bolstered by an education system that inculcates obscurantism and hatred for non-believers. Worrying that this may be, it should be equally worrying that our text books too are rewriting history that is sectarian.
In our dealings with Pakistan, our first step should be to stop treating Pakistan exclusively as a Muslim nation.

DiggyDaPiggiDa Connundrum

They believed in the two-nation theory, we did not and do not. That is why they became two in 1971 and we have continued as we were -- perhaps a little muddled and disorganised, but still together. There is therefore, no need to be obsessive about Pakistan's religion which forces us to be reflexive about our own Muslims. We do not treat the US, the UK or France on the basis of these countries major religion. There are no Christian republics in the world and if Pakistan wants to maintain itself as an Islamic republic it is its choice.There is no need for us to keep assuming that we have to make electoral promises in India, concede anything or have to be friendly with Pakistan simply because this would affect vote banks of political parties.This is not only faulty reasoning but in this day and age doubts the integrity and loyalty of our Muslims. Indian Muslims have the same problems as the rest of us, sometimes a little more, granted but they have the same hopes and aspirations as the rest of the country.

PoqqlaDhokla

Everyone realises that Pakistan has killed more Muslims in the name of religion than any other country in modern history. It lost its claim to being the home for the subcontinent's Muslims in 1971 and has today become a safe haven for radical Islamic terrorists out to destroy the world. Religion was never a basis for nationality or nations. Had that been so we would have had only half a dozen major countries in the world. Christians have fought Christians in the two of the bloodiest wars of the last century and for hundreds of years before that.

Poaqpiddling Dingling

As the smaller country and economy dealing with the bigger country and bigger economy it is the former that usually stands to derive the greater benefit. Nations of this century will stand or wither away depending upon how much good governance their governments provide, how much prosperity they can bring to their people and how much security they can provide to the average man woman and child.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Mar 2012 03:47

Bji,

Can you write it up with more details and refs?

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1250007

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Mar 2012 04:26

AKalam wrote:brihaspati ji,

If you say that its there in the original or translation, I will take your word for it. Racism was and is a very common human trait. I do not think it started with Islam in Arabia or Central Asia. You are making Islam into the reason for racism, which I cannot agree with. But you do have a point that since Muslims were there in the subcontinent since around 700 AD, Muslims had a part in the formation of later societies and may have inadvertently contributed to evolution of Caste system for non-Muslim societies in India. For Muslims themselves, it was simply a need for them to keep their gene pool pure and avoid mixing with locals as much as possible, which was impractical, as these migrants did not usually bring their women with them. But they tried anyways which created a caste system among Muslims as well.

No, Arab geographers had already started dubbing the hindu "dark/black" before the start of "conquests". However they do not seem to have had any problems bedding "high born" girls captured and enslaved after the sack of Devala. In fact it is claimed that some were married off. Moreover Arab soldiers were encouraged to seize a local girl and settle down in the "conquered" territory. So avoiding gene pool mixing is not supportable as a hypothesis. But coming from BD, you surely must have come across the strange over-eagerness to convert the Brahmin rather than "lower caste" Hindus, and the joy openly expressed if a "Brahmin girl" was "obtained". There are many resources on the web that puts up the story of Noakhali during the Partition. But its not the story of Noakhali only - it happened even later - even in 1953, 1957-59, 1964-65, 1971, 1973-78, 84-85, 90-93, and so on.

I think skin color or phenotype based racism is much older. It could be as old as human origin, since Homo Sapiens moved out of Africa about 60-100,000 years back and mixed with different Neanderthal type older cousin species which were already there and had evolved for several hundred thousand to a million years, in different parts of Eurasia. Sub-saharan Africans are the only major group today that do not have any of these older genetic imprints, which is now present in all Human, including Australoids in Asia and Oceania. So the difference among various groups could be because of the different older Neanderthal types the recent African migrants mixed with in different parts of Eurasia. For East Asians, there was talk about a similar Homo Pekinensis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus_pekinensis

It is still almost impossible to prove prehistoric "racism". In fact from a practical viewpoint, below a certain threshold of population, they would be wiped off - if they did not mix whenever they found a "stranger" group.

Racism also sometimes come from a need for the feeling of overt superiority. An example is the Khalsa movement within Sikhism, which apparently elevated the Jatt or Jat from Shudra to casteless elevated position of warriors. I did some web search on this and I found that Jat Sikhs do not mingle well with Dalit Sikhs. So this is another example of social dynamics that was created indirectly because of Muslim rule. But it could also be a transformation of pre-existing social attitudes and mores. White supremacy was used as a justification for colonial imperialism in the last few centuries. Sometimes they serve definite social and economic purpose, but once the ball starts rolling, it continues rolling because of momentum, although the original reason or purpose is no longer there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence

The constructions you are speaking of - are problematic and of recent origins. Anything that introduces the "shudra" as a category is highly suspicious and is really a hypothetical model that is passed off as real history. Its as elusive as the marxian "class" - of necessity forever vague and ill-defined, because no such category can be constructed or evidence in reality.

Now, about your plans for cleansing Pakistan of the offending memes, how do you plan to accomplish it, considering that Pakistan has nukes? Also, what is the plan for Bangladesh, or is Hasina rule a part of this plan? Should we expect an all out attack from India sometime in coming decades when India accumulates sufficient means to handle this project? What is the desired end goal? I understand that your goal is to eliminate the Mullah's, but Mullah's are just common people who go to Madrasa and learn Quran, Arabic etc. What do you want to do with the vast educated middle class, who will be standing on the way?

Mullahs are not just ordinary people who learn Quran - these are people with sufficient intelligence to be seen as good enough to carry on the long term targets of Dawa and progress the aims of islamization. Not everyone who goes to the madrassah, becomes a mullah or rise up through the hierarchy of qualifications.

My aims, if any are about the territory called Pakistan. If you keep track of the diasporic BD community, and listen in on their interactions, you can see that there is a dominant and significant portion who do identify more with Islamism and Islam than their "Banagali" identity - and some even question the need to fight against Pakistan. That dilemma and dichotomy is still very much visible within BD - and expresses itself in a coupled anti-India+"Islam bipanna"+"Muslim Bangladesh" positioning and posturing.

If India does finish off Pakistan, the Islamism wave will sweep everything else in BD, because that will be touted as the existential threat. That will be the real test of exactly what is the priority for the dominant controlling interests of BD. I expect BD to walk a certain way, and under pressure reveal its leaning over towards Islamism. That will make things easier to deal with.

As you can see, even in your own post - the anguish over the possible fate of Pakistan at the hands of big bad and inherently-constructed-as-hindu India, forces you to sarcastically refer to Sk Hasina gov in the typical BD parlance of the AL opposition - hinting ever so darkly of a hidden yeevil yindoo+Amreeki+yahudi "chakranta" against "islaam and saarbobhaumatya".

You at least should be able to see clearly that Sk Hasina is the best option for Islam - because she still raises the illusion in the non-Muslim of the eventual dilution of the Islamist programme of conquest and replacement of all else. Others would hobble the Islamophile sections within the yeevil yindoos.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 02 Mar 2012 04:34

Oh, and as for Pakis having "nukes" - I would need to see them in action to be convinced. Let them throw some. In any case, Pakis will have to use them against others before they can use it on India. The existential fun is just starting.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 02 Mar 2012 05:00

Carl wrote:
AKalam wrote:Racism was and is a very common human trait. I do not think it started with Islam in Arabia or Central Asia. You are making Islam into the reason for racism, which I cannot agree with.
AKalam ji, you are right that racism of one kind or another is a human problem. However, certain theologies do promote it, and it even becomes a central part of theologies. Of these, the Abrahamic theologies are certainly racist at their core, because the idea of a chosen race and a God that chooses one race over others is a central part of their theology. That includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is over and above their being exclusivist in terms of doctrine and affiliation. On the other hand, the Vedanta Sutras - the central principles of Hinduism that define the elements of reality, including Godhead - clearly state that the Personality of Godhead must be free of the qualities of vaishamya (partiality) and nairghrnya (pitilessness). These qualities disqualify a theological proposition from defining God. According to this viewpoint, humans can be classified only based on degree of civilization and cultivation of spiritual merit. For example, at various times in history, Indics labelled other peoples as Arya (noble) or Anarya (ignoble) depending on their degree of acceptance of culture and habits. This included Chinese, Iranians, Afghans, etc. At times ehty would be spoken of as Arya, and at other times become fallen races, depending on the cultural memes they imbibe. But in Abrahamic religions, the narrative is about a God who first chose the Jews as a chosen race. Then the Christians claim that Christ threw open the doors of Israel to the gentiles too. Then the Moslem claim that the same God became fed up with Jewish behavior and changes His mind to choose the other lineage of Abraham - via his slave girl - and the next revelation came to an Arab - and the last and final one at that, after which He will not be changing His mind or speaking again until the end of the world.

Secondly, as a general rule, there is no theological justification for bodily designations (upAdhi) in Indic religions, and in fact they tend to explicitly derogate such designations.

Thirdly, as a consequence of the above point, one can easily see that in the political spectrum, Dharmic religions tend towards the left, while Semitic religions tend towards the right. In Abrahamic societies, conservative, xenophobic attitudes easily find support from religious texts and history, whereas the liberal side has to appeal to humanistic qualities like love, tolerance, compassion, reasonableness, etc. Whereas in India and other Dharmic societies, one finds that the liberal type easily finds support in scripture and religious history, whereas the right-wingers have to appeal to baser human emotions such as "national security", "sense of hurt", "ethnic pride", etc. This is a phenomena that can be easily observed historically, and it says something about the character of the underlying religious traditions.

Because of these and other factors, it is not wrong to say that racism and slavery are easily able to find justification in Semitic religions, whereas that is not the case with Indic religions. In fact, in the case of Indic religions, once access to scriptures is provided, all unfair social hierarchies are exposed as fraudulent, and the only way for them to historically protect their interests has been to keep the common man ignorant of the Vedanta. Whereas we see continuation of hierarchies and ethnocentric politics even though Christian and Islamic scriptures are thrown open - in fact we see it building up in a bizarre crescendo centered on the disputed site in Jerusalem.

Carl ji, do you actually believe in Tejo Mahalaya?

Chosen people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen_people

The concept mainly comes from Judaism. It is not a main stream concept in Christianity. Racism is actually prohibited in Islam according to the official line:
http://www.inter-islam.org/Prohibitions/RACISM.htm

In practice racism is a common trait for most of humanity, regardless of their belief systems. Most people engage in it because as a group people derive some tangible benefit from this practice.

Some belief systems do a better job of suppressing this instinct, Sanatan Dharma, according to many and yourself is one such system.

In earlier times when different racial archetypes originated and evolved in different geographical corners of the world, small populations remained in these isolated corners for a very long time as hunting and gathering was easily supported in their space. At the end of the ice age about 10,000 years back, people suddenly invented agriculture (domestication of plant and animal species), had surplus, increased their numbers and civilizations started appearing. It is at this stage these isolated populations started interacting with their neighbors from near and far. That stage still continues today, but some of the old archetypes still remain, such as European, Black African, Indian and East Asian, although most have changed since from what they were before the ice age. Today most populations are a mix of the old archetypes and over time all global population will become brown, which has already happened in some parts of the world, like the America's and the subcontinent. This mixing along with increased travel, contact and proximity, as well as a evolving global culture, will help reduce any feeling of ethnic kinship among groups which we have today among Africans, East Asians or Europeans for example.

Islam has an interesting role in this race mixing, which ultimately works to reduce racism in humanity.

While this race mixing process continues, because of historical happen stance and also because of groups taking advantage of the opportunities presented, some groups turned out to be economically more successful and this helped to propagate the meme of racial superiority. So economic success will help disadvantaged groups to reverse these memes, I think.

The other thing I notice is that although races and ethnic groups usually stay put in their own space, whenever they are transplanted in large numbers and come in contact with each other, frictions develop between disparate groups. Problems between Blacks, white europeans and Amerindians are well known. Although Europeans and Amerindians intermingled and continue to do so in large numbers, that cannot be said to be happening for Blacks and Europeans or Blacks and Mestizo's. So When ethnic groups of the subcontinent from opposite side of the subcontinent found themselves in the same country, problems developed between them and the country broke up, the glue of common religion did not help to keep it together.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Mar 2012 05:08

AKalmaji, During the Sultanate period Razia Sultana, daughter of Iltutmish, was not allowed to rule for her marriage/nearness with an Ethopian(habshi) slave Jamaluddin Yaqat.

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

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 02 Mar 2012 06:13

"If (all types of men) are taken, from the first, and one placed after another, like the Negro from Zanzibar, in the Southern-most countries, the Negro does not differ from an animal in anything except the fact that his hands have been lifted from the earth -in no other peculiarity or property - except for what God wished. Many have seen that the ape is more capable of being trained than the Negro, and more intelligent."

The Zanj (African) differ from animals only in that] their two hands are lifted above the ground,... Many have observed that the ape is more teachable and more intelligent than the Zanj.

Grand Ayatollah Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Tasawwurat (Rawdat al-taslim) 13th Century

Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in Allah’s Cause. Killing him is a small matter to us.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 69

Also was it not Mohammed who said Blacks have hearts grosser than Donkeys..

The bias against the darker skin is abundantly seen throughout Islamic literature, scholars and it's founder. With such a legacy, it's sort of impossible Islam will serve as a platform against racism. Noahs Sons of Ham saga is again repeated in the Koran..

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 02 Mar 2012 06:25

harbans wrote:"If (all types of men) are taken, from the first, and one placed after another, like the Negro from Zanzibar, in the Southern-most countries, the Negro does not differ from an animal in anything except the fact that his hands have been lifted from the earth -in no other peculiarity or property - except for what God wished. Many have seen that the ape is more capable of being trained than the Negro, and more intelligent."

The Zanj (African) differ from animals only in that] their two hands are lifted above the ground,... Many have observed that the ape is more teachable and more intelligent than the Zanj.

Grand Ayatollah Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Tasawwurat (Rawdat al-taslim) 13th Century

Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in Allah’s Cause. Killing him is a small matter to us.
Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 69

Also was it not Mohammed who said Blacks have hearts grosser than Donkeys..

The bias against the darker skin is abundantly seen throughout Islamic literature, scholars and it's founder. With such a legacy, it's sort of impossible Islam will serve as a platform against racism. Noahs Sons of Ham saga is again repeated in the Koran..

Quotations are there a plenty, but please look at the track record of Islam, how many races it has mixed from distant corners of the world.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 02 Mar 2012 06:32

AKalam wrote: Quotations are there a plenty, but please look at the track record of Islam, how many races it has mixed from distant corners of the world.

hmm... didn't colonialism/imperialism also 'mix' many races from distant corners of the world?!!