Bharat Rakshak

Cursing Jews, Shooting Hazaras and Murdering Shia
Kidnapping,Raping ,Beheading, Nasaras, Hindus and Singhs
These are few of Paki Islamic favourite everyday things.

Interesting tidbit on Islamic law from a trial in UAE.Islamic Oath of Qasama

Qasama is a way of adjudicating first-degree murder charges when there are only strong suspicions that the defendant committed the crime, yet there is not sufficient evidence.

During Qasama, the victim's heirs are asked to swear a religious oath a total of 50 times that they believe the defendant killed the victim.

They also have the choice of reverting the Qasama back to the defendant and making them take the oath 50 times saying they did not commit it.

More I see of Islamic jurisprudence, the more in dread it's implementation in any form anywhere.

All is fair in war. A revealing article.

Slavery in Islam: To have and to hold :: Jihadists boast of selling captive women as concubines

THE holy book is clear about what to do when you capture a city: “Put to the sword all the men in it”. As for the women and children, “You may take these as plunder for yourselves.”

Why is there Islamic Terrorism?

There are several theories trying to explain Islamic Terrorism - poverty, lack of education, hate-filled education, convoluted sense of Islam, grievance and victimization, response to wars by the West, extension of Islamic politics & diplomacy, geo-strategic tussle, Oil, etc.

There is a grain of truth in all of them, but, I feel, most completely miss the reason or just touch on a small aspect of the issue.

Actually the reason is much simpler, and in fact we hear it all the time in form of one slogan or another, but the Kufr still refuse to "get it".

In order to understand Jihadi Terrorism, we need to get at the core of Islam and Muslim psychology, and for that we should for the time being completely forget how we define and describe Islam - through the Qu'ran, through the Prophet, through the Hadiths, through Islamic history, through the Mullah, Masjid and Madrassa, through the politics of various Muslim countries, etc.! Let's just say all these things distract one from one's goal.

In my view, Islam has three main ideas which fuel Islam's engines -

1. System Integrity
2. Entitlement
3. Protection

All struggle in Islam happens because of these three absolute principles.

The idea is to covet the principle in one's favor and to try to deny it to the other. This "competitive spirit" is all-pervading and forms the attitude not just towards Kufr, but also towards other Muslims. Furthermore these principles manifest themselves both horizontally and vertically in society.

System Integrity: Islam does not allow any outsider to question the foundations of Islam. Others consider debating the foundational principles of a certain world view as natural, for only if one's uncertainty about it is put at rest, would one eventually embrace the world view, for example say Islam, or for that matter the debate can simply serve humanity at large to better understand the various streams of thought. More practically speaking, since 9/11, there has been an increased interest in the world to know to know why Islam is at war with them. However this debate is anything but normal, for apparently Islam does not accept any criticism, especially if it is directed at its foundational elements - Qu'ran, Prophet, Sharia, etc.

If the System Integrity looks like being breached, Islam shows its displeasure very publicly and with force. Publication of "Rangeela Rasool", Danish cartoons of Muhammad, Qu'ran burning in US, Murder of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker, etc. come to mind. In fact various laws in Islamic countries, have the penalty of death for "Gustakh-e-Rasool", for blasphemy. Other countries have their own "hate" laws, so as not to provoke the Islamics. One also often gets to hear slogans like "Islam khatre men".

Islam sets up a Firewall against any ideological attack from outside, and basically all Muslims are supposed to do their bit in protecting the "Citadel of Islam". "Radical Muslims" would take to the street and attack Kufr institutions, while "Moderate Muslims" would take to the airwaves and print and make the case that this is an understandable reaction to an uncalled for provocation.

But the issue of System Integrity does not end there. It goes much further, further into Sectarian strife. Each sect makes the case that only it represents true Islam, and thus attacking other sects is Islamic duty, as the very existence of other sects is a violation of the system integrity of Islam, as propounded by a given sect. And thus we see Deobandi Sunnis killing Barelvi Sunnis, Sunnis killing Shia, Sunnis and Shia killing Ahmadi, etc.

What would be a principle if it was purely a theoretical exercise and was not to be lived by. The Wahhabi stream, the Talibanic stream is not satisfied with simply a sect ideologically pledging itself to the acceptable sectarian doctrine, the ideology has to by also lived by. Complete System Integrity is reached only when thought and action are in sync. So we see new tanzeems coming up promising to bring about a higher level of System Integrity, and this causes what we know as "Green on Green Action".

As such one finds one Tanzeem trying to dominate the other, one Sect trying to dominate the other, Islam trying to dominate those with other faiths, ALL in the name of Islam. Providing "enhanced system integrity" is a valid service in Islam, and various "companies" specialize in that.

System Integrity is however a principle that finds its adherence in Islam not just horizontally but also vertically. One would see a whole Muslim community trying to oversee that the various families live by the tenets of Islam. If some family is flouting the rules, then the necessary pressure would be applied to encourage compliance. Here the uncles, the cousins, and others suitably advised by the Maulvi would proceed correct any unbecoming behavior. This pressure would always be on the father. He passes on the pressure to the family members - the mother, to the sons and especially on to the daughters. The son too would chip in to ensure compliance, for he too would be under peer-pressure. This peer-pressure to comply is otherwise known as "family honor". This peer-pressure is of a kind, that fathers would kill their daughters if need be to save "family honor", and sons would do likewise to their sisters.

The khauf, the terror, of going against Islamic and Mullah's injunctions is so complete that it forms the basic building block of any Muslim's psyche, and the only way the Muslim can live with it is by considering himself a perpetrator of this terror, as a soldier of Islam, as an agent of System Integrity, rather than its victim.

As such System Integrity is ensured down to the last member of Muslim society.

The principle of System Integrity is not only to protect the "Citadel of Islam" but it finds its application elsewhere too, which is to deny the benefits of the same principle to others.

For this reason one would find the high level of destruction Islam caused when Islamics invaded India. They went about systematically to destroy all that gave Hindus the System Integrity of Bharatiya Sabhyata - the temples, the libraries, the intellectuals, the priests.

In fact one finds a similar level of violence towards all that what other sects revere and what makes them different. Mazars (tombs) happen to be a favorite target among sects who do not believe in them, e.g. in the tussle between Deobandis and Barelvis.

Humiliation of Hindu Gods, our practices, our society is a constant theme among Muslims, especially the educated ones, who have picked up all the Western literature as well that there is also written for the same purpose. Any online interaction with a Pakistani would mean that he brings up topics like Hindus drinking cow urine, Temple Dasis being prostitutes, and Hindu women making love to Shiva lingam considering it a penis. Kufr often think why the Muslims do not believe in tolerance towards others and in fact celebrating diversity. Concept of tolerance cannot work because denial of System Integrity to the other is a fundamental principle for the Muslim. However since such behavior can often mean a similar response towards Islam, and the Muslim could desist from it, for he does not wish to be seen as provoking Blasphemy.

Kufr think that when the Islamic believes in some principle, he believes in the mutuality of it, in the universality of it. On the contrary, Islam is based on Exceptionalism and accepting equality with other religions, would amount to not giving that exceptionalism its due respect.

To be continued ...

Why is there Islamic Terrorism? (Cont.)

Principle of Entitlement: Qu'ran says everything in this Universe, Allah made for Man - the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, plants, animals are all for Man. Man can take all that he pleases, as long as he worships Allah. This makes everything in the Universe only for Muslims. From there comes the Muslim sense of Entitlement.

The phrase Zar, Zoru aur Zameen may be familiar to many.

The Momeen only needs to stretch his hand, and all Zar (wealth), Zoru (women) aur Zameen (land) of the Kufr belongs to him. That is what has been the credo. Now the Kufr may consider all this immoral and illegal, and this Islamic concept may not be talked about that much these days, but it forms a primary guiding principle of the Islamic mind. True state structures and secular law may have put a little impediment in this "free" thinking, but it is still there, and shows its presence in a number of ways.

Any monies that the Americans or other countries were to shower on Pakistan, there would be no gratitude, but Pakistan would always consider the money as payment for its invisible services. In the West, Muslims may receive all sorts of social benefits but one would not hear any words of praise or gratitude towards the Western states. It is just natural to avail of such benefits, for all money coming from the Kufr into the pockets of Muslims is nothing but Jizya.

All women taken prisoner during wars with the Kufr become "Ma malakat aymanukum", right-hand possessions, to be raped, sold, and raped at will. In fact marriages of people not of the Book are not recognized as marriages at all, and no exceptions are made for married women either. This became a threat during Islamic Rule in India, which encouraged practice of Sati. One has a Yazidi woman, captive of ISIS, saying that she has been raped 30 times and it is not even lunchtime as yet, and pleading for the prison where she is held captive to be bombed and the women to be put out of their misery.

Often the names of the culprits in India and elsewhere betray why they went ahead and misbehaved with or even raped a Kufr woman. So this behavior is seen at the local level as well.

So even as the Islamics prey upon Kufr women, Muslim women are considered as property of Muslim men, and they are not privileged to go and marry a Kufr. Entitlement allows Muslims to prey upon Kufr women, but that right cannot be conferred on the Kufr, unless he converts.

If there are lands which have had Islamic rule in the past, but doesn't have now, and where the majority has remained non-Muslim to begin with, Islamics would consider it a setback, but as the land belonged once to Ummah, the sense of entitlement on this land would remain strong. The dream to recapture it would remain alive. This is how Pakistan sees India. Many Muslims still see Spain this way. Giving up that dream would be negating the principle of entitlement.

However if the land has majority Muslims, but is under non-Muslim rule, then the sense of entitlement is much stronger, and recovering it for the Ummah becomes a sort of "call of duty". This is the case with Kashmir. Now Pakistan has zero chance of winning a military conflict with India and really getting Kashmir, but giving up on that "right" would be somehow negating the principle of entitlement itself. The Principle of Entitlement should not be diluted according to Islam, especially if it is to some land once in possession or currently populated by Muslims. For this reason, chances of some understanding among Palestinians and Israelis never existed. Even if the Palestinians were willing to accept some solution other Arabs would not allow it. Arafat too died without reaching a peace settlement with Israel.

If militarily strong, Muslim countries would always try to satisfy their sense of entitlement over others.

But this is not just over Kufr. Sense of Entitlement runs all across Muslim society. That is why one sees rampant feudalism in Pakistan. That is why Iraqi Sunnis are incapable of living under a Shia government. That is why Turks still dream of recreating the Ottoman Empire even if it has to be through ISIS.

In fact people may have their own experiences at the local level with the Islamic sense of entitlement.

This sense of entitlement has often given men in Islam an added drive and excuse to wage war on the Kufr.

To be continued ...

NRao wrote:All is fair in war. A revealing article.

Slavery in Islam: To have and to hold :: Jihadists boast of selling captive women as concubines

THE holy book is clear about what to do when you capture a city: “Put to the sword all the men in it”. As for the women and children, “You may take these as plunder for yourselves.”

This is not from the holy book that one might reflexively think it is from. This is Deuteronomy, the Old Testament of the Bible. Not that the Quran is softer, just that we don't want any internet hindus to go to online war armed with this quotation thinking it is from one holy book, while it is from another...

Why is there Islamic Terrorism? (Cont.)

Principle of Protection: In Islam, there is the concept of Mawla or Walī which means a "protector" and in fact can have more rights over somebody than they have on themselves.

Let's look at the issue of Protection within Islamic society itself. Mostly it is organized around tribal structures and in urban field the Mullah acts as the coordinator.

Every Walī wants to increase his flock, for in numbers there is strength. Every Walī is willing to fight over mineral resources and trade routes and pleasure of the Gulf Sheikhs, for he has to do some charity to show he cares about his flock. Every Walī wants to have his own little army for only thus he can provide protection, especially considering that other groups and other Walīs may contest his right anytime. Every Walī wants to have his little army armed as much as possible.

For every Walī the challenge is to grow or die, for there are others willing to overthrow him. I had touched on the issue in "Wolves and Dogs".

The market of Islam has less to do with competition of ideas, but rather a competition among groups for control over land, resources and populations. However this competition mostly is carried out within parameters set by Islam, where the leader, the Walī, cannot be seen as too dependent militarily on Kufr forces, for then his position would be compromised and he would get competition from his commanders.

We have seen in Pakistan, sectarian groups willing to bomb the mosques belonging to other sectarian groups, or open fire at funeral processions even. This too is Terror. But basically here the leader of a sectarian Tanzeem, its Walī is trying to make the point to the other sect, that its Walī does not have it in him to give protection to his flock, and their salvation is only if they convert from Ahmadi to officially recognized Muslim, from Shia to Sunni, from Barelvi to Deobandi.

This same template of protection is taken to the Kufr, and Islam tries to convert others and increase its numbers. Many would act as Ghazis of Islam and the rest would act as the amorphous mass of the Ghetto which would support those Ghazis with safe sanctuary, logistical support and resources.

As mentioned earlier, Principle of Protection is about increasing the level of the Protection an Islamic group and its leadership can give to one's own flock, e.g. through arming and group cohesion, and at the same time challenging the ability of other leaders to protect their own groups.

Under this principle of protection, one can better understand Islamic Terrorism. Terror is there to tell the Kufr that their current protectors, their State, their elected leaders, their security forces, cannot protect them from Islam and Islam can hit them at a time and place of its choosing. The message being sent out is that for Kufr, their only salvation lies in the surrendering to Islam's demands and ultimately submitting themselves to Islam.

Islamic Terror is to show Western, Israeli, Indian and other non-Muslim leaders as weak, as leaders incapable of protecting those whom they have taken under their protection.

Jihadis are more than proud of showing the massacres undertaken by them to the whole of mankind. The photos and videos and commentary coming out of Syria and Iraq, may have the purpose of showing ISIS as brutal barbarians and to shed light on the plight of their victims, but it also acts as Jihadi propaganda, for it spreads fear of Islam and Islamics far and wide, through the West, through India and to other places. It serves Muslims everywhere in the world, because thus they receive respect of the local populace, respect based on fear. So some "Moderate Muslims" may make the rounds of various TV studios, but generally the Muslims are silent and internally enjoying the prospect of more local respect to them worldwide.

The more brutal the torture, the more shocking the deaths, the higher is the wealth if fear is the currency. Fear as a currency is universally accepted. All the Islamics need is to do some "work" in one place, and one can encash it anywhere where the word has reached of this terror. Since the global media networks, social media, are spreading the gruesome photos and videos of ISIS's work around the world, they are basically doing ISIS's work - of making the fear earned in Syria encashable in places as far away as USA or India.

Common people in the world led by their democratically elected corrupt leaders, and serviced by a corrupt police force, can they really hope that their assumed protectors would really protect them, or would they start fearing that in the name of expediency their so-called leaders would rather forsake them and either run away to distant places or even join the ranks of Islam, if a push came to shove?

The appalling lack of trust in one's own leaders compounds the fear factor.

This terror is not just one of bombs and suicide vests and chopping off body parts. Islamic Terror pervades communities vertically. Even at the street level, one would find incessant bullying and intimidation by Muslim gangs. It can be taking liberties with Kufr women. It can be having a fight with you over the most trivial of issues. Every disagreement is instrumentalized and used for intimidation, for spreading terror at a personal level. Big Muslim families and a cohesive Muslim community with willingness to gather in large numbers looks even more intimidating if the Kufr does not have the same to fall back on.

Kufr often think of such violent Muslims as irrational idiots, but there is nothing irrational about their behavior. Kufr intellectuals sitting in their high knowledge and moral ivory towers may call them barbarians, but the currency here is not morality or knowledge, but simply fear, and fear works its way to the heads of such intellectuals as well. Instead of admitting that they have no answers, many Kufr intellectuals out of habit propagate solutions which advocate compromise, and giving in to the savage in order to avoid further unpleasantness. This happens at the international level and this happens at the local level.

At the local level in majority Kufr-countries, often the police is not willing to move against such examples of intimidation and crime, hoping that the issue would die down with time. In many Kufr countries, there are Muslim ghettos which have become no-go areas for the police. At the international level, so called leaders make their own compromises. And even as the local security forces are unwilling to provide protection to the Kufr they do not allow the Kufr to organize himself in private paramilitary groups citing it against rule of law. So when Kufr look at the images being broadcasted from Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc. they ask themselves whether their corrupt leaders would be there for them.

Through Terror, Islamics can deny the Kufr the perception of protection by their Protectors.

On the other hand, if a Kufr gets into a problem with one Muslim, for whatever reason, he can be assured that more Muslims would gather around in support of the Muslim. If a Muslim country is attacked, Jihadis from all over converge there to fight the battle, and Muslims living in the Kufr country may start their own Jihadi campaign against it.

This is a required behavior by Muslims, regardless of at what level the conflict is. This is the mechanism of protection, Islam has built into its DNA and which it tries to deny the Kufr.

Islamic Terror is here to stay as long as Islam is there, because this terror was always there ever since Islam's very foundation.

Why is there Islamic Terrorism? (Cont.)

Pakistani Hate: Often Indians are puzzled by the level of hate and contempt one sees among Pakistanis for Indians. At the same time one sees often affection among Pakistanis too. This Love-Hate Relationship among Pakistanis for Indians is actually quite understandable.

There is also the phenomenon of Pakistanis trying to show themselves as offspring of Turks, Arabs, Persians, Afghans, and what not, that is trying their level best to distance themselves from their Hindu past.

There is the general hate that is instilled among Muslims towards the Hindus, and transitively towards Indians, through the various masjids, madrassas and Paki Army propaganda.

But the Pakistani bipolar complex and their acerbic hate is a bit more than just the usual distanced hate.

It is my belief that Pakistanis hate Hindus because their Hindu leaders failed to protect them and allowed them to be taken prisoner of Islam, turned them from proud people into screwed up drones. When Pakistanis see the WKK people trying to suck up to them, they hate Hindus even more for reminding them just how weak their forefathers were, who fell to Islam. It is because Pakistanis think that the WKK crowd is representative of Indians, and thus Hindus, that their contempt for Hindus and thus to their Hindu forefathers increases even more.

Pakistanis hate Hindus for not saving them from Islam. In fact all converted Muslims hate their non-converted ethnic brethren for they remind them what it meant to be free people. For them they see full conversion of their non-Muslim ethnic brothers as the only solution for their deep-seated pain, for only that would stop reminding them of their enslavement through Islam.

Once enslaved, one remains enslaved as it is a self-perpetuating system without any scope of real exit.

So Pakistanis would love us, but they would also hate us for what we are - free Hindus!

-- The End --

Cross-posting from "Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct 2014" Thread

A_Gupta wrote:a. not quite - Taliban are violent; nationalist Islam would not be (or rather, Islam that was violent would not be accepted as nationalist).

As Omar Abdullah said, he is proud to be a Muslim, Kashmiri and Indian. He left out to say "in that order".

Islam does not prohibit "nationalism" as long as that identity is subservient to the Muslim identity and thus Ummah interests.

Creation of Bangladesh, which is often cited, was not a case of triumph of nationalism over religion. As long as East Bengal had been secured for Ummah, it just did not matter to Islam, that East Pakistanis chose a separate nationalism than West Pakistanis.

What Ajit Doval is perhaps wishing for is "nationalist Muslims", those who are nationalist because they entertain nationalism outside of Islam. This can indeed be possible, but only as long as the Islamization of the Muslim is not complete, for then he belongs to Nation of Islam only.

RajeshA, Very good summary of lessons learned about Islam. In an expanded form give more examples to sink in the lesson by way of analogy.

Also the innermost jihadi core are sadomasochists who are empowered by Islam doctrine. What Islam does is legitimizes their criminal behavior by sanctioning it. The whole training process is to create this S/M core in perpetuity.
Do consider this aspect.

Process of conversion(Imagine the following videos in a piskological way):

These videos are from the series Game of thrones about a character called Theon Greyjoy.

Theon is imprisoned and tortured by a sadistic ******** called Ramsay.


(Warning the video is quite gruesome and vivid. There is nudity)
This is just a video of torture and more sadistic torture.


The family of Theon is informed and they try to save him from the clutches of Ramsay.


But disturbingly, Theon refuses to return and declares that he is loyal to Ramsay.


Now, Ramsay dresses up Theon and sends him back to deceive Theon's people.


This in short is the story of conversions specially violent and dogmatic ideologies.

Imagine inductive iteration of this phenonmenon. Imagine, Theon also repeats what Ramsay did to him to others, say, X, Y and Z.

Then, each of X, Y and Z repeat it to others A, B and C; D, E, F and I, J, K. And so on. A sadistic culture is born which perpetuates itself. Since so many of them are part of it, they consider it normal and natural.

In these videos, the emphasis is on pain and loyalty. If you add the 'us vs them' theme and some religious aspects, then it becomes even more powerful.

How do you cure this kind of madness?
Ramsay is incurable and sadistic. He needs punishment. Theon is curable but he is under severe piskological control of Ramsay. Neutralize Ramsay and take control of Theon and cure him. The first step is to get Theon away from the control of Ramsay. Ramsay has to be given a dose of his own medicine while Theon is watching. This is the way to earn Theon's loyalty and respect.

Who is Ramsay?
Mullah.

wiki wrote:Mullah (Arabic: ملا‎, Turkish: Molla) is generally used to refer to a Muslim man or woman, educated in Islamic theology and sacred law. The title, given to some Islamic clergy, is derived from the Arabic word مَوْلَى mawlā, meaning "vicar," "master" and "guardian."

So, the word 'Mullah' means 'Master'.

JohneeG, Just last week I realized the S-M aspect of Islam and contemplating how to spread the message.
Islam is a vehicle to empower S-M perverts.
There is no peace, no religious aspect to it.
Its a brutal sick (psychologically) ideology about Custody of the flock.

ramana wrote:JohneeG, Just last week I realized the S-M aspect of Islam and contemplating how to spread the message.
Islam is a vehicle to empower S-M perverts.
There is no peace, no religious aspect to it.
Its a brutal sick (psychologically) ideology about Custody of the flock.

Ramana gaaru,
Even X-ism was same before modernization. I think Oiropean societies, the Khazars took control and X-ism weakened. The same can be done in the malsIc socieities.

Just to reinforce the point made through the videos:
Malik Kafur was a Hindhu boy who was abducted by the jihadhis during their raids on Gujarath. He was enslaved and converted. Some say that he was also castrated. He was then sold as a slave to the sultan's army. Malik Kafur quickly rose in the ranks due to his loyalty and cruelty and of course, success.

Malik Kafur was taken under the wings of Allauddin Khilji. Allauddhin was the nephew of Jalulddin Khilji. Jalulddin had usurped the throne from the erstwhile ruler after killing all the heirs of erstwhile ruler. Jalulddin then became the Sultan and Allauddin got plum post. Under Allauddin, Malik Kafur also rose to prominence. Some say that Malik Kafur was the lover of Allauddin. Allauddin also had female concubines and wives and children from those wives. But, its common from malsIc rulers/mullahs to have male lovers.(Note that the pedophilia and homosexualty is rampant in X-ist churches also. It is to show that X-ism and malsI are same same).

Soon, Allauddin murdered his uncle Jalulddin and usurped the throne after killing his kith and kin. Malik Kafur became his point man. Then, Malik Kafur was sent on an expedition of the south Bhaarath. Malik Kafur met enormous success against the Hindhu kingdoms of South-Bhaarath. Malik Kafur who was originally a Hindhu was now destroying Hindhu temples, raping women, enslaving men, looting treasure and doing all sorts of cruelties.

The enormous wealth looted by Malik Kafur made him rich and powerful. He was now ready to take over the throne. So, he killed Allauddin and many of his heirs. Then, he declared himself king. But, soon, he was murdered by others(within 35 days). This is the story of Malik Kafur.

This is remarkably similar to the story of Theon Greyjoy. Here, Malik Kafur was graduating from being a Theon Greyjoy to a Ramsay.

People routinely talk about weather moderate is good or fundamentalism is good...etc. This is very vague and arbitrary talk. The right thing is to have a scale and judge people based on that.

There are 5 simple qualities provided by Manu which can be used to judge people and ideologies:
Ahimsa (Non-cruelty),
Sathyam (Truth/Honest),
Astheyam (Not-stealing),
Shaucham (Cleanliness),
Indhriya Nigram (sensual control).

If any ideology meets these 5 qualities, then its a good ideology.

Coming to the individuals, one can rate people on the scale of weather they are Theon or Ramsay. Ramsay needs to be punished publicly. Theon needs to be taken out of control of Ramsay.

Many people have said that we need a dheshi version of malsI. Can it be done? This is exactly what was tried by Akbar. Akbar's Dheen-e-Ilahi was trying to provide a framework of this. Akbar's religion failed because the Ramsays were not punished publicly. So, Theons remained under the control of Ramsays.

For example, lets say a new malsI group X comes up with new definitions of malsI under the guidance of Aar-Yes-Yes. This malsI group will be declared apostate by the Ramsays. Now, these Ramsays have to be punished publicly and the new group will have to be given privileges and favours. This is what the brits did with Aligarh.

But, brits did not change the fundamentals of malsI itself. So, that was the shortcoming of their project. The shortcoming of Dheen-e-ilahi project was not punishing the Ramsays even though it provided an alternative philosophical and religious framework for the Theons.

Sikhism is a successful model which shows that by providing an alternative philosophical and religious framework(i.e. Hindhu core with elements of malsI) and by aggressively fighting the Ramsays, the Theons can be won over.

In simple terms, Sikhism is a successful model to deal with malsI. Kabir, ...etc also had the religious and philosophical framework but they withered away because they did not develop an organization and they did not aggressively fight the Ramsays.

Hindhuism uses these steps as a cleansing process before re-accepting so that the core philosophy is not corrupted.

From Sikhism's point of view, there are 3 paths ahead:
a) stay as it is.
b) win more followers by converting the Hindhus.
c) win more followers by converting the muslims.

a) stay as it is: This is a status quo policy. In the long run, Sikhism will merge back into Hindhuism. This is similar to Chamunda merging back into Paarvathi after the destruction of Shumbha and Nishumbha.

b) win more followers by converting the Hindhus: This is self-destructive path which is to advantage of malsI. If you notice, bakis have been trying to initiate this process. They have been trying to turn Sikhism against Hindhuism because Sikhism is a mechanism initiated by Hindhuism to deal with malsI.

So, Khalisthan project supported by the bakis is quite clever. This time, Shumbha/Nishumbha are trying to make Chamunda fight with Paaravathi. Quite interesting. But, I think it won't fructify because at the end of the day, Chamunda and Paarvathi are same same. They are two aspects of the same entity. So, they won't fight.

c) win more followers by converting the muslims: This is the correct path in my view. But, the danger is that the Sikhism's core might get corrupted. To balance off the muslim converts, the Sikhism would have to keep its core staunchly oriented towards Hindhuism and ally closely with Hindhus.

Aligarh is western oriented and Devbandi is Turkic oriented. Wahabi are Turko-Arabic oriented(Because the original Arabs are now eliminated and Turko-Arabs are the rulers). Shias are oriented towards Persia.

All of them are not oriented towards dhesh. So, Doval should support Sikhism, Khabir, Dheen-e-ilahi kind of movements among the malsIs.

From Dabiq issue. 4:

http://media.clarionproject.org/files/i ... rusade.pdf

Al-Baghawī reported in his “Mu’jam” a marfū’
hadīth (i.e. a hadīth whose words are conveyed
as the Prophet’s) [that the Prophet (sallallāhu
‘alayhi wa sallam) said], “Indeed Allah has sent
me with guidance and the religion of truth. He
did not make me a farmer, nor a merchant, nor a
shouter in the markets. And He placed my provision
in my spear.”

He mentioned the spear rather than the sword
so that it is not understood that he got provision
from the ghanīmah wealth. Rather, his provision
was from the fay’ that Allah granted him from
Khaybar and Fadak.

Fay’ is what the enemy leaves behind after fearfully
fleeing, contrary to ghanīmah, which is taken
through fighting with the sword. Therefore,
mention of the spear more clearly indicates the
acquirement of fay’, because the spear is seen
by the enemy from a distance, so he flees, and
thus he flees from the spear’s shade by which
fay’ is taken. The provision of the Prophet (sallallāhu
‘alayhi wa sallam) was from fay’, not
ghanīmah, which is taken by fighting with a
sword. And Allah knows best.

For these reasons, one who abandons jihād and
instead busies himself with making money has
been censured.

For this reason, the Sahābah (radiyallāhu ‘anhum) disliked
entering the land of kharāj (taxed land) for the
sake of agriculture, because it distracts from jihād.
Mak-hūl said, “When the Muslims entered
Shām, the plants of al-Hūlah were mentioned to
them, so they planted crops. This news reached
‘Umar Ibn al-Khattāb (radiyallāhu ‘anh). So he
sent someone to the crops after they became
ripe and burnt them with fire. He then sent a
letter to them saying, ‘Indeed Allah placed the
provision of this ummah in its spearheads and
beneath its spear-tails. If they farm, they become
like other people.’” This was reported by
Asad Ibn Mūsā.

He also reported through an isnād of his that
‘Umar wrote, “Whoever farms, follows after the
tails of cattle, is pleased with such, and admits
to it, I will enforce jizyah upon him.”
It was said to one of them, “Why don’t you
keep a farm for the family?” So he responded,
“Wallāhi, we did not come as farmers, rather we
came to kill the farmers and eat their crops. ” 1
So the best condition for the believer is that his
time is spent in obedience of Allah, jihād fī sabīlillāh,
and da’wah to His obedience. He should
not seek the dunyā. And he should take from the
wealth of fay’ and from other sources of wealth
what is merely sufficient, as the Prophet (sallallāhu
‘alayhi wa sallam) would take food which
1 This and the previous narration are forms of tarhīb (warning against sin, disliked matters, or wasteful actions). They are not to
be taken literally, as farming is a mubāh (permissible) form of work. But the message conveyed is that a believer lives by performing
jihād and then taking from the agriculture of his kāfir enemies, not by dedicating his life to agriculture like his enemies do.
_____________
13
dabiq
would suffice his family for a year. He would take
it from the fay’ and divide the rest. And sometimes
he might see someone needy thereafter
and then give him his family’s food, and so his
family would remain without anything.
And likewise is the case for one who is busy with
knowledge, because it is from the two forms of jihād,
so his dedication to knowledge is like jihād fī
sabīlillāh and da’wah to Him. If he takes from the
money of fay’ or waqf, he should take only what
suffices him to strengthen himself in his jihād. He
should not take more than his need from it.

More gems about slavery and what not in there as well, all pure understandings of Islam in theory and practice.

JohneeG, Have you heard of "moriscos'? These are Spanish Muslim converts after Conquista.
The rumor is they still keep their Islam covertly.

ramana wrote:RajeshA, Very good summary of lessons learned about Islam. In an expanded form give more examples to sink in the lesson by way of analogy.

I hope this can become one of the templates to understand Islamic policies and behavior. Examples and analogies would follow.

ramana wrote:Also the innermost jihadi core are sadomasochists who are empowered by Islam doctrine. What Islam does is legitimizes their criminal behavior by sanctioning it. The whole training process is to create this S/M core in perpetuity.
Do consider this aspect.

Yes there is a certain inversion of control (IoC) in Islam. Instead of the system throwing up people of virtue, knowledge, skills and merit, the system basically puts all the vile elements of society into power and bestows on them an aura of holiness, claiming they are doing the work of God.

All three principles of Islam: System Integrity, Entitlement and Protection are such that these can best be advanced by these vile elements of society, and so Islam and Evil can not only coexist but both thrive on each other.

1. To ensure System Integrity in Islam, tools used are Oppression and Intolerance.
2. To ensure Entitlement in Islam, tools used are Loot, Rape and Invasion.
3. To ensure Protection in Islam, tools used are Militarization and Terror.

The sadistic streak among Islam's leaders fits into the meritocracy required to make best use of these tools.

Why is there Islamic Terrorism? (Cont.)

ramana garu,

Just to recap, the idea is to project all activity concerning with Islam on a three dimensional matrix

• - y Axis: Principle: ◆ System Integrity, ◆ Entitlement, ◆ Protection
  
  - x Axis: Level: ◆ Civilizational Level, ◆ Sectarian Level, ◆ Tribal/Gang Level, ◆ Street Level, ◆ Family Level, ◆ Personal Level
  
  - z Axis: Target: ◆ Benefiting Self, ◆ Denying Others

One can of course do further classification of activities based on Tools and Tactics used.

johneeG garu,

Ramsay and Theon scenes were some of the most impressive writing and portrayal that I have watched in Game of Thrones. It is perhaps a vivid display of an extreme Stockholm Syndrome, where one's psyche has been completely destroyed and restructured.

Humiliation of other faiths and societies is to achieve just that. Not just converts, but Indian Seculars too, with whom I have engaged with on various Pak forums, have displayed many characteristics of Theon, even though they have not completely converted as yet. They are completely taken in by the strength of the Islamic man, inferiority of Indians, envy of Islam, etc.

Thanks for sharing the videos in an appropriate context.

The Logic of Islamic Terrorism

Blogged Tweeted

RajeshA wrote:johneeG garu,

Ramsay and Theon scenes were some of the most impressive writing and portrayal that I have watched in Game of Thrones. It is perhaps a vivid display of an extreme Stockholm Syndrome, where one's psyche has been completely destroyed and restructured.

Humiliation of other faiths and societies is to achieve just that. Not just converts, but Indian Seculars too, with whom I have engaged with on various Pak forums, have displayed many characteristics of Theon, even though they have not completely converted as yet. They are completely taken in by the strength of the Islamic man, inferiority of Indians, envy of Islam, etc.

Thanks for sharing the videos in an appropriate context.

RajeshA saar,
there is something which is strange in this world: some people seem to respond better when they are mistreated. The same people will respond badly when they are treated well.

This is actually quite strange because why would anyone want to mistreat those who treat them well and why would anyone want to love someone who treats them badly?

I think the answer to this is found in the basic qualities(Gunas) which make up the universe.

According to Hindhuism, there are 3 basic qualities(Gunas):
a) Satthva
b) Rajas
c) Thamas

There is a lot of conundrum about what exactly these qualities are and what they lead to.

Broadly,
Satthva seems to be about mild/caring/sensitive nature. It is also based on knowledge. The implication seems to be that those who are knowledgable will be kind and caring. Why? Because they understand that all beings are same same. Also, they believe in Karma. If you hurt others, then others will hurt you. If you don't want other to hurt you, then don't hurt others. So, this knowledge makes the people satthva into kind and caring people who don't like to hurt anyone unless there is no other choice. This quality is necessary because it leads to knowledge or seeking knowledge.

Rajas seems to be based on power and fame. The word 'Raja' means 'glowing' or 'shining'. So, rajas is a quality that distinguishes ordinary from special. This quality drives people to seek fame/respect from others. Respect or fame is obtained through power, valour, money, creativity, ...etc. Basically, Rajas drives people to seek respect.(Good old, Honour and dignity in the baki language). This quality is necessary because this quality drives creativity. The drawback of this quality is that it leads to jealousies, ambition, greed, fights, ...etc.

Thamas seems to be based on total ignorance. The word 'thamas' means 'darkness'. The idea seems to be that just as a person cannot see in darkness, similarly people of thamas are totally ignorant. It is as if they are blind even though they have eyes. This quality drives people to be lazy, ignorant, sadistic and unconscious. Total thamas is sleep or unconscious. The drawback of this quality is that it leads to sadism.

Now, all three qualities exist in all things in the world. The difference seems to be in proportions.

The qualities are linked to actions. This is called as Guna-Karma vibhagashaha in Bhagavadh Geetha.

Basically, it mapping the Qualities(Gunas) to Actions(Karma). Please note that Gunas are tied to Karma. So, the qualities exhibited by a certain object or people will depend on the actions performed by that object or person.

So, if an object/person is used to doing Satthva actions(Karma), then that object/person will be satthva.
if an object/person is used to doing Rajas actions(Karma), then that object/person will be Rajas.
if an object/person is used to doing Thamas actions(Karma), then that object/person will be Thamas.

So, the Gunas are not permanent features of any object/person. But, it takes time to change from one Guna to another Guna because of inertia(Vasana).

If you have performed satthva actions for 10 yrs, then you will be a satthva person even if you perform Rajas actions for a day or two.

Now,
coming to the topic:
Ideally, one would expect people to treat others just as they treat them i.e. tit for tat. If someoene treats you well, you treat them well. If someone treats you badly, you treat them badly. This is the general expectation.

But, this does not happen in the world because of the presence of the Gunas.

Satthva people treat everyone with respect and kindness. Even those who hurt them will be given a long rope. Because Satthva people are kind and knowledgable. They put themselves in other person's shoes and try to be forgiving. Satthva people admire goodness or knowledge or good knowledge.

Rajas people seek fame/respect. They admire power, money, valour, creativity, ...etc. They admire these without caring whether that power, money, valour, creativity, ...etc are obtained by good methods or not. They don't mind how power, money, valour, creativity, ...etc are used. They are only interested in one thing: specialty. If something is distinguished, then they like it. Infact, they like it if someone shows power. They admire it when someone show might.

(According to Hindhuism, supposedly women have more Rajas then men because women have creativity i.e. they give birth. So, they have more Rajas for the creativity. But, it also means that they have more of 'admire the specialty' thing in them. Thats why women fall for the 'bad boys'. They fall for them because the 'bad boys' show confidence and assert power/might. This attracts them. The same can be seen in the animal world where female species are attracted to dominant males. They are attracted because of the 'distinction'.)

Thamas people are simply indolent/lazy or sadist or ignorant. They just don't get it. They just can't help it. The only way is to keep them in line using dhandam(punishment). Thamas people don't admire power or powerful, but they fear it. (In contrast, Rajas people will admire power and powerful).

Dealing with Satthva people is quite easy because they are quite accomodating. But, mostly, Satthva people are not found in abundance.

But, dealing with Rajas and Thamas people can be difficult.
So, what to do when confronted with the Rajas and Thamas people?
I think Deterrent works to some extent with Rajas people. But, even they will ignore deterrence when they believe that they can get some special distinction by confronting the deterrent.

With Thamas people, one is dealing with ignorant bunch. They just don't care. Deterrence doesn't work with them.

The best way to deal with Rajas and Thamas people is to establish the dominance and continue to assert it once in a while in a public manner.

Establishing the dominance will involve defeating and punishing the others in a public manner i.e. making an example. These steps are required to gain respect from the Rajas and fear from Thamas.

We find this generally a lot in animal world because the number of entities with rajas and thamas are very great in the animal world.

One also finds this behaviour a lot in nomadic tribes because they have to deal with such circumstances. Nomadic situation puts constraints and makes it difficult for people to be in the satthva mode. People in nomadic situations have to compete for resources of all kinds constantly. So, their entire culture becomes based on Rajas. Even the rajas is of the raw kind i.e. brute force or raw power. In nomadic cultures, people can't be lazy/indolent. So, Thamas people become violent/sadistic.

In settled civilizations, satthva people get a chance to prosper through their knowledge or spirituality. Rajas people also get a chance to acquire distinction through higher methods like business, literature, creativity, ...etc. In settled civilizations, people can afford to be lazy/indolent but the culture and laws stop anyone from being violent/sadistic. So, thamas people in settled civilizations become lazy/indolent.

Most of the malsIc culture is based on nomadic culture and pirate culture. So, satthva people are very few(if any). Rajas people try to earn distinction through brute force and raw power. Thamas people are violent/sadistic just for the fun of it.

How to deal with this bunch?
Well, the opponents of malsI will have earn the respect by establishing the dominance. That means the opponents will have to punish publicly malsI. They have to make malsI apologize publicly. The more dominance that the opponents of malsI establish, the more malsI will love/fear the opponents. This seems counter-intuitive to satthva people. Satthva people can't understand why the others being mean to them, when they are being nice to them. The reason is lack of dominance.

Rajas people understand dominance or distinction or honour and dignity or respect.

Thamas people understand fear.

Bakis and their four fathers understand fear(bhayam) and respect(bhakthi). They can't understand kindness and knowledge. If you show them unnecessary kindness or respect or love, then you will earn their contempt. They will look down upon you.

If you look at all the tactics of the malsI, they are aimed at humiliating the opponent and establishing the dominace. They occupy the others' places of worship and turn them into their places of worship after making changes to it. They abduct others women and turn them into their wives/concubines after making changes(like name change...etc). The idea is simple: humiliate the others and show them that you are the dominant one. This is rajas.

At a lower level, its pure sadism. Many of the foot-soldiers are of this level who are just totally ignorant.

So, how can dhesh earn the respect(bhakthi) and fear(bhayam) of the malsIs?
First, one has to understand the internal hierarchy of the malsI.

In the malsI world,
african malsI < dheshi malsI < baki < middle-east < Turks/Arabs.

Turks and Arabs jostle for the top dog position.

If you publicly dominate the dheshi malsI, then you earn the respect and fear of dheshi malsI and african malsI.
If you publicly dominate the bakis, then you earn the respect and fear of bakis, dheshi malsi, african malsI.
If you publicly dominate the middle-east, then you earn the respect and fear of middle-east, bakis, dheshi malsI and african malsI.
If you publicly dominate the Turks/Arabs, then you earn the respect and fear of Turks/Arabs, middle-east, bakis, dheshi malsI and african malsI.

This is similar to training dogs, specially badly behaved dogs. First, the trainer has to establish the dominance. He has to establish the rules of engagement. He has to show how things will be. He has to lay down the red lines and give punishment if the red lines are not respected/feared. He has to find the top dog and tame it. Then, all other dogs will be easier to tame.

johneeG wrote:

RajeshA wrote:johneeG garu,

Ramsay and Theon scenes were some of the most impressive writing and portrayal that I have watched in Game of Thrones. It is perhaps a vivid display of an extreme Stockholm Syndrome, where one's psyche has been completely destroyed and restructured.

Humiliation of other faiths and societies is to achieve just that. Not just converts, but Indian Seculars too, with whom I have engaged with on various Pak forums, have displayed many characteristics of Theon, even though they have not completely converted as yet. They are completely taken in by the strength of the Islamic man, inferiority of Indians, envy of Islam, etc.

Thanks for sharing the videos in an appropriate context.

RajeshA saar,
there is something which is strange in this world: some people seem to respond better when they are mistreated. The same people will respond badly when they are treated well.

This is actually quite strange because why would anyone want to mistreat those who treat them well and why would anyone want to love someone who treats them badly?

I think the answer to this is found in the basic qualities(Gunas) which make up the universe.

According to Hindhuism, there are 3 basic qualities(Gunas):
a) Satthva
b) Rajas
c) Thamas

There is a lot of conundrum about what exactly these qualities are and what they lead to.

Broadly,
Satthva seems to be about mild/caring/sensitive nature. It is also based on knowledge. The implication seems to be that those who are knowledgable will be kind and caring. Why? Because they understand that all beings are same same. Also, they believe in Karma. If you hurt others, then others will hurt you. If you don't want other to hurt you, then don't hurt others. So, this knowledge makes the people satthva into kind and caring people who don't like to hurt anyone unless there is no other choice. This quality is necessary because it leads to knowledge or seeking knowledge.

Rajas seems to be based on power and fame. The word 'Raja' means 'glowing' or 'shining'. So, rajas is a quality that distinguishes ordinary from special. This quality drives people to seek fame/respect from others. Respect or fame is obtained through power, valour, money, creativity, ...etc. Basically, Rajas drives people to seek respect.(Good old, Honour and dignity in the baki language). This quality is necessary because this quality drives creativity. The drawback of this quality is that it leads to jealousies, ambition, greed, fights, ...etc.

Thamas seems to be based on total ignorance. The word 'thamas' means 'darkness'. The idea seems to be that just as a person cannot see in darkness, similarly people of thamas are totally ignorant. It is as if they are blind even though they have eyes. This quality drives people to be lazy, ignorant, sadistic and unconscious. Total thamas is sleep or unconscious. The drawback of this quality is that it leads to sadism.

Now, all three qualities exist in all things in the world. The difference seems to be in proportions.

The qualities are linked to actions. This is called as Guna-Karma vibhagashaha in Bhagavadh Geetha.

Basically, it mapping the Qualities(Gunas) to Actions(Karma). Please note that Gunas are tied to Karma. So, the qualities exhibited by a certain object or people will depend on the actions performed by that object or person.

So, if an object/person is used to doing Satthva actions(Karma), then that object/person will be satthva.
if an object/person is used to doing Rajas actions(Karma), then that object/person will be Rajas.
if an object/person is used to doing Thamas actions(Karma), then that object/person will be Thamas.

So, the Gunas are not permanent features of any object/person. But, it takes time to change from one Guna to another Guna because of inertia(Vasana).

If you have performed satthva actions for 10 yrs, then you will be a satthva person even if you perform Rajas actions for a day or two.

Now,
coming to the topic:
Ideally, one would expect people to treat others just as they treat them i.e. tit for tat. If someoene treats you well, you treat them well. If someone treats you badly, you treat them badly. This is the general expectation.

But, this does not happen in the world because of the presence of the Gunas.

Satthva people treat everyone with respect and kindness. Even those who hurt them will be given a long rope. Because Satthva people are kind and knowledgable. They put themselves in other person's shoes and try to be forgiving. Satthva people admire goodness or knowledge or good knowledge.

Rajas people seek fame/respect. They admire power, money, valour, creativity, ...etc. They admire these without caring whether that power, money, valour, creativity, ...etc are obtained by good methods or not. They don't mind how power, money, valour, creativity, ...etc are used. They are only interested in one thing: specialty. If something is distinguished, then they like it. Infact, they like it if someone shows power. They admire it when someone show might.

(According to Hindhuism, supposedly women have more Rajas then men because women have creativity i.e. they give birth. So, they have more Rajas for the creativity. But, it also means that they have more of 'admire the specialty' thing in them. Thats why women fall for the 'bad boys'. They fall for them because the 'bad boys' show confidence and assert power/might. This attracts them. The same can be seen in the animal world where female species are attracted to dominant males. They are attracted because of the 'distinction'.)

Thamas people are simply indolent/lazy or sadist or ignorant. They just don't get it. They just can't help it. The only way is to keep them in line using dhandam(punishment). Thamas people don't admire power or powerful, but they fear it. (In contrast, Rajas people will admire power and powerful).

Dealing with Satthva people is quite easy because they are quite accomodating. But, mostly, Satthva people are not found in abundance.

But, dealing with Rajas and Thamas people can be difficult.
So, what to do when confronted with the Rajas and Thamas people?
I think Deterrent works to some extent with Rajas people. But, even they will ignore deterrence when they believe that they can get some special distinction by confronting the deterrent.

With Thamas people, one is dealing with ignorant bunch. They just don't care. Deterrence doesn't work with them.

The best way to deal with Rajas and Thamas people is to establish the dominance and continue to assert it once in a while in a public manner.

Establishing the dominance will involve defeating and punishing the others in a public manner i.e. making an example. These steps are required to gain respect from the Rajas and fear from Thamas.

We find this generally a lot in animal world because the number of entities with rajas and thamas are very great in the animal world.

One also finds this behaviour a lot in nomadic tribes because they have to deal with such circumstances. Nomadic situation puts constraints and makes it difficult for people to be in the satthva mode. People in nomadic situations have to compete for resources of all kinds constantly. So, their entire culture becomes based on Rajas. Even the rajas is of the raw kind i.e. brute force or raw power. In nomadic cultures, people can't be lazy/indolent. So, Thamas people become violent/sadistic.

In settled civilizations, satthva people get a chance to prosper through their knowledge or spirituality. Rajas people also get a chance to acquire distinction through higher methods like business, literature, creativity, ...etc. In settled civilizations, people can afford to be lazy/indolent but the culture and laws stop anyone from being violent/sadistic. So, thamas people in settled civilizations become lazy/indolent.

Most of the malsIc culture is based on nomadic culture and pirate culture. So, satthva people are very few(if any). Rajas people try to earn distinction through brute force and raw power. Thamas people are violent/sadistic just for the fun of it.

How to deal with this bunch?
Well, the opponents of malsI will have earn the respect by establishing the dominance. That means the opponents will have to punish publicly malsI. They have to make malsI apologize publicly. The more dominance that the opponents of malsI establish, the more malsI will love/fear the opponents. This seems counter-intuitive to satthva people. Satthva people can't understand why the others being mean to them, when they are being nice to them. The reason is lack of dominance.

Rajas people understand dominance or distinction or honour and dignity or respect.

Thamas people understand fear.

Bakis and their four fathers understand fear(bhayam) and respect(bhakthi). They can't understand kindness and knowledge. If you show them unnecessary kindness or respect or love, then you will earn their contempt. They will look down upon you.

If you look at all the tactics of the malsI, they are aimed at humiliating the opponent and establishing the dominace. They occupy the others' places of worship and turn them into their places of worship after making changes to it. They abduct others women and turn them into their wives/concubines after making changes(like name change...etc). The idea is simple: humiliate the others and show them that you are the dominant one. This is rajas.

At a lower level, its pure sadism. Many of the foot-soldiers are of this level who are just totally ignorant.

So, how can dhesh earn the respect(bhakthi) and fear(bhayam) of the malsIs?
First, one has to understand the internal hierarchy of the malsI.

In the malsI world,
african malsI < dheshi malsI < baki < middle-east < Turks/Arabs.

Turks and Arabs jostle for the top dog position.

If you publicly dominate the dheshi malsI, then you earn the respect and fear of dheshi malsI and african malsI.
If you publicly dominate the bakis, then you earn the respect and fear of bakis, dheshi malsi, african malsI.
If you publicly dominate the middle-east, then you earn the respect and fear of middle-east, bakis, dheshi malsI and african malsI.
If you publicly dominate the Turks/Arabs, then you earn the respect and fear of Turks/Arabs, middle-east, bakis, dheshi malsI and african malsI.

This is similar to training dogs, specially badly behaved dogs. First, the trainer has to establish the dominance. He has to establish the rules of engagement. He has to show how things will be. He has to lay down the red lines and give punishment if the red lines are not respected/feared. He has to find the top dog and tame it. Then, all other dogs will be easier to tame.

JohneeG sir take a bow, that is an inspired post !!

johneeG wrote:

RajeshA wrote:johneeG garu,

Ramsay and Theon scenes were some of the most impressive writing and portrayal that I have watched in Game of Thrones. It is perhaps a vivid display of an extreme Stockholm Syndrome, where one's psyche has been completely destroyed and restructured.

Humiliation of other faiths and societies is to achieve just that. Not just converts, but Indian Seculars too, with whom I have engaged with on various Pak forums, have displayed many characteristics of Theon, even though they have not completely converted as yet. They are completely taken in by the strength of the Islamic man, inferiority of Indians, envy of Islam, etc.

Thanks for sharing the videos in an appropriate context.

RajeshA saar,
there is something which is strange in this world: some people seem to respond better when they are mistreated. The same people will respond badly when they are treated well.

This is actually quite strange because why would anyone want to mistreat those who treat them well and why would anyone want to love someone who treats them badly?

I think the answer to this is found in the basic qualities(Gunas) which make up the universe.

According to Hindhuism, there are 3 basic qualities(Gunas):
a) Satthva
b) Rajas
c) Thamas

There is a lot of conundrum about what exactly these qualities are and what they lead to.

Broadly,
Satthva seems to be about mild/caring/sensitive nature. It is also based on knowledge. The implication seems to be that those who are knowledgable will be kind and caring. Why? Because they understand that all beings are same same. Also, they believe in Karma. If you hurt others, then others will hurt you. If you don't want other to hurt you, then don't hurt others. So, this knowledge makes the people satthva into kind and caring people who don't like to hurt anyone unless there is no other choice. This quality is necessary because it leads to knowledge or seeking knowledge.

Rajas seems to be based on power and fame. The word 'Raja' means 'glowing' or 'shining'. So, rajas is a quality that distinguishes ordinary from special. This quality drives people to seek fame/respect from others. Respect or fame is obtained through power, valour, money, creativity, ...etc. Basically, Rajas drives people to seek respect.(Good old, Honour and dignity in the baki language). This quality is necessary because this quality drives creativity. The drawback of this quality is that it leads to jealousies, ambition, greed, fights, ...etc.

Thamas seems to be based on total ignorance. The word 'thamas' means 'darkness'. The idea seems to be that just as a person cannot see in darkness, similarly people of thamas are totally ignorant. It is as if they are blind even though they have eyes. This quality drives people to be lazy, ignorant, sadistic and unconscious. Total thamas is sleep or unconscious. The drawback of this quality is that it leads to sadism.

Now, all three qualities exist in all things in the world. The difference seems to be in proportions.

The qualities are linked to actions. This is called as Guna-Karma vibhagashaha in Bhagavadh Geetha.

Basically, it mapping the Qualities(Gunas) to Actions(Karma). Please note that Gunas are tied to Karma. So, the qualities exhibited by a certain object or people will depend on the actions performed by that object or person.

So, if an object/person is used to doing Satthva actions(Karma), then that object/person will be satthva.
if an object/person is used to doing Rajas actions(Karma), then that object/person will be Rajas.
if an object/person is used to doing Thamas actions(Karma), then that object/person will be Thamas.

So, the Gunas are not permanent features of any object/person. But, it takes time to change from one Guna to another Guna because of inertia(Vasana).

If you have performed satthva actions for 10 yrs, then you will be a satthva person even if you perform Rajas actions for a day or two.

Now,
coming to the topic:
Ideally, one would expect people to treat others just as they treat them i.e. tit for tat. If someoene treats you well, you treat them well. If someone treats you badly, you treat them badly. This is the general expectation.

But, this does not happen in the world because of the presence of the Gunas.

Satthva people treat everyone with respect and kindness. Even those who hurt them will be given a long rope. Because Satthva people are kind and knowledgable. They put themselves in other person's shoes and try to be forgiving. Satthva people admire goodness or knowledge or good knowledge.

Rajas people seek fame/respect. They admire power, money, valour, creativity, ...etc. They admire these without caring whether that power, money, valour, creativity, ...etc are obtained by good methods or not. They don't mind how power, money, valour, creativity, ...etc are used. They are only interested in one thing: specialty. If something is distinguished, then they like it. Infact, they like it if someone shows power. They admire it when someone show might.

(According to Hindhuism, supposedly women have more Rajas then men because women have creativity i.e. they give birth. So, they have more Rajas for the creativity. But, it also means that they have more of 'admire the specialty' thing in them. Thats why women fall for the 'bad boys'. They fall for them because the 'bad boys' show confidence and assert power/might. This attracts them. The same can be seen in the animal world where female species are attracted to dominant males. They are attracted because of the 'distinction'.)

Thamas people are simply indolent/lazy or sadist or ignorant. They just don't get it. They just can't help it. The only way is to keep them in line using dhandam(punishment). Thamas people don't admire power or powerful, but they fear it. (In contrast, Rajas people will admire power and powerful).

Dealing with Satthva people is quite easy because they are quite accomodating. But, mostly, Satthva people are not found in abundance.

But, dealing with Rajas and Thamas people can be difficult.
So, what to do when confronted with the Rajas and Thamas people?
I think Deterrent works to some extent with Rajas people. But, even they will ignore deterrence when they believe that they can get some special distinction by confronting the deterrent.

With Thamas people, one is dealing with ignorant bunch. They just don't care. Deterrence doesn't work with them.

The best way to deal with Rajas and Thamas people is to establish the dominance and continue to assert it once in a while in a public manner.

Establishing the dominance will involve defeating and punishing the others in a public manner i.e. making an example. These steps are required to gain respect from the Rajas and fear from Thamas.

We find this generally a lot in animal world because the number of entities with rajas and thamas are very great in the animal world.

One also finds this behaviour a lot in nomadic tribes because they have to deal with such circumstances. Nomadic situation puts constraints and makes it difficult for people to be in the satthva mode. People in nomadic situations have to compete for resources of all kinds constantly. So, their entire culture becomes based on Rajas. Even the rajas is of the raw kind i.e. brute force or raw power. In nomadic cultures, people can't be lazy/indolent. So, Thamas people become violent/sadistic.

In settled civilizations, satthva people get a chance to prosper through their knowledge or spirituality. Rajas people also get a chance to acquire distinction through higher methods like business, literature, creativity, ...etc. In settled civilizations, people can afford to be lazy/indolent but the culture and laws stop anyone from being violent/sadistic. So, thamas people in settled civilizations become lazy/indolent.

Most of the malsIc culture is based on nomadic culture and pirate culture. So, satthva people are very few(if any). Rajas people try to earn distinction through brute force and raw power. Thamas people are violent/sadistic just for the fun of it.

How to deal with this bunch?
Well, the opponents of malsI will have earn the respect by establishing the dominance. That means the opponents will have to punish publicly malsI. They have to make malsI apologize publicly. The more dominance that the opponents of malsI establish, the more malsI will love/fear the opponents. This seems counter-intuitive to satthva people. Satthva people can't understand why the others being mean to them, when they are being nice to them. The reason is lack of dominance.

Rajas people understand dominance or distinction or honour and dignity or respect.

Thamas people understand fear.

Bakis and their four fathers understand fear(bhayam) and respect(bhakthi). They can't understand kindness and knowledge. If you show them unnecessary kindness or respect or love, then you will earn their contempt. They will look down upon you.

If you look at all the tactics of the malsI, they are aimed at humiliating the opponent and establishing the dominace. They occupy the others' places of worship and turn them into their places of worship after making changes to it. They abduct others women and turn them into their wives/concubines after making changes(like name change...etc). The idea is simple: humiliate the others and show them that you are the dominant one. This is rajas.

At a lower level, its pure sadism. Many of the foot-soldiers are of this level who are just totally ignorant.

So, how can dhesh earn the respect(bhakthi) and fear(bhayam) of the malsIs?
First, one has to understand the internal hierarchy of the malsI.

In the malsI world,
african malsI < dheshi malsI < baki < middle-east < Turks/Arabs.

Turks and Arabs jostle for the top dog position.

If you publicly dominate the dheshi malsI, then you earn the respect and fear of dheshi malsI and african malsI.
If you publicly dominate the bakis, then you earn the respect and fear of bakis, dheshi malsi, african malsI.
If you publicly dominate the middle-east, then you earn the respect and fear of middle-east, bakis, dheshi malsI and african malsI.
If you publicly dominate the Turks/Arabs, then you earn the respect and fear of Turks/Arabs, middle-east, bakis, dheshi malsI and african malsI.

This is similar to training dogs, specially badly behaved dogs. First, the trainer has to establish the dominance. He has to establish the rules of engagement. He has to show how things will be. He has to lay down the red lines and give punishment if the red lines are not respected/feared. He has to find the top dog and tame it. Then, all other dogs will be easier to tame.

Sirjee...that is the most well written and eye opening post I have read in a while. This deserves front page in any newspaper. Specially the part about pissing on the Turks.

I dare say the Turks are the real top dogs because Arab oil will run out at some point. Then what...bikinis and margaritas are suddenly acceptable (Dubai anyone?)

johneeG garu,

Excellent Logic.

More than 3 years ago, I opened a Thread Kurdistan - An Indian National Interest.

That is what I was talking about! If we want to take over a syndicate, always beat up the biggest boss, the most TFTA guy!

RajeshA wrote:johneeG garu,
Excellent Logic.That is what I was talking about! If we want to take over a syndicate, always beat up the biggest boss, the most TFTA guy!

Please to take the Desi Maalcci part out as there is no need for Desi Malsiat to exist in Deshbhumi.

Excellent post!! JohneeG!!! Way to go!!

Excellent post JohneeG garu. I would just add that along with Turks and Arabs, we need to piss and show dominance and contempt on Iranians as well. While a paki has no respect for a paki shia, he shows extreme servility towards a Iranian.

JohneeG: This post is a keeper. Suddenly it made so much sense. I guess I was missing the wood for the trees before in considering each and every country and group separately and trying to analyze(paralyze).

My two NP worth--> A fantastic opportunity for us was the piracy patrol. Especially the one where we blew up one whole ship. We should not have backed down under the orchestrated usual human rights tamasha, but kept at it hammer and tongs. The more such videos would have circulated in the Gelf, the more would it have caused the GCC nations and West Asia cause to think about harming us. After all they don't have navies to speak of and are dependent on SLOC's for export of their oil and to keep food coming in.

Anecdotally, I remember coming across some of our local employees observing the video in awe and discussing it. By beating up a politically indefensible party, with nuisance value, doing something for the whole world, and also tightening screws on vested interests in Dubai (financiers and middlemen to the piracy), we could have done a lot to project our top dog stature in East Africa, West Asia and in general.

Watch at 6-7 Minute.Mo completely killed their humanity and reason to the extent they put their own kids in hell.
[youtube]4GRHD7nmWz0#t=329[/youtube]

The Qur'an's Victimhood Complex

Many non-Muslims who are unsure what to make of Islam put off reading the Qur'an for themselves because it is often seen as sleep-incucingly dull, repetitive and self-contradictory, as well as providing no real internal context or narrative structure within its pages.

However, reading the Qur'an does have at least one advantage for the curious unbeliever: it provides valuable insight into the way Muslims think.

A concrete example is the victimhood complex that is fomented in the Muslim community. Muslims - even "moderate" ones - often tend to think that everyone in the world is against them, that there is some kind of grand conspiracy against Islam. This has a long pedigree in Islamic history, but it was demonstrated most recently when 800 Muslims tried to storm the BBC Manchester studios to protest what they saw as biased reporting by the Beeb - in favour of Israel. This despite the fact that in the wake of the recent flotilla flare-up, the BBC repeatedly broadcast footage of Israeli commandos being attacked by "humanitarians" with clubs, while continuing to insist that Israel only "claimed" they were attacked.

Muslims' fear of non-Muslim conspiracies against them is great, and this is epitomised in their liberal use of the word "Islamophobia" - an alleged unreasoning hatred of Islam and Muslims that was once described by the influential Organisation of the Islamic Conference as "the worst form of terrorism" - even worse than suicide bombing in crowded marketplaces, apparently. Every time a Muslim commits yet another act of unspeakable religious violence in the heart of the West, Muslims cower in fear of a "backlash" from intolerant Western Islamophobes looking for an excuse to persecute Muslims - but this backlash has still never materialised, except in the form of extremely rare, and often fabricated, cases.

Playing the victim obviously has its strategic advantages from a political point of view: the more Muslims make out that they are victims who deserve governmental protection, the more they can convince authorities that any speech they don't like - even speech which is true - should be criminalised, meaning that reasonable criticism of Islam and its violent, supremacist doctrines gradually becomes taboo even for defense agencies, who need accurate understanding of them more than anyone else.

But it should also not surprise the astute reader of the Qur'an that this outlook on life - "They're all out to get us because they're just full of hate" - is foreshadowed in the Muslim holy book itself. The basic assumption repeated countless times in the Qur'an (and subsequently by Muslim spokesmen today) is that Islam is self-evidently true, and that anyone who rejects it must therefore be motivated by hatred, greed or spite. Here is a small flavour:

2:105 - Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture nor the idolaters love that there should be sent down unto you any good thing from your Lord. But Allah chooseth for His mercy whom He will, and Allah is of Infinite Bounty.

2:109 - Many of the people of the Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them. Forgive and be indulgent (toward them) until Allah give command. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.

3:118, 120 - O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand...If a lucky chance befall you, it is evil unto them, and if disaster strike you they rejoice thereat. But if ye persevere and keep from evil their guile will never harm you. Lo! Allah is Surrounding what they do.

The renowned Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir (d.1373) says that in verses like these, "Allah described the deep enmity that the disbelieving polytheists and People of the Scripture, whom Allah warned against imitating, have against the believers, so that Muslims should sever all friendship with them."

A more modern authority, Muhammad Shafi (d.1976), the former Mufti of Pakistan, wrote of the third passage reproduced above:

[T]he text warns Muslims that they [infidels] are always on the look out for opportunities to hoodwink and hurt them [Muslims] materially and spiritually. They are always plotting to harm them in this worldly life as well as to take them away from the enjoined pursuits of their Faith...the in-depth teaching is that no non-Muslim can ever be the real friend and well-wisher of Muslims.

Islam Q & A, a mainstream Muslim website providing scholarly opinions and legal rulings for lay Muslims, quotes a number of Qur'an verses to make the same points, i.e.:

The enmity of the kuffaar – the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), mushrikeen (polytheists) and hypocrites – towards the believers will last until the [Last] Hour begins....

Because Islam rules the believers with justice, and gives each person his rights, and they do not want this to happen – for this reason they strive to wage war against this religion and to refute the truth with falsehood....

Those who disbelieve spend of their wealth in order to prevent others from following the path of Allaah, at all times and in all places, and (they strive to) spread corruption, provoke wars and kill the believers....

Allaah has told us how strong the enmity of the kuffaar is towards the Muslims....

No matter what the kuffaar do, their enmity will not end. Even though they may speak words of friendship, their hearts are filled with hatred towards Islam and its people....

And so on.

These sentiments obviously foment hostility towards non-Muslims, and foster an "Us Vs. Them" attitude in Muslim societies which does not bode well for "inter-faith dialogue" or any positive interactions between Muslims and non-Muslims. Furthermore, they encourage cultural stagnation in the Muslim world, since Muslims are prevented by their own religion from accepting any responsibility for their own lot - whenever anything bad happens to them, it is always the infidels' fault. Even Muslims who have never read a word of the Qur'an can be imbibed with these attitudes, as they are passed down through the generations and become part of the local and general culture.

ManavBH wrote:
JohneeG sir take a bow, that is an inspired post !!

+1

That was pure psychology. And although it has been known for thousands of years we will neither call it psychology nor give it the respect it deserves because it does not come from Dr.xyz, PhD, Professor of psychology.<insert name of favourite western university here>

Thanks saars.

I think most people know these things already. Its just that it is generally not articulated. Its just understood. For example, most parents know that they should not fight in front of the children. Otherwise, the children will lose respect for the parents. If the children lose respect for the parents, then the parents will find it difficult to make the children obey them. This is one example of establishing dominance.

Whenever people talk about 'respect' or 'honour', they are indirectly refering to 'dominance'.

So, most people understand the need to dominate. I think the problem is in the details. How to do it? When to do it? How much to do it? Where to do it? With whom? ...etc.

First, one has understand the character of the people i.e. samskara. If the person has satthvic samskara, then there is no need to go into powerplay games. One can deal with them in a fair and kind way.

But, if the person is rajasic or thamasic, then one has to play realpolitik.
As Sun Tzu says, the first step of realpolitik is to assess one's own situation and the situation of the opponent. Even this is mostly understood by people.

There is a word which is used often: Aukaat. The meaning of aukaat seems to be 'worth' or 'capability' or 'status'. It is the sum total of an entity's worth or capability.

So, the first step for any entity is to understood its own Aukaat and the Aukaat of others in an honest way. Many times, people pretend to have bigger aukaat than they actually have. This is done to fool others. Sometimes, people start believing their own lies.

When people don't understand their own Aukaat and the Aukaat of the opponent, then they can make mistakes. On the other hand, when the Aukaat is understood, then it can be used to check whether one can dominate the other person or not.

So, the steps would be:
a) check the samskara: Is the other person Saathvic, Raajsic or Thaamasic?
b) If the other person is Saathvic, then be fair and kind.
c) If the other person is Raajsic or Thaamasic, then apply realpolitik.
d) Realpolitik requires knowing one's own Aukaat and the Aukaat of the opponent.
e) If one's Aukaat is more than the Aukaat of the opponent, then one should establish dominance. Establish dominance by rewarding obedience and punishing defiance.
f) If one's Aukaat is less than the Aukaat of the opponent, then one should pretend to surrender and wait for the right opportunity i.e. Taqiya.
g) If the Aukaat of both sides is approximately equal, then its a stalemate. It would be a war of attrition.

The game being played by the four-fathers is that they maintain the Aukaat of Bakis just enough to balance the aukaat of dhesh.

That forces the dhesh into a war of attrition. Such attrition wars increase debts and create further stress on economy and other such things. The idea is to create an economic deterrent against the desh in taking on the bakis.

But, all that is past. It seems that now there is a change.

^^JohneeG is on a roll... another sixer out of the park.

now there is a change.

What is the change sar? Why did the change not occur before this govt?

This is temporary phase for rabid dogs of fourfathers to appear less than rabid but a hound nonetheless only.

narendranaik wrote:The Qur'an's Victimhood Complex


Muslims' fear of non-Muslim conspiracies against them is great, and this is epitomised in their liberal use of the word "Islamophobia" - an alleged unreasoning hatred of Islam and Muslims

One must ask them the question whether they think that Islamophobia, if it is there, happens to be a result of Scriptural, Systemic and Historical Kufrophobia?

johneeG wrote:
But, all that is past. It seems that now there is a change.

It's too early to say that, besides mullas, evangelicals and their secular bhai-bandhus are dormant, they will start the drama again soon. The real work is still ongoing underground. Things won't change till the majority learns to debate, defeat and successfully arm itself against the mullas.

The mulla-christian brigade reminds of "the flood" from Halo, if you don't kill it, it spreads and it spreads everywhere. Abrahmic religions are born with an insanely high superiority complex and no amount of respect, love, tolerance, justice given to them will ever subdue their inherit need to infect their host country with their infection. The new secular shame of islamophobia, casteist Hindoos spreading hate with their saffron clothes, the RSS scare are all shame and fear tactics used to validate muslim victimhood and provide a garb under which muslims can up their anti majority propaganda and crimes (throwing dead cows in temples, raping Hindu/Sikh girls, Love jihad, riots, unprovoked attacks on Ganeshjis idols during Ganesh Chaturthi etc.).

The majority usually keep quite because they are too ashamed to be associated with someone/groups that have been labelled by the sicular brigade as being anti-minority. Subconciously, even the most clear headed Hindus refrain from bringing up rapes, riots and usual barbarity of muslims because they don't want the "shadow of shame" to follow them.

The more people stop giving importance to the propaganda of sickular brigade, the more they stop feeling ashamed of belonging to RSS/Hinduism/BJP and the more they start to see the reality for what it is. Most of today's problems exist because our leaders (no not congis, but even actual prominent Hindu leaders) see the whole issue from an emotional perspective and not a logical one. If logic of national interest was followed, we wouldn't send dossiers to terrorists but actually kill them.

We as a collective religious/cultural group have to stop giving power to the Hindu shame that has been imposed on us by the sickular/western/mulla groups.

Would love a discussion on this issue.

vishvak wrote:

now there is a change.

What is the change sar? Why did the change not occur before this govt?

This is temporary phase for rabid dogs of fourfathers to appear less than rabid but a hound nonetheless only.

Saar, the four-fathers have lost their kongi munna. Kongi munna and Baki munna are twins. Both protect each other. The first step to handling baki munna is Kongi mukth dhesh.

With kongis gone, the going of the baki army is also imminent. The question is: who will replace the baki army: fundoos or small states?

I think the scenario will be somewhere in between i.e. small states with fundoos running all over the places.

This is where Eye Yes Eye Yell comes into the picture. It can create caliphate all over the middle-east including the bakilands. Maybe thats the new project of four-fathers.

Cutting open of stomachs of pregnant women - historical precedents

Often some barbaric practices in Islam itself are projected onto non-Muslims in order to incite the Muslims.

Incisive, compact and brilliant JohneeG....the best works whether in literature or science are always concise, focussed and waste not one word.

Listening to this video, I get the feeling that whereas Sunnis have less inhibition in killing, the Shi'a have less inhibition in dying. It makes Shi'a a lot more robust and immune to change.

Singha wrote:Incisive, compact and brilliant JohneeG....the best works whether in literature or science are always concise, focussed and waste not one word.

JE Menon wrote:^^JohneeG is on a roll... another sixer out of the park.

Thanks, saars.

Just to continue on this:
I think the problem with domination thingy is that people don't start it and when they do, they can't stop it.

Generally, when domination exceeds limits, it is called bullying. There is no fixed rule when domination becomes bullying or victimization. The rules are arbitrary and depends on the participants. If the victim of the bullying is made desperate, then it produces a severe backlash. The victim would decide that he has nothing to lose and will fight it out to the last. Obviously, this will cause damage to even the party that is bullying.

I read somewhere that the difference between Bhaarathiya chess and the European chess is:
In Bhaarathiya chess, players are not allowed to checkmate the opposite king, if all the major pieces of the opponent have already been killed. So, that means, if only the pawns and king are present, then that King cannot be checkmated in Bhaarathiya version of chess. The idea seems to be that the players should not drive the opponent to the wall.

This is generally articulated by Sun Tzu and Kautilya also, I think both of them advise that the dominant part should leave an escape route to the weaker party, so that the weaker party will not fight with everything they have got.

Only when the situation is overwhelmingly in favour, only then the dominant party is supposed to attack the opponent from all sides.

In western chess model, the opponent is steadily pushed to the wall and then attacked. This works in chess, but it does not work in the real world. In real world, the people become desperate and try anything and everything. This is similar to constant NATO expansion thinking that the Roos will never fight back. The point is that at some point Roos becomes desperate and will start fighting back.

In terms of strategy, one can see this in the Raajputh fight against Jihadhis. Khiljis also attacked the Raajpuths and Akbar also attacked the Raajpuths. Khilji used total force. Raajputh women would perform Jauhar. And the men would came out in complete desperation fighting to the death and inflicting great damage on Khilji's forces. In contrast, Akbar decided to ally with some of the Raajpuths and give them rewards of governorships and ministerships. At the same time, Akbar fought those Raajpuths who did not ally with him. This pronged strategy was much more successful and long-lasting compared to the strategy of Khilji.

The point is that the important part of being a dominant is to know whom to dominate, how much to dominate, when, where, and most importantly when to stop.

One of the problems for people is that weak party comes into a position of power. The weak party has a fear/insecurity that others will find out about its weakness. To hide its own weakness, it tries extra-hard to be aggressive and assertive. This results in bullying. And at some point, it leads to backlash.

Generally, one can see this with female rulers and child rulers. Women are seen as incapable of being strong rulers. So, to neutralize this perception, the female rulers become more aggressive and dominant than their male counterparts. Similarly, children are seen as not rulership material. If a child becomes a ruler, then the child will try to dominate people extra just neutralize the perception.

The difference between a Kautilya and Jihadhis is that Kautilya is not only interested in finishing off the opponent. He is also interested in protecting the self. Further, in case of malsI, domination is not seen as a tool but an end in itself.

In malsI, domination is the end-goal. For enlightened beings, domination is a tool towards a just goal.