Good Enemies - Part IV

[Ragnarok-N-Roll]

GOOD ENEMIES PART I CAN BE READ HERE:

GOOD ENEMIES PART II CAN BE READ HERE:

GOOD ENEMIES PART III CAN BE READ HERE:

DAILY UPDATES ON CURRENT ISLAMIC EVENTS CAN BE READ ON THE ENEMY IN THE GATES THREAD:

CHAPTER 4 – IDEOLOGY

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
-Joseph Goebbels

The religious context of international affairs has never been well-understood by Americans at all levels. Policy makers, the media, and everyday men on the street ask, “Why do they hate us” and struggle to find reason in the actions of the Muslim community. The religious aspect has been deliberately obfuscated, denied,and pushed out of the discussion.

But, religion is the only context a Muslim uses in his life. If we deny that, if we can’t accept it, if we refuse to act instead deferring to “tolerance”, “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, or “political correctness” , we will never get to the root and we willnever arrive at a solution.

It is in the religious context that we must look at acts of terrorism and if done so, the reasons behind them become crystal clear.

i·de·ol·o·gy
n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies
1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Islam is more than a religion. It is a way to govern all aspects of living and, as we see in a country like Iran, it is also a form of government. 

“The Qu’ran is a comprehensive code of life covering every aspect and phase of human life. This book of God lays down the best rules relating to social life, commerce and economics, marriage and inheritance, penal laws, and international conduct.”
-Alhaj A. D. Ajijola excerpt from “The Essence of Faith in Islam”, Lahore, Pakistan; Islamic Publications LTD. 1978 

It should be viewed by us in the same light.

The Qu’ran does not reveal God on any personal level and, unlike the Bible, does not invite the believer to fellowship with God and know Him on a personal level:

The Qu’ran is a book that reveals God’s commands and rules but does not reveal God, Himself. It is a book of law and the basis for Sharia. Islam means submission (of all creation) and the Qu’ran is a book of law. That law says that Muslims must fight until the world is subdued and all are living under that same law. It is critical that this is understood when affording Islam the classification of a religion and all of the rights and freedoms that go along with it in America.

The philosophy of Islam has some very clear cut beliefs that should be explored and brought to mind when you listen or read the message of a Muslim spokesperson.

mod·er·ate
adj.
Opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion.
n.
One who holds or champions moderate views or opinions, especially in politics or religion.

The definition of a “radical” in the western world seems to be characterized only as someone who acts in violence. But does the absence of violence make one a “moderate”? Is the person who believes and sympathizes with the underlying goals of the jihadist any more moderate than the jihadist, himself?

Whenever a suicide bomber takes the lives of others, you will hear the line, “The attack was from a handful of extremists”, “Those who would kill others are not real Muslims”, and/or “Islam is a religion of peace and forbids violence”. But, these attacks continue unabated and are spreading throughout the world. The apologists will always explain away the actions of the “extremists” but will never blame the ideology at its heart. Are there that many followers of Islam who are misguided? Is there, really, a bottomless well of people who are willing to kill themselves and others because they misunderstood that “jihad” means an “inner struggle” and not what Muhammad himself stated? Muhammad said that jihad was, “fight[ing] against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield)”. Are the apologists and talking heads saying that Allah’s great messenger and the earth’s best example of humanity, Muhammad himself, misinterpreted Islam?

The fact is that both the spokespersons for terror groups and the lone jihadi both leave a final testament before carrying out an attack and always claim to represent the authentic and “pure” interpretation of the Qur'an and Islam.

Several years ago, in an effort to reverse this trend, a group called the Free Muslims Coalition held what it called a Free Muslims March Against Terror, which purported to, "send a message to the terrorists and extremists that their days are numbered ... and to send a message to the people of the Middle East, the Muslim world and all people who seek freedom, democracy and peaceful coexistence that we support them."  In the run-up to the event it got enthusiastic national and international publicity, but it ended up drawing about twenty-five people. Now the group appears to be defunct; its website hasn't been updated since December 2011. More recently, in 2013, a group calling themselves Progressive Muslims Institute Canada held a rally to promote gender equality, separation of church and state, and condemnation of terrorism. The rally drew 24 attendants with the majority of those 24 being non-Muslim.

I believe that one of the reasons we do not see a public outcry against jihad killings is because all Muslims are taught that even if they don’t actively participate, they are to support jihad.

Muhammad stated:

“He who does not join the warlike expedition, or equip, or look after a warrior’s family when he is away, will be smitten by Allah with a sudden calamity.”
-  Sunan abu-Dawud, book 14, no.2497

“Jihad is required from every person, whether he actually joins the fighting or remains behind. Whoever remains behind is required to give support, if support is warranted; to provide aid if aid is needed; and to march forth if he is commanded to do so.”
- Imam Az-Zuhri, Considered one of the greatest Sunni authorities on Hadith commenting on Sura 8:74 which states, “But those who have believed and  emigrated and fought in the cause of Allah and those who gave shelter and aided it is they who are the believers, truly. For them is forgiveness and noble   provision.” 

Then, to prove that a homicide terrorist who detonates a bomb killing innocent and unsuspecting people merely misinterpreted or misunderstood Islam, there is a chorus of cries saying, “Suicide is forbidden in the Qu’ran”.

Sheik Faysal Mawlawi, the Deputy Chairman European Council for Fatwa and Research, issued a fatwa on suicide bombers:

“Prophet Muhammad strictly forbade suicide and makes it clear that anyone who commits suicide would be cast into hell. But in such cases, suicide means a Muslim killing himself without any lawfully accepted reason, or killing himself to escape pain or social problems. On the other hand, in martyr operations, the Muslim sacrifices his own life for the sake of performing a religious duty, which is jihad against the enemy.”

Adel Sadeq, the Chairman of the Arab Psychiatric Association, took the subject one step further in a television interview given on 04/23/2002:

“When the martyr dies a martyr’s death, he attains the height of bliss… As a psychiatrist, I say that the height of bliss comes with the end of the countdown: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, and then you press the button to blow yourself up. When the martyr reaches “one” and then “boom”, he explodes and senses himself flying because he knows for certain that he is not dead… It is a transition to another, more beautiful world, because he knows very well that within seconds he will see the light of the creator.” 

Does that sound like a statement made by some fringe terrorist that has “hijacked” the peaceful teachings of Islam? That was a statement from a highly respected and educated person in the Arab world.

There are no moderates in Islam. 

Yes, I said that.

Islam has no moderates (remember, the Prime Minister of Turkey agrees with me).

Rather, there is “hard” and “soft” Islam. The latter is based on long term and largely non-violent social and political activism, while the former looks to immediate violence to further its goals. The means are different but the end is the same. The final realization of both is the implementation of sharia law. 

According to the May 2012 issue of the al-Qaeda published Inspire magazine, the goals of “hard” Islam are summed up as such:

“The goal of the operations of the Resistance and the Individual Terrorism Jihad is to inflict as many human and material losses as possible upon the interests of America and her allies, and to make them feel that the Resistance has transformed into a phenomenon of popular uprising against them.”

The way to conduct “hard” Islam is then defined as jihad against the west, “mass slaughter of the population. This is done by targeting human crowds in order to inflict maximum human losses.”

Due to the content of these publications, I did not include them in this book. If you wish to view them, they are all available for viewing at:

http://jihadology.net/

On the reverse side of the Islamic coin, “soft” Islam can be seen in action through tactics of legal jihad, such as CAIR uses, where our own laws and liberties are used against us. In fact, CAIR has become so adept in this strategy that the term “lawfare” was coined to describe the legal jihadist tactics that it employs in silencing critics through lawsuits.

According to Islamic jurisprudence, jihad can only, legally, be declared when there is an Islamic State and the leader of this Islamic State, the Caliph, is the only one who can declare this Holy War. Since there is no current Islamic State, if you listen closely to Muslims who denounce jihadist attacks, the complaint is not with the goal of implementing sharia, the problem is with the timing, since there is no caliph at this point in history.  The goals of the two camps are identical. 

No country or government can withstand a one-two punch of subversion coupled with outright hostile and violent actions and hope to stand unless it takes immediate steps to acknowledge the threat and deal with it.

Our country chooses appeasement and apologies and unless we change that strategy, this country will cease to exist. That is not alarmist or paranoia speaking. That is 1400 years of history.

 I cannot stress enough that you must know the Qu’ran and the tactics of deceit used by apologists or you will fall victim. The Bible warns us:

Matthew 24:24 - “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”

Deception-The Prophet said, 'War is deceit’

Hadith Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit’."

Hadith Bukhari (84:64-65) – “Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy) ”

There is a concept in Islam that teaches it is permissible to lie, if the cause of Islam is promoted. It is called “kitman” or “taqiyya” and it is the act of paying lip service to authority while holding personal opposition. Often, Muslim apologists will deny this teaching using:

Sura 2: 42 – “And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know what it is).”

However, if we expand that sura and look at it in its proper context, the true meaning unfolds:

Sura 2:40-42 – “O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me. And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone. And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye  know (what it is).”

The admonishing against lying, in context, is directed towards the Jews and is a directive to accept the “truth” of Islam.  A Muslim who knows the Qu’ran and references that sura to say that Islam prohibits lying is being purposefully deceitful. Knowing this concept of Islam makes it imperative that you, being a “kuffar” (unbeliever/infidel), must take any official statement made by an Islamic organization with a grain of salt and research what they are saying. 

Just as important is to know and understand the Qu’ran so you can refute lies when they are propagated. It is bad enough that our politicians take it on the word of Islamists, such as CAIR, that Islam is a religion of peace. But their complacency can be explained by base desires. Greed, fear, and a lust for power, while not excusing their actions, do explain them. 

However, I must draw the line and condemn church leaders, who are not supposed to be swayed by those same desires. 

Many churches, in the name of “outreach”, open their doors to Muslims to allow them to use their buildings to hold services.  It is one thing to be a good neighbor or act as the example of Jesus it is another thing entirely to open your church for Muslims to worship Allah. 

• Heartstrong Church in Tennessee recently put out a sign welcoming a new Islamic Center and then let members of the Memphis Islamic Center hold Ramadan prayers there.
• Aldersgate United Methodist Church in Alexandria, Va., allows the Islamic Circle of North America, which we have seen is a terrorist organization, to hold regular Friday prayers in their building while their new mosque is being built. 
• All Saints Church in Pasadena became the first church to host an event given by the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). MPAC was founded in 1988 by followers of the Muslim Brotherhood and admirers of Hezbollah. MPAC styles itself a “moderate, inclusive and forward-thinking organization with a history of fostering a strong Muslim American identity, and combating terrorism and extremism.” In reality, MPAC is yet another Islamist wolf in the “social justice” clothing of the hard Left. Its founders include Hassan Hathout, the former MPAC president who has described himself as “a close disciple” of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna. Hathout’s brother Maher, a senior MPAC adviser, is lavish in his praise of both Hezbollah’s “freedom fighting” and the social-justice pioneering of Hassan al-Turabi, the leader of Sudan’s National Islamic Front. Despite a large public outcry, church leaders brushed off criticism as “Islamophobia” and went forward with the event. 
• Farmington's First Presbyterian Church in New Mexico gave a 10-week course entitled, Christianity and Islam: So Much In Common, So Far Apart .  Reverend Glenn Perica said people attending the course might find it surprising that Muslims revere Abraham as a patriarch of their religion, just like Christians and Jews. "Islam also treats Jesus as a prophet and respects him," Perica said.  He added that both faiths share a desire for peace.

Perhaps the worst example of a pastor, responsible for the spiritual nurturing of the congregation, openly promoting Islam is Reverend Devorah Lindsay the Minister of Spiritual Care at First Community Church in Columbus, Ohio.  Lindsay recently became a poster child for interfaith outreach when videos were posted on youtube of her saying:

“Like the bible the predominant message of the Quran is of peace and care and loving God. In the Bible we have thou shall not kill. In the Quran we have whoever kills another surely he is killing all of humanity and whoever saves the life of another surely he saves the lives of all humanity. These are words of peace words of faith words that could save the world, if we will take them to heart.”

I have already shown that the exact thing Reverend Lindsay just stated is false.  And with just a little effort, the good reverend could have found this out and not spread a falsehood to her congregation.  She then goes on to say:

“When we think jihad, we think holy war. And that may be what it means to fanatics and terrorists, but what the vast majority of Muslims understand jihad to be is ‘struggling in the way of God…The way of God being goodness, justice, mercy and compassion. It is a personal, spiritual endeavor. ”

Again, refer to the section on jihad to see just how wrong the Reverend is. Lindsay praises the Islamic Circle of North America as a moderate organization that is spreading “peace” and “hope” by giving away tens of thousands of the copies of the Qu’ran. I guess she never read the ICNA Tarbiya training manual? The final kicker is that Reverend Lindsey’s partner in the interfaith outreach isthe Noor Islamic Center of Columbus, Ohio. 

Court Documents detail the extensive terror connections of this mosque. Shame on Reverend Lindsey for placing personal accolades before the Truth, shame on her for promoting a terror ideology that should be in direct contradiction with her beliefs, shame on her for joining hands with a group of people working towards the overthrow of this country, and shame on her congregation for giving her a pass on it.

Another popular tactic apologists will use is to take teachings out of context. For example, sura 5:64 is often used to show Islam as a religion of peace:

Sura 5:64 – “And Allah loveth not those who do mischief.”

Apologists will say, Allah does not love mischief, which can also mean fighting or war (See, Islam is peaceful). But if we look at the entire verse, it becomes clear that the “mischief” Allah hates is the mischief spread by the Jews who deny Islam:

Sura 5:64 – “The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He giveth and spendeth (of His bounty) as He pleaseth. But the revelation that cometh to thee from Allah increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, Allah doth extinguish it; but they (ever) strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loveth not those who do mischief.”

A sura that is even more commonly used is Sura 5:32, this is the verse that Reverend Lindsey was referring to:

Sura 5:32 – “If any one slew a person it would be as if he slew the whole people.”

Once more, if you look at the whole sura, you will see that the verse only applies to the Jews (are you detecting a pattern, yet?):

Sura 5:32 – “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

And one need only continue onto the very next verse to see just how peaceful and tolerant Islam is:

Sura 5:33 – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,”

Muhammad said, “He who settles disagreements between people to bring about good or says something commendable is not a liar.”

This much is related by both Bukhari and Muslim, with Muslim's version recording that Umm Kulthum added:

“I did not hear him permit untruth in anything people say, except for three things: war, settling disagreements and a man talking with his wife or she with him.

This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest, scholars having established criteria defining what types of it are lawful. The best analysis of it I have seen is by Imam Ghazali. If something is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is  permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. When for example one is concealing a muslim from an oppressor who asks where he is, it is obligatory to lie about his being hidden. Or when a person deposits an article with one for safekeeping and an oppressor wanting to appropriate it inquires about it, it is obligatory to lie about having concealed it, for if one informs him about the article and he then siezes it, one is financially liable(A:to the owner)to cover the article's cost. Whether the purpose is war, settling a disagreement, or gaining the sympathy of a victim legally entitled to retaliate against one so that he will forbear to do so; it is not unlawful to ;lie when any of these aims can only be attained through lying. But is religiously more precautionary (def:c6.5) in all such cases to employ words that give misleadng impression, meaning to intend by one's words something that is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying (def:r10.2) white the outward purport of the words deceives the hearer, though even if one does not have such an intention and merely lies without intending anything else, it is not unlawful in the above circumstances.

This is true of every expression connected with a legitimating desired end, whether one's own or another's. An example of a legitimating end of one's own is when an oppressor intending to appropriate one's property inquires about it, in which case one may deny it. Or if a ruler asks one about a wicked act one has committed that is solely between oneself and Allah Most High (N: i.e. it does not concern the rights of another), in which case one is entitled to disclaim it, such as by saying, 'I did not commit fornication,'or'I did not drink.' There are many well known hadiths in which those who admitted they deserved punishment were given prompting (A: by the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)) to retract their confessions. An example of a legitimating desired end of another is when one is asked about another's secret and one disacknowledges it. And so on. One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, on is entitled to lie, though if the reverse is true or if one does not know which entails more damage, them lying is unlawful. Whenever lying is permissible, if the factor which permits it is desired end of one's own, it is recommended not to lie, but when the factor that permits it is the desired end of another, it is not lawful to infringe upon his rights. Strictness (A: as opposed to the above dispensations (rukhsa, def:c6.2)) is to forgo lying in every case where it is not legally obligatory."
-Reliance of the Traveller A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law
Section 8.2

Lying to unbelievers and deceit are not only permissible but obligatory if the desired end is the advancement of Islam as the global rule of law.

 

[little jeremiah]

Pinging a few names who might be interested, to Ragnarok-N-Roll’s fourth part of his book, “Good Enemies”. This part deals with Islamic ideology. The Big Lie that Islamic Jihad is “un-Islamic” and only a few twisted nutcases are violent and such violence is not supported by Islamic theology is entirely a lie. Here is all the evidence anyone needs to refute anyone who believes that lie.

If anyone wonders why his book is called “Good Enemies”, it is explained in the first part he posted.

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”

-Winston Churchill

[little jeremiah]

I should have added, RnR has on the top of the page a link to his daily (or almost daily) updates on new about Islamic jihad, the best compendium of news about the topic on the internet, that I’ve seen. Here’s the poor man’s link to it:

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?466204-Enemy-in-the-Gates-Tuesday-04-01-2015-Breitbart-Iran-Deal-Reached-Details-to-Follow

[Fred Nerks]

Anything, no matter how evil or revolting, is allowed and encouraged in islam if it increases the spread of the cult of fear.

[little jeremiah]

I highly recommend “Crimes Against India” which details the Islamic invasions into India, using contemporaneous accounts. The torture - unimaginable, the rapes, the gouging of eyes, hills of skulls, etc - the moslems terrified defending armies and populations with their incredible cruelty and blood lust. Fortified cities would fight to the last man rather than be caught, and a fire would be kindled for the women to voluntarily jump into, as they would rather burn alive than be caught by the invading moslems and be raped to death, and if not killed by that, enslaved and sent off to enslavement for life (and not a long one).

[jjotto]

Tens of millions killed by Muslims invading India.

[little jeremiah]

Numbers beyond belief. And why is Indonesia all moslem? Moslems started invading in, IIRC, around 1200. What were they before? Primarily Hindu and Buddhist. A peaceful, beautiful country, conquered by butchers and forcibly converted into a moslem country. Same thing with A’stan, Persia, and actually every single country that is now moslem. Islam has spread 100% by the sword, and all their conquests are blood soaked.

[Fred Nerks]

We either fight back and defend ourselves or lose all we have.

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/islams-war-of-annihilation-against-hindus/

excerpt:

Kataria is highly critical of those in positions of power. “Unfortunately despite centuries-old violent encounters with jihadi Islam neither the Indian government, nor the comatose Hindu leadership, have learnt any strategic lesson,” he writes. “Time has come for Hindu leaders and masses to remember Arnold Toynbee’s famous quote: ‘Civilizations die from suicide, not murder.’ Time has come to face the jihad courageously and stop sleep walking towards [the] suicide cliff.”

Kataria worries that the United States is walking towards the same cliff, for the same politically correct reasons. “I do not want the US to be destroyed by Islam,” he told FrontPage. When asked if so-called moderate Muslims were equally worrisome, he scoffed at the notion. “There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim,” he contended. “That means you don’t follow the Koran.” He believes all true Muslims are “soldiers,” and that the Koran “teaches violence.”

[Fred Nerks]

http://www.aina.org/news/20130528124147.htm

The atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on Sikhs of Punjab and Marathas in south were horrendous. Jahangir had murdered the fifth Sikh Guru Arjan Dev in a most diabolical manner. The epitome of courage Arjan Dev was made to sit on a hot plate and hot sand was poured on him to torture him to death. Later on Aurangzeb, the cruelest of all Muslim kings not only beheaded Guru Tegh Bahadur, but also murdered four gallant sons of Guru Gobind Singh. Two elder sons, Sahibzade Ajit Singh and Junjhar Singh attained martyrdom in 1704 during the battle of Chamkaur Sahib, while the younger sons Fateh Singh and Zorawar Singh were bricked alive in 1705 at Sirhind by Faujdar Wazir Khan, under orders of Aurangzeb.

Starting with the invasion of Sind by Muhammad bin Qasim in 712 A.D. the next 900 years witnessed a relentless onslaught by hordes of Muslim invaders pouring in through Khyber and Bolan passes. Among the barbaric murderers and freebooters were Mahmud Ghazanvi, Muhammad Ghauri, Babur, Ahmad Shah Abdali and Nadir Shah. In fact, Guru Nanak has given in the Babur Vani a vivid description of the atrocities committed by invaders on the hapless Hindus of Punjab and north-western India. According to the eminent historian, Will Durant, “the Mohammedan conquest of India is perhaps the bloodiest story of history”. He calls it a discouraging tale, for its only lesson was that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace could be overthrown at any time by barbarians invading from without and multiplying within.” [Source: Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Part I, p. 459].

A detailed narrative of the tyranny and atrocities committed by Muslim invaders was given by a well known Muslim author and thinker, Rizwan Salim, who wrote in The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, on December 28, 1997, an article titled, “What the invaders really did?” justifying the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992. Rizwan Salim highlighted that the wrecking of Hindu temples went on from the early years of the eighth century to well past 1700 A.D. a period of almost 1000 years. [Source : The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, December 28, 1997]. Every Muslim ruler of Delhi (or Governor of the Province) spent most of his time fighting the Hindu kings in the north and the south, the east and west. Rizwan continues emphasizing that “savages at a very low level of civilization and no culture worth the name began entering India from the early eighth century onwards. Islamic invaders demolished Hindu temples, destroyed unaccountable sculptures and idols, plundered innumerable palaces and forts of the Hindu kings, killed vast number of Hindu men and carried off Hindu women. This story, the educated - and lot of even the illiterate Indians - know very well. The history books recount it in a remarkable detail. [Source: Ibid].

[little jeremiah]

The Front Page article is from 2013, so hopefully Modi is more courageous and aware than the previous Indian government leaders. Pretty much from independence until now, India was ruled by communists and “secularists” which meant in fact a coalition of leftists who favored Christians (Sonia Gandhi) and Moslems. Modi is totally different. India had better wake up if they haven’t. There is a sort of “Hindu Renaissance” shaking off the last - what, 200 years? - of the lies of the British Indologists, and recognizing the values of their own ancient heritage and history. This includes publicly recognizing the atrocities of the Moslem invasions and current jihad.

[little jeremiah]

Thank you for posting some real history.

[little jeremiah]

Bumping for Part Four of “Good Enemies”, a well researched book Raganrok-N-Roll is posting in parts on FR. This part elucidates Islamic theology supporting and mandating violent jihad.