Monday, December 06, 2010


Yes, it has come this far. Via The Telegraph, November 25:

(By Adrian Blomfield, Middle East Correspondent 5:36PM GMT 25 Nov 2010)
"... Naipaul had been due to give the opening address at the European Writers' Parliament, a gathering of prominent authors who are meeting in Istanbul to discuss the future of literature.

But he made what was described as "a mutual decision", taken with the conference's organisers, to withdraw at the last moment following a concerted campaign against him in Turkey's religious press.

A number of Turkish writers had threatened not to attend the event in protest at Naipaul's portrayal of Islam in two of his 30 books as a religion that sought to enslave and eliminate other cultures.

Calls for a boycott were led by Hilmi Yavuz, a columnist for the Zaman newspaper, who wrote: "How can our writers bear to sit by the same table with Naipul, who has seen Muslims worthy of so many insults?"

Born in Trinidad of Indian ancestry, Naipaul, 78, has condemned the manner in which Islam established itself in the non-Arab world.

Converts in countries such as Iran and Indonesia had been forced "to strip themselves of their past" in order to submit to the Muslim faith, he wrote.

"It is the most uncompromising kind of imperialism," he wrote in Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples.

Naipaul has also courted controversy by attacking Pakistan while voicing support for the Indian nationalist party the BJP and other right-wing Hindu parties. Most notably he defended the destruction in 1992 of a mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, by a mob of BJP supporters as an act of "historical balancing" – even though nearly 2,000 Muslims were killed in the ensuing riots.

The campaign to keep Naipaul out of Turkey threatens to tarnish Istanbul's credentials as this year's "European Capital of Culture" and other writers at the conference insisted that he had the right to be heard.

"I feel that we would be stronger and more credible if we were to deal with divergent views within this meeting rather than excluding someone because of fear that offence might be given," Hari Kunzru, the British novelist, told delegates as the event got under way..."

Naipauls remark of "historical balancing" may seem crude... until you learn a bit of history on muslim imperialism in India...


In 1391 AD the Muslims of Gujarat complained to Nasiruddin Muhammad, the Tughlak Sultan of Delhi, that the local governor, Farhat-ul-Mulk, was practising tolerance towards the Hindus. The Sultan immediately appointed Muzaffar Khan as the new governor. He became independent after the death of the Delhi Sultan and assumed the title of Muzaffar Shah in 1392 AD. Next year he led an expedition to Somnath and sacked the temple which the Hindus had built once again. He killed many Hindus to chastise them for this “impudence”, and raised a mosque on the site of the ancient temple. The Hindus, however, restarted restoring the temple soon after. In 1401 AD Muzaffar came back with a huge army. He again killed many Hindus, demolished the temple once more, and erected another mosque. Muzaffar was succeeded by his grandson, Ahmad Shah, in 1411 AD. Three years later Ahmad appointed a special dãrogah to destroy all temples throughout Gujarat. In 1415 AD Ahmad invaded Sidhpur where he destroyed the images in Rudramahalaya, and converted the grand temple into a mosque. Sidhpur was renamed Sayyadpur.

Mahmud Begrha who became the Sultan of Gujarat in 1458 AD was the worst fanatic of this dynasty. One of his vassals was the Mandalika of Junagadh who had never withheld the regular tribute. Yet in 1469 AD Mahmud invaded Junagadh. In reply to the Mandalika’s protests, Mahmud said that he was not interested in money as much as in the spread of Islam. The Mandalika was forcibly converted to Islam and Junagadh was renamed Mustafabad. In 1472 AD Mahmud attacked Dwarka, destroyed the local temples, and plundered the city. Raja Jayasingh, the ruler of Champaner, and his minister were murdered by Mahmud in cold blood for refusing to embrace Islam after they had been defeated and their country pillaged and plundered. Champaner was renamed Mahmudabad.

Mahmud Khalji of Malwa (1436-69 AD) also destroyed Hindu temples and built mosques on their sites. He heaped many more insults on the Hindus. Ilyas Shah of Bengal (1339-1379 AD) invaded Nepal and destroyed the temple of Svayambhunath at Kathmandu. He also invaded Orissa, demolished many temples, and plundered many places. The Bahmani sultans of Gulbarga and Bidar considered it meritorious to kill a hundred thousand Hindu men, women, and children every year. They demolished and desecrated temples all over South India.


The scene shifted once mere to Delhi after Babur came out victorious against the Lodis and the Rajputs. The founder of the Mughal empire has received much acclaim from Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru for his fortitude in adversity, his daring against heavy odds, his swimming across many rivers, his love of flowers and fruits, and so on so forth. But his face, presented by himself in his Tuzuk-i-Bãburî, suffers irreparable damage if it is denuded of the rich hues of horrible cruelties in which he habitually indulged. The lurid details he provides of his repeated massacres of the infidels, leave no doubt that he was mighty proud of his performance. He was particularly fond of raising higher and higher towers of Hindu heads cut off during and after every battle he fought with them. He loved to sit in his royal tent to watch this spectacle. The prisoners were brought before him and butchered by his “brave” swordsmen. On one occasion, the ground flowed with so much blood and became so full of quivering carcases that his tent had to be moved thrice to a higher level. He lost no opportunity of capturing prisoners of war and amassing plunder. In the dynasty founded by him it was incumbent upon every king that he should style himself a Ghãzî, that is, slayer of infidels. When he broke vessels of wine on the eve of his battle with Rana Sangram Singh, he proclaimed that he would smash idols in a similar manner. And he destroyed temples wherever he saw them..."

But if you thought all that stopped after the decline of the Moghuls, you'd be mistaken. In India, muslims continue to wreak havoc on the non-muslim part of the population every day.


No comments: