TERRORISM OUTSIDE ISLAM, an attempt to draw a longer line

I FOUND THIS POST ON Rishikesh's Blog
I request you to read his blog Here

Rishikesh argues that

A media group owner has said something interesting. ``All Muslims are not terrorists. But all terrorists are Muslims. I don’t see why we should be afraid of accepting such facts’’.
The high profile entrepreneur and journalist made the statement at a music performance in Hubli. What is even more interesting is that there were some Muslims among the guests and performers!
I thought I would add here, some facts that such people may not be afraid to accept.
1. Intelligence agencies of India, USA, UK, and other countries have identified nearly 125 global terror outfits.
2. Half of these have Christian cadres. The motto of some such organizations is to convert the world into ``The Promised Land’’.
3. A third of these have Muslim cadres. Some say they are fighting a Holy War. Some media organizations call them Islamic terror outfits.
4. At least 10 % of those listed are fighting for rights of tribes.
5. There are at least 10 agencies on the list that have non –tribal Hindus as cadres.
6. The list also includes agencies populated by people of other religions like Buddhism and Judaism.
Now I want to put you through a small quiz.
1. Who killed M K Gandhi?
2. Who killed Solomon Bandaranaike former PM of Sri Lanka?
3. Who killed Premadasa, former president of the same country?
4. Who killed millions of innocents in Ireland for over seven centuries?
5. Who killed thousands in a blood war over four decades in the Kingdom of Nepal?
6. When Khmer Rouge ruled Cambodia, nearly two million people were killed. What was the religion followed by senior Khmer Roughe leaders?
7. Who killed Indira Gandhi?
8. Who killed Rajiv Gandhi?
9. Who gas bombed trains in Japan in 1995?
10. What is Lehi?
Here are the answers.
1. India’s most famous assassin was Nathuram Ghodse was a Hindu Brahmin.
2. Bandaranaike was assassinated by Talduwe Somarama, a Buddhist monk, in 1959. His wife Sirimavo Bandaranaike would take over as the world’s first woman PM.
3. LTTE, which mostly consists of Tamil speaking Hindus
4. Irish Republican Army is a Christian organisation
5. The Nepal Maoists are Hindus
6. Some prominent Khmer Rouge leaders were devout Buddhists.
7. Khalistan activists who were Sikhs
8. LTTE again.
9. Members of the Aum Shinrikyo, a new religion influenced by Buddhism and Christianity.
10. Lehi or ``Fighters for the Freedom of Israel", was a terrorist organization that was given general amnesty and merged into the Israel army. Yitzhak Rabin, a former Israel PM was a legendary Lehi member.

I would like to tell Rishi that, your post here might sound good as word against word and sentence against sentence. But when it comes to argument against argument, I think that your argument has an element of ignorance vis-a-vis denial. Which you want the readers here to silently or willingly or ignorantly overlook.

Some of your points are blatantly invalid.

Godse was indeed a Hindu Brahmin, but Gandhi’s murder was a political assassination. To say that it was an act of terrorism would be overstretching the idea of terrorism. There have been hundreds of political/apolitical assassinations happened in the history likes of which include the assassination of Lincoln, John Lennon, Kennedy etc. While some of these have been done by terrorists, not all such incidents can be grouped into terrorism. Off course Godse’s case become more relevant because at some point of his life he was related to RSS, so the opponents of RSS still insist (in their own imaginative world) that it was actually RSS’s plot and hence RSS is a terrorist organization. Whether it is so or not, I leave it to individual’s interpretation and his hyperbole. But the Supreme Court of India has acquitted RSS giving it a clean chit. So any far stretching cannot make this incident a terrorist one, knowing one more fact that Godse didn’t defend himself on that charge and what more, his community members were attacked by the goons of Gandhiji’s ahimsa brigade.

LTTE are indeed a terrorist organization but their ideological fuel comes from the concept of their being of a specific ethnic identity i.e. Tamils. They are not religion based terrorist groups as their cadres have plenty of Christian members and Prabhkaran himself is a convert, his son's name being Charles Anthony. Although I cannot confirm if he is Christian or not, but definitely his struggle is not for Hinduism in specific, and no way Pan-Hindu

Maoists - Nepali or Chinese -are ATHEISTS. At least this is what, is the most established fact about their religious leanings. Have they been so staunch Hindus or pro-Hindus, they would have never converted the last Hindu country in the world into a secular one. In fact they are anti-Hindu to the extent that they want to bring the temples under their dominance.

The above examples hold good foe the so called christian cadres as well as you have to look whether they are communists or not

In all of the other examples. The terrorist organizations are limited to local fights and against specific governments. But in case of Islamic Jihad this is not true. The Islamic Jihad has a pan Islamic or pan-national approach. Islamic terrorism in one country gets aid and resource from the vast span other muslim countries and also in general, muslims from all over the world, clearly blurring all the lines and demarcations of culture, language , ethnicity. If you have an ISLAMIC terrorist, whether he is an Arab from Saudi Arabia, Palestine, a Negroid from Somalia, a Bangladeshi, a Caucasian from Chechnya or a Mongoloid from Indonesia/Philippines-they all speak the same language, as if they are working for a single purpose, in bits and parts, and in concert. Everywhere, where there is violence and terrorism, ISLAM had always played the role of ideological fuel. This sets things apart as in your examples, the terrorists having some religious background is completely inconsequential to their propaganda.

I can't understand that these are well known and well understood facts but still, self declared intellectuals often choose to ignore these in their self-motivated pursuits of gaining greater moral high ground. I have heard the story of Akbar and Birbal where the later, in his candid display of intelligence, drew a longer line to shorten the line given by Akbar.

Some of our intellectual bloggers think that they can do the Birbal trick by gathering up bits and pieces of facts, add some Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Christian to it and prove their point that "Terrorism is Universal" and "All relgions preach terrorism". Well in this case, a longer line cannot be done but the attempt is surely made to draw a line which could be possibly, as long as the one drawn buy the Islamists. This is to set the notion that terrorism has a presence in every religion and as such they are congruent!

So for some blog hopping moral bigots, these ideas/part-facts can be of momentary refreshment. But in the long run you have to call a spade, a spade --PERIOD

WHY ALL TERRRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS? Yes/No/Can't Say

Why all terrorists are Muslims? This is a question that now a days spirals around our heads all the time as events around us, political and apolitical, are firing this odd unpleasant theme to be set for every debate, every discussion and silent thinking. To answer this question, some intellectuals make a deep dive into religions, their teachings, their scriptures etc etc and come out with fascinating contrasts as how the sea is so different at the surface and at the abyss.


There is a popular belief that all this tattered image of Muslims is attributed to the unscrupulous propaganda of the WESTERN (read AMERICAN) MEDIA. There is uproar that this is the religion, the religion of ISLAM which advocates violence and discrimination. I feel simply surprised. What has the Western Media done so bad? They have collected and reported stuffs that have happened all around. Unlike Indian Media which takes journalism one step ahead, towards activism and morality-preaching, I think Western Media has done its job quite professionally.

Some people argue that Islam, like (or somewhat like) all other religions have similar guiding themes-PEACE-JUSTICE-HUMANITY-…………………(infinity). It is only a few people who in the name of ISLAM are lashing the inhuman violence. I am pained to say that, it is not the number or proportion of the Muslims which is significant, it is the number (which is huge) of people which it victimizes. And the peaceful and benevolent among the Muslims unfortunately have never been able to counterfeit this force, which is omnipresent in every Muslim community, in every nook and cranny of the world (except those fortunate places where there are no Muslims!)

Now let us come to JEHAD, which is touted as the most misunderstood concept among non-Muslims! My question is – why would there be any need to understand this or any other word attached to Islamic ideology. You can present a very aesthetically carved out meaning of Jihad, Islam, this, that and so on. But will that undo the cruelties and violence done in the name of Jihad? Will that anyhow take the wrath out of this word as it appears in the hate-mails of the Indian Mujahideen? What do you want us to believe? You expect the lamb to love the knife that cuts it apart, giving the logic that it is the butcher not the knife which is responsible? But unfortunately, to an innocent lamb, both the knife and the butcher are enemies. He has a reason to fear both! Because a knife needs a butcher and the butcher needs the knife, two coming together to slain the lamb. Please for God’s sake do not expect non-muslims to take interest and time into studying your scriptures, ideologies and terminologies, because they are victimized by them. If this is a tactic to draw people towards Islam, then I fear, it is the worst tactic. Please expect a non-Muslim to be what he is – A non Muslim, a blessed creature on this earth, who by most natural reasons would not take interest extra interests into other religions just as Muslims would not take interest into other religions(of course they do so quite often to prove that they are inferior, but leave this apart for the time being)

The next face-saving argument is that terrorism is a political process and religion and religious communities have nothing to do with it. Here is a twist! For most of the eastern religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism etc it is indeed true. Centuries of evolution have somehow kept politics and religion apart in these communities. But is it such about Islam? The answer is NO! All abrahmic religions tend to attach themselves with politics some way or the other. Among Christians, the dominance of church in every sphere of life, was prominent during some period of history. But against this traditional system, the western Christian society came up with SECULARISM, which segregates church from state. Has any such evolution taken place in Islam? NO! I often hear preachings from some Muslim conscience that no religion teaches to kill innocents. This invariably comes as naïve guesses from people who have drawn a very generalist and simplistic idea about religions without ever having spent humble amount of time studying them in particular.

Some Muslim souls say that they are afraid, they are insecure, they are victims, they are tortured! They are being discriminated here and there and everywhere outside the Ummah! Have they ever asked their conscience, how they have treated the non-muslims of the Ummah?

Complains continues………we are being stereotyped!
Who is responsible?
Western(and some even say Eastern) media, RSS, BJP…………………..

The real answer is, the so called stereotypes have not come from heaven, nor from the fictions of the western media. These stereotypes have come from examples which have been set by Muslims themselves throughout the fifteen centuries of their existence. These examples somehow outnumber, with great disproportion the good and contributory work of Muslims towards humanity. So much so, that all of us (excluding muslims) would agree that we would happily drop the desire for another APJ if it, in turn, assures the impossibility of terrorism, if it gives back the homeland, that thousands of non-muslims have lost to the Ummah.
The hue cries of discrimination and injustice is somehow built into the very instinct of every Muslim, who is in a country where majority people do not adhere to Islam. Every country where they are minority, they cry-shout-tear in desperation that they are victims. So how can we alleviate him from such feelings of insecurity? ?

Allow him to wear his topi, dirty beard, ankle un-touching pants, top to bottom burkha, even in the workplaces, ie. in short drop the very notion of aesthetics for them………….Allow them to create Mosques!(this is very important), in every corner. One per head is the most desired proportion………And also allow him to take his portable mosque every where he goes, in trains, offices, planes, just take out that small cloth, sit on your knees and start..123……….and thereafter to see him washing his dirty feet in the same office basin where we wash our faces. This whole earth is allah’s prop, so every building is a mosque……PROVEN.

This clumsy list goes on and on. To make him comfortable we have to make 10001 modifications specifically customized to their Islamic way of living which has a code of conduct for almost every thing- how to eat, how to wear, how to shave, how to dress and even how to piss!

It is this exclusivist attitude that itself creates the proto-rifts between communities (Muslims and the rest). Later on, when we see Taliban on youtube, Al Qaeda in CNN and off course, bombed up public places in our cities, these rifts widen and deepen

this post has been written in response to http://clicknewsnet.com/latestnewsdetail.php?id=357