Path: hoare!virgil!wnoc-tyo-news!nec-tyo!nec-gw!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!usc!not-for-mail
   From: sadhal@alhena.usc.edu (Sati Sadhal)
   Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh
   Date: 10 Dec 92 22:30:48 GMT
   References: <1992Dec9.155914.9553@brtph560.bnr.ca> <1992Dec9.214021.15284@vela.acs.oakland.edu> <1992Dec10.200229.4197@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
   Sender: sadhal@alhena.usc.edu (Satwindar Singh Sadhal)
   Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
   Lines: 110
   NNTP-Posting-Host: alhena.usc.edu

   In article <1992Dec10.200229.4197@beaver.cs.washington.edu> hasan@cs.washington.edu (Shams Hasan) writes:
   >In article <1992Dec9.214021.15284@vela.acs.oakland.edu> janand@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Jayaraman Anand) writes:
   >>In article <1992Dec9.155914.9553@brtph560.bnr.ca> smshah@bnr.ca writes:
   >>>3. It is a sheer myth that Hindus and Muslims of the subcontinent are different peoples.
   >>>   Infact the only difference is religion. Racially, linguistically, culturally and ethnically
   >>>   they are all the same.
   >>>
   >>
   >>	Actually, the only difference I see is that a vast majority of the 
   >>	so-called muslims in India at some point or the other were Hindus
   >>	who were converted to see the Islam point of view, either 
   >>	forcefully or for monetary considerations.
   >>

   [......deleted stuff.....]

   >>J Anand.

   >My dear Mr. Anand,
   >


   >
   >However, religion such as the Kafirs/Hindu/Infidel of Hindustaan as it makes
   >a way of life, is not changed at heart by force and neither by monetary
   >consideration.
   >

	   It is the attitude like yours that creates a lot of problems.
	   All people, of whatever denomination, believing as such are
	   nothin but troublemakers. 

	   What you are doing is nothing that the Islamic people would
	   be proud of. In fact, they will probably have to apologize for you.

   [..... deleted stuff....]

   >Yes, Islam came to India by force. Because the Muslims beat the hell out of
   >Kaafirs/Hindus/Infidels of Hindustaan, being outnumbered and facing harsh and
   >unsurmountable odds out of the belief of their faith, and faith alone.
   >

	   And, it was Guru Nanak who opposed and resisted Babar's invasion 
	   of Punjab, and he was captured and thrown in jail by Babar. 
	   You have the nerve to call Guru Nanak a Kaffir/Infidel?
	   By the way, He referred to Babar as `Zaabar'.

   >But it [Islam] was not spread by force, though it must be true, that monetary consideration would play a part in gaining favor with the ruling Muslim rulers.
   >

	   That is why the Sikh Gurus, Arjan Dev and Teg Bahadur 
	   were executed. Is that so? They were not executed by force, right?
	   Bhai Mati Das had his head sawed in half. No force was used, right?


   >The Kafir/Hindu/Infidel were actually the first form of Nazism in history, 
   >which BTW Hindustaanis take great pains to hide, that put one race of people
   >over another because of *SUPERIORITY* by color and caste and a way of life,
   >which even today is observed by Brahmins and other vermins.
   >
   >Todays Muslims in the sub-continent are a mixture of European, Arab, Persian, 
   >and the native Indus civilization. Islam was embraced because of its belief
   >in brotherhood, charity, and a lot of intelligence/common sense, and the
   >belief in ONE GOD, not ONE THOUSAND or more. 

	   Then why, in the name of Islam, monotheistic 
	   (Ek-Onkar, One God) believers such
	   as the above were persecuted, butchered, and killed?
	   Why did they kill little children and garland their 
	   mothers with the chopped up babies? This clearly 
	   violated all Islamic values and is totally unrepresentative
	   of Islam. However, the cruel despotic emperors used the good
	   name of Islam to carry out these atrocities. 
	   This is well-documented in Sikh history.

	   Of course, many good Muslims of the time condemned
	   such horrible acts of terror. For example, when
	   Aurangzeb had briched alive the two Sahibzadas of 
	   Guru Gobind Singh (aged 7 and 9), it was a Muslim
	   of Malerkotla who condemned this act. As a result,
	   Guru Gobind Singh blessed the Malerkotla district.
	   Consequently, some 240 years later, the Muslims 
	   of Malerkotla were spared of the horror of the 
	   1947 partition. 

   Which though is not practiced
   >by any so called Islamic leaders, has'nt been for centuries, and probably
   >never will I see in my lifetime, maybe my childrens lifetime if God wills.
   >

   Dear Shams: 
	   You need to broaden your thinking. Think of the 
	   subcontinent as a whole. Don't ever condemn the
	   religions of others, no matter how wrong you
	   feel they are. Also, you need to get a few 
	   facts straight.

	   God bless you.  
   >Best Regards,
   >Shams Hasan

	   I have, and I still do, CONDEMN THE DEMOLITION
	   OF THE BABRI MASJID. This horrible act will
	   haunt the subcontinent for decades to come.

				   ----- Satwindar Singh Sadhal



   ******************** E N D **********************
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian