Defending the Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & the American Constitution
Thursday October 23rd 2014

Self-Educated Man


lincoln family bible study



Read along with us; share your insights, ask questions, post a link that adds to the discussion


October 06, 2014


Federalist 62. Madison reminds us that the election of U.S. Senators by their respective state legislatures secured state rights or authority. In your opinion, how might a return to this vital constitutional principle become a key element in empowering a push back against federal intrusion into powers our heaven inspired Constitution clearly retained as jurisdictionally belonging to state & local governments, to families & individuals, to private businesses, churches, & charities?


TML is syndicated by:

Google News (Internet)

Newstex - No. 1 Rated Authoritative Content

Muslims, Hindus, and Jews: Setting Ron Paul Straight

By Brad Fregger

The question: Is Ron Paul ignorant about history or just ignoring the lessons of history because they don’t fit with his core belief system? It appears that his strong belief in individual freedom shapes his agenda to the point that he believes that countries, too, should be free to go about their business without the influence of others and, therefore, that the U.S. should stay out of all foreign ventures unless a foreign power makes a direct threat to the security of the United States. For example, this is an abridged excerpt of a conversation that Ron Paul had with Bill O’Reilly,

I see the Iranians as acting logically and defensively. … It is our policy of preemptive, deliberate invasions of foreign countries and occupying these countries that has jeopardized our safety … If you keep living in this dreamland that they attack us because we are free and prosperous, believe me we’re never going to [correct] our foreign policy. … we need to defend this country and defend our national security and our national security interests are not served by the policies we are following in the Middle East.

They are probably not attacking us because we are “free and prosperous.” However, they probably are attacking us because we have not embraced Islam and sharia law.

A Muslim world is the only answer to the end of Muslim terrorism. It takes very little to provoke Muslim genocide on those who worship God in a different way. The difference between the Muslim fanatic and the Christian fanatic is that the Christian fanatic only wants to talk your head off.

Regarding allowing other countries to go about their business without our interference, this is Paul’s attitude:

One can understand why [Iran] might want to become nuclear capable if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectively. … a policy of peace, is free trade, stay out of their internal business … .

This makes many conservatives and independents very nervous; in this modern age, the first sign of a threat could well be the destruction of some American cities.

—————–

George Santayana offered the world some very sage advice when he said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”So, what is it in the past that Paul is either not remembering or completely unaware of? To be specific, what does history tell us about the Muslim jihad and a potential threat to the future security of the United States?

Let’s take the history regarding Muslim relations with both the Hindus and Jews as examples.

Ancient history speaks of Bhāratavarṣa or “The Land of Bharat” which originally included all of India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and the Kandahar province of Afghanistan. Another name for this area (the vast majority of the Indian subcontinent) is Hindustan, considered to be given to the Hindus by God, “The country which starts from Himalayas and the borders of which reach till the Indian Ocean (Indu Sarovaram), has been created by Gods and its name is Hindusthan.”

Many had tried to conquer Hindustan (India) with the Muslims taking their shot in 712 CE when an “Arab Muslim general called Muhammad bin Qasim conquered most of the Indus region in modern day Pakistan”; his efforts to move further into India were repulsed. Regardless, the Muslims had arrived and many took up permanent residence in Northern India, especially in the area now known as Pakistan and later moving into East Pakistan (Bangladesh).

However, through all of these upheavals, Hindus maintained control over the majority of the land and businesses in those areas. During the century that the British ruled over India (from the mid 1800s until 1947), Hindu ancestral ties to the land were honored; much of it had been owned by Hindu families for many generations. This was truly the “motherland” for many Hindus.

In the first decades of the 20th Century, Muslim leaders began to talk about the need for them to have a country of their own in Northern Hindustan. Sir Muhammad Iqbal, in his 1930 address as president of the Muslim League, stated,

I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, … .

In 1946 additional pressure was put on the Indian Congress, Nehru, and Ghandi to accept the partition of India because of the Great Calcutta Killings (est. death toll, 4,000 – 10,000 mostly Hindus) and the Noakhali genocide:

The massacre of the Hindu population started on 10th October, on the day of Kojagari Lakshmi Puja and continued unabated for about a week. It is estimated that over 5,000 Hindus were killed, hundreds of Hindu women were raped and thousands of Hindu men and women were forcibly converted to Islam.

 As far as the Muslim leadership was concerned, this need became critical at the end of World War II, when it was obvious that Britain could no longer maintain its rule over India. The Muslims, very concerned about the Hindu majority in the Indian Congress, believed that a separate Muslim nation, controlled by Muslims, would provide them with the power and influence they desired. Pressure was put on the British to make this happen before they allowed India to gain independence. This was carried out through the Mountbatten Plan which called for the Dominion of India and Pakistan (including East Pakistan; now Bangladesh). There was an opinion among leaders in India and Pakistan that India’s Muslims would migrate to Pakistan, while Pakistan’s Hindus would migrate to India.

While the Hindu Congress, Nehru, and Gandhi all had hoped that the partition would end the Muslim/Hindu riots, from the beginning this was a human disaster beyond anything they could have imagined with millions of Hindus being either forced to convert to the Muslim religion or murdered (a full-scale genocide) in both Pakistan and East Pakistan (Bangladesh). The Economist reported it this way:

The break-up of Britain’s Indian empire involved the movement of some 12m people, uprooted, ordered out, or fleeing their homes and seeking safety. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed, thousands of children disappeared, thousands of women were raped or abducted, forced conversions were commonplace. The violence polarised communities on the subcontinent as never before. The pogroms and killings were organised by gangs, vigilantes and militias across northern, western and eastern India. They were often backed by local leaders, politicians from Congress and the Muslim League, maharajahs and princes, and helped by willing or frightened civil servants.

It is estimated that between 500,000 and a million people died during this first genocide (there were a total of three), the vast majority of them Hindus.

“You have full liberty to go the limit. Take revenge as you like, but if there is one Hindu or Sikh left alive in my district after you are through, I swear to kill them myself.” – Deputy Commissioner of a Western Punjab District in Pakistan to young Muslims.

Historically, what is important is that the partition gave to the Muslims political control of over 350 thousand square miles of territory (the size of Pakistan and Bangladesh combined).

——————-

While purely conjecture, there is circumstantial evidence that one of the main reasons that the British were so determined to partition India, was their need to “solve the Jewish question” by providing for the Jews a separate Jewish state. If true, their thinking might well have been something like this, “Let’s give the Muslims Pakistan and ask in return that they provide part of the territory of Palestine for a Jewish state.” The discussion regarding this possibility had begun much earlier:

During the 1870s and 1880s the Jewish population in Europe began to more actively discuss immigration back to Israel and the re-establishment of the Jewish Nation in its national homeland, fulfilling the biblical prophecies relating to Shivat Tzion.

For decades prior to 1947, Jews had been returning to the territory of Palestine, their “motherland.” This exodus to the Middle East began in 1881-1882, and gained momentum with the persecution of the Jews in Eastern Europe and Russia. In addition, early in the 20th Century, the conversation about creating a Jewish Homeland in the territory of Palestine became official when a proposal suggesting this was presented by the Zionist Organization to the Paris Peace Conference, 1919.

Then, with the partition of India, Jewish Homeland organizations saw their chance and, with the support of the United States and the British, convinced the newly formed United Nations to partition the territory of Palestine, providing for the Jews a Homeland of their own. As stated earlier, there is little doubt that the partition of India was a major consideration in making this decision. To everyone but the Muslims, this seemed to be a very fair trade.

So in 1948, the State of Israel was born; encompassing approximately 8,000 square miles, of which over half is desert, plus an additional 2700 square miles conquered in the Six-Day War and retained to the present, “Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. (The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt as a condition of the1979 Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty).

So, currently, these two partitions have resulted in the Muslims gaining over 350,000 square miles, while the Jews gained approximately 10,000 square miles. It seems obvious why the United Nations, taking everything into account, saw this as a fair trade.

How did the Hindus fare during the partition of India, compared to how the Muslims faired with the partition of Israel? In both instances, there were those who did not want to leave their homes. One interesting statistic that gives us a hint as to how the minority was and is being treated is this: Since the partition of India, the percentage of Hindus in Bangladesh has fallen from approximately 28 percent to 9 percent. In approximately the same time frame, since the partition of Palestine, the percentage of Muslims in Israel has increased from approximately 10 percent to almost 20 percent.

The increase in the number of Palestinians in Israel is due in part to the fact that they are treated with more respect and given more rights, including citizenship, in Israel than in any other Middle Eastern country. In Middle Eastern countries Palestinians are not allowed citizenship nor can they attain a position of political influence.

However, Israel has laws that guarantee equal rights for all and provides citizenship to those of all religions and nationalities. In Israel Muslims enjoy the opportunity to gain political influence and power. For example, Muslims have served as Israeli government officials, both local and national, including: many members of the Knesset (Israel’s Legislature), the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, Israel’s ambassador to Greece, and as a Supreme Court Justice. Even Miss Israel of 1999 was Muslim.

How about genocide, forced conversion, and refugees? While I can find no record of any Muslims being murdered by Jews in Israel as a direct result of the partition of the territory of Palestine, the partition of India tells a very different story.

The Partition of British India in 1947, which created the two independent states of Pakistan and India, was followed by one of the cruelest and bloodiest migrations and religious and ethnic cleansings in history and resulted in the forced transfer of an estimated 14 to 18 million people between the two countries. The ensuing religious animosity and communal strife resulted in the deaths of some two million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs and abduction, rape and killing of countless women and children. … It was indeed one of the most inhuman manifestations of religious and communal intolerance with few parallels in history.

The partition of India genocides took place at three different times: 1947 (Pakistan and East Pakistan), 1964 (East Pakistan), and 1971 (Bangladesh). The 2 million mentioned above is a very conservative figure. There are estimates that in 1971 alone 2.5 million Hindus were murdered by the Bangladesh Muslims during the Bangladesh War of Independence. If true, the total number of Hindus murdered as a result of the partition of India would actually approach 3.5 million.

In addition, no Muslims were forced, or even encouraged to convert to Judaism with the partition of Palestine; while, in many instances, converting from Hindu to Islam was a matter of life or death in Pakistan and Bangladesh. As far as refugees go, in Israel the Palestinians were given the choice to go to Jordan or stay in Israel. And while thousands choose to go to Jordan, this number pales to insignificance when related to the millions of Hindus that essentially had three choices: become refugees, convert to Islam, or die.

Finally, to respond to Ron Paul’s contention that America’s policies have been the cause of the Muslim attacks on America, just what does it take to make Muslims angry? We’ve read about what happens when an author writes a book that Muslims don’t like (Satanic Verses, Salman Rushdie), or makes a movie they don’t like (Submission, Theo van Gogh), or creates or publishes a cartoon they don’t like (Danish cartoon scandal). But, the question is, what made the Muslims so angry that they felt it necessary to murder millions of Hindus?

Well, taking a lesson from history, let’s go back to an instance early in 1964 when the leaders of Pakistan created a false story that some Hindus had stolen the sacred hair of Muhammad from  the Hazratbal Shrine near Srinage in Kashmir. Once the rumor was started, the religious leaders put a fatwā on all Hindus, essentially giving the Muslim followers permission to murder all Hindu men who would not convert to Islam, burn down their homes and businesses, and rape and/or sell into slavery all desirable Hindu women and girls. In 1964 this resulted in the murder and rape of tens of thousands of Hindus, with millions more forced to give up their property and then driven out of their homes; out of their homeland.

And what did the Hindus do to deserve this? Essentially, they refused to convert to Islam, refused to give up their ancestral homes, and ostensibly a few Hindus stole the sacred hair of Muhammad; this, of course, was a lie invented by the rulers of Pakistan in order to take over the properties and businesses of the Hindus, properties and businesses that had been in Hindu families for hundreds of years; many generations. Again, this did not happen to the Muslims in Israel.

Here is an eye-witness account—only a glimpse—of the carnage that occurred in Khulna in East Pakistan on January 3, 1964. The witness was a 15-year-old boy who had escaped the carnage through quick thinking, luck, and the largess of a Muslim gentleman who was shocked by the carnage and refused to take part. In fact, the gentleman risked the anger of the Muslim majority by sheltering the boy. This is from the book “Ghandi Betrayed My People”, by M. K. Debnath, to be published early next year.

The centuries old Hindu Kali Mandir [Hindu temple for the Goddess Kali] stood on the river bank. It was not too far from this house. … The killings went on for three days. The dead bodies started rotting… It was left to the ordinary Muslims to clean up the mess, particularly the smelly, dead bodies of the Hindus that they had killed these past few days.

They were bringing the dead bodies in by the truckload, unloading the bodies just like someone would unload rubbish from a truck. Then other Muslims, with their faces covered to avoid the terrible smell of death, threw the bodies into the river. I counted 33 trucks on that evening before it became dark. I did not know how long it had gone on, or continued on, after I could no longer see.

The gruesome part was not just the throwing of the bodies in the river but something more intense for anyone to be able to digest. In the last few trucks the bodies were fresher, recently killed. There were both men and women. The men’s bodies were dismembered first by cutting their limbs off and then they were thrown into the river. The women’s bodies did not invoke any mercy either. Their breasts were cut off; private parts were taken out with a knife before they were thrown in the river.

It was a brutal act done in open daylight by a group of Muslims, on the premises of a centuries-old Hindu temple.

So … if a simple, unproven, rumor can cause this level of carnage, this level of genocide or forced conversions, how can any intelligent person believe that all we need to do to gain peace in the Middle East, to remove that threat, is to treat Muslims with respect, according to the Lord’s Commandment of, “Do unto others … .”

The Hindus did nothing to deserve the treatment they received. There seems little doubt that the fanatical Muslims will only be satisfied when the world embraces Islam and sharia law. Our choice, ultimately, is to convert or die … or, realize the danger and face it head on.


The Moral Liberal Contributing Editor, Brad Fregger, is President and CEO of Groundbreaking Press and a lecturer (professor) at Texas State University-San Marcos. He founded three corporate-training departments (Mervyns Department Stores, Atari, and Activision), and was featured in Tom Peters’ book Liberation Management. He is the author of seven books, including: Lucky That WayStories of Seizing the Moment While Creating the Games Millions Play, Get Out of The Way! – You’ll Never Manage Your Way to Great Leadership, My Thinking Cap – Solutions for Global Crisis, One Shovel Full – Telling Stories to Change Beliefs, Attitudes, and Perceptions, Why Publish (book publishing) and, his latest, Why Does Anybody Believe in God? – An Essay on Creation. In addition, he has also written and published articles at four influential, conservative websites: The Moral Liberal, Breitbart’s Big PeaceAmerican Thinker, and  America’s Right.

In addition, Brad has produced more than 50 videos, 60 books, 12 audio books, over 100 consumer and business enterprise software products, including the most successful computer game in the world (Shanghai) and the most played computer game in the world (the first commercial version of computer card solitaire).

Fregger holds a Master’s Degree in Societal Futures from San Jose State University. Read Brad’s full bio here.

Email Brad at: [email protected]


Copyright © 2011 Brad Fregger.