Dalit writer and activist Banjagere Jayaprakash, quoted in Vijaya Karnataka:
“All Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.
“Likewise, all Hindus are not fundamentalists, but all fundamentalists are Hindus.”
Also read: Does freedom to express give licence to distort?
banjagere is a fool….dont take him seriously
I heard it on Zee Kannada, last night. They have a foolish humour programme judged by Master Hirannayya. One of the participants wearing a police uniform said ” Ayyo Devre. Ella terrorist muslims, aadre ella muslims terrorist alla “.
….and the point of this is ????
Does that fundamentalists list include Imam Bukhari,Sayyad Shahabuddin & co.
thale buda artha agthilla. VK odh nodthini.
A sincere question, no sarcasm intended: how does one define a “fundamentalist”?
So, Muslims are not fundamentalists. He has the freedom of expression. Fundamentalism and terrorism – these two words are very much confused one. Fundamentalism may not harm anybody for he can his ideas and ideologies but terrorism shows its ugly face and the results are dangerous.
Oh! When did Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Col. R. S. Purohit, Narendra Modi and George Bush embraced Islam? I thought that they are non-Muslims.
Azeezbhai, please don’t praise Hindus just yet. They need to work very hard to get to where the Muslims are right now.
Fundamentalism refers to a “deep and totalistic commitment” to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life. – Wikipedia.
By this definition, most religious people are fundamentalists. But islamic fundamentalism is widespread and takes this to extremism from fundamentalism. Agree with Palahalli – Hindu fundamentalists have a long way to go even to come closer to Muslim fundamentalism.
Granted, the people whom you have mentioned have fundementalist views? However please keep things in context,
1. Is George Bush a Hindu? Gee – I thought he was a man of the Book ( Abrahamic religion)
2. Are there no fundementalists in islam. Isn’t being fundamentalist a prerequisite to being a terrorist?
Whenever I see “Dalit writer” and “activist”, especially all together, I am usually extra eager to see what extra stupidity has been spouted this time around. This one didn’t disappoint.
Azeezbhai,you Muslims,where ever you are whether its in the west or in Isreal, India,China & Russia you have a problem why.Can I expect honest answer from you.
For the benefit of Vinay et al
“Fundamentalism” is the belief in the scriptures of respective religion as absolute truth. It requries beleif on one God, one prophet and one book. Return to the pure religion as found in the original book, ignoring the historical accretions and developments is fundamentalism. In this sense, only Abrahamic religions, i.e., Judaism, Christianity and Islam can be fundamentalist. Though Buddhism and Jainism have the necessary features of prophetic religion, fundamentalism has not found roots in those religions. The only religion which cannot be fundamentalist is Hinduism, where a million dieties are worshipped, truth is hunted for in a hundred thousand scriptures. In fact, all the Hindu revivalists from Raja Rammohun Roy downwards through Dayananda Saraswati, Swami Vivekananda were actually reformists, who did not want return to scriptures in their prestine form; they were opposed to caste system, and untouchability; favoured widow remarraige and women’s education. Compare this with Purdah, Burkha system, wahabis, ahle hadiths amongst the Muslims. Compare with christianity where the God and Christ are obscured by the Church, which claims to be the body of Christ. It is salvation through Chruch – no longer slavation through Christ.
Even the much maligned names of Hindutva such as Savarkar were radically opposed to traditional Hindu practices. He did not even prefer a traditional Hindu funeral when he died.
Where is fundamentalism amongst the Hindus in the sense in which it prevails amongst the Abrahamic Religions?
Dr. Jayaprakash Banjagere is a publicity Hog. First, it ws Basaveswara as an untouchable. He never answered the question how an untouchable became a minister in Bijjala’s court. Now, this proclaimation. Such people deserve nothing but scorn and neglect.
Very funny. All fundamentalists are not terrorists, but all terrorists are fundamentalists. :-) So what does that make of the dude’s claim that all fundamentalists are Hindus?
Another round of self flagellation by the Churmuri Team…Bravo !!
*Chintaka, Vijay, Palahalli, Abhi, Azeezbhai, etc*
Hinduism in practice, or more accurately Hindu dharma, has three fundamental or primary texts: Upanishads (part of the Vedas), Brahma Sutras, and Bhagavad Gita.
A fundamentalist would be someone who adopts a literal meaning of those texts. In other words a “Hindu fundamentalist” would be someone who believes that:
(1) Brahman (nearest Abrahamic equivalent: “God”) is NOT exclusive. A Hindu may choose a diety — to represent Brahman — from any number of traditions, even Western. In other words, as Mahatma Gandhi observed, “There are multiple paths to the Truth.” For that reason, a Hindu does not have an evangelical/proselytizing goal.
(2) Self-realization, or manifesting the divinity within, is the goal of one’s relationship with Brahman (Paramatman).
(3) Karma decides the cycle of samsara (including reincarnation); the purpose of self-realization is to be liberated from the cycle of births.
Given the above belief system, I don’t understand how a “Hindu fundamentalist” can compete with or pose a threat to any Christian, to any Muslim, or even to any other Hindu. Assuming Banjagere Jayaprapash understands Hindu dharma he is giving Hindus a compliment!
Clearly, Hindu “fundamentalism” — an internal relationship with the divinity within — is wholly different from Muslim/Christian fundamentalism by which members of those great faiths propagate their respective exclusive gods.
To use the same term “fundamentalist” for Muslims, Christians and Hindus is inappropriate without a reference to that context.
Further, it amuses me when I read the term “Hindu terrorist” on Churumuri. The term shows at best an ignorance of Hindu dharma, at worst a disdain for it. It is simply poor journalism.
A “Hindu terrorist” is a theoretical impossibility. Of course, that is not to say that Hindus cannot be wicked or cruel or irrational — just that Hindus cannot be wicked or cruel or irrational because of a religious motivation. Hindu dharma not only accepts, but celebrates, different paths to the Truth. It reveres all prophets. Hindu dharma offers a unity in diversity, a supreme reconciliation in difficult times when Muslim/Christian fundamentalists are competing to propagate, even force-feed, their exclusive gods.
All Hindus might not be fundamentalists but all that Banjagere spouts is nonsense. This was the same yellow journalist / dalit writer who wanted to whitewash history by claiming Basavvana was from a oppressed caste when all evidence pointed to the fact that he was not. The main aim of this Banjagere moron is to demonize hindus and hog the limelight.
Looks like the main qualifiction of a Buddhijeevi in India is to demonize hindus and make sweeping generalizations about them.
Mysore Peshva – I agree with you but since I have a little time on hand..1st Jan and all :) i’ll nit-pick a little on “Hindu Terrorist”.
Of course there can be a Hindu Terrorist….but there cannot be “Hindu Terrorism”.
Happy New Year!
TERRORRISM IS NOT A MUSLIM MONOPOLY
Here are 17 pieces of evidence which shows all terrorists are not just muslims.
1. In Sri Lanka, the tamil tigers were the pioneers of suicide bombing.
2. Punjab militants let by Bhindranwale were Sikhs
3.ULFA is a group of terrorist group whose members happen to be Hindus. they target muslims, rather than otehr way around
4. Tripura has witnesses the rise and fall of several terror groups
5. Bodo Strongholds in Assam have witnessed teh same
6. Christian Mizos mounted an insurrection for decades.
7. Christian Nagas are still heading militant groups
8. Maoist terror groups exist in 150 districts in India. they ahve attacked police, killed and razed entire villages that oppose them.
9. Guerrilla fighters from Mao Zedong to Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castrop killed civilians during their revolutionary campaign. they too were called terrorists until they triumphed. nothing muslim about them.
10. IN palestine, after world war 2, Jewish groups fought for the creating of a jewish state, bombing hotels and killing civilans.
11. IN germany in 1968-92, Baader-Meinhoff gang killed many including the head of Treuhand, the german privatisation agency.
12. In Italy, the Red Brigades kidnapped and killed Aldo Moro, former Prime Minister.
13. The japanese red army was an Asian version of this.
14. Japan was also home of Aum Shinkrikyo, a budhist cult that tried to kill 1000s in the tokyo metro system using nerve gas in 1995.
15. THe Irish Republican Army has beena catholic terror grup for 100 years.
16. SPain and France face terror challenge from ETA, the Basque terrorist organisation.
17,. THe lords salivation army in Uganda, a christian outfit uses children ans warroris.
18. Non muslims killed India’s biggest leaders from Indira Gandhi to Rajiv Gandhi to Mahatma Gandhi to Beant Singh…
Why then is there a widespread impression that all terror groups are muslim?
First the indian elite follows the western meida, . the west feels under attack from Islamic groups.
Catholic Irish terrorists have killed far more people in Britain than Muslims, yet the subway bombings in London and Madrid are what europe remembers today.
In India, Maoists pose a far greater threat than Muslim militants in 150 districts, one third of india’s area. But major cities are not threatned by maoists. they are threatned only by islamic groups. the national media focuses overwhelmingly on muslim terror. the elite are hardly aware this is an elite phenomenon
Source: Times of India, Swaminathan Aiyer
Imposition of a worldwide Caliphate, Dhimmitude for Kafirs like us, massive amounts of money, sponsorship and subversion of civil society by interested regimes and the presence of an ever-present fifth column…these are similarities with movements like Nazism, that nobody really denies, except for the likes of Anklesaria and his brother.
Its also a blatant lie that the Indian elite even recognizes this truth! They are too consumed with political correctness to know black from white.
But it does seem like Swami has just about woken up to some disturbance in “his neighborhood”.
For all of the eighteen instances shown by Simple, one can probably quote one hundred and eighty instances of muslim terrorism, bombing, maiming, shooting. Besides, does acts of terrorism by others justify what muslim terrorists do? Will eighteen wrongs make one hundred or one thousand terrorist acts right? It is perverse logic, to say that I am not the only terrorist!
Instead of my splitting hairs with you on this issue, I would request you to go through the following link. And if possible, visit the pages that this page links to:
On the other hand, simultaneously, I would wish you to read this link as well:
And finally, these specific ones:
Regarding the IRA comparison (Irish stuff you mentioned):
Most of the groups/oraganisations you have sighted are not religious in nature.Theirs is not Jihad.In this contemporory world only Muslims are terrorising common people in the name of religion/jihad.
Simple ( we know who you are in your previous avatar!!!)
One thing dude…. your relentless effort in getting egg on the face should be appreciated!!!! Take a bow dear friend, no one succeeds in it like you do…
I dont have to say much on the wrong facts you have quoted, others have already done it!
Gururaj, valale, palahalli and Vinay
My point was simple:
The myth that All terrorists are Muslims have been punctured once and for all. I have given 18 instances to show that non muslims too can be terrorists.
Starting from the dangerous and dreaded LTTE to the ULFA, there are plenty of non muslim terrorists.
SO what if they are not religious in nature? Each terror group has one or the other reason to kill civilians. whatever the reason, NOTHING can justify killing innocent people.
If Islamic terrorism is horrible, so are the other kinds of terrorism.
Of course, every kind of terrorism is equally horrible, and there are several instances of ‘non-islamic’ terrorism. However, the sheer scale and numbers of islamic terrorist activities is mind boggling. As is the Geographical spread. It is not comparable to LTTE, IRA, or any other terrorist group on the planet.
Islamic countries are the least developed in the world today. The most ‘developed and powerful’ countries in the Muslim world are dirt-poor by Western standards. Pakistanis take pride in the fact that they are the most powerful ‘Islamic nation’ – visit some Pakistani forums (defence.pk for example) and check it out. Does it not sound funny, considering that in conventional terms, they have only a fraction of the military capability of their greatest enemy, the poor developing ‘Third World’ country – India???
In the Indian context, let me tell you that I probably hate the Bajrang Dal, VHP, etc. more than you do, with their crappy vigilantism and brutishness, and their excess baggage of holier-than-thou moral policing. But seriously, these organizations will take decades to reach the ‘levels’ of Islamic terrorist organizations.
Several Muslims feel that the Sharia law is the only basis for a pure society, and that concepts like Democracy, Freedom, Fair trial, etc. are ‘excesses of the vile Western culture’. You need to look at coverage of Islamic protesters in Europe, with signs like, “Freedom go to Hell”, “Screw democracy”, “Murder those who insult Islam”, “Kill all Jews” etc. etc. etc. etc.
Today, in 2009, there is no comparison between the Islamic terror groups and any other kind of terrorists.
Simple, its not about killing of civilians being horrible. It is. But civilians die in conflict. They always have in any war or skirmish.
1. Islamic terror promises to change the way we live radically under Sharia. That is unacceptable.
2. Islamic terror draws sustenance from Islam. This terror is the oldest kind and existing, there is. So long as Islam retains strength, they will be a pain to normal human beings. One can finish off an LTTE and an IRA, and yes, there are Catholics around the world who live amidst normal folks without the intention to make them Dhimmis.
3. So, your comparison is no comparison at all.
The issue not so Simple,the debate should not be confined to scoring points.If there are organizations which have spread its tentacles across the continants its Islamic terrorists.Now we may have to use two terms
National terrorists(LTTE,BODO,ULFA etc) & International terrorists.(Muslim terrorists 100% muslims Al kaida,LET,JUD etc)
Now you can proudly say all International Terroists are Muslims.
Good point; thanks for sharing Swami’s article. A somewhat similar argument is made in Yossi Klein Kalevi’s old book “Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist.” In the United States there have also been random instances of far-right “patriotic” terrorism as seen in Oklahoma City.
The crucial difference is this: None of the terror movements Swami cites is RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED, as Muslim terrorists claim to be. None of those movements is inspired by a specific religious text.
For that reason the terror movements Swami cites may be considered to be law-and-order challenges, but Islamic terrorism seems to be a religious issue.
I am not saying that the Koran inspires/sustains terrorism — the terrorists are saying so. I am not saying Kasab is from Pakistan — he is himself saying so.
Why is it so easy for Muslim terrorists to attribute their terrible violence to their religion — and so easy for Muslim clerics to tolerate that claim?
I request my “Muslim bretheren” (to borrow a lovely Star of Mysore term) on this forum to take this question.
I agree with you, that on sheer geographical spread, Islamic terrorism is a major majjor threat than other kinds of terrorism. I by and large agree to whatever you have written. I detest fundamentalists and terrorists of every kind, every colour, every religion.
But my point was simple. there is a myth that all terrorists are muslims.
Clearly that is not the case as explained in the 18 cases,.
again you are twisting the fact to suit your warped argument.
I am not comparing different kinds of terrorism here.
Of course, Islamic terrorism is a far far greater evil and much much more dangerous than other kinds of terrorism.
But I am only stating that it is a myth that all terrorists are muslims. Until all other kinds of terror groups are eliminated from LTTE TO ULFA TO what not, the FACT IS THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL NON MUSLIM TERROR GROUPS IN THE WORLD.
I am sure you agree to that now.
I am not scoring points…but when somebody puts across wrong facts, i just correct them.
i see that you now agree to my point that all terrorists are not muslims,
You want to make a further differentiation, bring national and international ‘semantics’ into it.
Well, suit yourself.
Simple – There is no reason for this shadow boxing. I have not disputed “other” terrorisms. In fact, I don’t see anybody above, having disputed this truism. See my response to Mysore Peshva.
However, there is clearly no compromise on the fact that Muslim terror is a menace until Islam mends itself or is subject to outside control.
Sarala or Simple!
“The simple believeth every word but the prudent man looketh well to his going..” Proverbs 14:15
Islamic terrorists wear trousers just like you and me. So they are as good and righteous as the rest of us. They were found drinking coffee, tea and other beverages. So they are just like us. They shot themselves with a recreation drug and hence they believed in maya. They wanted to experiment and verify Joesph Mengle’s theories on how a human body survives torture–that’s the reason they kill randomly under controlled circumstances of their choosing!! Well we can offer many such examples. And we conclude–There is no such thing as Islamic Terrorist! It is just made up by people envious of a small group of over achievers who just happen to espouse the cause of a book!
Simple, here is something for you to hold on to. Please ring up and make an appointment for your lobotomy. Thanks!
Thank you for accepting that there are many terrorists other than Islamic terrorirists.
You were the one who started the shadow boxing. Somebody in this blog started a myth that all terrorists are muslims. There are lakhs who still believe this theory. I am made to listen to this worn out cliche time and again, from different quarters.
ANd through my facts, i have proven that it is not the case.
THat Ismalic terror is the most prevalent, is another topic. I never disagreed that Muslim terror is a menace. Of course it is a mega menace.
Please use common langauge when you speak. I did not understand a word of what you said.
Good ol’ confused shadow boxer :)
Somebody in this blog started a myth that all terrorists are muslims.- Who? What? Where?? Address that “somebody” then!
Dear Dearer Dearest Palahalli
Read before you write
Here is the title of this posting by Churumuri.
Can sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander?
Dalit writer and activist Banjagere Jayaprakash, quoted in Vijaya Karnataka:
“All Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.
I was clearly retorting to Banjagere Jayaprakash, and not you.
You butted in, in between with your two bit comments.
I am a changed man now. I wont dare do such OOB (Out of the box) thinking from now on. Thanks to my doctors at a prestigious mental science institute in Bangalore.
To one and all
The previous posting about OOB (out of the box thinking) is not mine. Some fraud is posting his perverted views through my name.
I know who the fraud is
It’s good that you listed. I agree with you to some extent that all muslims are not terrorist. But the groups that u have listed all have opereatred under a certain Jurusdiction. so it was for a cause. I wont say its good or bad but they do havemaintained a domain and fought for it.
But where as these so called jihadi terrorist have no domain. If they cant beat up the US they want to blast a bomb in India…Any reasons.