What's new

Can Japan show the West how to live peacefully with Islam?

By: Dr. Mordechai Kedar

About the Author: Dr. Mordechai Kedar (Ph.D. Bar-Ilan U.) Served for 25 years in IDF Military Intelligence specializing in Arab political discourse, Arab mass media, Islamic groups and the Syrian domestic arena. A lecturer in Arabic at Bar-Ilan U., he is also an expert on Israeli Arabs.

You are quoting a Jewish Israeli Terror Force bigot as an authority on Muslims?

Are you smoking crack?

The experience of the West is that it always starts out this way. In very small numbers, Muslim populations generally confine their needs to their own community, and otherwise, are an unobtrusive presence. The Western European experience has shown that once the population hits the 5%+ mark, things change. The Muslim community, having reached critical mass, begins to make itself apparent. Blocking off streets for prayer. Demanding the labeling of food as halal or non-halal, or demanding that all food served in schools be halal. Importing radical imams from unstable regions of the world. Referring to the citizens of their host countries as kuffar who must accept the rule of Islam (you can even find adherents to such beliefs here on defence.pk). After this special treatment is rebuffed, the alienation begins. The Muslim population demands to be treated differently, and then when it is, individual Muslims begin to wonder why they are looked at differently from other citizens. Instead of reversing course and assimilating, the alienation deepens, the extremism enters, and then comes the terrorism.

This has been the experience in Western Europe.

These social tensions are real, and the balance to accommodate religious belief with the requirement of assimilation for social stability is a difficult task. Japan is far from grappling with these issues, so it is of course very easy for Japan to be accepting, since Islam is still little more than a curiosity in Japan. Japan did not benefit from tolerance of Aum Shinrikyo, and long before that, the Japanese Red Army. The lesson will be learned again, it would seem.

Spouting bigoted trash from your Zionist propaganda manual may win accolades from the resident Islamophobes here, but it does nothing to advance your credibility.

In what way has the Muslim community in the US demanded anything different from what the Jewish community demands?

Are Muslim requests (not demands) on Halal any different from the Jewish impositions on Kosher labeling?

Are Muslim requests for dress codes any different from Jewish or Sikh demands for similar dress codes?
 
Last edited:
Russian and Muslims live in one state more then five hundred years. Kazan - one of the largest and richest Russian cities. And except for the North Caucasus, where the strong position of fundamentalist Russian and remaining Muslims live peacefully for centuries.
 
Come now, one example of vandalism doesn't equate to terrorism. One Saudi graduate student does not represent the some 180,000 muslims in Japan. Let's be objective , shall we? He didn't bomb anyone or kill anyone. He has been apprehended and will subsequently pay for his crimes.

Done.
Just like you deny its a single act and they are peaceful USA was in the same belief and thinking the same its all hunky dory, even though India was warning them for a long time, their wakeup call came after 9/11, wait some years if the population increases your wake up call will come too.
This is not a single act, we been having this since the past 1000 years.These people even made peaceful buddhists their enemies goes to show they have problems with everyone everywhere.

punish-those-hooligans-who-vandalized-lord-mahavira-statue-in-lucknow.jpg


417277_406195849428085_1300748186_n (1).jpg
 
Last edited:
Come now, one example of vandalism doesn't equate to terrorism. One Saudi graduate student does not represent the some 180,000 muslims in Japan. Let's be objective , shall we? He didn't bomb anyone or kill anyone. He has been apprehended and will subsequently pay for his crimes.

Done.

As long as Japan doesn't let itself be influenced by anti-Muslim bigots (as the West is controlled by pro-Israel Zionists) or India is influenced by Hindu fanatics, it can coexist with Muslims.

The Muslim extremism is a reaction to discrimination and demonization faced by immigrant groups.

Europe is a case in point: It is very closed-minded racist society, so the Muslim population there is more radicalized.

By contrast, the US is more welcoming of immigrants and Muslims in America are not radicalized.

This is not a single act, we been having this since the past 1000 years.These people even made peaceful buddhists their enemies goes to show they have problems with everyone everywhere.

Hindu fanatics in India exterminated Buddhism from its birth place.

India used to be mostly Buddhist but now they are a minuscule minority. Over the course of a thousand years, almost all Buddhists in India have been forcibly converted to Hinduism or exterminated.

You guys are one to talk.
 
Last edited:
The Muslim extremism is a reaction to discrimination and demonization faced by immigrant groups.

If that is the case, why only muslims have become extremist. Why not any other community?

Europe is a case in point: It is very closed-minded racist society, so the Muslim population there is more radicalized.

By contrast, the US is more welcoming of immigrants and Muslims in America are not radicalized.

Muslims in US are close to 2% and in Japan they are close to 0.04%. They could not afford to be a radical compared to Europe where they are more than 10% in France, 5% in UK, 6% in Belgium, 5% Sweden and 4% Norway.

Hindu fanatics in India exterminated Buddhism from its birth place.

India used to be mostly Buddhist but now they are a minuscule minority. Almost all Buddhists have been forcibly converted to Hinduism or exterminated.

You guys are one to talk.

Classical shameless liar @Developereo ,

Buddhism was never a majority religion in India and Bihari and Kandhari Buddhists were cleansed by muslim Ghazis, not Hindus.Buddhism declined in India because Hinduism assimilated all the precepts of Buddhism and Buddhism became a copy of Hinduism by advent of Mahayana Buddhism.
 
If that is the case, why only muslims have become extremist. Why not any other community?

Because other communities are not demonized by the global Zionist media in their quest to paint Israel's enemies as the world's enemies.

Part of that campaign is to deliberately encourage extremist Muslims as being representative of the entire Muslim community. Case in point are people like Anjem Choudhary in the UK or the Hizb-ul-Tahrir crowd in Australia. Most ordinary Muslims in these countries have nothing to do with these fanatics, but the media portrays them as being Muslim leaders.

Muslims in US are close to 2% and in Japan they are close to 0.04%. They could not afford to be a radical compared to Europe where they are more than 10% in France, 5% in UK, 6% in Belgium, 5% Sweden and 4% Norway.

The point was to question the claim that Muslims demand special treatments. They do not demand such treatments in the US, any more than Jews do. In fact, Muslims demand far less in terms of special treatments than some other groups do.
 
Hindu fanatics in India exterminated Buddhism from its birth place.

India used to be mostly Buddhist but now they are a minuscule minority. Over the course of a thousand years, almost all Buddhists in India have been forcibly converted to Hinduism or exterminated.

You guys are one to talk.

You got proof of that?
we consider Buddha as a avatar of vishnu in his ten avatars,why would we exterminate them?
Gautama Buddha in Hinduism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hinduism nor buddhism never spread by sword unlike Islam did,
Sri Adi Sankaracharya used logical debates, if he lost he would become a buddhist and the winners disciple, if Sankaracharya won thelosing scholar should become his disciple, that were the rules ,that was how he converted buddhists.
Not by sword.
What hindu fanatics, it was muslims from arabia which finished the buddhist populations and kingdoms as they were not prepared to deal with such barbarians.
read history well, dont blame hindus for it,
infact siddhartha was a hindu prince who became buddha after enlightenment at bodh gaya, bihar.Why would hindus destroy those who they consider as avatar of lord vishnu?

Is This what they teach in pakistani education? lies, lies and more lies about India?

Muhammad bin Qasim[edit]
In AD 711, Muhammad bin Qasim conquered the Sindh, bringing Indian societies into contact with Islam, succeeding partly because Dahir was an unpopular Hindu king that ruled over a Buddhist majority and that Chach of Alor and his kin were regarded as usurpers of the earlier Buddhist Rai Dynasty.[42][43] a view questioned by those who note the diffuse and blurred nature of Hindu and Buddhist practices in the region,[44] especially that of the royalty to be patrons of both and those who believe that Chach himself may have been a Buddhist.[45][46] The forces of Muhammad bin Qasim defeated Raja Dahir in alliance with the Jats and other regional governors.[citation needed]

The Chach Nama records many instances of conversion of stupas to mosques such as at Nerun[47] as well as the incorporation of the religious elite into the ruling administration such as the allocation of 3% of the government revenue was allocated to the Brahmins.[42] As a whole, the non-Muslim populations of conquered territories were treated as People of the Book and granted the freedom to practice their respective faiths in return for payment of the poll tax (jizya).[42] They were then excused from military service or payment of the tax paid by Muslim subjects – Zakat.[48] The jizya enforced was a graded tax, being heaviest on the elite and lightest on the poor.[48]

Mahmud of Ghazni[edit]
By the 10th century Mahmud of Ghazni defeated the Hindu-Shahis, effectively removing Hindu influence and ending Buddhist self-governance across Central Asia, as well as the Punjab region. He demolished both stupas and temples during his numerous campaigns across North-Western India, but left those within his domains and Afghanistan alone, even as al-Biruni recorded Buddha as the prophet "Burxan".[49] However, many Buddhist sites destroyed by Mahmud of Ghazni, such as Mathura, show evidence of having been forcibly converted by Brahmanical rivals first.[50]

Mahmud of Ghazni is said to have been an iconoclast.[51] Hindu and Buddhist statues, shrines and temples were looted and destroyed, and many Buddhists had to take refuge in Tibet.[52]

Muhammad of Ghor[edit]
Muhammad attacked the north-western regions of the Indian subcontinent many times. Gujarat later fell to Muhammad of Ghor's armies in 1197. Muhammad of Ghor's army was too developed for the traditional Indian army of that time to resist.[53]

In 1200 Muhammad Khilji, one of Qutb-ud-Din's generals, conquered a fort of the Sena army, such as the one atVikramshila. Many Buddhist monks fled to Nepal, Tibet, and South India to avoid the consequences of war.[54]

The Buddhist encounters with Turkics are well documented. According to one myth, Chandrakirti (Nagarjuna's greatest disciple) rode a stone lion to scare away the Turkish army.[55]

The Mongols[edit]
In 1215, Genghis Khan conquered Afghanistan and devastated the Muslim world. In 1227, after his death, his conquest was divided. Chagatai then established the Chagatai Khanate, where his son Arghun made Buddhism the state religion. At the same time, he came down harshly on Islam and demolished mosques to build many stupas. He was succeeded by his brother, and then his son Ghazan who converted to Islam and in 1295 changed the state religion. After his reign, and the splitting of the Chagatai Khanate, little mention of Buddhism or the stupas built by the Mongols can be found in Afghanistan and Central Asia.[56]

Timur (Tamarlane)[edit]
Timur was a 14th-century warlord of Turco-Mongol descent,[57][58][59][60] conqueror of much of Western and central Asia, and founder of the Timurid Empire.

Timur destroyed Buddhist establishments and raided areas in which Buddhism had flourished.[61][62]

Theory of persecution by Muslims and conversion to Islam[edit]
According to this theory, by the time of the Muslim conquests in India, there were only glimpses of Buddhism nor any evidence of a provincial government in control of the Buddhists.[63] During the seventh to 13th centuries when Islam arrived, this theory claims that it replaced Buddhism as the great cosmopolitan trading religion in many places accompanied by a consolidation of the communal peasant religions of Hinduism.[63] The Tibetan scholar of the 17th century Taranatha writes that during the time of the Sena king Stag-gzigs (Turks) had begun to appear on horses and that monasteries had been fortified with troops stationed in them; however, they were overrun and monks at Uddandapura were massacred, the monastery razed and replaced by a new fort and further north-east Vikramshila was destroyed as well.[64] Hardly any contemporary evidence however exists on the destruction of Buddhist monasteries.[63]



Ruins of Vikramaśīla University
Brief Muslim accounts and the one eye witness account of Dharmasmavim in wake of the conquest during the 1230s talks about abandoned viharas being used as camps by the Turukshahs.[63] Later historical traditions such as Taranathas are mixed with legendary materials and summarised as "the Turukshah conquered the whole of Magadha and destroyed many monasteries and did much damage at Nalanda, such that many monks fled abroad" thereby bringing about a sudden demise of Buddhism with their destruction of the Viharas.[63] Buddhism lingered longer in Iran than South Asia and was officially professed under fifty years of Mongol conquest.[63] With the conversion of Ghazan to Islam in 1295, the backlash resulted in the destruction of many Buddhist places of worship and the further migration of monks into Kashmir.[63]

Many places were destroyed and renamed. For example, Udantpur's monasteries were destroyed in 1197 by Mohammed-bin-Bakhtiyar and the town was renamed.[65] Taranatha in his History of Buddhism in India (dpal dus kyi 'khor lo'i chos bskor gyi byung khungs nyer mkho) of 1608,[66] gives an account of the last few centuries of Buddhism, mainly in Eastern India. His account suggests a considerable decline but not an extinction of Buddhism in India in his time.[citation needed]

Decline of Buddhism in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Buddhism was never a majority religion in India and Bihari and Kandhari Buddhists were cleansed by muslim Ghazis, not Hindus.Buddhism declined in India because Hinduism assimilated all the precepts of Buddhism and Buddhism became a copy of Hinduism by advent of Mahayana Buddhism.

This may be the Indian revisionist spin on history, but the reality is quite different.

Why Buddhism prospered in Asia but died in India | Asian Tribune

It was during the Shaka era that Buddhism came to be divided into Mahayana and Hinayana. It was during the Vikram era that Pali, the language of the Buddhists was exterminated.

Hindu history is perhaps just 2055 years old but in order to show its superiority it exterminated Pali and destroyed the cultural and religious identity of Buddhism. There sealed the fate of Buddhism in India.


You got proof of that?

Unlike Hindutva propaganda claims, the reality is that Buddhism in India was well into decline long before Muslims ever set foot in India.

The primary cause of Buddhism's eradication from India was Hindu Brahmanism.
 
This may be the Indian revisionist spin on history, but the reality is quite different.

Why Buddhism prospered in Asia but died in India | Asian Tribune

It was during the Shaka era that Buddhism came to be divided into Mahayana and Hinayana. It was during the Vikram era that Pali, the language of the Buddhists was exterminated.

Hindu history is perhaps just 2055 years old but in order to show its superiority it exterminated Pali and destroyed the cultural and religious identity of Buddhism. There sealed the fate of Buddhism in India.




Unlike Hindutva propaganda claims, the reality is that Buddhism in India was well into decline long before Muslims ever set foot in India.

The primary cause of Buddhism's eradication from India was Hindu Brahmanism.
Again? proofs? i produced proof, not some quoting madarssa text.
The land called Pakistan now was earlier comprised of buddhist kingdoms and we all know how they fell to islamic invasions by sword.these peacful people were no match for the barbarians and the violence unleashed upon them =, nor would they listen to reason or logic.
Howis hindutva coming into picture, when it was muslims who destroyed buddhism?
This is what happens when people learn history incorrectly as told by mullahs and school textbooks.
 
Again? proofs? i produced proof, not some quoting madarssa text.
The land called Pakistan now was earlier comprised of buddhist kingdoms and we all know how they fell to islamic invasions by sword.these peacful people were no match for the barbarians and the violence unleashed upon them =, nor would they listen to reason or logic.
Howis hindutva coming into picture, when it was muslims who destroyed buddhism?
This is what happens when people learn history incorrectly as told by mullahs and school textbooks.

Just ranting 'madrassah' and your Hindutva brainwashing does not constitute an argument.

I quoted an Indian historian who explained why the decline of Buddhism started with the extermination of their language.

Later Muslim conquerors only destroyed some physical structure of Buddhism, but the Hindu Brahmins exterminated the language, culture and soul of Buddhism in India -- centuries before Muslims ever showed up.
 
Just ranting 'madrassah' and your Hindutva brainwashing does not constitute an argument.

I quoted an Indian historian who explained why the decline of Buddhism started with the extermination of their language.

Later Muslim conquerors only destroyed some physical structure of Buddhism, but the Hindu Brahmins exterminated the language, culture and soul of Buddhism in India -- centuries before Muslims ever showed up.
hahaha as i said Hinduism was all over India, buddhism was popular during ashoka rule and subsequently it spread to asia and far east where it was well recieved.There was no holy war or crusade to convert buddhist infidels to Hindu religion nor their people persecuted because they are buddhists.
The author talks about Hinduism not existing before buddha came, It is well known Siddhartha was a hindu prince and the evidence of Mohen ja daro and other sites reveal hinduism to be more than 5000 years old.
Which Indian Author? the Author Shenali Waduge you posted is a Sinhala Sri Lankan not Indian as you claim.
 
Which Indian Author? the Author Shenali Waduge you posted is a Sinhala Sri Lankan not Indian as you claim.

Historian S. R. Goyal has attributed the decline and disappearance of Buddhism from India to the hostility of the Brahmanas.

P.S. Anyway, this is getting off-topic so I will stop here.
 
Historian S. R. Goyal has attributed the decline and disappearance of Buddhism from India to the hostility of the Brahmanas.
many other manuscripts and the muslim kings personal diaries about thier conquests boast of breaking down stupas,monasteries and killing infidel buddhists populations
 

Back
Top Bottom