TOM......you keep calling people dumb, yet you are spectaculary ignorant of Muslim history and current events......here is an exerpt from French author & historian Francois Gautier...........
The genocide beyond the Hindu Kush
The West seems to have suddenly woken up to Muslim fundamentalism in South Asia when the Taleban demolished the Bamiyan statues, in spite of frantic appeals from all over the world. But there is a bit of hypocrisy in the outrage triggered by this destruction.
Firstly, Islam is very clear about statues: didn't Prophet Mohammad break the first stone Gods himself? Thereafter, it became a holy duty for all good Muslims. Firuz Shah Tughlak (1351-1388), who has an avenue named after him in New Delhi, wrote: 'On the day of a Hindu festival, I went there myself, ordered the executions of all the leaders and practitioners of this abomination; I destroyed their idols and temples to build mosques in their places.' As Belgian historian Konraad Elst points out, 'Muslim fanatics are merely faithful executors of Quranic injunctions. It is not the Muslims who are guilty, but Islam.' Thus, the Taleban, who want to restore the early purity of Islam, really thought they were performing a righteous act by destroying the 'heathen' Buddhist statues.
Secondly, does the West ever protest when Hindu temples are destroyed periodically in Bangladesh and Pakistan? The HRCBM, a Santa Clara-based organisation that investigates and exposes human rights violations in Bangladesh, has recorded a few outrages against Hindus in Bangladesh during 2000:
Take a look at the figures of the Hindu population of India's Muslims neighbours: in 1941, in what would become Pakistan, there were approximately 25 per cent Hindus and 30 per cent in what would later become Bangladesh; in 1948, only 17 per cent in Pakistan and 25 per cent in Bangladesh; in 1991, a bare 1.5 per cent remained in Pakistan and less than 10 per cent in Bangladesh.
Nothing symbolises more the absoluteness of Muslim belligerence towards Hindus than the Hindu Kush. Historically, the passes across the Hindu Kush have been of great military significance, providing access to the northern plains of India to foreign invaders, starting from Alexander the Great in 327 BC, to Taimurlane in 1398 AD, and from Mahmud of Ghazni, in 1001 AD, to Nadar Shah in 1739 AD.
As noted by Srinandan Vyas on the Hindu.org web site: 'In Persian, the word "Kush" is derived from the verb Kushtar -- to slaughter or carnage, because all Hindus living there were slaughtered. Encyclopaedia Americana says of Hindu Kush: The name means literally "Kills the Hindu," a reminder of the days when Hindu slaves from Indian subcontinent died in harsh Afghan mountains while being transported to Moslem courts of Central Asia. While Encyclopaedia Britannica mentions that the name Hindu Kush first appears in 1333 AD in the writings of Ibn Battutah, the medieval Berber traveller, who said the name meant "Hindu Killer," a meaning still given by Afghan mountain dwellers who are traditional enemies of Hindus.'
'Unlike the Jewish holocaust,' writes again Vyas, 'the exact toll of the Hindu genocide suggested by the name Hindu Kush is not available. However the number is easily likely to be in millions.'
