The problem with "Violent Hindus"

Submitted by Octavio Johanson (Italy), Mar 7, 2006 at 08:58

Dear Mr. Bader,

I have read your comments about violent Hindus. There is good and bad in every religion, and that includes Hinduism, Christianity and Judaism. Do you want an example of Christian terrorists? The IRA. I am sure there are examples of Jewish terrorism and Hindu terrorism. The Tamil Tigers: what are they? What religion do they belong to?

However, most violence comes from Militant Islam. Therefore, calling the Hindus "violent" does not make sense when we have thousands of examples of violence coming from Militant Islam. It would be like saying that Lebanese Christians are violent, but failing to mention what they have suffered. Don't get me wrong, I am not excusing Christian violence. All I am saying is that Christians, Hindus, Jews and Buddhists cause a very small part of world violence. For example, violent Hindus are confined to India, but they don't commit terrorist attacks abroad. There is no such thing as an Hindu Al-Quaeda. There is no such thing as a Christian (both Catholic and Protestant) or Jewish suicide-bomber. The Buddhists suffered a huge outrage when those statues were destroyed by the Taliban. Again, aside from a few exceptions, the biggest outrages are committed by people who claim to act in the name of Militant Islam.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".