British Prejudices: Hindus and Muslims!!

As per reports, a guy who as a youngster led a life indistinguishable from a young Swede did the suicide bombing in Stockholm. He went from a fun loving young guy to a jihadi after arriving in Luton in England. The report says: Abdaly was transformed into an extremist over the course of the next few years, perhaps by the preaching of al-Muhajiroun, a radical group whose former leader, Anjem Choudary, has said that the suicide bombing should be seen as a "severe warning" and "should not come as a surprise." Omar Bakri Muhammad founded Al Muhajiroun in Saudi Arabia in 1983. The outfit was banned and Bakri moved to England where he used the liberal laws to establish his network there. The group started to spread hate literature on British university campuses and because of their virulent messages they were banned. However, they relaunched the outfit and Anjem Choudary assumed the leadership role. Needless to say, it is a combination of this and similar outfits along with very liberal British laws that is responsible for a number of terrorist attacks in and around England. Now this outfit can be blamed these attacks but one has to take a look at it from a historical perspective. The British always had a preference for Muslims over Hindus. Islam is a Semitic religion and thus closer to Christianity. Even after they left the subcontinent after the imperfect division of the land, they carried that prejudice with them. They convinced the western powers that a Muslim Pakistan was going to be a better bulwark against the spread communism than a Hindu India. Of course this prejudice was enforced by Nehru’s misplaced foreign policy inclinations. This also led to a number of decisions made by the US and UK which were against Indian interests. Later on, when the British needed workers in steel and cotton mills or doctors for their health services, they got them from Pakistan (East and West) rather than India. The population of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis grew in UK. Eventually even Indians started to migrate to the UK. Unlike the Indians (Hindus and Sikhs), the Muslims refuse to assimilate and developed a strong ghetto mentality. The radical Muslim leaders expertly exploited this “I am a victim of the system” syndrome. Today the Hindus and Sikhs have a higher education, income and house ownership that the UK national average. On the other hand, barring a few very rich Muslims, most of them are languishing at the bottom. Anjem Choudary has to be a Pakistani or a Bangladeshi. The Pakistani Britons send their young boys to spend extended periods of time in Pakistan. Between that, outfits like Al Muhajiroun, lack of proper education and poverty, do these kids actually stand a chance? As far as the British government is concerned, instead of forcing the Muslims to adapt to the British ways, they are kowtowing to the whims of the very same mullahs. It seems that in one of the British cities, they banned pig figurines because the mullahs found it offensive. The British government, old and new, is responsible for all these terrorist problems. Now I am not saying that the British should have encouraged migration of Hindus and Sikhs. It is their country and hence their prerogative. All I am saying is that their age-old prejudice against the Hindus is coming to bite them.

Lessons from the Swedish suicide bombing
"Second, the radicalization of Abdaly confirms that Britain's reputation for creating extremists is well-deserved. Before 2001, al-Abdaly had led the normal life of a Swedish young man -- his friends commented on his Israeli girlfriend, his beer-drinking, and his partying while in high school. All this changed once he arrived in Luton, Britain, which has become infamous as a center for radical Islam."