http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stadium...islamindia.html
The following is based on one of the chapters in the book Rewriting Indian History (Vikas). In this first part, the author argues that History books should be rewritten.
Elst- Negationism_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negationism_i...Record_of_Islam
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/book...gaind/index.htm
Habib on Elst
http://www.geocities.com/a_habib/Dada/elst.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One wonders, though, at Elst's claim of the superior judgement of modern historians in taking "minor distortions into account". He gives no methodology for doing this. Nor has he shown any evidence of it in these writings.
<i>
  The unanimous and entirely coherent testimony that the wars in Hindustan were religious wars of Muslims against Kafirs is a different matter altogether: denying this testimony is not a matter of small adjustments, but of replacing the well-attested historical facts with their diametrical opposite.
  Habib tried to absolve the ideology (Islam) of the undeniable facts of persecution and massacre of the Pagans by blaming individuals (the Muslims). The sources however point to the opposite state of affairs: Muslim fanatics were merely faithful executors of Quranic injunctions. Not the Muslims are guilty, but Islam.</i>
On the contrary, Prof. Habib drew a careful distinction between the original Islamic ideal, and the corrupted version adopted by the Muslim invaders and ruling classes in India.  <!--emo&:unsure:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /><!--endemo--> He spared no effort in taking the latter to task, while espousing the former as a worthy ideal.
Elst's distinction: "Not the Muslims are guilty, but Islam", is a perplexing one. What does this mean in practice? Is the religion of Islam to be tried and convicted but its followers left in peace? It is clear this cannot be. His distinction therefore is mere sophistry.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Elst on Habib
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/bo...t/ch10.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stadium...islamindia.html
The following is based on one of the chapters in the book Rewriting Indian History (Vikas). In this first part, the author argues that History books should be rewritten.
Elst- Negationism_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negationism_i...Record_of_Islam
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/book...gaind/index.htm
Habib on Elst
http://www.geocities.com/a_habib/Dada/elst.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One wonders, though, at Elst's claim of the superior judgement of modern historians in taking "minor distortions into account". He gives no methodology for doing this. Nor has he shown any evidence of it in these writings.
<i>
  The unanimous and entirely coherent testimony that the wars in Hindustan were religious wars of Muslims against Kafirs is a different matter altogether: denying this testimony is not a matter of small adjustments, but of replacing the well-attested historical facts with their diametrical opposite.
  Habib tried to absolve the ideology (Islam) of the undeniable facts of persecution and massacre of the Pagans by blaming individuals (the Muslims). The sources however point to the opposite state of affairs: Muslim fanatics were merely faithful executors of Quranic injunctions. Not the Muslims are guilty, but Islam.</i>
On the contrary, Prof. Habib drew a careful distinction between the original Islamic ideal, and the corrupted version adopted by the Muslim invaders and ruling classes in India.  <!--emo&:unsure:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /><!--endemo--> He spared no effort in taking the latter to task, while espousing the former as a worthy ideal.
Elst's distinction: "Not the Muslims are guilty, but Islam", is a perplexing one. What does this mean in practice? Is the religion of Islam to be tried and convicted but its followers left in peace? It is clear this cannot be. His distinction therefore is mere sophistry.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Elst on Habib
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/bo...t/ch10.htm