Nitin makes excellent points. I am only not clear what he means by India's "own syncretic Islamic tradition" which India should export. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, raised as a devout Muslim, has described her understanding of what Islam is in a recent column in the Wasthington Post. An excerpt: "On the issues of holy war (jihad), apostasy and the treatment of women, the Koran and Sunna are clear. It is the obligation of every Muslim to spread Islam to unbelievers first through dawa, or proselytizing, then through jihad, if the unbelievers refuse to convert. It is the obligation of the unbelievers to accept Islam. Exempted from this edict of conversion are the people of the book: Christians and Jews. Both peoples have a choice. They may adopt Islam and enjoy the same rights as other Muslims, or they may stick to their book and lead the life of a dhimmi (lower citizen). Legally, the rights of the dhimmi are not equal to those of a Muslim. For instance, a Muslim man may take a Jewish or Christian wife, but Jews and Christians are not allowed to marry Muslim women. If a Christian or a Jew kills a Muslim man, they should be killed immediately. In contrast, the blood of a Muslim should never be shed in recompense for the blood of Christians or Jews." It would be important for us to understand precisely in which respects Indian Islam is different from the Islam that Ayaan describes. Does Indian Islam follow a different authority and not the Koran and the Hadiths?