Wow - I could not see the other 'blashpemous' images by Hussein as the links were down from the site. But I have to say, I could not understand why the painting on the page linked is considered blasphemous - to my untrained eye it doesn't look that good, but I can't see what the fuss is about.
I've seen more explicit depictions on Hindu temples and historic paintings - so perhaps I'm missing something here.
I also had a look at the protest they are advocating over the film Jodha Akbar - wow, so much hate over a film!
I'm currently reading William Dalrymple's book 'the Last Mughal' - and he does depict the close relationship the Mughals had with Hinduism - Zafar Shah's mother Lalbai, for example, was a Hindu.
But the site makes statements such as:
Hindus will never be able to forget the atrocities committed on Hindus by alien Muslim rulers. The Islamic period of the Indian History was the most suffocating and genocidal period as far as Hindus are concerned. It is a well-known fact of Indian History that 17,000 Hindu girls, in order to avoid molestation at the hands of Muslim marauders, had committed Jauhar – self-immolation.
It goes on to say that the British colluded with Muslims to depict Hindus in history in a bad light!
Reading about the 1857 mutiny/war of independence, it is interesting to note that the majority of army mutineers were Hindu, but they called for the reinstatement of the Muslim ruler (who was initially reluctant) - and in the aftermath of the defeat by the British, it was the Muslim population that the British systematically targeted and killed in the thousands.
Anyway, it is sad how history is used for political ends - but a sobering reminder that there are militants in every religion.
There are some Hindus that even deny that the Taj Mahal was built by a Muslim:
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/tejo.html
Cheers,
Shafique