Excerpts from speeches by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Mohammed Ali Jinnah : Muslims are not a Minority. Muslims are a Separate Nation. Muslims and Hindus can not live together.
I. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (born October 17, 1817, died March 27, 1898)
In no country do Muslims living as a minority identify themselves with the country's nation. For example, in Sri Lanka, racially Indian, linguistically Tamilian, but religiously Muslim, they call themselves Muslims and have a party like Sri Lanka Muslim Congress. In India, there is an Indian Union Muslim League. In France, UK, Norway and the US, they like to be called Muslims first. In India for quite some time past, they are saying they are Muslim Indians, not Indian Muslims. This means they are first and last Muslims who happen to be in India. This question, whether Muslims are part of the nation, has been clearly spelt out by the most leading intellectuals and politicians of Muslim Indians. As early as in 1888, that is just 3 years after the Indian National Congress was founded, Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan, the first tallest western educated Muslim of India, made a speech in Meerut on 16th March, 1888, asserting that Muslims are a separate nation. He advised the Muslims not to join the Indian National Congress. His speech was titled, "One Country Two Nations". Here are excerpts.
QUOTE
I think it expedient that I should first of all tell you the reason why I am about to address you on the subject of tonight's discourse. You know, gentlemen, that, from a long time, our friends, the Bengalis, have shown very warm feeling on political matters. Three years ago they founded a very big assembly, which holds its sittings in various places, and they have given it the name "National Congress." We and our nation gave no thought to the matter. And we should be very glad for our friends the Bengalis to be successful, if we were of the opinion that they had by their education and ability made such progress as rendered them fit for the claims they put forward. But although they are superior to us in education, yet we have never admitted that they have reached that level to which they lay claim to have attained. Nevertheless I have never, in any article, or in any speech, or even in conversation in any place, put difficulties or desired to put difficulties in the way of any of their undertakings. It has never been my wish to oppose any people or any nation who wish to make progress, and who have raised themselves up to that rank to which they wish to attain and for which they are qualified. But, my friends, the Bengalis have made a most unfair and unwarrantable interference with my nation, and therefore it is my duty to show clearly what this unwarrantable interference has been, and to protect my nation from the evils that may arise from it.
what I am about to say is not only useful for my own nation, but also for my Hindu brothers of these Provinces, who from some wrong notions have taken part in this Congress. At last they also will be sorry for it — although perhaps they will never have occasion to be sorry; for it is beyond the region of possibility that the proposals of the Congress should be carried out fully.
After this long preface, I wish to explain what method my nation — nay, rather the whole people of this country — ought to pursue in political matters. I will treat in regular sequence of the political questions of India, in order that you may have full opportunity of giving your attention to them. The first of all is this — In whose hands shall the administration and the Empire of India rest? Now, suppose that all English, and the whole English army, were to leave India, taking with them all their cannon and their splendid weapons and everything, then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances, two nations — the Mahomedans and the Hindus — could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable. At the same time, you must remember that although the number of Mahomedans is less than that of the Hindus, and although they contain far fewer people who have received a high English education, yet they must not be thought insignificant or weak. Probably they would be by themselves enough to maintain their own position. But suppose they were not. Then our Mussalman brothers, the Pathans, would come out as a swarm of locusts from their mountain valleys, and make rivers of blood to flow from their frontier in the north to the extreme end of Bengal. This thing — who, after the departure of the English, would be conquerors — would rest on the will of God. But until one nation had conquered the other and made it obedient, peace could not reign in the land. This conclusion is based on proofs so absolute that no one can deny it.
The aspirations of our friends, the Bengalis, have made such progress that they want to scale a height to which it is beyond their powers to attain. But if I am not in error, I believe that the Bengalis have never at any period held sway over a particle of land. They are altogether ignorant of the method by which a foreign race can maintain its rule over other races. Therefore, reflect on the doings of your ancestors, and be not unjust to the British Government to whom God has given the rule of India; and look honestly and see what is necessary for it to do, to maintain its empire and its hold on the country. You can appreciate these matters; but they cannot who have never held a country in their hands nor won a victory. Oh! my brother Musalmans! I again remind you that you have ruled nations, and have for centuries held different countries in your grasp. For seven hundred years in India, you have had Imperial sway. You know what it is to rule. Be not unjust to that nation which is ruling over you, and think also on this: how upright is her rule. Of such benevolence as the English Government shows to the foreign nations under her, there is no example in the history of the world.
we ought to unite with that nation with whom we can unite. No Mahomedan can say that the English are not "People of the Book." No Mahomedan can deny this: that God has said that no people of other religions can be friends of Mahomedans except the Christians. He who had read the Koran and believes it, he can know that our nation cannot expect friendship and affection from any other people. At this time, our nation is in a bad state as regards education and wealth, but God has given us the light of religion, and the Koran is present for our guidance, which has ordained them and us to be friends.
Now God has made them rulers over us. Therefore we should cultivate friendship with them, and should adopt that method by which their rule may remain permanent and firm in India, and may not pass into the hands of the Bengalis.
UNQUOTE
II. Mohammed Ali Jinnah (born December 25, 1876, died September 11, 1948)
Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who is identified as singularly responsible for the division of India and creation of the Islamic state of Pakistan, had in his famous March 1940 speech at Lahore to the Muslim League, when it adopted the Pakistan resolution, once again asserted that Muslims are a separate nation, separate from Hindus and other non–Muslims. Here are excepts from his speech.
QUOTE
Notwithstanding thousand years of close contact, nationalities, which are as divergent today as ever, cannot at any time be expected to transform themselves into one nation, merely by means of subjecting them to a democratic constitution and holding them forcibly together by unnatural and artificial methods of British Parliament statutes. What the unitary government of India for 150 years had failed to achieve cannot be realized by the imposition of a central federal government.
It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of most of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fall to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literature. They neither intermarry, nor interline together and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.
History has presented to us many examples such as the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, Czechoslovakia and Poland. History has also shown to us many geographical tracts, much smaller than the subcontinent of India, which otherwise might have been called one country, but which have been divided into as many states as there are nations inhabiting them. The Bulkan peninsula comprises as many as seven or eight sovereign states. Likewise, the Portuguese and the Spanish stand divided in the Iberian Peninsula, Whereas under the plea of unity of India and one nation which does not exist, it is sought to pursue here the line of one central government when we know that the history of the last twelve hundred years has failed to achieve unity and has witnessed, during these ages, India always divided into Hindu India and Muslim India. The present artificial unity of India dates back only to the British conquest and is maintained by the British bayonet, but the termination of the British regime, which is implicit in the recent declaration of His Majesty's government, will be the herald of the entire break-up with worse disaster than has ever taken place during the last one thousand years under Muslims. Surely, that is not the legacy which Britain would bequeath to India after 150 years of her rule,nor would Hindu and Muslim India risk such a sure catastrophe.
Muslim India cannot accept any constitution which must necessarily result in a Hindu majority government. Hindus and Muslims brought together under a democratic system forced upon the minorities can only mean Hindu Raj. Democracy of the kind with which the Congress High Command is enamored would mean the complete destruction of what is most precious in Islam. We have had ample experience of the working of the provincial constitutions during the last two and a half years (1937-39) and any repetition of such a government must lead to civil war and raising of private armies as recommended by Mr. Gandhi to Hindus of Sukkur, when he said that they must defend themselves violently or non-violently, blow for blow, and if they could not, they must emigrate.
Mussalmans are not a minority as it is commonly known and understood.
Mussalmans are a nation according to any definition of a nation and they must have their homelands, their territory and their state.
UNQUOTE
Muslims, who agitated, rioted and voted for the division of the country and creation of Pakistan in the two decades 1930s & 1940s have continued to live in India. Similarly, the former Razakars and their progeny, who wanted to establish the Islamic state of Nizam, who took to arms to convert the Nizam Nawab's of Hyderabad territory into a sovereign independent Islamic state are also continuing to live in Hyderabad and Telengana. Now, all these are calling themselves minorities and in order to assert their separatism, they have demanded and have been granted by the vote-seeking and hunting "secular" parties, minority commissions, minority educational institutions, minority finance corporations, minority (majority) districts, minority Urdu universities and now reservation for minorities. Very soon, they will be asking for separate electorate as before 1947 and then autonomy for the Muslim districts (90 of them as planned by the UPA government) and ultimately secession from India like in Kashmir. The "secular" parties, are either innocently or criminally collaborating with this minority, whose ultimate goal is the restoration of the whole of this country to Muslim rule either by conquest or by demographic explosion.
Author: Excerpts from the speeches by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Mohammed Ali Jinnah
For more articles, please visit the following sites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Europe fears Islamization
Europe Fears Islamization - a speech against Islam by Geert Wilders, MP, Netherlands
(Reproduced below is the speech by Geert Wilders, MP, Netherlands, at the Columbia University in New York City on 21 October 2009)
Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech - the literal sacred institution of society
- Jonathon Turley
Ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege and a great honor for me to speak at this fine academic institution, which gave the world so many Nobel Prize winners. As a Dutchman, I am proud that your first Nobel laureate, in 1906, was of Dutch descent: The youngest President of the United States: Theodore Roosevelt.
I thank Columbia University for inviting me, and I also thank the US border police for allowing me to enter this great country of democracy, liberty and free speech.
Ladies and gentlemen, today, the dearest of our many liberties is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to fight for.
I would not qualify myself as a free man. 5 years ago I lost my personal freedom. Since then I am under 24-hour police protection. In addition some people tried to rob my freedom of speech. A Dutch Islamic organization tried to stop the appearance of my documentary 'Fitna'. Because of 'Fitna', the most radical Dutch imam claimed 55,000 Euros in compensation for his hurt feelings. The State of Jordan is possibly going to issue a request for my extradition, to stand trial in Amman. I have been charged in France.
In my own country, the Netherlands, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal overruled the decision of the Dutch public prosecutor not to prosecute me. So, now I have to stand trial in my own country, next January.
But, it is not about me. I am not the only European who fights for freedom of speech, there are so many more. The Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard made a Muhammad-cartoon and all of a sudden we were in the middle of the so called 'Danish cartoon crisis'. The Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her book, 'The Rage and the Pride'. An Austrian politician, Susanne Winter, was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence because she spoke bluntly about the prophet Muhammad. The Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot was arrested by 10 police men because of his drawings. And the Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam by a radical Muslim.
Last February, I was invited by 2 brave members of the British House of Lords - Lord Malcom Pearson and Baroness Caroline Cox - to show 'Fitna' in the British Parliament. But upon my arrival at Heathrow airport I was denied entry into the UK, on grounds that I would threaten community harmony and therefore public security.
Of course that was a ridiculous and politically motivated claim by the UK government. I was allowed to show 'Fitna' and deliver a speech in the US Senate, in New York, in Florida, in California, in Copenhagen, in Rome, in Jerusalem and next month in the Senate of the Czech Republic. But the British government refused my entrance into the UK, a fellow EU-country. Well, I think it was a splendid American idea, back in the 18th century, to kick the British out.
Last week, my appeal against the refusal by the British government, took place in London; and I won. Freedom finally prevailed! A UK Court ruled that the decision of the British Home Secretary to ban me was unjust, illegal and a violation of freedom of speech. Fortunately the British judges are a lot wiser than the British government. So, last Friday I went to London and met with my friends Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox and we agreed to show 'Fitna' in the House of Lords, next March.
But let me tell you what also happened during our press conference. A Muslim mob demonstrated outside, shouting: "Shariah for the Netherlands", "Enemy of Islam Geert Wilders deserves capital punishment", "Freedom, go to hell" and "Islam will dominate the world". Welcome to Europe today!
You can see all this for yourself on YouTube. This is exactly what we are fighting against. And it gets even worse. A few days ago British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported that an Islamic group indeed launched a campaign to impose shariah law in Britain, they will meet later this month in London for a procession to demand the full implementation of shariah law.
Before I want to speak about Islam, I first would like to say this: I have nothing against Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims in our Western countries are law abiding people, who want to live a peaceful life. I know that. Therefore, I make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam.
What is happening in Europe should not come as a surprise. The reality is that where Islam roots, free speech dies. There is not a single Islamic country in the world where people are really totally free to say what they think. Ever since the so-called prophet Muhammad ordered his men to kill the poet Asma bint Marwan, the brave woman who warned her people against this murderous cult, radical Muslims think they have a license to kill anyone, who dares to criticize Muhammad's word or actions. Free speech is Islam's enemy. Islam is a threat to the Europe of Socrates, Voltaire and Galileo.
As I said, there are many moderate Muslims. But there is no such thing as a moderate Islam. Islam's heart lies in the Koran. The Koran is an evil book that calls for violence and murder - Sura 4, Verse 89 and Sura 47, Verse 4 -, terrorism - Sura 8, Verse 60 - and war - Sura 8, Verse 39. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs - Sura 2, Verse 65 / Sura 5, Verse 60 and Sura 7, Verse 166. It calls non-Muslims liars, miscreants, enemies, ignorant, unclean, wicked, evil, the worst of creatures and the vilest of animals.
The problem is that the provisions in the Koran are not restricted to time or place. Rather, they apply to all Muslims, from all times. Apart from the Koran, there is also the life of Muhammad, who fought in dozens of wars, who spread Islam with the sword, sold imprisoned women and children as slaves, who was in the habit of decapitating Jews and who married and consummated the young girl Aisha before she was ten years of age. The problem is that, to many 'Muslims, Muhammad is 'the perfect man', whose life is the model to follow. But the facts show that the so called Prophet was not a perfect man but a murderer and a pedophile. And inspired by him, jihadists, with the promise of a carnal paradise, slaughtered innocent people in Washington, New York, Madrid, London, Amsterdam, Bali and Mumbai.
Ladies and gentlemen, some time ago an interview was held in France with the French Muslim student Mohamed Sabaoui, who said the following, and I quote: "Your laws do not coincide with the Koran, Muslims can only be ruled by shariah law", and "we will declare the town of Roubaix an independent Muslim enclave and impose shariah law upon all its citizens, and we will be your Trojan Horse, we will rule, Allah Akbar". End of quote.
Make no mistake: Islam has always attempted to conquer Europe. Spain fell in the 8th century. Constantinople fell in the 15th century. Vienna and Poland were threatened, and now, in the 21st century, Islam is trying again. This time not with military armies, but through migration and demography.
For the first time in world history there are dozens of millions of Muslims living outside the Dar al-Islam, the Islamic world. Europe now has more than 50 million Muslims. It is expected that one fifth of the population of the European Union will be Muslim within 40 years.
In 1974 no one took the Algerian President Boumédienne all too serious when he said to the UN general assembly: "One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women". End of quote.
And Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: "There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent and the number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted to Islam. Europe will one day be a Muslim continent". End of quote.
Indeed Gaddafi is telling the truth here, through the Islamic concept of migration - called Al Hijra - Europe is in the process of becoming Eurabia. In Europe churches are emptying out, whereas mosques are shooting up like mushrooms. Muhammad is the most popular name among boys in many European cities. Medieval phenomena as burkas, honor killings and female genital mutilation are becoming more and more prevalent.
In the UK, by now 85 shariah law courts are active, the same country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust, and a minister is pleading to change the Red Cross logo, because it might offend Muslims. In Austria, history teachers avoid teaching on the Austrian wars against the Islamic invaders. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire. In Norway, children are made to sing Islamic songs as "Allah Akbar" and "Little Muslim, do you pray?" In Belgium, a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-semitism since World War II.
The rise of Islam also means the rise of shariah law in our judicial systems. In Europe we have it all: Shariah testaments, shariah mortgages, shariah schools, shariah banks, as I said in the UK there are even 85 shariah courts. Islam regards shariah law to be above all man-made laws, including our constitutions. As you know, shariah law covers all areas of life, from religion, hygiene and dietary laws, to dress codes, family and social life and from finance and politics to the unity of Islam with the state. Shariah law does not recognize free speech and freedom of religion.
According to shariah law, killing apostates is a 'virtue', but the consumption of alcohol is a crime. The introduction of shariah law elements in our societies creates a system of legal apartheid. Shariah law systematically discriminates groups of people. I never understood why the leftish and liberal politicians are ignoring all this. Historically they were the ones fighting for the rights of women, gays, non-believers and others. All groups that would be the first to pay a high price if and when Islamic values would become dominant. Their silence is frightening. Now, I am fighting their fight. I fight to protect those groups. I fight against the Islamization of our societies and therefore for the protection of the rights of women, homosexuals, Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers and kafirs: the non-Muslims. I want to protect these victims for shariah law. And we all should. If we ignore the problem it will not go away, if we don't act now, shariah will be implemented more and more, slowly but gradually and that would mean the end of freedom of speech and democracy in Europe. This is what is at stake, nothing less than our freedom and democracy.
And please make no mistake: Islam is also coming for America. Last July, during a conference in Chicago, organised by Hizb-Ut- Tahrir, the international movement aiming to create an Islamic state under shariah law across the world, the American imam Jaleel Abdul Adil promised to fight "until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt". When asked: "Would you get rid of the United States Constitution for shariah?" he answered: "Yes, The Constitution would be gone".
America is facing a 'stealth Jihad', the Islamic attempt to introduce Shariah law bit by bit. Allow me to give you a few examples of Islamization in the United States. Muslim taxi drivers at Minneapolis airport refused over 5,000 passengers because they were carrying alcohol; Muslim students are demanding separate campus housing; Muslim women are demanding separate hours in gyms and swimming pools; schools are banning Halloween and Christmas celebrations - indeed, schools are taking pork off their cafeteria menus to avoid offending Muslim students. Ladies and gentlemen, be aware that this is only the beginning. If things continue like this, you will have the same problems as we are currently faced with in Europe.
It is my opinion that Islam is more an ideology than a religion. To be precise, Islam is a political, totalitarian ideology, with worldwide aspirations, just like communism and fascism, because like those ideologies Islam does not intend to assimilate in our societies but wants to dominate and submit us all. In Islam there is no room for anything but Islam. I think the great Winston Churchill was fully right when he, in his book, The Second World War, called Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, the new Koran of faith and war.
But, ladies and gentlemen, Islam is not the only problem. There is a second problem, a problem that is called cultural relativism. Our entire Western elite, whether they are politicians, journalists or judges, has lost its way. Their sense of reality has vanished. Those cultural relativists believe that all cultures are equal. They think that the Islamic culture is equal to our culture which is based on Christianity, Judaism and Humanism. Our culture adheres to freedom, human rights and the equality between men and women and not to violence and hatred.
To the cultural relativists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far better than the Islamic culture. And we should be proud of that and defend it. Unlike most countries where the Islamic culture is dominant, we have a rule of law, a democracy, a functioning parliament, freedom of speech and a constitution that protects us against the government.
It is clear that not everyone sees the danger. I quote a prominent American, who recently won a Nobel Prize: "Throughout history, Islam had demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance", and "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism, it is an important part of promoting peace", and "We celebrate a great religion, and its commitment to justice and progress". End of quote. I strongly have to disagree with this assessment. Islam has nothing in common with tolerance or peace or justice!
President Obama also celebrated the fact that when the first Muslim-American was elected to Congress, he took the oath using the same Koran that one of the Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library. It is interesting to know that Thomas Jefferson in 1801 was about to wage war against the Islamic 'Barbary' states of Northern Africa to stop the pillaging of ships and enslavement of more than a million Christians.
The ambassador of these Muslim nations told Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that Muslims find the justification for their slaughter and enslavement of kafir in the Koran. Now I ask you, dear friends, could it be that Thomas Jefferson did not keep a copy of the Koran because he admired Islam but because he wanted to understand the ruthless nature of his enemies?
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in democracy, I believe in the American people and the choices it makes, and normally, as a politician from Holland, I would never judge your President. But these remarks of President Obama, do not only affect America, but Europe too. I am afraid that President Obama's remarks could be a turning point in history. I fear that serious geo-political changes are looming, changes that will alter our foreign policies, our view on free speech, changes that will alter the West, our way of life, and for the worse and not for the better.
In a matter of fact, it is already happening right now. Recently the United States joined Egypt in sponsoring an anti-free speech resolution in the UN Human Rights Council. You know that council, that itself is an insult to human rights since the worst human rights offenders of the world like Cuba, Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan are members.
The Obama-administration and Europe supported a resolution to recognize exceptions to free speech to any negative religious stereotyping. This appeasement of the non-free Arab world is the beginning of the end. An erosion of free speech and your own First Amendment. This UN resolution is an absolute disgrace.
As Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University yesterday so rightfully stated in the newspaper USA Today, and I quote: "Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech - the literal sacred institution of society." End of quote. That the weak leaders of my own continent Europe supported such a terrible resolution does not come as a surprise to me. But it's a sad thing that for the first time in history, the American administration has taken a leading role against our right to free speech.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is one Western country that has been forced to fight the forces of jihad for its values since the very first day of its existence: Israel, the canary in the coal mine. Let me say a few words about that wonderful country.
I had the privilege of living in Israel. However, in Europe being pro-Israel makes you an endangered species. Israel is a beacon of light in an area - the Middle East - that is pitch black everywhere else. Israel is a Western democracy, while Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt are medieval dictatorships.
The so-called 'Middle East conflict' is not about land at all. It is a conflict about ideologies; a battle between Islam and freedom. It is not about some land in Gaza or in Judea and Samaria. It is about Jihad. To Islam the whole of Israel is occupied territory. They see Tel Aviv and Haifa as settlements too.
I am very much in favor of a two-state solution. I mean Churchill's 1921 two-state solution, when Palestine was partitioned in a Jewish and an Arab part. Arab Palestine is now called Jordan, and therefore, there is already a Palestinian state. With eighty percent of the population having roots on the other side of the Jordan, there is no doubt Jordan is truly the state of Palestine.
Islam forces Israel to fight, and Israel is not just fighting for itself. Israel is fighting for all of us, for the entire West. Just like those brave American soldiers who landed in Sicily in 1943 and stormed the Normandy beaches in 1944, young Israeli men and women are fighting for our freedom, our civilization.
Ladies and gentlemen, Europe ought to fully back Israel to the hilt in its relentless fight against those that threaten it, whether it is Hezbollah, Hamas or a nuclear Iran. Also, because of its history, Europe certainly has the moral obligation to prevent at all cost another Holocaust against the Jewish people. But most important of all: Israel is fighting the jihad that is meant for all of us. So we all should defend Israel. We all are Israel.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is good news also! Europe might slowly be awakening. More and more people are fed up with cultural relativism and politicians ignoring the negative effects of mass-immigration and the creeping Islamization of Europe.
During the European elections last June the worst cultural relativists, the socialists, lost nearly everywhere: in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Germany, in Austria, in France, in Spain, in Italy and, perhaps best of all, in the UK.
But, my party, the Dutch Freedom Party was the winner in the recent elections for the European Parliament. Right now, in the polls, we even are number 1. If there would be elections in the Netherlands tomorrow, whether you like it or not, I could very well become the next Prime Minister of The Netherlands.
Ladies and gentlemen, time is running out, we need to act. As I already said, we need less Islam, and more freedom. We have to protect our most important right, our right to free speech. We have to protect our liberties. That is why I propose the following measures, measures to preserve our freedom.
First. We have to end all forms of cultural relativism. For this purpose we need an amendment to our Western constitutions stating that our cultural foundation is the Judeo Christian Humanistic culture, and not Islam.
Second. We have to stop the mass immigration from Muslim countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.
Third. I have a clear message to all Muslims in our societies: If you subscribe to our laws, our values and our constitutions you are very welcome to stay and we will help you to assimilate. But, if you cross the red line and commit violent crimes or the implementation of shariah law and start practicing jihad, you are not welcome any more, then we will expel you if possible the same day.
Fourth. We have to strengthen our laws regarding freedom of speech. In Europe we urgently need some kind of American First Amendment. And we have to resist UN-resolutions that intend to weaken our right of free speech in another attempt to appease the Islamic world.
Fifth, last but not least. We have to elect brave leaders. Real leaders. We enjoy the privilege of living in a democracy. Let us use that privilege by replacing weak leaders with heroes. Let us have fewer Neville Chamberlains and more Winston Churchills!
In short, ladies and gentlemen, my main message of today is that we have to start fighting back. No defense, but offense. We have to fight back and demonstrate that millions of people are sick and tired of losing, of giving in, of appeasing. We must make clear that millions of freedom loving people are saying: enough is enough.
Ladies and gentlemen, I leave you with this: I will never give in nor give up. And we should never surrender nor compromise about freedom, the most important right we still have in our free western societies. We have to win, and I am confident: we will win!
Thank you very much.
Speech by: Geert Wilders, MP, Netherlands
For more articles, please visit the following sites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
(Reproduced below is the speech by Geert Wilders, MP, Netherlands, at the Columbia University in New York City on 21 October 2009)
Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech - the literal sacred institution of society
- Jonathon Turley
Ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege and a great honor for me to speak at this fine academic institution, which gave the world so many Nobel Prize winners. As a Dutchman, I am proud that your first Nobel laureate, in 1906, was of Dutch descent: The youngest President of the United States: Theodore Roosevelt.
I thank Columbia University for inviting me, and I also thank the US border police for allowing me to enter this great country of democracy, liberty and free speech.
Ladies and gentlemen, today, the dearest of our many liberties is under attack all throughout Europe. Free speech is no longer a given. What we once considered a natural element of our existence, our birth right, is now something we once again have to fight for.
I would not qualify myself as a free man. 5 years ago I lost my personal freedom. Since then I am under 24-hour police protection. In addition some people tried to rob my freedom of speech. A Dutch Islamic organization tried to stop the appearance of my documentary 'Fitna'. Because of 'Fitna', the most radical Dutch imam claimed 55,000 Euros in compensation for his hurt feelings. The State of Jordan is possibly going to issue a request for my extradition, to stand trial in Amman. I have been charged in France.
In my own country, the Netherlands, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal overruled the decision of the Dutch public prosecutor not to prosecute me. So, now I have to stand trial in my own country, next January.
But, it is not about me. I am not the only European who fights for freedom of speech, there are so many more. The Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard made a Muhammad-cartoon and all of a sudden we were in the middle of the so called 'Danish cartoon crisis'. The Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her book, 'The Rage and the Pride'. An Austrian politician, Susanne Winter, was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence because she spoke bluntly about the prophet Muhammad. The Dutch cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot was arrested by 10 police men because of his drawings. And the Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam by a radical Muslim.
Last February, I was invited by 2 brave members of the British House of Lords - Lord Malcom Pearson and Baroness Caroline Cox - to show 'Fitna' in the British Parliament. But upon my arrival at Heathrow airport I was denied entry into the UK, on grounds that I would threaten community harmony and therefore public security.
Of course that was a ridiculous and politically motivated claim by the UK government. I was allowed to show 'Fitna' and deliver a speech in the US Senate, in New York, in Florida, in California, in Copenhagen, in Rome, in Jerusalem and next month in the Senate of the Czech Republic. But the British government refused my entrance into the UK, a fellow EU-country. Well, I think it was a splendid American idea, back in the 18th century, to kick the British out.
Last week, my appeal against the refusal by the British government, took place in London; and I won. Freedom finally prevailed! A UK Court ruled that the decision of the British Home Secretary to ban me was unjust, illegal and a violation of freedom of speech. Fortunately the British judges are a lot wiser than the British government. So, last Friday I went to London and met with my friends Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox and we agreed to show 'Fitna' in the House of Lords, next March.
But let me tell you what also happened during our press conference. A Muslim mob demonstrated outside, shouting: "Shariah for the Netherlands", "Enemy of Islam Geert Wilders deserves capital punishment", "Freedom, go to hell" and "Islam will dominate the world". Welcome to Europe today!
You can see all this for yourself on YouTube. This is exactly what we are fighting against. And it gets even worse. A few days ago British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported that an Islamic group indeed launched a campaign to impose shariah law in Britain, they will meet later this month in London for a procession to demand the full implementation of shariah law.
Before I want to speak about Islam, I first would like to say this: I have nothing against Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims in our Western countries are law abiding people, who want to live a peaceful life. I know that. Therefore, I make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam.
What is happening in Europe should not come as a surprise. The reality is that where Islam roots, free speech dies. There is not a single Islamic country in the world where people are really totally free to say what they think. Ever since the so-called prophet Muhammad ordered his men to kill the poet Asma bint Marwan, the brave woman who warned her people against this murderous cult, radical Muslims think they have a license to kill anyone, who dares to criticize Muhammad's word or actions. Free speech is Islam's enemy. Islam is a threat to the Europe of Socrates, Voltaire and Galileo.
As I said, there are many moderate Muslims. But there is no such thing as a moderate Islam. Islam's heart lies in the Koran. The Koran is an evil book that calls for violence and murder - Sura 4, Verse 89 and Sura 47, Verse 4 -, terrorism - Sura 8, Verse 60 - and war - Sura 8, Verse 39. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs - Sura 2, Verse 65 / Sura 5, Verse 60 and Sura 7, Verse 166. It calls non-Muslims liars, miscreants, enemies, ignorant, unclean, wicked, evil, the worst of creatures and the vilest of animals.
The problem is that the provisions in the Koran are not restricted to time or place. Rather, they apply to all Muslims, from all times. Apart from the Koran, there is also the life of Muhammad, who fought in dozens of wars, who spread Islam with the sword, sold imprisoned women and children as slaves, who was in the habit of decapitating Jews and who married and consummated the young girl Aisha before she was ten years of age. The problem is that, to many 'Muslims, Muhammad is 'the perfect man', whose life is the model to follow. But the facts show that the so called Prophet was not a perfect man but a murderer and a pedophile. And inspired by him, jihadists, with the promise of a carnal paradise, slaughtered innocent people in Washington, New York, Madrid, London, Amsterdam, Bali and Mumbai.
Ladies and gentlemen, some time ago an interview was held in France with the French Muslim student Mohamed Sabaoui, who said the following, and I quote: "Your laws do not coincide with the Koran, Muslims can only be ruled by shariah law", and "we will declare the town of Roubaix an independent Muslim enclave and impose shariah law upon all its citizens, and we will be your Trojan Horse, we will rule, Allah Akbar". End of quote.
Make no mistake: Islam has always attempted to conquer Europe. Spain fell in the 8th century. Constantinople fell in the 15th century. Vienna and Poland were threatened, and now, in the 21st century, Islam is trying again. This time not with military armies, but through migration and demography.
For the first time in world history there are dozens of millions of Muslims living outside the Dar al-Islam, the Islamic world. Europe now has more than 50 million Muslims. It is expected that one fifth of the population of the European Union will be Muslim within 40 years.
In 1974 no one took the Algerian President Boumédienne all too serious when he said to the UN general assembly: "One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women". End of quote.
And Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: "There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent and the number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted to Islam. Europe will one day be a Muslim continent". End of quote.
Indeed Gaddafi is telling the truth here, through the Islamic concept of migration - called Al Hijra - Europe is in the process of becoming Eurabia. In Europe churches are emptying out, whereas mosques are shooting up like mushrooms. Muhammad is the most popular name among boys in many European cities. Medieval phenomena as burkas, honor killings and female genital mutilation are becoming more and more prevalent.
In the UK, by now 85 shariah law courts are active, the same country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust, and a minister is pleading to change the Red Cross logo, because it might offend Muslims. In Austria, history teachers avoid teaching on the Austrian wars against the Islamic invaders. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire. In Norway, children are made to sing Islamic songs as "Allah Akbar" and "Little Muslim, do you pray?" In Belgium, a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-semitism since World War II.
The rise of Islam also means the rise of shariah law in our judicial systems. In Europe we have it all: Shariah testaments, shariah mortgages, shariah schools, shariah banks, as I said in the UK there are even 85 shariah courts. Islam regards shariah law to be above all man-made laws, including our constitutions. As you know, shariah law covers all areas of life, from religion, hygiene and dietary laws, to dress codes, family and social life and from finance and politics to the unity of Islam with the state. Shariah law does not recognize free speech and freedom of religion.
According to shariah law, killing apostates is a 'virtue', but the consumption of alcohol is a crime. The introduction of shariah law elements in our societies creates a system of legal apartheid. Shariah law systematically discriminates groups of people. I never understood why the leftish and liberal politicians are ignoring all this. Historically they were the ones fighting for the rights of women, gays, non-believers and others. All groups that would be the first to pay a high price if and when Islamic values would become dominant. Their silence is frightening. Now, I am fighting their fight. I fight to protect those groups. I fight against the Islamization of our societies and therefore for the protection of the rights of women, homosexuals, Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers and kafirs: the non-Muslims. I want to protect these victims for shariah law. And we all should. If we ignore the problem it will not go away, if we don't act now, shariah will be implemented more and more, slowly but gradually and that would mean the end of freedom of speech and democracy in Europe. This is what is at stake, nothing less than our freedom and democracy.
And please make no mistake: Islam is also coming for America. Last July, during a conference in Chicago, organised by Hizb-Ut- Tahrir, the international movement aiming to create an Islamic state under shariah law across the world, the American imam Jaleel Abdul Adil promised to fight "until Islam becomes victorious or we die in the attempt". When asked: "Would you get rid of the United States Constitution for shariah?" he answered: "Yes, The Constitution would be gone".
America is facing a 'stealth Jihad', the Islamic attempt to introduce Shariah law bit by bit. Allow me to give you a few examples of Islamization in the United States. Muslim taxi drivers at Minneapolis airport refused over 5,000 passengers because they were carrying alcohol; Muslim students are demanding separate campus housing; Muslim women are demanding separate hours in gyms and swimming pools; schools are banning Halloween and Christmas celebrations - indeed, schools are taking pork off their cafeteria menus to avoid offending Muslim students. Ladies and gentlemen, be aware that this is only the beginning. If things continue like this, you will have the same problems as we are currently faced with in Europe.
It is my opinion that Islam is more an ideology than a religion. To be precise, Islam is a political, totalitarian ideology, with worldwide aspirations, just like communism and fascism, because like those ideologies Islam does not intend to assimilate in our societies but wants to dominate and submit us all. In Islam there is no room for anything but Islam. I think the great Winston Churchill was fully right when he, in his book, The Second World War, called Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, the new Koran of faith and war.
But, ladies and gentlemen, Islam is not the only problem. There is a second problem, a problem that is called cultural relativism. Our entire Western elite, whether they are politicians, journalists or judges, has lost its way. Their sense of reality has vanished. Those cultural relativists believe that all cultures are equal. They think that the Islamic culture is equal to our culture which is based on Christianity, Judaism and Humanism. Our culture adheres to freedom, human rights and the equality between men and women and not to violence and hatred.
To the cultural relativists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far better than the Islamic culture. And we should be proud of that and defend it. Unlike most countries where the Islamic culture is dominant, we have a rule of law, a democracy, a functioning parliament, freedom of speech and a constitution that protects us against the government.
It is clear that not everyone sees the danger. I quote a prominent American, who recently won a Nobel Prize: "Throughout history, Islam had demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance", and "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism, it is an important part of promoting peace", and "We celebrate a great religion, and its commitment to justice and progress". End of quote. I strongly have to disagree with this assessment. Islam has nothing in common with tolerance or peace or justice!
President Obama also celebrated the fact that when the first Muslim-American was elected to Congress, he took the oath using the same Koran that one of the Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library. It is interesting to know that Thomas Jefferson in 1801 was about to wage war against the Islamic 'Barbary' states of Northern Africa to stop the pillaging of ships and enslavement of more than a million Christians.
The ambassador of these Muslim nations told Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that Muslims find the justification for their slaughter and enslavement of kafir in the Koran. Now I ask you, dear friends, could it be that Thomas Jefferson did not keep a copy of the Koran because he admired Islam but because he wanted to understand the ruthless nature of his enemies?
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in democracy, I believe in the American people and the choices it makes, and normally, as a politician from Holland, I would never judge your President. But these remarks of President Obama, do not only affect America, but Europe too. I am afraid that President Obama's remarks could be a turning point in history. I fear that serious geo-political changes are looming, changes that will alter our foreign policies, our view on free speech, changes that will alter the West, our way of life, and for the worse and not for the better.
In a matter of fact, it is already happening right now. Recently the United States joined Egypt in sponsoring an anti-free speech resolution in the UN Human Rights Council. You know that council, that itself is an insult to human rights since the worst human rights offenders of the world like Cuba, Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan are members.
The Obama-administration and Europe supported a resolution to recognize exceptions to free speech to any negative religious stereotyping. This appeasement of the non-free Arab world is the beginning of the end. An erosion of free speech and your own First Amendment. This UN resolution is an absolute disgrace.
As Professor Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University yesterday so rightfully stated in the newspaper USA Today, and I quote: "Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech - the literal sacred institution of society." End of quote. That the weak leaders of my own continent Europe supported such a terrible resolution does not come as a surprise to me. But it's a sad thing that for the first time in history, the American administration has taken a leading role against our right to free speech.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is one Western country that has been forced to fight the forces of jihad for its values since the very first day of its existence: Israel, the canary in the coal mine. Let me say a few words about that wonderful country.
I had the privilege of living in Israel. However, in Europe being pro-Israel makes you an endangered species. Israel is a beacon of light in an area - the Middle East - that is pitch black everywhere else. Israel is a Western democracy, while Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt are medieval dictatorships.
The so-called 'Middle East conflict' is not about land at all. It is a conflict about ideologies; a battle between Islam and freedom. It is not about some land in Gaza or in Judea and Samaria. It is about Jihad. To Islam the whole of Israel is occupied territory. They see Tel Aviv and Haifa as settlements too.
I am very much in favor of a two-state solution. I mean Churchill's 1921 two-state solution, when Palestine was partitioned in a Jewish and an Arab part. Arab Palestine is now called Jordan, and therefore, there is already a Palestinian state. With eighty percent of the population having roots on the other side of the Jordan, there is no doubt Jordan is truly the state of Palestine.
Islam forces Israel to fight, and Israel is not just fighting for itself. Israel is fighting for all of us, for the entire West. Just like those brave American soldiers who landed in Sicily in 1943 and stormed the Normandy beaches in 1944, young Israeli men and women are fighting for our freedom, our civilization.
Ladies and gentlemen, Europe ought to fully back Israel to the hilt in its relentless fight against those that threaten it, whether it is Hezbollah, Hamas or a nuclear Iran. Also, because of its history, Europe certainly has the moral obligation to prevent at all cost another Holocaust against the Jewish people. But most important of all: Israel is fighting the jihad that is meant for all of us. So we all should defend Israel. We all are Israel.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is good news also! Europe might slowly be awakening. More and more people are fed up with cultural relativism and politicians ignoring the negative effects of mass-immigration and the creeping Islamization of Europe.
During the European elections last June the worst cultural relativists, the socialists, lost nearly everywhere: in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Germany, in Austria, in France, in Spain, in Italy and, perhaps best of all, in the UK.
But, my party, the Dutch Freedom Party was the winner in the recent elections for the European Parliament. Right now, in the polls, we even are number 1. If there would be elections in the Netherlands tomorrow, whether you like it or not, I could very well become the next Prime Minister of The Netherlands.
Ladies and gentlemen, time is running out, we need to act. As I already said, we need less Islam, and more freedom. We have to protect our most important right, our right to free speech. We have to protect our liberties. That is why I propose the following measures, measures to preserve our freedom.
First. We have to end all forms of cultural relativism. For this purpose we need an amendment to our Western constitutions stating that our cultural foundation is the Judeo Christian Humanistic culture, and not Islam.
Second. We have to stop the mass immigration from Muslim countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.
Third. I have a clear message to all Muslims in our societies: If you subscribe to our laws, our values and our constitutions you are very welcome to stay and we will help you to assimilate. But, if you cross the red line and commit violent crimes or the implementation of shariah law and start practicing jihad, you are not welcome any more, then we will expel you if possible the same day.
Fourth. We have to strengthen our laws regarding freedom of speech. In Europe we urgently need some kind of American First Amendment. And we have to resist UN-resolutions that intend to weaken our right of free speech in another attempt to appease the Islamic world.
Fifth, last but not least. We have to elect brave leaders. Real leaders. We enjoy the privilege of living in a democracy. Let us use that privilege by replacing weak leaders with heroes. Let us have fewer Neville Chamberlains and more Winston Churchills!
In short, ladies and gentlemen, my main message of today is that we have to start fighting back. No defense, but offense. We have to fight back and demonstrate that millions of people are sick and tired of losing, of giving in, of appeasing. We must make clear that millions of freedom loving people are saying: enough is enough.
Ladies and gentlemen, I leave you with this: I will never give in nor give up. And we should never surrender nor compromise about freedom, the most important right we still have in our free western societies. We have to win, and I am confident: we will win!
Thank you very much.
Speech by: Geert Wilders, MP, Netherlands
For more articles, please visit the following sites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
Tripuraneni Hanuman Chowdary on Islam
Co-existence of Islam with other faiths and cultures
Speaking at a meeting, Dr Tripuraneni Hanuman Chowdary, Chairman of Pragna Bharati, appreciated the assertion of Muslim intellectuals that Islam is a religion of peace and that there is no compulsion in religion and that Islam holds the taking of life of innocent people as a very serious crime against God. He has however noted that in contrast to these noble expressions contained in the Holy Koran and reiterated by Muslim intellectuals, every time a terrorist act is perpetrated by those claiming to be waging a jihad against the tormentors of Muslims, no concerted action has ever been taken by Muslim leaders and Muslim organizations to isolate these deviants from true Islam. These terrorist activities and insurgencies spread around the globe and of which India has been paying a heavy toll are at total variance with the noble expressions expounded by Islamic intellectuals. He enumerated some issues on which Muslim intellectuals expounding Islam as religion of peace must clearly come out and wage a movement to sensitize the Muslim masses against the deviants and aberrants.
1. Saudi Arabia does not allow the practice of any religion other than Islam
Saudi Arabia and its ruler are the protector of Islam and its holy places. Why is it that such an Islamic state, while welcoming Hindus and Christians as workers, engineers and doctors, does not allow these people to carry pictures or images of their gods, goddesses, saints, prophets etc. and why does it not allow the practice of any religion other than Islam? Is it right of it to expect freedom of religion and worship in non-Muslim countries for Muslims, while denying the same for non-Muslims in its own country?
2. Muslim rulers imposed jizya on Hindus
If Islam is so tolerant, why was jizya (see wikipedia on Jizya, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya ) imposed upon Hindus at different times under Muslim rulers? What is the meaning of dhimmies (see wikipedia on Dhimmi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi ) and what were the disabilities imposed upon them by the Muslim rulers in India?
3. Prophet said that in his land there should be no second religion
It is said that the Prophet declared that in his land there should be no second religion. If that is true, can the upholders of other religions in the states they are in majority reciprocally say that in their lands, there should be no Islam? Is not reciprocity a symbol of peaceful co-existence and mutual respect?
4. Indian Muslims oppose common civil code
In countries such as USA, France, Russia and China, there is common civil code for all citizens irrespective of religion. Article 44 of the Constitution of India also envisages a common civil code. But, the Indian Muslims are opposing common civil code. Why? Why are some of the Indian Muslims demanding that the relevant Article 44 of the Constitution should be repealed?
5. Indian Muslims oppose registration of marriages
While government wants that every marriage should be registered in the Government Registrar of Marriages in order to ensure that women are not cheated and defrauded, Muslim organizations are opposing this and say that what they practice is good enough. We often learn terrible things about minor girls given in marriage for as little as Rs. 10.00 (rupees ten only) to already several times married octogenarian aliens.
6. Azan or call for prayer is given out from several loud speakers several times
Azan or call for prayer is given out from several loud speakers several times even at the dead of night or early morning. Is not that loudness offensive? Is not the assertion that Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his prophet amount to denial of other Gods and therefore offensive to others? Will broadcasting of bhajans be allowed in Pakistan, Iran, Bangladesh as frequently and as loudly as the Azan?
A Judge of High Court in Patna had begged for a transfer because his requests to the near-by mosque not to blare the Azan when the Court was in sitting was not only ignored but also he was threatened with dire consequences.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that the loudness of the Azan should not exceed a certain decibel strength. The mosques declared that the Calcutta High Court ruling will not be obeyed and it can not be applicable to mosques.
7. Muslims attacked Hindus for blasphemy cartoons in Denmark
There were blasphemy cartoons in Denmark. Months after that, here in Hyderabad, immediately after the Friday prayers in mosques, Hindus and their shops were attacked, looted and burnt.
8. Indian Muslims demand that India should always be favourable towards Islamic countries
The United States of America is leading a war on Iraq, but the protesters here are demanding that the Government of India (GOI) should not have any alliance with it. GOI, in national interest, is voting in a particular way in regard to Iran in the meetings of the IAEA. The Muslim citizens of this country are demanding that GOI should not vote against Iran. How can India's interest be sacrificed for the interest of Islamic countries?
9. Indian Muslims practice double standards in matters of ethnic cleansing
Whenever there is some trouble between Palestinian Muslims and Israeli Jews, demonstrations are held in India. India is asked to support the right of Palestinian Muslims to return to Israel, but the Muslim citizens of India are totally silent about the total ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs from Kashmir. 99% ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs took place in Pakistan. In the Islamic state of Bangladesh, the Hindu and Buddhist population reduced from 28% to 9% and is reducing further. Do they see ethnic cleansing as wrong if it affects Muslims, but right if it affects Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists in India and other countries? Is this conducive to fraternal co-existence?
10. Muslim populations took to insurgency and secession in several countries
Why is it that the Muslim minority populations took to insurgency and secession in Philippines, Thailand, Myanmar, China, Russia, Cyprus, Kosovo (Yugoslavia), Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kashmir? Do these insurgencies and the movements for separation from the nation-states spread all over the world support the view that Islam is a religion of peace and can co-exist with other faiths?
11. Muslims in Kashmir demand autonomy
The Muslim citizens in Kashmir want autonomy but they deny autonomy to Hindus of Jammu and Buddhists of Ladakh. Why? If any Muslim woman in Jammu and Kashmir marries somebody outside the state, she forfeits the right of inheritance. Why?
12. Muslims oppose shifting of their places of worship
In Saudi Arabia, the famous mosque where Prophet Mohammed himself prayed had been removed to make way for some reconstruction, but here in India Muslims oppose any shifting of their places of worship. For example, on the Tank Bund road, right in the carriage way, there is a mazar and there are so many such constructions in many cities. Why their removal is made into an issue of religion and not of the welfare of citizens? (The opposition of Hindus, Sikhs and Christians for removal of such places of their veneration from the pavement and carriage ways is equally reprehensible. They are not being removed as the followers of these religions insist that unless the Muslim mazars are simultaneously removed from the pavements and carriage ways, their sacred places alone can not be removed.
13. Muslims consider non-Muslims as kafirs or infidels
Non-Muslims are kafirs? How sad such a depiction was made during the Khilafat Movement! Mohammed Ali, whom Gandhiji hailed as a brother and a great soul speaking at Aligarh and Ajmer publicly announced:
"However pure Mr. Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to be from the point of view of religion, inferior to any Mussalman, even though he be without character."
The statement created a great stir. Many did not believe that Mr. Mohamed Ali, who testified to so much veneration for Mr. Gandhi, was capable of entertaining such ungenerous and contemptupus sentiments about him. When Mr. Mohamed Ali was speaking in a meeting held at Aminabad Park in Lucknow, he was asked whether the sentiments attributed to him were true. Mr. Mohamed Ali without any hesitation or compunction replied: "Yes! According to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and fallen gentleman to be better than Mr. Gandhi."
Coming from such holy and venerated like Mohamed Ali, for whose Islamic cause the Hindus of the Congress were asked to go to jail, does it conduce to peaceful co-existence and mutual respect?
Terrorism, suicide-bombing and killing of innocents are all said to be prohibited by Islam. Why are fatwas not issued against the leaders of the organizations and their followers who are publicly claiming and taking pride in carrying out such terrorist activities?
14. M. F. Hussein paints Hindu Gods and Goddesses nude
M. F. Hussein has been repeatedly painting the Gods and Goddesses of Hindus and lately, even Bharat Mata in the most repulsive nude. While Muslims here are protesting against blasphemy against the holy Prophet in Denmark, did they organize even one demonstration or issue even one fatwa against M. F. Hussein? What does this convey to Hindus?
Dr Tripuraneni Hanuman Chowdary appealed to the Muslim intellectuals to kindly and truthfully address the issues raised and come out in a very strong demonstrable way to establish that Islam is indeed a religion of peace, that it respects other religions and that it values reciprocity of treatment. In fact, the terrorism and the jihadi acts that are being carried out by people with Muslim names claiming that they are doing for the glory and defence of Islam are bringing bad name to a religion and its civilization. In order to defend that real glory of Islam, it would be even appropriate if, just like the Border Security Force, an anti-jihadi terrorist force is raised under the leadership of Muslims and the un-Islamic acts of the terrorists are put to an end by that specially tasked force.
For more articles, please visit the following sites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
Speaking at a meeting, Dr Tripuraneni Hanuman Chowdary, Chairman of Pragna Bharati, appreciated the assertion of Muslim intellectuals that Islam is a religion of peace and that there is no compulsion in religion and that Islam holds the taking of life of innocent people as a very serious crime against God. He has however noted that in contrast to these noble expressions contained in the Holy Koran and reiterated by Muslim intellectuals, every time a terrorist act is perpetrated by those claiming to be waging a jihad against the tormentors of Muslims, no concerted action has ever been taken by Muslim leaders and Muslim organizations to isolate these deviants from true Islam. These terrorist activities and insurgencies spread around the globe and of which India has been paying a heavy toll are at total variance with the noble expressions expounded by Islamic intellectuals. He enumerated some issues on which Muslim intellectuals expounding Islam as religion of peace must clearly come out and wage a movement to sensitize the Muslim masses against the deviants and aberrants.
1. Saudi Arabia does not allow the practice of any religion other than Islam
Saudi Arabia and its ruler are the protector of Islam and its holy places. Why is it that such an Islamic state, while welcoming Hindus and Christians as workers, engineers and doctors, does not allow these people to carry pictures or images of their gods, goddesses, saints, prophets etc. and why does it not allow the practice of any religion other than Islam? Is it right of it to expect freedom of religion and worship in non-Muslim countries for Muslims, while denying the same for non-Muslims in its own country?
2. Muslim rulers imposed jizya on Hindus
If Islam is so tolerant, why was jizya (see wikipedia on Jizya, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya ) imposed upon Hindus at different times under Muslim rulers? What is the meaning of dhimmies (see wikipedia on Dhimmi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi ) and what were the disabilities imposed upon them by the Muslim rulers in India?
3. Prophet said that in his land there should be no second religion
It is said that the Prophet declared that in his land there should be no second religion. If that is true, can the upholders of other religions in the states they are in majority reciprocally say that in their lands, there should be no Islam? Is not reciprocity a symbol of peaceful co-existence and mutual respect?
4. Indian Muslims oppose common civil code
In countries such as USA, France, Russia and China, there is common civil code for all citizens irrespective of religion. Article 44 of the Constitution of India also envisages a common civil code. But, the Indian Muslims are opposing common civil code. Why? Why are some of the Indian Muslims demanding that the relevant Article 44 of the Constitution should be repealed?
5. Indian Muslims oppose registration of marriages
While government wants that every marriage should be registered in the Government Registrar of Marriages in order to ensure that women are not cheated and defrauded, Muslim organizations are opposing this and say that what they practice is good enough. We often learn terrible things about minor girls given in marriage for as little as Rs. 10.00 (rupees ten only) to already several times married octogenarian aliens.
6. Azan or call for prayer is given out from several loud speakers several times
Azan or call for prayer is given out from several loud speakers several times even at the dead of night or early morning. Is not that loudness offensive? Is not the assertion that Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his prophet amount to denial of other Gods and therefore offensive to others? Will broadcasting of bhajans be allowed in Pakistan, Iran, Bangladesh as frequently and as loudly as the Azan?
A Judge of High Court in Patna had begged for a transfer because his requests to the near-by mosque not to blare the Azan when the Court was in sitting was not only ignored but also he was threatened with dire consequences.
The Calcutta High Court ruled that the loudness of the Azan should not exceed a certain decibel strength. The mosques declared that the Calcutta High Court ruling will not be obeyed and it can not be applicable to mosques.
7. Muslims attacked Hindus for blasphemy cartoons in Denmark
There were blasphemy cartoons in Denmark. Months after that, here in Hyderabad, immediately after the Friday prayers in mosques, Hindus and their shops were attacked, looted and burnt.
8. Indian Muslims demand that India should always be favourable towards Islamic countries
The United States of America is leading a war on Iraq, but the protesters here are demanding that the Government of India (GOI) should not have any alliance with it. GOI, in national interest, is voting in a particular way in regard to Iran in the meetings of the IAEA. The Muslim citizens of this country are demanding that GOI should not vote against Iran. How can India's interest be sacrificed for the interest of Islamic countries?
9. Indian Muslims practice double standards in matters of ethnic cleansing
Whenever there is some trouble between Palestinian Muslims and Israeli Jews, demonstrations are held in India. India is asked to support the right of Palestinian Muslims to return to Israel, but the Muslim citizens of India are totally silent about the total ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs from Kashmir. 99% ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs took place in Pakistan. In the Islamic state of Bangladesh, the Hindu and Buddhist population reduced from 28% to 9% and is reducing further. Do they see ethnic cleansing as wrong if it affects Muslims, but right if it affects Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists in India and other countries? Is this conducive to fraternal co-existence?
10. Muslim populations took to insurgency and secession in several countries
Why is it that the Muslim minority populations took to insurgency and secession in Philippines, Thailand, Myanmar, China, Russia, Cyprus, Kosovo (Yugoslavia), Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kashmir? Do these insurgencies and the movements for separation from the nation-states spread all over the world support the view that Islam is a religion of peace and can co-exist with other faiths?
11. Muslims in Kashmir demand autonomy
The Muslim citizens in Kashmir want autonomy but they deny autonomy to Hindus of Jammu and Buddhists of Ladakh. Why? If any Muslim woman in Jammu and Kashmir marries somebody outside the state, she forfeits the right of inheritance. Why?
12. Muslims oppose shifting of their places of worship
In Saudi Arabia, the famous mosque where Prophet Mohammed himself prayed had been removed to make way for some reconstruction, but here in India Muslims oppose any shifting of their places of worship. For example, on the Tank Bund road, right in the carriage way, there is a mazar and there are so many such constructions in many cities. Why their removal is made into an issue of religion and not of the welfare of citizens? (The opposition of Hindus, Sikhs and Christians for removal of such places of their veneration from the pavement and carriage ways is equally reprehensible. They are not being removed as the followers of these religions insist that unless the Muslim mazars are simultaneously removed from the pavements and carriage ways, their sacred places alone can not be removed.
13. Muslims consider non-Muslims as kafirs or infidels
Non-Muslims are kafirs? How sad such a depiction was made during the Khilafat Movement! Mohammed Ali, whom Gandhiji hailed as a brother and a great soul speaking at Aligarh and Ajmer publicly announced:
"However pure Mr. Gandhi's character may be, he must appear to be from the point of view of religion, inferior to any Mussalman, even though he be without character."
The statement created a great stir. Many did not believe that Mr. Mohamed Ali, who testified to so much veneration for Mr. Gandhi, was capable of entertaining such ungenerous and contemptupus sentiments about him. When Mr. Mohamed Ali was speaking in a meeting held at Aminabad Park in Lucknow, he was asked whether the sentiments attributed to him were true. Mr. Mohamed Ali without any hesitation or compunction replied: "Yes! According to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and fallen gentleman to be better than Mr. Gandhi."
Coming from such holy and venerated like Mohamed Ali, for whose Islamic cause the Hindus of the Congress were asked to go to jail, does it conduce to peaceful co-existence and mutual respect?
Terrorism, suicide-bombing and killing of innocents are all said to be prohibited by Islam. Why are fatwas not issued against the leaders of the organizations and their followers who are publicly claiming and taking pride in carrying out such terrorist activities?
14. M. F. Hussein paints Hindu Gods and Goddesses nude
M. F. Hussein has been repeatedly painting the Gods and Goddesses of Hindus and lately, even Bharat Mata in the most repulsive nude. While Muslims here are protesting against blasphemy against the holy Prophet in Denmark, did they organize even one demonstration or issue even one fatwa against M. F. Hussein? What does this convey to Hindus?
Dr Tripuraneni Hanuman Chowdary appealed to the Muslim intellectuals to kindly and truthfully address the issues raised and come out in a very strong demonstrable way to establish that Islam is indeed a religion of peace, that it respects other religions and that it values reciprocity of treatment. In fact, the terrorism and the jihadi acts that are being carried out by people with Muslim names claiming that they are doing for the glory and defence of Islam are bringing bad name to a religion and its civilization. In order to defend that real glory of Islam, it would be even appropriate if, just like the Border Security Force, an anti-jihadi terrorist force is raised under the leadership of Muslims and the un-Islamic acts of the terrorists are put to an end by that specially tasked force.
For more articles, please visit the following sites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
Dharmesh Sharma on India Pakistan talks
Dharmesh Sharma : a Hindi poem on why India Pakistan talks must (not?) continue
Hi,
The following poem came out of my heart on this useless talks with Pakistan that has come into existence only to destroy India.
बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी
चाहे हम हों कितने तगड़े , मुंह वो हमारा धूल में रगड़े,
पटक पटक के हमको मारे , फाड़ दिए हैं कपड़े सारे ,
माना की वो नीच बहुत है , माना वो है अत्याचारी ,
लेकिन - बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी .
जब भी उसके मन में आये , जबरन वो घर में घुस जाए ,
बहू बेटियों की इज्ज़त लूटे, बच्चों को भी मार के जाए ,
कोई न मौका उसने छोड़ा , चांस मिला तब लाज उतारी ,
लेकिन - बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी .
हम में से ही हैं कुछ पापी , जिनका लगता है वो बाप ,
आग लगाते हुए वे जल मरें , तो भी उसपर हमें ही पश्चाताप ?
दुश्मन का बुरा सोचा कैसे ??? हिम्मत कैसे हुई तुम्हारी ???
अब तो - बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी .
बम यहाँ पे फोड़ा , वहां पे फोड़ा , किसी जगह को नहीं है छोड़ा ,
मरे हजारों, अनाथ लाखों में , लेकिन गौरमेंट को लगता थोडा ,
मर मरा गए तो फर्क पड़ा क्या ? आखिर है ही क्या औकात तुम्हारी ???
इसलिए - बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी .
लानत है ऐसे सालों पर , जूते खाते रहते हैं दोनों गालों पर ,
कुछ देर बाद , कुछ देर बाद , रहे टालते बासठ सालों भर ,
गौरमेंट करती रहती है नाटक , जग में कोई नहीं हिमायत ,
पर कौन सुने ऐसे हाथी की , जो कोकरोच की करे शिकायत ???
इलाज पता बच्चे बच्चे को , पर बहुत बड़ी मजबूरी है सरकारी ,
इसीलिये - बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी .
वैसे हैं बहुत होशियार हम , कर भी रक्खी सेना तैयार है ,
सेना गयी मोर्चे पर तो - इन भ्रष्ट नेताओं का कौन चौकीदार है ???
बंदूकों की बना के सब्जी , बमों का डालना अचार है ,
मातम तो पब्लिक के घर है , पर गौरमेंट का डेली त्योंहार है
ऐसे में वो युद्ध छेड़ कर , क्यों उजाड़े खुद की दुकानदारी ???
इसीलिये - बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी .
सपूत हिंद के बहुत जियाले , जो घूरे उसकी आँख निकालें ,
राम कृष्ण के हम वंशज हैं , जिससे चाहें पानी भरवालें ,
जब तक धर्म के साथ रहे हम , राज किया विश्व पर हमने ,
कुछ पापी की बातों में आ कर , भूले स्वधर्म तो सब से हारे ,
जाग गए अब, हुए सावधान हम , ना चलने देंगे इनकी मक्कारी ,
पर तब तक - बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी .
रचयिता : धर्मेश शर्मा , भारत
Author: Dharmesh Sharma, Bharat
You may contact the author, Sri Dharmesh Sharma, on his email at dharmeshsharma@hotmail.com
For more articles, please visit the following sites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
Hi,
The following poem came out of my heart on this useless talks with Pakistan that has come into existence only to destroy India.
बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी
चाहे हम हों कितने तगड़े , मुंह वो हमारा धूल में रगड़े,
पटक पटक के हमको मारे , फाड़ दिए हैं कपड़े सारे ,
माना की वो नीच बहुत है , माना वो है अत्याचारी ,
लेकिन - बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी .
जब भी उसके मन में आये , जबरन वो घर में घुस जाए ,
बहू बेटियों की इज्ज़त लूटे, बच्चों को भी मार के जाए ,
कोई न मौका उसने छोड़ा , चांस मिला तब लाज उतारी ,
लेकिन - बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी .
हम में से ही हैं कुछ पापी , जिनका लगता है वो बाप ,
आग लगाते हुए वे जल मरें , तो भी उसपर हमें ही पश्चाताप ?
दुश्मन का बुरा सोचा कैसे ??? हिम्मत कैसे हुई तुम्हारी ???
अब तो - बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी .
बम यहाँ पे फोड़ा , वहां पे फोड़ा , किसी जगह को नहीं है छोड़ा ,
मरे हजारों, अनाथ लाखों में , लेकिन गौरमेंट को लगता थोडा ,
मर मरा गए तो फर्क पड़ा क्या ? आखिर है ही क्या औकात तुम्हारी ???
इसलिए - बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी .
लानत है ऐसे सालों पर , जूते खाते रहते हैं दोनों गालों पर ,
कुछ देर बाद , कुछ देर बाद , रहे टालते बासठ सालों भर ,
गौरमेंट करती रहती है नाटक , जग में कोई नहीं हिमायत ,
पर कौन सुने ऐसे हाथी की , जो कोकरोच की करे शिकायत ???
इलाज पता बच्चे बच्चे को , पर बहुत बड़ी मजबूरी है सरकारी ,
इसीलिये - बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी .
वैसे हैं बहुत होशियार हम , कर भी रक्खी सेना तैयार है ,
सेना गयी मोर्चे पर तो - इन भ्रष्ट नेताओं का कौन चौकीदार है ???
बंदूकों की बना के सब्जी , बमों का डालना अचार है ,
मातम तो पब्लिक के घर है , पर गौरमेंट का डेली त्योंहार है
ऐसे में वो युद्ध छेड़ कर , क्यों उजाड़े खुद की दुकानदारी ???
इसीलिये - बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी .
सपूत हिंद के बहुत जियाले , जो घूरे उसकी आँख निकालें ,
राम कृष्ण के हम वंशज हैं , जिससे चाहें पानी भरवालें ,
जब तक धर्म के साथ रहे हम , राज किया विश्व पर हमने ,
कुछ पापी की बातों में आ कर , भूले स्वधर्म तो सब से हारे ,
जाग गए अब, हुए सावधान हम , ना चलने देंगे इनकी मक्कारी ,
पर तब तक - बात चीत रहेगी जारी , बात चीत रहेगी जारी .
रचयिता : धर्मेश शर्मा , भारत
Author: Dharmesh Sharma, Bharat
You may contact the author, Sri Dharmesh Sharma, on his email at dharmeshsharma@hotmail.com
For more articles, please visit the following sites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Direct Action Day and the Great Partition
Direct Action Day - an excerpt from "The Great Partition : The Making of India and Pakistan" by Yasmin Khan
(In order to terrorise the opponents of partition of India and creation of the Islamic state of Pakistan, the Muslim League lead by Mohammed Ali Jinnah gave a call to Muslims of India to take to "Direct Action" from the 16th of August 1946. On that one day in the Muslim League-ruled state of undivided Bengal, in Calcutta, its capital, 10,000 Hindus were slaughtered and then the communal civil war erupted. This frightened the Congress and Hindus led by it, to submit to the demand for division of this country. The Calcutta killings were the first state-sponsored pogrom in India. The killings of about 4000 Sikhs in Delhi, the capital of India in Oct-Nov 1984 is a comparable misdeed. What happened in the aftermath of the burning of Hindu pilgrims in rail bogies in Godhra, Gujarat pales into insignificance in comparison to the Calcutta and Delhi killings. We reproduce below an extract referring to the Calcutta killing from "The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan" by the historian Yasmin Khan.)
"The streets of Calcutta were verily empty on the morning of 16 August 1946. The Muslim League provincial government had called a public holiday to mark Direct Action Day. Three days later at least 4,000 of Calcutta's residents lay dead and over 10,000 were injured. The streets were deserted once again. Now the scene was one of carnage, buildings reduced to rubble, rubbish uncollected from the streets, telephone and power lines severed. Schools, courts, mills and shops stayed closed. A British official groped for an analogy, describing the landscape as across between the worst of London air raids and the Great plague In the intervening days, the worst riots between Hindus and Muslims ever remembered in India broke out. What had once been violent, but almost theatrical encounters between politicised militias and activists, had burst their limits and had become targeted attacks on innocent civilians, including women, children and the elderly.
Although there had been riots in Calcutta in the past, the violence of August 1946 was distinctive in its scale and intensity. Vastly different social groups and sections of the city amassed along religious lines. Jinnah's call for a day of direct action on which a complete hartal would be utilized to demonstrate support for Pakistan undoubtedly triggered the violence. Jinnah ratcheted, the oratory, speaking of Congress as a 'Fascist Grand Council'. The day of direct action was clearly a strategic manoeuvre. Jinnah needed to strength his own hand of Cartesian, the unfolding dispute over the membership of the interim government which was taking place in New Delhi, and to show just how ardent the demand for Muslims representation really was. Jinnah called on his followers 'to conduct' themselves peacefully and in a 'disciplined manner' although his own usually precise and legalistic prose was vague enough to allow for violent reinterpretation.
A few days before Direct Action Day, the Calcutta district League set out its own plans; there would be a complete strike of Muslims workers in shops and factories, then numerous processions accompanied by musical bands and drums would converge from all over greater Calcutta— from Howrah, Hooghly, Matiaburz and elsewhere — ending in a mass rally. Leaguers were told to go out to the mosques,where they should tell people about the plans, hand out pamphlets and say special prayers for the freedom of m India, the Islamic world and the peoples of India and the east in general. Older networks of mullahs, mosques and pires were put to work, to spread the call for Direct Action in Bengal.
On the morning of 16 August, League supporters opened their Newspapers to find large printed advertisements inside them:
Today is Direct Action Day
Today Muslims of India dedicate their lives and all they possess to the cause of freedom
Today let every Muslim swear in the name of Allah to resist aggression
Direct Action is now their only course
Because they offered peace but they were betrayed
They claimed Liberty but were offered Thraldom
Now Might alone can secure the Right
What 'Direct Action' meant, though, was wide open to speculation and distortion. During the build—up, handbills and fly posters using religious language urged Muslims to act and linked the earliest Muslims with the contemporary situation announcing that, in this holy month of Ramzan, Mecca was conquered from the infidels and in this month again a Jehad for the establishment of Pakistan has been declared. This kind of Islamic populism drew on older myths and stories, reworking history and have the Mayor of Calcutta himself (a Muslim) commanded. 'We Muslims have had the crown and have ruled. Do not lose heart, be ready and take swords. Oh Kafir Your doom is not far and the greater massacre will come."
Author: Yasmin Khan - An excerpt from his book, "The Great Partition : The Making of India and Pakistan"
Source: Secularism Combat 2009 December
(In order to terrorise the opponents of partition of India and creation of the Islamic state of Pakistan, the Muslim League lead by Mohammed Ali Jinnah gave a call to Muslims of India to take to "Direct Action" from the 16th of August 1946. On that one day in the Muslim League-ruled state of undivided Bengal, in Calcutta, its capital, 10,000 Hindus were slaughtered and then the communal civil war erupted. This frightened the Congress and Hindus led by it, to submit to the demand for division of this country. The Calcutta killings were the first state-sponsored pogrom in India. The killings of about 4000 Sikhs in Delhi, the capital of India in Oct-Nov 1984 is a comparable misdeed. What happened in the aftermath of the burning of Hindu pilgrims in rail bogies in Godhra, Gujarat pales into insignificance in comparison to the Calcutta and Delhi killings. We reproduce below an extract referring to the Calcutta killing from "The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan" by the historian Yasmin Khan.)
"The streets of Calcutta were verily empty on the morning of 16 August 1946. The Muslim League provincial government had called a public holiday to mark Direct Action Day. Three days later at least 4,000 of Calcutta's residents lay dead and over 10,000 were injured. The streets were deserted once again. Now the scene was one of carnage, buildings reduced to rubble, rubbish uncollected from the streets, telephone and power lines severed. Schools, courts, mills and shops stayed closed. A British official groped for an analogy, describing the landscape as across between the worst of London air raids and the Great plague In the intervening days, the worst riots between Hindus and Muslims ever remembered in India broke out. What had once been violent, but almost theatrical encounters between politicised militias and activists, had burst their limits and had become targeted attacks on innocent civilians, including women, children and the elderly.
Although there had been riots in Calcutta in the past, the violence of August 1946 was distinctive in its scale and intensity. Vastly different social groups and sections of the city amassed along religious lines. Jinnah's call for a day of direct action on which a complete hartal would be utilized to demonstrate support for Pakistan undoubtedly triggered the violence. Jinnah ratcheted, the oratory, speaking of Congress as a 'Fascist Grand Council'. The day of direct action was clearly a strategic manoeuvre. Jinnah needed to strength his own hand of Cartesian, the unfolding dispute over the membership of the interim government which was taking place in New Delhi, and to show just how ardent the demand for Muslims representation really was. Jinnah called on his followers 'to conduct' themselves peacefully and in a 'disciplined manner' although his own usually precise and legalistic prose was vague enough to allow for violent reinterpretation.
A few days before Direct Action Day, the Calcutta district League set out its own plans; there would be a complete strike of Muslims workers in shops and factories, then numerous processions accompanied by musical bands and drums would converge from all over greater Calcutta— from Howrah, Hooghly, Matiaburz and elsewhere — ending in a mass rally. Leaguers were told to go out to the mosques,where they should tell people about the plans, hand out pamphlets and say special prayers for the freedom of m India, the Islamic world and the peoples of India and the east in general. Older networks of mullahs, mosques and pires were put to work, to spread the call for Direct Action in Bengal.
On the morning of 16 August, League supporters opened their Newspapers to find large printed advertisements inside them:
Today is Direct Action Day
Today Muslims of India dedicate their lives and all they possess to the cause of freedom
Today let every Muslim swear in the name of Allah to resist aggression
Direct Action is now their only course
Because they offered peace but they were betrayed
They claimed Liberty but were offered Thraldom
Now Might alone can secure the Right
What 'Direct Action' meant, though, was wide open to speculation and distortion. During the build—up, handbills and fly posters using religious language urged Muslims to act and linked the earliest Muslims with the contemporary situation announcing that, in this holy month of Ramzan, Mecca was conquered from the infidels and in this month again a Jehad for the establishment of Pakistan has been declared. This kind of Islamic populism drew on older myths and stories, reworking history and have the Mayor of Calcutta himself (a Muslim) commanded. 'We Muslims have had the crown and have ruled. Do not lose heart, be ready and take swords. Oh Kafir Your doom is not far and the greater massacre will come."
Author: Yasmin Khan - An excerpt from his book, "The Great Partition : The Making of India and Pakistan"
Source: Secularism Combat 2009 December
For more interesting articles, please visit the following websites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
Meaning of Freedom of Religion
The Meaning of Freedom of Religion - Proselytization : A Challenge to Freedom and Peace - by Swami Nirliptananda
1. Conversion : a false concept
Freedom is an essential characteristic of Hinduism. Every Hindu has a freedom of choice and freedom to worship. This is implied by the concept of “Ishta�? (chosen deity). No one has the right to interfere, condemn, or impose his own beliefs on others. That is the general outlook of the Indogenic religions. That is why there is hardly any conflict among them.
But the proselytising religions have a history of religious wars because the followers of each try to impose their own system of beliefs on the others. The whole idea of conversion is based on a false premise. It is based on the perception that if there were only one religion there would be harmony and peace in the world. Apart from the proselytising creeds there are many freethinkers who hold a similar view, particularly in India. Such a viewpoint still persists in spite of glaring facts about interreligious violence that one witnesses every day. In fact, inter-religious and sectarian violence is one of the basic threats to harmony and peace today. In view of the circumstances that now prevail we have got to look seriously at any article of faith that can be used to incite people to hate, to denigrate or to create situations that can lead to conflict. Since the declaration of the United Nations’ bill of the freedom to convert, the world has changed immensely. Our world has become like a global village. There are large numbers of multi-faith organisations among the civilised nations which believe in the principle of mutual coexistence.
With the changed circumstances presently, new laws are enacted to control those who take advantage of the old system to commit violence. Similarly new laws are needed to regulate the conduct of those who believe that they have a fundamental right to convert and dominate over others. It is one of the last vestiges of imperialistic rifle that still remains. The idea of “global village�? is to adopt values of universal significance, values that promote unity and harmony and not values that influence divisions and conflicts.
In the view of this, we are of the opinion that the United Nations’ declaration of the freedom to convert has overlived its existence since it favours a concept that is linked with conflicts and wars. Our position is that a bill be passed to the effect that label conversion as a threat to peace and is dangerous to harmonious existence in the modern civilisation that is armed with powerful weapons of destruction. A fair proposal would be that “religious activity in any form should not be done with a motive to convert. If someone is satisfied that by adopting another religion in which he/she would find better spiritual satisfaction, then every one should respect that choice�?. Such a position would get rid of distrust and create an atmosphere of harmony and peace among religions.
The violence in most countries is connected with the proselytising religions. We can take the Middle East, Indonesia, Philippines, Bosnia, Russia, China, ‘Kashmir and Afghanistan, etc., as examples. But when we look at the Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism in India and Taoism in China there is relatively peaceful coexistence among them because they believe in certain principles that are of universal application. Both peace and violence are inherent in human nature. One is achieved through knowledge and self-control and the other because of ignorance.
2. Lifeline
It appears that conversion is the lifeline of the proselytising creeds and means such as freedom of speech, logic, dialogue and discussions to discover the truth which can lead to peace are not encouraged. Such principles are replaced by dogmas. In England for example the number of people going to church has drastically declined and there were many redundant Churches at one time that had been converted to other usages. This decline may be true also in other countries.
Hence various means are adopted to get hold of people even by tempting them which is contrary to their own doctrines. If the charity work they provide is properly scrutinised it will reval that the motive is not compassion but to recruit people to fill the vacuum which otherwise the church would not be able to function.
3. Charity without compassion
The Churches’ claim to be charitable cannot be sustained because whatever they do is done for the sake of some favour, namely to convert. A rich Charity in Jamshedpur (Bihar) used to run a 44-bed hospital. The beds were about two feet wide with a metal base on which was an inch thick mattress. To lie on such a bed must have been torturous. But beggars are not choosers and the poor had no alternative. If charitable work is not motivated by compassion, what else could be the reason?
The Bharat Sevashram Sangha started their leprosy project in the same area in a hospital made of thatched roof and mud walls. But the three feet wide beds with three inches thick mattresses which they provided were quite comfortable. Later, when they could afford, the Sangha established proper hospitals and the Charity’s hospital was handed over to the Sangha. It is an indication that conversion happens only because of material needs. To take advantage of another’s difficult situation cannot be called charitable. The objective of religion is to transform the exploitative instinct of man into the spirit of sharing and caring.
4. Temptation
To maintain their existences, some religions use conversion as a sort of commercial trade to get hold of people at any cost. It is like another kind of slave trade practised in a more subtle form. I was once targeted in the 1960s while in Britain and was offered a Parish church. I was told that I would be a good preacher. It was clearly a tempting offer but it was declined because of my understanding of both Hinduism and Christianity.
It can hardly be denied that temptation is one of the main approaches used to convert ignorant and poor people despite the fact that temptation is regarded as a cardinal sin. But, for the purpose of conversion everything seems to be excusable and religious ideals become perverted in the process. Families are divided, countries are divided, brothers and sisters fight with one another, and properties are looted; all these find support under the cover of conversion. Some of the countries in Africa and elsewhere still remain poor although their populations have been converted.
5. Conversion will not stop by pleading
Conversion cannot be stopped by pleading but by duplicating the services offered by the missionaries and educating the Hindus about the greatness of their culture. If the services offered by them are provided by the Hindus there will be no conversion. People only change their religion because there is no alternative service being provided.
During a recent discussion with one of those who believed in conversion I was made to understand that there were fundamentalists in Hinduism. I refuted her statement and pointed out that the people she called fundamentalists were reacting to conversion and if it was stopped the reactionaries would simply disappear. But I was told that conversion could not be stopped. My reply was that she was the fundamentalist because she thought that she had the fundamental right to convert others and they had no right to convert others and they had no right to resist.
6. proselytizers are sensitive to conversion from their own religion
I know of a lady who embraced Hinduism and those who belonged to her former faith tried to get her back into their fold but she refused. Finally, twelve of them went to argue and convince her that it was wrong for her to leave her religion. They are very sensitive to conversion from their religion but do not think that others feel the same.
7. Conclusion
Compare the above with the tolerant Hindu with a universal outlook and one gets the message. They are like pawns in the hands of the proselytising creeds whose hidden agenda and motives are concealed under the cloak of charity. The question one may ask is: how can one reconcile the multicultural spirit with conversion? The fact is that proselytizers often use the multi-cultural organisations and platforms to promote themselves. Hindus who are by nature multicultural are easily taken in by the pretensions of the proselytising religions. As I mentioned earlier, conversion is so central to the proselytising creeds that it is impossible for them to renounce it without dire consequences. Therefore, those belonging to the non-proselytising religions will have to work out their own strategies to confront them.
(A talk given at the World Congress for the preservation of Religious Diversity held In New Delhi, India, from Nov 15th to 17th 2001)
Author: Swami Nirliptananda
Source: Secularism Combat 2009 December
For more interesting articles, please visit the following websites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
1. Conversion : a false concept
Freedom is an essential characteristic of Hinduism. Every Hindu has a freedom of choice and freedom to worship. This is implied by the concept of “Ishta�? (chosen deity). No one has the right to interfere, condemn, or impose his own beliefs on others. That is the general outlook of the Indogenic religions. That is why there is hardly any conflict among them.
But the proselytising religions have a history of religious wars because the followers of each try to impose their own system of beliefs on the others. The whole idea of conversion is based on a false premise. It is based on the perception that if there were only one religion there would be harmony and peace in the world. Apart from the proselytising creeds there are many freethinkers who hold a similar view, particularly in India. Such a viewpoint still persists in spite of glaring facts about interreligious violence that one witnesses every day. In fact, inter-religious and sectarian violence is one of the basic threats to harmony and peace today. In view of the circumstances that now prevail we have got to look seriously at any article of faith that can be used to incite people to hate, to denigrate or to create situations that can lead to conflict. Since the declaration of the United Nations’ bill of the freedom to convert, the world has changed immensely. Our world has become like a global village. There are large numbers of multi-faith organisations among the civilised nations which believe in the principle of mutual coexistence.
With the changed circumstances presently, new laws are enacted to control those who take advantage of the old system to commit violence. Similarly new laws are needed to regulate the conduct of those who believe that they have a fundamental right to convert and dominate over others. It is one of the last vestiges of imperialistic rifle that still remains. The idea of “global village�? is to adopt values of universal significance, values that promote unity and harmony and not values that influence divisions and conflicts.
In the view of this, we are of the opinion that the United Nations’ declaration of the freedom to convert has overlived its existence since it favours a concept that is linked with conflicts and wars. Our position is that a bill be passed to the effect that label conversion as a threat to peace and is dangerous to harmonious existence in the modern civilisation that is armed with powerful weapons of destruction. A fair proposal would be that “religious activity in any form should not be done with a motive to convert. If someone is satisfied that by adopting another religion in which he/she would find better spiritual satisfaction, then every one should respect that choice�?. Such a position would get rid of distrust and create an atmosphere of harmony and peace among religions.
The violence in most countries is connected with the proselytising religions. We can take the Middle East, Indonesia, Philippines, Bosnia, Russia, China, ‘Kashmir and Afghanistan, etc., as examples. But when we look at the Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism in India and Taoism in China there is relatively peaceful coexistence among them because they believe in certain principles that are of universal application. Both peace and violence are inherent in human nature. One is achieved through knowledge and self-control and the other because of ignorance.
2. Lifeline
It appears that conversion is the lifeline of the proselytising creeds and means such as freedom of speech, logic, dialogue and discussions to discover the truth which can lead to peace are not encouraged. Such principles are replaced by dogmas. In England for example the number of people going to church has drastically declined and there were many redundant Churches at one time that had been converted to other usages. This decline may be true also in other countries.
Hence various means are adopted to get hold of people even by tempting them which is contrary to their own doctrines. If the charity work they provide is properly scrutinised it will reval that the motive is not compassion but to recruit people to fill the vacuum which otherwise the church would not be able to function.
3. Charity without compassion
The Churches’ claim to be charitable cannot be sustained because whatever they do is done for the sake of some favour, namely to convert. A rich Charity in Jamshedpur (Bihar) used to run a 44-bed hospital. The beds were about two feet wide with a metal base on which was an inch thick mattress. To lie on such a bed must have been torturous. But beggars are not choosers and the poor had no alternative. If charitable work is not motivated by compassion, what else could be the reason?
The Bharat Sevashram Sangha started their leprosy project in the same area in a hospital made of thatched roof and mud walls. But the three feet wide beds with three inches thick mattresses which they provided were quite comfortable. Later, when they could afford, the Sangha established proper hospitals and the Charity’s hospital was handed over to the Sangha. It is an indication that conversion happens only because of material needs. To take advantage of another’s difficult situation cannot be called charitable. The objective of religion is to transform the exploitative instinct of man into the spirit of sharing and caring.
4. Temptation
To maintain their existences, some religions use conversion as a sort of commercial trade to get hold of people at any cost. It is like another kind of slave trade practised in a more subtle form. I was once targeted in the 1960s while in Britain and was offered a Parish church. I was told that I would be a good preacher. It was clearly a tempting offer but it was declined because of my understanding of both Hinduism and Christianity.
It can hardly be denied that temptation is one of the main approaches used to convert ignorant and poor people despite the fact that temptation is regarded as a cardinal sin. But, for the purpose of conversion everything seems to be excusable and religious ideals become perverted in the process. Families are divided, countries are divided, brothers and sisters fight with one another, and properties are looted; all these find support under the cover of conversion. Some of the countries in Africa and elsewhere still remain poor although their populations have been converted.
5. Conversion will not stop by pleading
Conversion cannot be stopped by pleading but by duplicating the services offered by the missionaries and educating the Hindus about the greatness of their culture. If the services offered by them are provided by the Hindus there will be no conversion. People only change their religion because there is no alternative service being provided.
During a recent discussion with one of those who believed in conversion I was made to understand that there were fundamentalists in Hinduism. I refuted her statement and pointed out that the people she called fundamentalists were reacting to conversion and if it was stopped the reactionaries would simply disappear. But I was told that conversion could not be stopped. My reply was that she was the fundamentalist because she thought that she had the fundamental right to convert others and they had no right to convert others and they had no right to resist.
6. proselytizers are sensitive to conversion from their own religion
I know of a lady who embraced Hinduism and those who belonged to her former faith tried to get her back into their fold but she refused. Finally, twelve of them went to argue and convince her that it was wrong for her to leave her religion. They are very sensitive to conversion from their religion but do not think that others feel the same.
7. Conclusion
Compare the above with the tolerant Hindu with a universal outlook and one gets the message. They are like pawns in the hands of the proselytising creeds whose hidden agenda and motives are concealed under the cloak of charity. The question one may ask is: how can one reconcile the multicultural spirit with conversion? The fact is that proselytizers often use the multi-cultural organisations and platforms to promote themselves. Hindus who are by nature multicultural are easily taken in by the pretensions of the proselytising religions. As I mentioned earlier, conversion is so central to the proselytising creeds that it is impossible for them to renounce it without dire consequences. Therefore, those belonging to the non-proselytising religions will have to work out their own strategies to confront them.
(A talk given at the World Congress for the preservation of Religious Diversity held In New Delhi, India, from Nov 15th to 17th 2001)
Author: Swami Nirliptananda
Source: Secularism Combat 2009 December
For more interesting articles, please visit the following websites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
Monday, November 9, 2009
A Swayam Sevak replies to Javed Anand
(Reproduced below is a spirited
reply by a Swayam Sevak to
Javed Anand, co-editor of
Communalism Combat (a compound
name compromising of Muslim and
Hindu to flaunt secularism). This
Javed Anand married Teesta
Setalvad a Hindu daughter of a
famous attorney. She has not
changed her name to that of a
Muslim to proclaim true
“secularism”. This couple have a
poisonous journal called
“Communalism Combat”. It is to
combat this poison that we have
started the “Secularism” Combat”.)
Respected Mr Javedji,
We are happy to read your article
cum application with your intent to
join the RSS.
On behalf of RSS I invite you to
our nearest Shakha. Please let us
know if you find difficulty in finding
one. We would be very happy to
have you there as one among us.
But Sir, I have some comments on
the points raised by you in the
article.
As a Swayamsevak and also as
a modern Hindu, I do not judge a
person by his / her ancestry; religion,
race or social background. We have
no tradition of ‘background
checking’ in our Shakha, leave alone
wanting to speculate about
somebody’s social, religious or racial
backgrounds. But since you have
speculated about your ancestry,
based on the Islamist version of
Indian history only to make a point,
I think there should be the objective
version of history too that should be
put across.
You speculate that you may be
a descendent of an untouchable who
was seduced out of Hinduism by the
“appeal” of Islam. I do not deny you
the prerogative to your imagined
past. I accept its probability,
however small. But an objective
reading of history would tell you that
you and I have greater chance of
being the descendents of Dhimmis
or Hindu slaves. Your ancestors
may not have been among the tens
of thousands of Hindu salves who
used to be transported naked in the
torturous winters of the ‘Hindu Kush’
mountains; for very few of them
would even have survived to be sold
as slaves in Afghanistan and Persia.
But there are better chances that
you could find your lineage in the
Dhimmis or slaves somewhere
geographically nearer; in the
empires of one of the Sultans or
Nawabs.
If your forefathers were lucky
enough they could also have been
from rich princely families, many of
whom chose to convert to Islam so
that they could save themselves and
their loved ones, from the barbaric
destruction at the hands of
Aurangzeb and his likes. Or they
could have been less lucky Hindu
traders, farmers, artisans or priests,
who were the victims of plunder, loot
and torture and were converted at
the point of sword or by constant
persecution and subjection to
‘Dhimmitude’ and slavery. They
could also have been courageous
Hindu soldiers and generals who
lost fighting bravely and whose
women folk were forced into the
Harems of the Islamic rulers and
generals. The probabilities are too
many. Let me stop at that.
Sir, as an Islamist, you may have
problems accepting that the Islamist
rulers ever imposed ‘Zejiya’
(religious tax on non Muslims) or
that Hindus (Jains, Sikhs,
Buddhists and all pagans of India
included) were regarded as
‘Dhimmis’ and condemned to a life
of slavery or for that matter, the fact
that the Islamic invasion of India was
one of the bloodiest in the history of
mankind. But never mind, you can
always make a new beginning by
liberating yourself of your past
biases. I am hopeful that you would
open your eyes to the Islamic
records of the Hindu Holocaust; the
tales of plunder and rape, of
destruction and of torture
unapologetically recorded by the
court historians of these “egalitarian”
Islamist rulers. You say Sir, that you
feel “insecure”. That is probably
because you own up the historical
guilt for the Hindu holocaust by
Islamists which you need not. You
need not see yourself and other
Muslims as the owners of the bloody
legacy of the Islamists but as the
descendants of the innocent Hindus
who were victims of it. Sir, who else,
other than your Dhimmi brothers
and sisters, could sympathize with
you and understand your mental
miscegenation of “Mandir” and
“Masjid”? Sir, it is your choice to
accept or to deny your Dhimmi
ancestry and go for an ideologically
convinient ‘untouchable- convert’
ancestry. But that would hardly be
of any consequence in your joining
the RSS. Sir, we belive in the future
and not in the past. You an
untouchable- convert and I a Dhimmi
slave, together we can make a great
new beginning.
You would also be very happy to
know Sir, that we Hindus, unlike
Indian Muslims, have come a long
way since the medieval times. We
can take you right inside the temple,
if you wish, for your intended “ghar
vapsi” where you can offer pooja and
aarti possibly guided by a temple
priest whose known ancestry, unlike
yours which is speculative, could
run back to an “untouchable”. You
may also want to bring along your
wife Teestaji, who as a woman can’t
even dream of entering a Mosque.
What a liberation wouldn’t it be for
a woman who is still considered
“untouchable” and “impure” to enter
a Mosque?
Sir. you are welcome to join us.
Hindus, who have no problems
accepting my being an atheist, have
never had any problems with your
Namaz and Roza. But Sir, my many
friends outside Sangh tell me that
we RSS people are very naïve and
that we should not fall prey to the
designs of somebody who has
fudged records, and concocted
“macabre of tales” (as the leaked
SIT report puts it) of riot cases, to
defame, denigrate and attack
innocent and unsuspecting Hindus.
They tell me Sir, that there are other
well meaning Muslims whom we
could talk to. But never mind Sir,
we should have no problems,
especially if we know that you have
changed since. It would be great, if
you could come out in the open and
let the world know the truth about
the concocted stories of riots and
also apologize for being untruthful. I
know, that would be very difficult. But
I wish ‘Allah’ gives you and your wife
all the courage you need to liberate
yourself from a life of lies.
Sir, also since you have claimed
earlier to have worked as a human
rights activist, I am hopeful that you
and your wife would open your eyes
to the plight of poor Hindu fishermen
who were brutally massacred by
armed Muslim gangs on the beach
of Marad not very long ago, or the
tribals belonging to the Jatiya tribe
in Tripura who are facing genocide
at the hands of Church supported
insurgents, or the unsuspecting
Hindu and Christian girls who are
being lured by Jehadi boys in
Kerala, and then being sold in Arab
countries as prostitutes and slaves
or the Kashmiri Pandits whose lives
are but all devastated and to all the
Hindus who live a life of religious
persecution, insecurity and are
victims of constant aggression.
I also wish that ‘Allah’ gives you
the courage that he has given to
great Muslim intellectuals like ‘Ibn
Warraq’, ‘Anwar Sheikh’ and ‘Ali
Sina’ so that you too can help
liberate yourself and the Muslim
community from dogmatism and
fanaticism and open their minds to
modern science and objective
thinking. That, I believe is the only
solution to your mental
miscegenation and your
“insecurity”.
Looking forward to your
participation in one of our Shakhas.
Best regards to you and to
Teestaji,
Yours affectionately
Swayamsevak
For more interesting articles, please visit the following websites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
reply by a Swayam Sevak to
Javed Anand, co-editor of
Communalism Combat (a compound
name compromising of Muslim and
Hindu to flaunt secularism). This
Javed Anand married Teesta
Setalvad a Hindu daughter of a
famous attorney. She has not
changed her name to that of a
Muslim to proclaim true
“secularism”. This couple have a
poisonous journal called
“Communalism Combat”. It is to
combat this poison that we have
started the “Secularism” Combat”.)
Respected Mr Javedji,
We are happy to read your article
cum application with your intent to
join the RSS.
On behalf of RSS I invite you to
our nearest Shakha. Please let us
know if you find difficulty in finding
one. We would be very happy to
have you there as one among us.
But Sir, I have some comments on
the points raised by you in the
article.
As a Swayamsevak and also as
a modern Hindu, I do not judge a
person by his / her ancestry; religion,
race or social background. We have
no tradition of ‘background
checking’ in our Shakha, leave alone
wanting to speculate about
somebody’s social, religious or racial
backgrounds. But since you have
speculated about your ancestry,
based on the Islamist version of
Indian history only to make a point,
I think there should be the objective
version of history too that should be
put across.
You speculate that you may be
a descendent of an untouchable who
was seduced out of Hinduism by the
“appeal” of Islam. I do not deny you
the prerogative to your imagined
past. I accept its probability,
however small. But an objective
reading of history would tell you that
you and I have greater chance of
being the descendents of Dhimmis
or Hindu slaves. Your ancestors
may not have been among the tens
of thousands of Hindu salves who
used to be transported naked in the
torturous winters of the ‘Hindu Kush’
mountains; for very few of them
would even have survived to be sold
as slaves in Afghanistan and Persia.
But there are better chances that
you could find your lineage in the
Dhimmis or slaves somewhere
geographically nearer; in the
empires of one of the Sultans or
Nawabs.
If your forefathers were lucky
enough they could also have been
from rich princely families, many of
whom chose to convert to Islam so
that they could save themselves and
their loved ones, from the barbaric
destruction at the hands of
Aurangzeb and his likes. Or they
could have been less lucky Hindu
traders, farmers, artisans or priests,
who were the victims of plunder, loot
and torture and were converted at
the point of sword or by constant
persecution and subjection to
‘Dhimmitude’ and slavery. They
could also have been courageous
Hindu soldiers and generals who
lost fighting bravely and whose
women folk were forced into the
Harems of the Islamic rulers and
generals. The probabilities are too
many. Let me stop at that.
Sir, as an Islamist, you may have
problems accepting that the Islamist
rulers ever imposed ‘Zejiya’
(religious tax on non Muslims) or
that Hindus (Jains, Sikhs,
Buddhists and all pagans of India
included) were regarded as
‘Dhimmis’ and condemned to a life
of slavery or for that matter, the fact
that the Islamic invasion of India was
one of the bloodiest in the history of
mankind. But never mind, you can
always make a new beginning by
liberating yourself of your past
biases. I am hopeful that you would
open your eyes to the Islamic
records of the Hindu Holocaust; the
tales of plunder and rape, of
destruction and of torture
unapologetically recorded by the
court historians of these “egalitarian”
Islamist rulers. You say Sir, that you
feel “insecure”. That is probably
because you own up the historical
guilt for the Hindu holocaust by
Islamists which you need not. You
need not see yourself and other
Muslims as the owners of the bloody
legacy of the Islamists but as the
descendants of the innocent Hindus
who were victims of it. Sir, who else,
other than your Dhimmi brothers
and sisters, could sympathize with
you and understand your mental
miscegenation of “Mandir” and
“Masjid”? Sir, it is your choice to
accept or to deny your Dhimmi
ancestry and go for an ideologically
convinient ‘untouchable- convert’
ancestry. But that would hardly be
of any consequence in your joining
the RSS. Sir, we belive in the future
and not in the past. You an
untouchable- convert and I a Dhimmi
slave, together we can make a great
new beginning.
You would also be very happy to
know Sir, that we Hindus, unlike
Indian Muslims, have come a long
way since the medieval times. We
can take you right inside the temple,
if you wish, for your intended “ghar
vapsi” where you can offer pooja and
aarti possibly guided by a temple
priest whose known ancestry, unlike
yours which is speculative, could
run back to an “untouchable”. You
may also want to bring along your
wife Teestaji, who as a woman can’t
even dream of entering a Mosque.
What a liberation wouldn’t it be for
a woman who is still considered
“untouchable” and “impure” to enter
a Mosque?
Sir. you are welcome to join us.
Hindus, who have no problems
accepting my being an atheist, have
never had any problems with your
Namaz and Roza. But Sir, my many
friends outside Sangh tell me that
we RSS people are very naïve and
that we should not fall prey to the
designs of somebody who has
fudged records, and concocted
“macabre of tales” (as the leaked
SIT report puts it) of riot cases, to
defame, denigrate and attack
innocent and unsuspecting Hindus.
They tell me Sir, that there are other
well meaning Muslims whom we
could talk to. But never mind Sir,
we should have no problems,
especially if we know that you have
changed since. It would be great, if
you could come out in the open and
let the world know the truth about
the concocted stories of riots and
also apologize for being untruthful. I
know, that would be very difficult. But
I wish ‘Allah’ gives you and your wife
all the courage you need to liberate
yourself from a life of lies.
Sir, also since you have claimed
earlier to have worked as a human
rights activist, I am hopeful that you
and your wife would open your eyes
to the plight of poor Hindu fishermen
who were brutally massacred by
armed Muslim gangs on the beach
of Marad not very long ago, or the
tribals belonging to the Jatiya tribe
in Tripura who are facing genocide
at the hands of Church supported
insurgents, or the unsuspecting
Hindu and Christian girls who are
being lured by Jehadi boys in
Kerala, and then being sold in Arab
countries as prostitutes and slaves
or the Kashmiri Pandits whose lives
are but all devastated and to all the
Hindus who live a life of religious
persecution, insecurity and are
victims of constant aggression.
I also wish that ‘Allah’ gives you
the courage that he has given to
great Muslim intellectuals like ‘Ibn
Warraq’, ‘Anwar Sheikh’ and ‘Ali
Sina’ so that you too can help
liberate yourself and the Muslim
community from dogmatism and
fanaticism and open their minds to
modern science and objective
thinking. That, I believe is the only
solution to your mental
miscegenation and your
“insecurity”.
Looking forward to your
participation in one of our Shakhas.
Best regards to you and to
Teestaji,
Yours affectionately
Swayamsevak
For more interesting articles, please visit the following websites:
(1) http://www.votebankpolitics.com
(2) http://www.drthchowdary.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
