Tackling Islamic Extremism in India - 6

[archan]

Shiv, you propose a political approach: that of taking away the opponent's own weapon and using it without giving them a chance to do so. So if Hindus complain about the injustice met out to them and show the mosque over the temple as a proof, someone may come out and say "well, it is your country, you are in a majority, why do you need to complain? just go ahead and take it if you feel it is rightfully yours. You are in the majority, what can anyone do to you? why sit and complain like dhimmis?" then..

[shiv]

Shiv, you propose a political approach: that of taking away the opponent's own weapon and using it without giving them a chance to do so. So if Hindus complain about the injustice met out to them and show the mosque over the temple as a proof, someone may come out and say "well, it is your country, you are in a majority, why do you need to complain? just go ahead and take it if you feel it is rightfully yours. You are in the majority, what can anyone do to you? why sit and complain like dhimmis?" then..

That is a very Hindu statement. But..

a) If what you suggest is said, Hindus take it and say "You asked us to do that. We are taking what is ours and thank you for not standing in the way"

b) if history is not acknowledged as it should be - it constitutes continuing disregard for Hindu sentiment despite patent Hindu fairness and sense of justice.

Play the same political Catch 22 that Islamists are very good at playing.

[shiv]

.

a) If what you suggest is said, Hindus take it and say "You asked us to do that. We are taking what is ours and thank you for not standing in the way"

I have made a very simplistic one sentence summary of what should be done

In reality such a situation can be milked for maximum political advantage - not just for Hindus but for everyone in India.

This is exactly what we should be looking for.

[archan]

Islamists would never say that. What I meant was if a third party says that, or if some Hindus say that "why bother complaining? lets just go ahead and take what was ours, forcibly. To hell with the process. Why do you worry about being on the correct path? whom are you trying to please?".

[svinayak]

But this has nothing to do with Advani or rubble.
This is about millions of believers who want to revive what their ancestors built for divine prayers thousands of years ago. Nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.

Then why is everyone getting caught up in the argument about nature of rubble?

The rubble became the object of the argument because the others wanted it that way. Just like you bring LKA when he is not relevant. This reducing the claim to silly ruble argument and questioning the historicity of Lord Rama is part of the game which the masses are diverted into.

[surinder]

In India, Hindus have asked for their "five villages", only to be mocked, refused and laughed at.

Just to belabor the striking parallels a bit more:

Out of thousands of temples destroyed/desecrated, return of only three temples was demanded ; Ayodhya (Rama-janmabhumi), Mathura (Krishna janmabhumi) and Kashi (Shiva-Vishvanath).

If there is ever a Mahabharata-2.0 then Vyasa2.0 may end up writing, "And they asked for only three temples, but were denied and mocked at!".

If wishes were horses, beggars would be riders.

Making big claims without the ability to back them is not very convincing.

[Sanku]

Politically the thing to do is to claim injustice and grievance without giving the other person a chance to do the same thing back to you.

Surround the mosque, camp outside and demand evacuation of the site and extensive archeological digs. Start building a temple nearby. Get maximum political exposure of your good intentions without attracting criticism as being ill intended.
.

Shiv with all due respects I see a lot of dissonance here;

First and foremost; on one hand you say (IMVHO correctly) that it is not about a temple its about the land; the whole of India. At the same time you say that the if the structure wasn't broken down archaeological digs could be performed to see the temple. Huh

Either you care for the temple or not; if you don't particularly doesn't matter if the Mosque was destroyed before of after; and if you do; well its a good thing to have the mosque gone right?

Secondly -- you say Hindus score self goal by trying to offer proof and take a high moral ground and all that. At the same time the entire drama of beating the drums around the structure and playing the hurt party is supposed.

The only way I can make sense of this is to assume that you are advocating (as you say) the same game of playing with the forked tongue that Islamists do.

However there are two catches here -- the first is that this forked tongue thingy is adharmic (though resorted to in severe cases) and Hindus are naturally not good at this. Islamistics will be better at the game as long as Hinduism is still Hinduism and does not become a Islam mirror image.

What you will have then is eternal chai-biskoot around the structure and thats it. Time out. After a while the whole thing will become a Kashmir like dispute; no one would really care including Hindus. After all its just one temple; there are still many temples in Ayodhya where the religion is alive and kicking well; what will be so special around the "NEW" temple outside the old one?

Secondly -- Who exactly are you trying to convince boss? So if Hindus "sound like" Islamists; and it would not have happened if the temple was not broken? Big Fish!!

What exactly do Islamists lose by being aggressive and violent and uncouth etc? Whose certificate of sophistication do they seek? Why the external validation?

If the Yindoo stood on his head even then some one will come by and say; "oh he is just mimicking the Islamist who stands straight cant do it right though"

Those who are not convinced of the Hindu cause are not so because of any proof or lack thereof; trying to play the sophisticated game has its limit at the end.

Its fine if its a mask for a hard line stance with real power of destruction behind it with the power demonstrated. Your analysis is flawed because all it talks of is the reasonable face? Where is the force?

Dinkar:-

"Sah poocho to shar mein heen basti hai shakti vinaya kee;
sandhi vachan sampojya usi ka jisme shakti vijaya kee;
shama daya ko tabhi poojta jag hai;
bal a darp jamgata uske peeche jab jagmag hai."

[shiv]

The only way I can make sense of this is to assume that you are advocating (as you say) the same game of playing with the forked tongue that Islamists do.

However there are two catches here -- the first is that this forked tongue thingy is adharmic (though resorted to in severe cases) and Hindus are naturally not good at this. Islamistics will be better at the game as long as Hinduism is still Hinduism and does not become a Islam mirror image.

If you notice - the main opposition is not from Muslims but from Hindus who consider the demolition adharmic.

Unless you play politics Hindus are not going to fall for this dharma-adharma thing. People reach dharma decisions on their own and do not fall for prompting unless that are convinced. On this forum any voicing of any Hindu opinion different from one that makes Hindus feel macho and strong is beaten down. That is fine for this forum - but it remains chai-biskoot for India - without support from the vast mass of Hindus. Winning them over will be the key.

I suspect that people who advocate violent, forceful action do not realise how much opposition there is among Hindus for that sort of violent action. call it dhimmitude or whatever - but that is what we have to work with.

What I feel needs to be done of course need not be followed, and probably will not be followed. But I predict that all this alternative action business too is also chai biskoot that is as laid back as the action in Ayodhya has been for 14 years.

Just my view. I don't believe things will work that way and will keep trying to break down delusions on thisforum as and when my delusion meter sounds.

[Sanku]

That is fine for this forum - but it remains chai-biskoot for India - without support from the vast mass of Hindus. Winning them over will be the key.

Fair enough; I agree that there is reluctance to violence; but I will go further; there is actually a reluctance to looking at truth in the eye if what it means that a hard line is necessary.

So while your premises are correct; I think we will not go anywhere in trying to open the eyes through the light of truth. Because you cant wake up those who are pretending to be asleep.

Thats why I challenged parts in your post -- we on the forum should brainstorm of ways in which we can change the mindset -- and I submit -- the truth will not help us there.

[shiv]

Hence the forked tongue Sanku.

[Sanku]

Hence the forked tongue Sanku.

I do see that; but my point is that we will need a force greater than that of discourse (true; forked or otherwise) for winning people over. I guess I was not clear about that part and it seemed that I am insisting on only the truth component of the discourse. A fundamental shift in how power is organized and its sources.

And no I don't have any ideas

[shiv]

Hindus are a huge force if you can make them follow you. The problem lies in doing that.

[archan]

Hindus are a huge force if you can make them follow you. The problem lies in doing that.

Maybe I am ignorant, but have honest been made (on a large scale) for the same?

[shiv]

Islamists would never say that. What I meant was if a third party says that, or if some Hindus say that "why bother complaining? lets just go ahead and take what was ours, forcibly. To hell with the process. Why do you worry about being on the correct path? whom are you trying to please?".

""why bother complaining? lets just go ahead and take what was ours, forcibly."

This is what the crowd did in Ayodhya in 1994.

It brought the BJP into power once.

It seems to me that there is a "average" mood in India. When an event occurs that shifts the focus to one side of the average, a whole lot of people shift sides to try and tilt the balance of mood to its old position.

This is probably to be expected, but as long as such swings in mood are gradually tending to veer in a direction that we want for Hindu concerns to be addressed things can be considered to be heading in the right direction. By saying this I do not necessarily mean a BJP government, but any combination of people that does the job. As members of a concerned Hindu population we would IMVHO be wrong to put all our eggs in one party basket. If that party makes an error the "correction towards mean" will kill that party's chances until the other party makes a mistake. That is no good. You need eggs in every basket, and for that you need to play the game just right.

Coming back to Ayodhya, the BJP gained prominence then, but because of general sloth and other bungling the "average/mean mood" was shifted towards what Indians considered more correct.

But Indians have moved on, as we have done. For all the lamentation about bad sociology in India, guess who are the only people who are adding to sociological literature in India?

If Hindus decide to take unilateral action like Babri Masjid repeats - the party that supports it will get some points and lose some. It will not become overwhelmingly popular. Indians are too cynical and suspicious of political parties to cheer wildly with joy if a party does that.

The way forward IMO is unlikely to involve unprovoked aggression. Aggression as a result of provocation is always likely - but the provocation comes first. In the case of Babri Masjid the provocation came so many centuries ago that there are too many fence sitters now. This may seem like a shame - but that is how the cookie crumbles. If one needs to actively make the cookie crumble differently it may involve not backing just one horse, but encouraging every horse towards your goal, feeding each horse with what he likes to see and hear.

Being in touch with the "pulse of India" is always a better bet than staying in touch with the pulse of BRF in this issue. And an assessment of the mood of Indians must be honest and dharmic - without ignoring the views of those you don't like and just looking at those whose views you like and saying "Ah - whole of India feels like I do"

[Sanku]

The way forward IMO is unlikely to involve unprovoked aggression.

I like the Chankian-ness in thinking here

But before we all give a nice burial to Babri by deciding whether the out come was good or bad. Let me recall what it did achieve

1) It showed to a lot of Hindus that the battle can be taken to enemy camp.
2) It showed to a lot of Dhimmi's that a lot of things that were quietly brushed under the carpet were not dead soot but smoldering embers which could set fire to the carpet. Revived the focus on the same.
3) It bought BJP into power once; at that time the only non anti Hindu party. It also lay the foundation of BJP/NDA power in lot of states. As of now 10 states are ruled by BJP how many were before?
4) It completely destroyed the "riot" as a power tool in hand of Islamists
5) It served to understand the constitutional gaps which allowed Islamism to flourish.
6) It forced a lot of non Sangh parivar parties to be less anti Hindu and thus lay more eggs in more baskets.

So was Ayodhya handled the best it could be? Nope I don't say that. But then nothing in the world is perfect.

If Ayodhya had happened in a different way would things be better? Perhaps - but perhaps not? Predicting the outcome of choices in a multi-dimensional world is always very difficult -- Just as no one predicted that the Mosque would actually come down. So I dont think that we should really worry that the right thing did not happen. Perhaps it did; we will only know much later.

The lessons from Ayodhya need be learnt and applied now to Kashi; Mathura et al. But forget those.. -- What the lessons of Ayodha need to be applied to now is the constitution of India.

[G Subramaniam]

Outlookindia.com

The minister will see you today." But there was a caveat, as always: Pranab could not come to Taslima in the hospital—how could he, in the full glare of the media?—she would have to meet him elsewhere.
...

When he spoke, it was in an unexpectedly official tone, and without looking her in the face. "I have come," Taslima heard him say in Bengali, "to tell you something." Pranabda wanted her to go to France to receive the Simone de Beauvoir prize from the French president. But, Taslima burst out, the prize has already been given, my friend, Christiane Besse in Paris, received it on my behalf.
...

Stop, listen to me," the minister cut her short

What he said she had heard before, first from CP and then from the mutual friend Pranabda had sent from Calcutta as an envoy: "You must go away for a few days. Don't worry about finances—the government will pay for your tickets and all expenses there. And if you want to travel


anywhere else in Europe, do so by all means. We'll be glad to pay for everything. You must go away, we'll bring you back after all the noise dies down."

From somewhere far away, Taslima dimly perceived that this was no longer her old friend. Doesn't he realise he could kill me in my current state of health with this bad news about leaving the country, her only home in the world? Where would she go now? She heard herself saying with a calmness she didn't feel: "I won't go to France, or anywhere else. Of course, once you refuse me the visa, I have no choice but to leave, but till then, I prefer to stay right here in Delhi."

Back and forth they went, the minister and the Bangla writer, for the next 45 minutes, she pleading that she had no home now anywhere but in India, that she'd continue to live quietly in Delhi until he could send her back to Calcutta as he promised.

And he trying to reason it out, pointing out that it would be easier for her to return to Calcutta if only she consented to go away for a few days, before her visa expires on February 17, when "they" would begin their shouting campaign to throw her out of the country.

He tried to reassure her: there was no question of her visa not being extended, that she could always come back, that her going away wouldn't last more than a few days or weeks, until the noise had died down, how she didn't understand the pressures on him as a politician, how he had always stood by her right to seek shelter in India, how it was the Indian tradition to give her shelter, and how surely she would come back soon, and directly to Calcutta this time.

Back and forth, back and forth, repeating themselves two or three times, while the man sitting besides Pranabda diligently noted everything down in a notebook. Until, suddenly, the minister looked at his watch and rose to go. "I'm honestly trying to help you," she heard him say in parting. "Take your time to decide when you want to leave, but it must be before February 16, when 'they' will start shouting to throw you out. If we can tell them that you have already left, it will be easier to bring you back."

[shiv]

One thing that occurs to me is that the behavior of the Indian population to "set right" perceived earlier wrongs falls exactly within the definition of Dharma as pointed out by ShauryaT I think.

With Dharma being derived from the root "dhr" meaning "to hold" or perhaps to preserve, the tendency of the Indian population is to hold or preserve the structure of society and try and set right any wrongs within what is possible.

Very often, this balancing is not fair to everyone; some people draw the short straw as society moves towards correction. Not only do we see this tendency in the very very Indian election related phrase "anti-incumbency" but we also see it in day to day life. A friend of mine likes to describe the behavior of people in Bangalore using a beautifully apt combination of two words: the people show "adjustmentality" - i.e. they "adjust" to inconveniences, degradation, power cuts, corruption or whatever without revolting and destroying the structure of society. The same could explain the slowness of Indian society in recognizing the direction in which caste differentiation had taken over centuries, but, as you can see when Indians are reminded of the right route to take, they will gradually adopt the right route - albeit slowly so as to avoid disruption of society.

Let me then step on to more controversial issues.

Indian Muslims, who converted in India too show this dharmic tendency to "preserve society" except where Islam makes it imperative for them to upset dharmic society. When Islam calls for abrupt violence and action, the dharma is upset - but the balance is restored by other Hindus who draw the "short straw" and display adjustmentality to the new adharmic demands placed by Islam. But that is not to say that Muslims by and large are adharmic. They too show society stabilizing dharma and adjustmentality and are sometimes made to draw the short straw and adjust by others. But Islam demands revolt against this. In that way it is the exact opposite of the stabilizing tendency required from Dharma.

Let me now dig deeper into controversy and uncharted areas.

One comment I made about the "aam Pakistani" in my ebook (Pakistan-Failed State) downloadable off BR is that they did not show a great tendency to revolt. But what had not occurred to me then is the following possibility. The reason why the ordinary Pakistani has put up with a lot of crap is because they too carry within them the meme of dharma to "put up", show adjustmentality and stabilize their own society within their power. What makes Pakistan unstable is - as we have pointed out time and time again is Islam combined with the tendency to try and wipe out any Indian influence. They are trying to wipe out dharma and unite using Islam. Pakistan's wars have all been for Islamic causes. Its budget has mostly gone for the armed forces. After all this, it is only the remnant of Hindu dharma - especially in Sindh and Pakjab that has held Pakistan together.

The thesis that is developing in my mind is that the Indian Muslim has retained society stabilizing dharma to a much larger extent that has been allowed in Pakistan. It is easy to name dharmic Indian Muslims.

This may be one route to follow up - or one way to look at the issue when we look at the takleef that occurs in Hindu-Muslim relations and try to define "Islamic extremism". I believe that the ancient habits of dharma in India society cannot be killed easily - certainly not by a new religion primarily because dharma is not a religion centered entity.

[svinayak]

One comment I made about the "aam Pakistani" in my ebook (Pakistan-Failed State) downloadable off BR is that they did not show a great tendency to revolt. But what had not occurred to me then is the following possibility. The reason why the ordinary Pakistani has put up with a lot of crap is because they too carry within them the meme of dharma to "put up", show adjustmentality and stabilize their own society within their power. What makes Pakistan unstable is - as we have pointed out time and time again is Islam combined with the tendency to try and wipe out any Indian influence. They are trying to wipe out dharma and unite using Islam. Pakistan's wars have all been for Islamic causes. Its budget has mostly gone for the armed forces. After all this, it is only the remnant of Hindu dharma - especially in Sindh and Pakjab that has held Pakistan together.

The thesis that is developing in my mind is that the Indian Muslim has retained society stabilizing dharma to a much larger extent that has been allowed in Pakistan. It is easy to name dharmic Indian Muslims.

This may be one route to follow up - or one way to look at the issue when we look at the takleef that occurs in Hindu-Muslim relations and try to define "Islamic extremism". I believe that the ancient habits of dharma in India society cannot be killed easily - certainly not by a new religion primarily because dharma is not a religion centered entity.

JeI Maududi talks about the stable Islamic society. All his writing are only like that which are different from the Arab version. This Indian version of Deoband also preaches stability of the society and no the disturb the social peace. Ale Hadith was also formed in India which avoids all politics and preaches religious observance.

[ShauryaT]

We Hindus believe, that every soul fights this battle of Dharma and Adharma within them and the systems evolved in India, through our Yogic and Sankhya systems provides the knowledge for a person to realize their soul and to live the Dharmic way of life. A way of life, whose ultimate goal is to be one with Brahman, the universal soul.

Towards that, every person has this potential within them. They may be the worst of sinners, a Paki, an Arab, a Nomad or the people of the West. Each one of them has this potential.

The above, is partly the reason, why the Indian people are first in line, to clamor for world peace, equality of all, blah, blah.

What the Dharmic people have not full realized is that although these souls have the potential to live a Dharmic life, they are so immersed in Adharmic ways that speaking from a Dharmic viewpoint, in a world where Geo-political hard power is the sole determinant for soft power and not righteousness, is futile.

Dharma protects those, who protect Dharma. The world we live in today, does not recognize the goals of a Dharmic life. Job number one here, is to protect dharma, in its womb. This womb is in India.

It is more about the protection of and a need to establish the supremacy of Dharma in her womb than about perceived wrongs, is my primary argument.

The wrongs have to be viewed from the prism of the damage, it has caused to the Dharmic way of life. This damage assessment, needs to brutally account for, Why the hindus failed? (including weaknesses in the dharmic peoples, ways or its theology) and once that assessment is done, steps need to be taken to correct the imbalances, present in the current systems.

If Hindus fail to do this brutal accounting and take remedial steps, then they will continue to fail to protect the Dharmic ways, as history shows us.

But, even before this brutal accounting and subsequent remedial steps can take place, there is a desperate need to first restore some balance to at least teaching our population, what the Dharmic way of life is all about. What are its goals, its systems, its practices and its scriptures. What is the Dharmic theology.

All this dharmic way of life, knowledge and systems, which was taught in India in the public space to all castes (except for the exclusions of learning the scriptures by the lower castes), until the late 19th century (even after all the Islamic pressures) has been banished to the private domain. The pressures of a dhimmified and macuaylized framework, show across the spectrum, in an India, where even Nationalist organizations, run shy of openly touting in a language, which may cause "takleef" to the minorities.

So before, we tackle other issues, there is an essential and desperate need to revive the learning of Dharmic ways and all its systems of Yoga, in danger of collapse, in the very womb, where these systems were born.

[mayurav]

Shiv and others have after much patience and keen analysis identified that most Hindus are actually dhimmis. Now we seem to be touching upon the issue of how to dedhimmify the dhimmis with this discussion about whether tearing down babri masjid was good or bad. I think that would be a good thread to have - "Tackling dhimmis in India" or "Dedhimmifying Indians". Methods and techniques at micro interpersonal level and identifying trends and formulating policies at the macro political level can be discussed. IMHO, tackling dhimmis and dedhimmifying them will solve 50% of the Islamism problem in India.

Here are a few thoughts on tackling dhimmis (not in any particular order) IMVHO:

1) Dhimmis basically don't want to be different from the existing mean/average. This means that if 75% of the population is dhimmi, it is hard for one of them to break out and be not "normal". So the dedhimmification process has to occur slowly, but will gain momentum with every dhimmi that becomes dedhimmified thus reducing the stigma of being a non-dhimmi.

2) Dhimmis have forgotten the taste of victory after years of defeat. They have internalized that idea of defeat and truly don't believe that they as Hindus can be glorious and even victorious. Every victory, be it tearing down a mosque or a 10:1 kill ratio against Muslims in a riot, kindles a hope that victories are possible and that they are not powerless.

3) Dhimmis are unconscious of the fact that they are dhimmis. They need to be familiarized with the idea that they might be dhimmis. A seed must be sown. When dhimmi behaviour is displayed they must be told that their behavior might be due to banishment of all criticism of Islam and overcriticism of Hinduism to survive 1000 years of Islamic rule. This must be done sympathetically.

4) All non-Hindu oddities, strange customs, weird practices must be highlighted and made fun of in a secular manner. This should hopefully degrade the cause of dhimmitude - Islam (and even Xtianlty/Western ideas).

5) Dhimmitude is about being suppressed by a overpowering entity. The overpowering entity must visibly and repeatedly be shown to be powerless. There has to be repeated display of power against Islam. This is converse of 2).

[Sanku]

Excellent post Mayurav !! Excellent summation.

[G Subramaniam]

Islamic Voice is a 'moderate' IM monthly out of bangalore

http://islamicvoice.com/June2006/OurDia ... orcedWomen

Fighting Against Muslim Armies


Q. What is the responsibility of Muslim soldiers and officers who are with the army of a country where Muslims are only a small minority if their country is in war with a Muslim country?


A. The rule is that one must never face other Muslims in war. The Prophet (Pbuh) says: “When two Muslims face each other with their swords drawn out, both the killer and the killed are in hell.

[Pulikeshi]

Watch all 11 parts :

Similarities Between Hinduism and islam pt 2of11

(Interestingly Shiv's "shirt is torn while fly is open" came to mind when I watched this one )

A Question Posed Agressively By a Hindu Brother


Also watch these three sessions:

Debate : Sri Sri Ravishankar & Zakir Nair at Bangalore, 1/3

Notice, when Hindu's try to buelshit about similarities between Islam and Hindus by saying Ramdan, Kaaba etc. are derived from Sanskit - they are just making jackasses out of themselves!

I wish it were possible to argue with these dudes on BRF

Still more from the Shankaracharya - the sad part is none of these Hindu leaders have read the Quran and identified what is and what is not Dharmic. They are following centuries old idiocy of Hindus that all books and all religions are the same.

Shankaracharya speaks about Islam

President of Arya Samaj speaks on ISLAM

The difference is that Dharmic path does not allow following one book or ideology in exclusion of all other...
What Dharma tells one is that there is no book that can codify the knowledge of the Universe - it is scientifically impossible!

Na vedam Veda, Na vedam Quran, Na vedam Bible!

[Pulikeshi]

Listen to this jackass again!
Not one statement condemning the barbarity of 9/11:

Jackass on 9/11

[asprinzl]

Thing is when this jacka$$ brings up similarities between Islam and Hinduism, Hindus should have gone by their thousands threatening riots and mayhem for his "blasphemy" of Hindu texts. Hindus didn't do that and I don't think will do that. So, this mockery continues in the land where 80 percent of the population is Hindu.

Can you imagine what would happen if a Hindu is to make similar statements in the USA or England or South Africa? The black cube worshipping monkeys would be demanding for blood. That Hindu would need a pletora of body guards to stay alive from scheming Muslo-Nazis.

How do Hindus allow this monkey, his magazines and his TV/radio shows to proliferate without a problem? Can a Hindu have a radio show or TV show to slam Islam? I keep hearing that he is attracting converts from Hindus every year in big numbers?

Where is the RSS? The VHP? The Bajrang Dal? Oh...I forgot. They had gone to police the crowd from celebrating Valentine's Day. The vultures are stealing away huge chunks in broad daylight but these guys are busy tackling ants moving crumbs. Priorities indeed.

Avram.

[G Subramaniam]

Sitaram Goel's book THE STORY OF ISLAMIC IMPERIALISM IN INDIA.


In 1568 AD Akbar ordered a general massacre at Chittor after the fort had fallen. Abul Fazl records in his Akbar-Nãma as follows. There were 8,000 fighting Rajputs collected in the fortress, but there were more than 40,000 peasants who took part in watching and serving. From early dawn till midday the bodies of those ill-starred men were consumed by the majesty of the great warrior. Nearly 30,000 men were killed When Sultan Alauddin (Khalji) took the fort after six months and seven days, the peasantry were not put to death as they had not engaged in fighting. But on this occasion they had shown great zeal and activity. Their excuses after the emergence of victory were of no avail, and orders were given for a general massacre. Akbar thus improved on the record of Alauddin Khalji. Watching the war and serving the warriors were re-interpreted as acts of war! To top it all, Akbar travelled post-haste to Ajmer where he offered profuse thanks to Allah and the Prophet, and his (Akbar's) patron saint, Muinuddin Chishti, and issued a Fathnãma in which many appropriate verses of the Quran were cited in order to prove that he had followed faithfully in the footsteps of the Prophet. "

[G Subramaniam]

Watch all 11 parts :


Also watch these three sessions:

Debate : Sri Sri Ravishankar & Zakir Nair at Bangalore, 1/3

Notice, when Hindu's try to buelshit about similarities between Islam and Hindus by saying Ramdan, Kaaba etc. are derived from Sanskit - they are just making jackasses out of themselves!

Sri-Sri is a typical case of the m-swamis that I talked about


I wish it were possible to argue with these dudes on BRF

Still more from the Shankaracharya - the sad part is none of these Hindu leaders have read the Quran and identified what is and what is not Dharmic. They are following centuries old idiocy of Hindus that all books and all religions are the same.

Shankaracharya speaks about Islam

Is this the fake Adhokshananada?

President of Arya Samaj speaks on ISLAM


Is this Agnivesh?
Agnivesh has been expelled from the mainstream Arya Samaj
The mainstream Arya Samaj, uses the text by Dayanand Saraswati, which damns islam
Agnivesh has been subverted by the fame and ego-massage he gets by befriending secularists


The difference is that Dharmic path does not allow following one book or ideology in exclusion of all other...
What Dharma tells one is that there is no book that can codify the knowledge of the Universe - it is scientifically impossible!

Na vedam Veda, Na vedam Quran, Na vedam Bible!

[G Subramaniam]

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/the-e ... 3553762013

Most normal sunnis dont go so far
Only hard core wahabis in their shia hatred, go so far

[Pulikeshi]

Thing is when this jacka$$ brings up similarities between Islam and Hinduism, Hindus should have gone by their thousands threatening riots and mayhem for his "blasphemy" of Hindu texts.

Avram,

There is no blasphemy in Hinduism and hope it remains that way.
However, haack thoo on the people (not even one!) from the billion stood up and questioned these Adharmics!

I am all for peace and tranquality in society, but peace cannot be bought by the likes of Ravi Shankar, Shakaracharya or others, when the Charlatans such as Dr. Zakir Naik with half bit knowledge about the scriptures start indulging in equal-equal.

One can surely understand why Hakka/Bukka the founders of the Vijaynagar empire almost converted to Islam.
The word Hindu has become synonymous with pusillanimity.

Interesting times ahead!

[satya]

Swami Dayanand Saraswatijee's " Satyarth Prakash" reaps through both Islam and Christianity ( more on Islam). Last time i checked its a must read for all "Gurukul" students in Haryana and most Arya Samajists in Haryana have its copy . Can be a gud start if this book is more publicized and distributed .

[Mahendra]

That guy Hakim Zakir Naik's PR team does a very good job, The Audience seems to be carefully picked His strength seems to be his ability to shout down his opponents using daft arguements during which he recieves serious applause from a partisan crowd..Some of the points he makes are no brainers, yet he is hailed as the saviour of humanity. He wont stand a chance against some of the BRF Greats like Shiv ,SValkan just to name a few.

[asprinzl]

Thing is when this jacka$$ brings up similarities between Islam and Hinduism, Hindus should have gone by their thousands threatening riots and mayhem for his "blasphemy" of Hindu texts.

Avram,

There is no blasphemy in Hinduism and hope it remains that way.
However, haack thoo on the people (not even one!) from the billion stood up and questioned these Adharmics!

I am all for peace and tranquality in society, but peace cannot be bought by the likes of Ravi Shankar, Shakaracharya or others, when the Charlatans such as Dr. Zakir Naik with half bit knowledge about the scriptures start indulging in equal-equal.

One can surely understand why Hakka/Bukka the founders of the Vijaynagar empire almost converted to Islam.
The word Hindu has become synonymous with pusillanimity.

Interesting times ahead!

I don't think there is something called blasphemy in Islam either. Muhammad created and modified the so called God's words as he went along which is logically blasphemous. Thing is somebody started this blasphemy thing and it caught fire.

I don't care if there is such a thing as blasphemy in Hinduism or not. Thing is somebody must raise this issue to shut these monkeys' mouths regardless is there is such thing as blasphemy or not. If you say there is no blasphemy then MF Hussain should not be facing the ire of Hindu crowd. But he is facing that. Why? Because someone decided to cause an issue. I am not saying this should be done in bone-headed manner. As bone-headed actions go, they always end up as self goal. I am not saying Hindus should look at things from religious perspective. I am asking that a Hindu ideology be allowed to be born. An ideology that is not out of this world funda that 90 percent of the folks cannot comprehend. An ideology that can be intelligently articulated, concise, easily diseminated to every strata with the least mumbo jumbo and with some elements of revolutionary or militancy.

The several Hindu debate with Zakir Naik that I saw has been very depressing due to the debator's lack of lucidity and haphazardness. The problem is not that these folks are lacking in intelligent or knowledge. To tackle Islam, you absolutely CANNOT use religion. Including the Hindu religion. Islam is an ideology in the guise of religion. And it is a militant ideology on top of everything. Cristianity is not going to stop it. Buddhism is not going to stop it. Hinduism is not going to stop it nor Judaism. It has to be countered with another ideology. Only an ideology can counter the "open fly vs hole in pocket" debate.

Otherwise, this debate will go into a never ending loop with no satisfactory end in sight while the cancerous cult will chip away incessantly.

There is a pile of garbage in the Middle East. It is called Quran. The smell it generates is Islam. Everyone smells the putrid odor and know its origin. Yet, we are all gropping in the dark looking for an answer.
Avram

[Sumeet]

Why can't visa power make Taslima Happy ?

You guys HAVE to WATCH this on CNN IBN. I have never seen Rajdeep so angry. Look at his face expression. He literally humiliates the Congress minister on this issue and also makes the other panelist join him in humiliating him. In the end he takes a shot at CPI-M too for [psuedo] secularism.

So dhimmi media is de-dhimmifying. I really liked when Rajdeep on an open public platform equated congress with likes of Togadia who again in congress definition is one of the abominable people in India. Must have hurt their H&D a lot. Kind of chanakiyan way to go about it.

[Pulikeshi]

An ideology that is not out of this world funda that 90 percent of the folks cannot comprehend. An ideology that can be intelligently articulated, concise, easily diseminated to every strata with the least mumbo jumbo and with some elements of revolutionary or militancy.

Avram bhai,

I am on the same page as you. This is the reason why, I think a new Dharma Shastra (short, concise and fit for the low attention span world) is necessary to counter these arguments.

Notice, the "argumentative" Hindu who asked about Islam starting out with a division between believers vs. non-believers was shot down with "Hindu's are castiest" = "hole in the shirt" argument.

The time is ripe for the new writing of the book of rules - Dharma Shastra.

I am not against amending the constitution per se, proposed by ShauryaT and others, but that will not have the desired effect or be enough for waking up the Hindu population. The constitution is a social contract, the Dharma Shastra a religious contract. There is some overlap, but that is jus the gray zone of religion and politics in society.
It is best the Government remain out of religion. Just my humble opinion.

[Sanku]

I am not against amending the constitution per se, proposed by ShauryaT and others, but that will not have the desired effect or be enough for waking up the Hindu population. The constitution is a social contract, the Dharma Shastra a religious contract. There is some overlap, but that is jus the gray zone of religion and politics in society.
It is best the Government remain out of religion. Just my humble opinion.

Bhai P; I agree with you that changing the constitution will not have the desired effect of waking up the Hindu population -- In fact till the Hindu population wakes up how can the constitution be changed?

But when you say your Dharma Shastra will be a religious contract -- you probably mean it will only deal with individual sprituality and not the social aspects of religion? Which is fine and which by and large Hinduism is already -- but that has not been the problem after all has it?

The problem comes with "other" non-dharmic religions playing a social role whether you agree on the definitions of religion; dharma or what not. As such if you take a Govt which is truly neutral or in Indian interests that part will be impacted for others. And there in lies the rub.

On that viola....

At the cost of Hindus

At the cost of Hindus


Secularism has evolved into an odious fast-track for the disproportionate ascent of religious minorities in the top echelons of Indian polity, and their hijack of the state and its resources to pander to sectarian fundamentalism. Ever since Rajiv Gandhi's craven surrender in the Shah Bano case, there has been an insidious chipping away at the nation's secular edifice in a manner tailored to crystallise and partition minority identities. This is a departure from the original constitutional tolerance of religion-based personal laws in personal spaces that did not affect larger social interests and the desired separation of state and religion.

Now, the Sonia Gandhi-dominated Centre and Congress State Governments are doggedly pandering to minority sentiments in a manner calculated to affront majority opinion. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Samuel Rajsekhar Reddy, a member of the evangelical Seventh Day Adventists sect, recently used the Governor's address to slip in a scheme to subsidise Christian pilgrims to Bethlehem and Jerusalem. The statement that the Andhra Government will "extend the Haj pilgrim scheme to Christian minorities also for their religious visits to Christian holy lands in Israel" is laughable as Israeli annexation has not been internationally recognised.

Moreover, the suggestion that Haj subsidy is being extended to Christians suggests Christianity is a sub-sect of Islam, though it is an older and distinct faith. A religious subsidy for Christians can only involve a fresh outlay exclusive to Christians; it is not cut out of the exclusively-Muslim subsidy. This raises questions about the perversion of Indian secularism, which was premised upon distance from religion, and the legitimacy of state funding pilgrimages for any faith.

Justifiable state intervention in the internal affairs of a religious community must derive from notions of higher justice and contemporary social needs for the good of a larger citizenry. The Shah Bano divorce and Imrana rape case show that the Indian state is incapable of standing up for poor and wronged Muslim women. Instead, it promotes obscurantist orthodoxy by extending the quantum of Haj subsidy which, ironically, is haraam according to the tenets of Islam.

In every religion, pilgrimage is a matter of personal devotion and not the duty of the state, not even a theological state. Islam enjoins the faithful to try to make the pilgrimage to Mecca once in a lifetime from their legitimately earned savings. There is no compulsion for those who cannot afford it. The Prophet did not even imagine a non-Muslim state would steal the resources of its Hindu citizens to subsidise Haj - against the letter and spirit of his teachings.

It bears stating that the misguided attempt to placate Hindu opinion with a Kailash Mansarovar subsidy by some States is an affront to dharma. Nowhere in Hindu tradition is the state supposed to subsidise a pilgrimage, though it is duty-bound to provide civic amenities en route. Many facilities are provided by the pious and the authorities of pilgrimage centres.

The Mecca-Jerusalem subsidies are political, not religious, subsidies. Both Islam and Christianity are political religions with an agenda for world-conversion and world-dominion. Hindus suffer double injustice as rich Muslim and Christian nations promote conversions, while secular India funds pilgrimage to Muslim and Christian lands outside India. India's politico-religious subsidies thus reinforce both fundamentalisms at the cost of the native Hindu civilisational ethos.

Residents of small towns have already experienced to their dismay that Muslim neighbours return from Haj with a disconcerting degree of fundamentalism. Indian villages are already experiencing a forced cultural separatism practiced by converts to Christianity at the behest of local padris, and tensions can only rise with Indian Christians visiting the holy lands.

It is pertinent that despite massive funding for conversion, the social and economic status of converts remains unchanged, though a sense of grievance and separated-ness is fostered through intensive religious indoctrination. The lack of social and economic mobility for converts, indeed the perpetuation of old caste inequalities with the tacit consent of the religious hierarchy, has recently come to be admitted by both faiths, though ironically, as an additional grievance against the Hindu community!

As the UPA chairperson was keen to snatch the rights of depressed Hindu castes and pass them on to Muslim and Christian converts, the National Commission for Religious and Linguistic Minorities was created with a pre-set mandate. Last year, it delivered according to its brief and recommended extension of Scheduled Caste reservation benefits to Christian and Muslim converts. Justice Ranganath Mishra even suggested a quota-within-quota for OBC minorities.

Justice Mishra proposed 15 per cent representation for minorities in educational institutions and all cadre and grades of Government employment, of which 10 per cent would be for Muslims and five per cent for others (read Christians). Claiming that minorities are under-represented in Government, he argued that they should be regarded as 'backward' according to Article 16(4), but without the qualifying distinction of "socially and educationally backward".

This is deliberate mischief as Justice Mishra knows that minorities are not educationally and socially backward. Besides, this is constitutionally untenable as it tampers with the basic framework of the Constitution. Para 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 limits SC status to Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists, as caste is a Hindu phenomenon and cannot be delinked from religion. To do so is to facilitate conversions.

The NCRLM mooted earmarking 15 per cent Central development funds for minorities, an idea being pursued by the Planning Commission. Actually, as Islam and Christianity promote conversion with the promise of non-discrimination between believers, both deserve punitive legal action for discriminating against 'low caste' converts.

What stands between India and the deluge is the sagacity of Mr Buta Singh, chairman, National Commission for Scheduled Castes. Mr Singh has cautioned State Governments against using the word 'Dalit' in official documents as it is "unconstitutional" and only 'Scheduled Caste' is notified under Article 341. The de-legitimising of 'Dalit' (meaning broken, crushed) is a blow to the evangelical industry which has been promoting the term to forge separatism among Scheduled Castes. Mr Singh rightly insists that Dalit converts do not suffer the same maladies as their Indic counterparts; hence, Christianity and Islam must prove they practice untouchability and that it exists in their religious theology, before claiming ameliorative measures. This is a timely warning against wilful appropriation of Hindu concepts. It is now up to Hindu India to resist minority aggression.

[vsudhir]

[url=ttp://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JB20Dj08.html]Spengler in atimes[/url]

This one's a keeper, folks. Sweet vindication of my pet theories apart, he says it in inimitable style. A sober version of Mark Steyn.

Strictly speaking, I do not quite agree with Wilders that the Koran should be banned along with Hitler’s Mein Kampf as an incitement to violence. Nonetheless, he is doing precisely the right thing. A house divided against itself cannot stand, as Abraham Lincoln quoted the Gospels as he made ready to tear down the half that was misbehaving. No civilized state can abide a rival from within who contests the monopoly of violence of legitimate government. If governments refuse to act, the optimal course of action is pre-emptive: bring matters to a decision as fast as possible before the rot destroys the entire house.

am ashamed to say that it did not become clear to me that Wilders has taken the only appropriate course of action until I read carefully the Archbishop of Canterbury’s now-infamous "sharia" speech. Stripped of casuistry, he proposed that Muslim women subject to forced marriages, genital mutilation, or domestic violence should be handed over to Muslim religious courts, rather than be offered the protection of English Common Law. To my knowledge, this is the first time that one of Europe’s spiritual leaders has proposed to abandon innocent victims to their fate.

Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams, to be sure, has a point. But he should have stated plainly what he really thinks. What he wanted to say is more or less: "To protect a few hundred or a few thousand colored ladies, the English state will have to put its big boots on, kick down the doors of Muslim homes, trample through Muslim living rooms, tear up the fabric of Muslim communities, and disrupt the social order. Why not turn such cases over to religious courts and wash our hands of them?" I reiterate: this is satanic hypocrisy.

Read it all, ensoi.

[sanjaykumar]

Delaying a war that must be fought is the most dangerous course of all, as Europe learned in 1914 and again in 1939. From Spengler.

This from a man writing under a pseudonym-wot's this, Christian ethics?

[Pulikeshi]

But when you say your Dharma Shastra will be a religious contract -- you probably mean it will only deal with individual sprituality and not the social aspects of religion? Which is fine and which by and large Hinduism is already -- but that has not been the problem after all has it?

Sanku,

I am glad you asked

There are several things beautiful about Hindu spirituality,
but the problem with Hindu spirituality, is that in denying the existence of the self in relation to the universal, it has made one forget self-interest!

Dharma Shastra - has nothing to do with individual Spirituality per se, it has to do with social aspects of religion.
Every sage (18-20 odd) including Manu to Chanakya who wrote or rewrote the Dharma Shastra codified rules and regulations and method of acceptable behavior for the Hindus as a collective.
Only when we have one voice about what our acceptable behavior is, can we then tell others when their behavior is unacceptable.

The rules in the Dharma Shastra gives us structure and meaning. Today you will find may Hindus say, they practice a "free" religion.
However, when you ask them to tell you one thing they follow that makes them Hindu, they are stumped.

This is why, when a idiot like Naik or others tells a Hindu he or she is a castiest pig - all they can do is stammer and feel sorry for themselves.

Rewrite a new Dharma Shastra that says, every human's goal is to represent all Varna together in each one of us as Vishnu incarnate
- be the best warrior, the best intellect, the best worker and the best businessperson all in one!

Such a rewrite of Dharma will bring about better Karma (action).

The social contract, the constitution, can be amended only when one has codified Dharmic behavior in the first place!

[Rye]

This jihadi Qureishi is able to jump from Mulayam's SP to the current ruling party BSP, and continues to make such outright calls for murder, even as the scumbag is a sitting member of the state legislature.

Mayawati truly is despicably corrupt.

http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=546485

Cartoon controversy: 51 crores not enough? Qureshi asks people to fix reward amount

MEERUT, FEB 19 (PTI)

Mohammad Yaqoob Qureshi, who created a furore in 2006 by announcing a reward of Rs 51 crore to anyone who beheads a Danish cartoonist for drawing caricatures of Prophet Mohammed, is in the news again.

This time, however, he has asked the people of this city to fix the quantum of the bounty for the "avenger" after some Danish newspapers reprinted last week the controversial cartoon that depicted the Prophet wearing a turban which resembled a bomb.

The former SP minister, who defected to BSP and is now an MLA from Meerut City, today said he will announce the reward after people of the city fix the amount.

"This time the people of Meerut should decide what should be the amount of the reward," he said.

Qureshi also said "the Centre should demand an apology from Denmark and the Uttar Pradesh assembly should condemn the reprint of the controversial cartoon".

The caricature was one of 12 cartoons published in September 2005 by the Jyllands-Posten daily which sparked violent protests in a number of Muslim countries in January and February 2006.

Last week, at least 17 Danish newspapers reprinted the cartoon, vowing to defend freedom of expression after police foiled a murder plot against the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard.

[ramana]

Folsk I have followed numerous version of this thread. I see that invariably when the talk comes to tackling Islamic extremism it turns to reform or codifying Hindusim. Again the problem is with Islamism and not Hinduism which is an all encompassing religious way of life which exists because its not codified. The problem with Islamism is its an anti-Colonialism reaction and the Indian version is getting Deobandised/Wahabised. An extreme version of Islam is taking shape.

By changing Hinduism to will not solve the Islamism problem. I do wish folks dont get mixed up in the two issues. Hinduism reforms will go on for their own sake as they always have done.