Muslim Terror Flows From ‘Holy’ Quran


Muslim celebrities, closet anti-Hindus and political harvesters of “divide and rule” can continue till the cows come home… but there’s nothing contradict or explain away these hard evidence that confirm : Terror flows from the holy Quran.

Originally posted on Truth Within, Shines Without:

It’s not in men but the belief Quran instills in them. As author Taslima Nasreen said, “Islam is the theory. ISIS is the practice.”

What is stated in the verses of the Book can have no other interpretation than to kill, drive terror, destroy and subjugate people who do not accept its tenets and surrender to the believers of Islam.

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament, the verses of violence in the Quran are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding…

View original 6,388 more words

Islam – Prehistory, Myths & Present (VI)


There have been concerted attempts by Saud rulers to eliminate any evidence that would impair the authority of Islam, and hence their own as keepers of the holiest two shrines at Mecca and Medina. But for that, if archaeological excavations could be undertaken, all other idols too could be found buried in Kaaba precincts or trampled underfoot in labyrinthine subterranean corridors.

The Black Stone is badly mutilated; its carved base has disappeared, and the stone itself is broken at seven places…

Originally posted on Truth Within, Shines Without:

English: A picture of people performing (circu... Muslims circumambulating the Kaaba.  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Tsabaism – Origin Of Abrahamic Religions

In his book Origines, Vol III & IV, Sir W. Drummond writes : “Tsabaism was the universal language of mankind when Abraham received his call, and their doctrines were probably extended all over the civilized nations of Earth.”

In all probability, Tsabaism is a corruption of the word Shaivism which is part of the Vedic religion. On page 439 of this book, Sir Drummond mentions some of gods of pre-Islamic Arabs, all of which were among the 360 idols that were consecrated in the Kaaba shrine before it was raided and destroyed by Muhammad and his followers.

Here are some of the Arab deities mentioned and their Sanskrit names :

Arabic                                   Sanskrit                    …

View original 1,436 more words

India and the West


Indian astronomer and mathematician Bhaskaracharya in the 5th century BC (this is an estimated date that may be too recent), calculated the time taken by the earth to orbit the sun to nine decimal places. Algebra, trigonometry, and calculus were first set forth in ancient India….

Originally posted on Truth Within, Shines Without:

A German manuscript page teaching use of (indo... A German manuscript page teaching use of (indo-)Arabic numerals (Talhoffer Thott, 1459). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Flow of Science and Mathematics

From India to Arabia and Europe

Dr Kenneth Chandler

Origins Of Vedic Civilisation

A Lighthouse for Scientific and Mathematical Discovery

India remained a lighthouse for the advance of civilisation long after the classical Vedic period. Our modern zero-based number system (the place-value number system) was first developed in India. Called ‘Arabic numerals’ in the West, they actually originated in India and were passed into Europe through Arabia, whence they derived their name in the West.

In Arabia, mathematics was called the “Indian Art,” and the numerals used in Arabia were called “Indian numerals.” Arabic scholars knew that mathematics had come into Arabia from India and not vise versa. It was also in India that the counting numbers were first invented. This inspired Albert Einstein to say, “We owe a…

View original 1,564 more words

No, this is not a Muslim thing…

Quoted ad verbatim from a post on Facebook put up by Faisal Saeed Al Mutar : Context #ParisAttack. It could easily be a conversation between the current US Prez Barack Obama and ISIS Chief Baghdadi. Read on.


EDIT: “My friend Joseph from the United States wrote this on my wall after hearing my discussion with Dave Rubin and he gave me a FULL permission and copyright to share it under my name without any attribution” :

“It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic terrorist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them. Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the terrorists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility.

It’s like a bad Monty Python sketch :

“We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”
“No you didn’t.”
“Wait, what ? Yes we did…”
“No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”
“WHAT !? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”
“No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so.”

“Huh !? Who are you to tell us we’re not true Muslims! ? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being.”
“Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that’s why you did this. We’re sorry.”
“What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians – disenfranchisement doesn’t even enter into it!”

“Listen, it’s our fault. We don’t blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out.”
“Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we’re not going to let you take it away from us.”
“No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame.”
“OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?””


Muslim Terror Flows From ‘Holy’ Quran

It’s not in men but the belief Quran instills in them. As author Taslima Nasreen said, “Islam is the theory. ISIS is the practice.”

What is stated in the verses of the Book can have no other interpretation than to kill, drive terror, destroy and subjugate people who do not accept its tenets and surrender to the believers of Islam.

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament, the verses of violence in the Quran are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

Muhammad’s own martial legacy – and that of his companions – along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

The Quran

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing… fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone.

The verse prior to this (190) refers to “fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you” leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did).

Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah’s rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, “fitna”, can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned “until religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”

Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”

Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”.

This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).

Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah.

This is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”

Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”

Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward “

This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle). According to the verse, Allah will allow the disabled into Paradise, but will provide a larger reward to those who are able to kill others in his cause.

Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (8:15) – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”

Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah”

Some translations interpret “fitna” as “persecution”, but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there – just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah”, meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that “Allah must have no rivals.”

Quran (8:57) – “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”

Quran (8:67) – “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land…”

Quran (8:59-60) – “And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”

Quran (8:65) – “O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight…”

Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion’s Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

Quran (9:14) – “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.” Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even “healing” the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20) – “Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.” The Arabic word interpreted as “striving” in this verse is the same root as “Jihad”. The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

“People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam “superior over all religions.” This chapter was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!”

Quran (9:38-39) – “O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.”

This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:41) – “Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.”

See also the verse that follows (9:42) – “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them” This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Quran (9:73) – “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.”

Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today’s devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Quran (9:88) – “But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.”

Quran (9:111) – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.”

How does the Quran define a true believer?

Quran (9:123) – “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

Quran (17:16) – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.”

Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.” (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (18:65-81) – This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with “special knowledge” who does things which don’t seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would “grieve” his parents by “disobedience and ingratitude.” He was killed so that Allah could provide them a ‘better’ son.

(Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)

Quran (21:44) – “We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?”

Quran (25:52) – “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness…” “Strive against” is Jihad – obviously not in the personal context. It’s also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

Quran (33:60-62) – “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.”

This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad’s biographers.

It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today’s terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah’s eternal word to Muslim generations.

Quran (47:3-4) – “Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord… So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)… If it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.”

Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad. The wounded are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.

Quran (47:35) – “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,”

Quran (48:17) – “There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.”

Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ If so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.

Quran (48:29) – “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves”

Islam is not about treating everyone equally. This verse tells Muslims that there are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for ‘hard’ or ‘ruthless’ in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as ‘painful’ or severe’ to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26..

Quran (61:4) – “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way”

Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to “battle array” meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict.

This is followed by (61:9): “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.”

(See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.

Quran (61:10-12) – “O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of ‘Adn – Eternity [‘Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.”

This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.

Quran (66:9) – “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.”

The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” – those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

Other verses calling Muslims to Jihad can be found here at

The Hadith

Bukhari (52:177) – Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

Bukhari (52:256) – The Prophet… was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).”

In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

Bukhari (52:65) – The Prophet said, ‘He who fights that Allah’s Word, Islam, should be superior, fights in Allah’s Cause.

Muhammad’s words are the basis for offensive Jihad – spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today.

Bukhari (52:220) – Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror’

Abu Dawud (14:2526) – The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, “There is no god but Allah” and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)

Abu Dawud (14:2527) – The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally.”

Muslim (1:30) – “The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”

Bukhari (52:73) – “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords’.”

Bukhari (11:626) – [Muhammad said:] “I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.”

Muslim (1:149) – “Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause…”

Muslim (20:4645) – “…He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa’id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!”

Muslim (20:4696) – “the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'”

Muslim (19:4321-4323) – Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: “They are of them (meaning the enemy).”

Muslim (19:4294) – “When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him… He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war… When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them… If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

Bukhari 1:35 “The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed).”

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power.”

Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad’s men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

Tabari 9:69 “Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us” The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

Tabari 17:187 “‘By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.’ And they returned to their former religion.”

The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: – “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: – Lest anyone think that cutting off someone’s head while screaming ‘Allah Akbar!’ is a modern creation, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: – “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” Muhammad’s instructions to his men prior to a military raid.

Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 – “Embrace Islam… If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship.”

One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad’s armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief.

Additional Notes:
Other than the fact that Muslims haven’t killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.

The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam’s most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier “Meccan” verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones. The example of Muhammad is that Islam is a religion of peace when Muslims do not have the power and numbers on their side. Once they do, things change.

Many Muslims are peaceful and do not want to believe what the Quran really says. They prefer a more narrow interpretation that is closer to the Judeo-Christian ethic. Some just ignore harsher passages. Others reach for “textual context” across different suras to subjectively mitigate these verses with others so that the message fits their personal moral preferences. Although the Quran itself claims to be clear and complete, these apologists speak of the “risks” of trying to interpret verses without their “assistance.”

The violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in very real massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni’s bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam’s Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today’s Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran.

Violence is so ingrained in Islam that it has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.

Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.

It is important to emphasize that, for the most part, Muslim armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion’s most dramatic military conquests were made by the actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death.

The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves and resisted Islamic hegemony. Although modern apologists often claim that Muslims are only supposed to “attack in self-defense”, this oxymoron is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad.

Some modern-day scholars are more candid than others. One of the most respected Sunni theologians is al-Qaradawi, who justifies terror attacks against Western targets by noting that there is no such thing as a civilian population in a time of war:

“It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al—Harb [ie. non-Muslim people who resist Islamic conquest] is not protected… In modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies. Every citizen in society must take upon himself a role in the effort to provide for the battle. The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms.”

Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad’s deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as “same day marriage”).

One of Islam’s most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: “In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way.” Elsewhere, he notes: “Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the ‘homeland of Islam’ diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life.”

The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as “A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur’an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], “The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect.”

Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, stated in 2009 that “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time,” tacitly affirming the legitimacy of violence for the cause of Islamic rule – bound only by the capacity for success. (source)

Muhammad’s failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought afterwards to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or ‘Apostasy wars’). Then the violence turned within. Early Meccan converts battled later ones as hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad’s own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter – a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others’ throats to this day.

The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare…) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.

This is what makes the Quran’s verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in their holy book, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them – outside of personal opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam’s holiest book either speaks to Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it’s little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community – even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.

Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam’s most respected philosophers, understood that “the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force”, many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran’s near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for believers to think that their religion must be like Christianity – preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance – because Muslims are taught that Islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to find that this is contradicted by the Quran and the bloody history of Islam’s genesis.

Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the “culture”, claiming that the father was merely following “the religion” and saying that the couple had to “discipline their daughter or lose respect.” (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious “holy pilgrimage” to Mecca by the Saudi king – without a single Muslim voice raised in protest.

For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth.

There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally… and too many others who couldn’t care less about the violence done in the name of Islam. Home Page

© 2006-2016

All rights reserved.

Liberty, Equality And Fraternity Need The Secure Ground Of The Assured Freedom To Be


I believe many in the world are coming to realise this basic truth : liberty, equality and fraternity are add on values to the more fundamental one of secure life and assured freedom to be.

And yet there is a plethora of secular-liberal calls harking on openness and tolerance, the values people fear might get eroded in France’s response to these attacks that has resulted in 160+ dead.

Is that what comes to your mind just now ? Not to mine. No, not more of those candle light processions or laudatory speeches of how the French people have been strong… et al.

People have been killed. Families have been affected. Children, women young and old have been traumatised. It’s a tragedy caused through deliberation, by people with a particular profile. And they will do it again, in France and anywhere else, wherever. Because, they are committed to doing so for dominion over others, for establishing their way of life and values over the rest.

Those people, the perpetrators, need to be watched over 24/7, and everything should be done with them, to them, soft and hard, protective and pre-emptive, to prevent the next such tragedy from happening, in France and the world over.

That is a responsibility every government worth its salt owes to its people.

But I suspect many in India would still not understand my premise. They did not when Mumbai 26/11 happened. And even earlier, when a whole population was chased out of Kashmir Valley because they were Indian but not Muslim. Or, when followers of Islam infiltrated from across the border and changed the demographic profile of the Indian states of Assam and West Bengal, and proximate regions in North Bihar.

That general agreement on the nature of the problem people are faced with has still to happen in India and in every other country of the world.

Bangladeshi author, Taslima Nasreen, states it simply : Islam is the theory; ISIS is the practice. The name and the faces may change. But so long as Islam and its book, and people subscribing to it remain … There will always be an ISIS and Baghdadi and his suicidal mercenaries to menace the people’s security and their freedom to be.

We have the history to underscore this ‘divine’ incorrigibility of those chosen people we know as followers of the only allowable Prophet and the path he has laid.

An American Adapts To Love The People’s Food In Vietnam

This is an interesting, frankly personal recount of a young US citizen’s adaptation to people’s food in Ho Chi Minh City. A great read about little spoken struggles with a rich native cuisine culture, as of Vietnam ! It truly informs.

Click Here to access the article in Vietnam Times archive.

In the summer of 1996, fresh out of college, I moved to Ho Chi Minh City for one simple reason: I loved Vietnamese food. At restaurants in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, I’d grown fond of the staples of the cuisine — grilled meats, startling herbs, crunchy vegetables — and particularly of pho, the aromatic beef noodle soup that is Vietnam’s national dish. As graduation approached, I knew I wanted to live overseas, and Communist Vietnam, which had just opened its doors to the West, was the obvious choice. In fact, it didn’t even feel like a choice at all — it felt like destiny.

But as I quickly discovered, liking a cuisine is not the same as understanding it. My first sense of this disjunction came a couple of weeks into my stay, when I settled in for lunch at a downtown restaurant. The manic energy of the streets — the flood of motorbikes, the clanging construction crews, the gawking tourists — had dissipated in the midday heat. Time to eat, and nap and breathe and think, away from the tropical sun.

This respite is likely the only reason that I happened to notice the man with the gun. He was across the street, standing in the clear sunshine. He was Vietnamese, in his early 40s. He wore sunglasses. And at his side, he held what I assumed was an Uzi. Then he disappeared into a storefront. If the street had been full of 100cc Hondas, as it had been an hour earlier, I would’ve missed him entirely.

It was an odd sight, and I wanted to ask someone — anyone — about it. Was the man a gangster? A cop? Then my food arrived, and I forgot all about him. I hadn’t known what to order, but something on the menu caught my attention: luon nuong mia, freshwater eel wrapped around sugarcane (held in place with a chive bow) and grilled over charcoal. As I bit, I fell in love. The eel was rich and oily, caramelized from the charcoal heat, infused with the tang of garlic and fish sauce and the sweetness of raw cane. And the cane itself, when I gnawed it, released a burst of sugary juice tinged with the meaty slick of the eel.

This, I knew, was what I couldn’t get back home. This was why I’d picked up stakes and moved to Vietnam. The eel was so great that I wanted to turn to my neighbors and tell them that it justified everything.

But I had no neighbors. I was alone in this restaurant — alone and confused. After all, this seemed to be a quality spot; the eel was proof. So where was everyone? What was I doing wrong?

Those first months in Vietnam were full of such confusion. All around me, I was fairly sure, were amazing food experiences waiting to be had, yet I couldn’t figure out what to eat, how to order, and where, and when, and why. At lunch, for example, I’d often order pho at the renowned Pho Hoa Pasteur. But when I told my students in my English classes, they looked confused. To them, pho was breakfast, not a midday meal. I’d protest: Plenty of Vietnamese people were at Pho Hoa Pasteur! My students would backtrack, perhaps wanting not to contradict their teacher, or just to make me feel comfortable. Oh, sure, they’d say, you can eat any food anytime you want. Khong sao — no problem.

But it was a problem. And I knew its roots. At Vietnamese restaurants in America, all kinds of foods are served together — noodles, soups, stir-frys, spring rolls. But in Vietnam, restaurants are often devoted to a single dish: pho, banh xeo (a rice crepe stuffed with pork and bean sprouts), goat hot pot. Adapting to this was hard. Knowing only a small subset of dishes, and only a few words of Vietnamese, I didn’t even know what to commit myself to. I knew that I should just blindly walk in, point to whatever I saw on other tables, and enjoy the result, but fear and shyness kept me at bay. Is there anything more alienating than not knowing how to eat?

Too often I wound up at the non-Vietnamese restaurants in the backpacker and tourist districts. They were often good: excellent Italian fare, thanks in part to fresh tomatoes and basil; a devoted expatriate clientele demanded serious Japanese; and a century of French colonialism meant that pâté, red wine and onion soup were vernacular dishes. But these meals all reminded me of my ongoing failure to penetrate Vietnamese culture.

After a few months, I moved from my sixth-floor rented room to another on the fifth floor. The new room was larger and air-conditioned, but I took it for the simple reason that it had a tiled patio that was ideal for takeout alfresco lunches.

But what to bring home? Ham-and-brie sandwiches? Thai ground pork with holy basil? On a stroll down nearby Bui Vien Street one day, I spotted a man grilling pork chops outside a com binh dan, an institution that translates as “the people’s food.” Com binh dan are everywhere in Vietnam. For less than a dollar, you can have a plate of rice and a serving of, say, pork belly braised in fish sauce and sugar, water spinach (rau muong) stir-fried with garlic, or a soup of bitter melon stuffed with pork and mushrooms.

But com binh dan had never appealed to me. Maybe their folding tables, plastic chairs and worn silverware looked too shabby. Maybe the pre-made dishes, sitting in the humid open air, turned me off. Maybe I needed to read a menu. Or maybe I was just afraid. My palate could handle a challenge, my fragile psyche couldn’t.

When I smelled the suon nuong, or pork chops, however, everything changed. Marinated in garlic, sugar, fish sauce and shallots, they gave off an intense aroma of fat and caramelization, one I couldn’t turn away from. So I ordered to-go — suon nuong on a mound of rice, with rau muong and sliced cucumbers — and carried the plastic foam box to my fifth-floor oasis, where I ate in utter bliss.

The com binh dan around the corner quickly became my go-to spot for good, unpretentious food. Usually, I’d get the perfect suon nuong, but the shop also had squid, stuffed with pork and braised until soft, as well as crispy-fried fish. And a fried egg could be added to anything.

Eating on my patio was nice, but more and more I ate at the com binh dan’s flimsy tables, noticing how other customers ate — with chopsticks, with fork and spoon, or with a combination. I studied the way they prepared dipping sauces, either by filling dishes with dark fish sauce and a few shreds of red chiles, or by pouring nuoc cham, a mix of fish sauce, water, lime juice and sugar, from the plastic pitchers placed on each table. (I’d thought it was iced tea — whoops!) People ate without much ceremony. This was good cooking, but it was also a refueling stop. As I watched and copied them, day after day, I didn’t even realize that, for the first time, I was eating like a regular person.

Nor did I realize that mastering this one meal would have collateral effects. Now that I’d locked down lunch, I could eat breakfast and dinner however I wanted. No longer did I have to feel guilty about starting the day with black coffee and fresh croissants; in a few hours, I’d be feasting on pork chops.

I could also experiment at dinner, testing dosas at the new South Indian restaurant, partying with friends in the Siberian Hunting Lodge, or feasting on braised snails and grilled mussels in a converted auto garage near the Saigon River. Whether these meals turned out delicious or dull, authentic or artificial, I knew that the next day I’d be eating a people’s lunch.

There was, however, one casualty of my growing cultural adeptness. Now that I better understood lunch, the restaurant that served sugarcane eel no longer fit into my eating life — by then I knew it was not a lunch spot, and come dinnertime there was so much else to explore. I never returned. The luon nuong mia, so fixed in my memory, seems like a heat-induced hallucination, almost as illusory as the man with the Uzi. Except it was all real, as real as the charcoal smoke that still billows forth from the com binh dan on Bui Vien Street, on a thousand other streets throughout Saigon, and wherever regular folks gather to eat.

We Got To Be Responsible…

Whether we are or not, the need remains : we got to be responsible. And I am not speaking just of what others — parents, employers or law — ask us to own, in our own interest.

The need for being responsible flows from the fact that we will always mean something to other people, and even to our pets. Like it or not, convenient or troublesome, this meaning would form from a range of aspects we present to others starting with how we look, our colour and gender, and how we behave. Mostly, we instinctively choose among those we know, or have, to gravitate towards some and avoid the others. But our need to be responsible is full-time, even among those we do not know.

In what we mean to others, one part is physical. It is our responsibility to establish our own acceptance of the face, colour, height and weight, and other physical features we possess, in order that other people too join in to the exuded comfort level. Our own negativity regarding one or more of these only confirms the negativity others might possess towards them. Even laughing on ourself about it does not cover our feeling, but accentuates it : our positivity seems more positive and negativity more negative.

The gender features demand that we be responsible for being prepared, on the watch, for what it has begun to mean to persons around or before us. For instance, breasts in women and beards in men… can provoke people into thinking offensively, if not act. Though contained just then, either self-consciously or thwarted by the eyes around, the act flowing from the thought is never far from materialising. Our responsibility would involve pre-empting unpleasant experiences through such encounters by becoming pre-aware and conscious, either avoiding such company known from before or being alert and prepared to deal with it on the trot.

We are required to be especially responsible in our relationships, whether of love or hate. Our behaviour or inadvertance during interactions could hurt — the other or oneself. For, the meanings people have of others may not flow from merely bias or prejudice, or norms attached to particular kind of relationship, but would form hugely on the spot on account of expectations and trust people have from us. These need more care and caution than we are normally conscious of; and are hence often breached, which we then need to manage.

The entire process during interactions offers opportunities to intervene at several stages, to smoothen matters or prevent some disaffection from blowing up. Almost all of us would have experienced being at our tether’s end, on occasions when we fail to contribute meaningfully to a relationship we value or redress situational breaches responsibly.

And, that 24/7 responsibility we have to ourself, for ourself, by ourself… to know our body and mind, our history — personal and collective, and ourself !

@PMOIndia, Think For A Moment !


Whether it is the corrupt, anti-national or paid media … It is all evident in the money trail, more black than white.

How much has been spotted ?
How many has your Govt prosecuted ?

What good is all this ‘development’ if it only strengthens the alien religionists, the corrupt, the anti-national and the paid media ?

Because all that strength will come back at you, at us who support you, and win power for them politically.

Do your Ministers understand as much ?
Are the Civil Services cadres with you ?
Is Arun Jaitley, the Fin and I&B Minister, with you on this ? And Justice AP Shah, the SIT chief ?

Why has Govt given up on NJAC ?
Was the Govt counsel, Mukul Rohatgi, merely bluffing when he declared in Supreme Court that the collegium system is passe even if the NJAC is struck down ?

Why has the Govt not resorted to Joint Parliamentary sessions, to get over legislative obstruction in Rajya Sabha ?

Who are these ‘advisors’ around you that are keeping you and your govt weak and your party defensive ?

Think, for a moment …

Dear BJP Supporters & Modi Admirers…


I sense ‪#‎BJP‬ supporters and ‪#‎Modi‬ admirers are upset with critical backlash that has followed. But is losing one state after another an acceptable way forward ?

Vision is an idea we have for the future. It is much-needed for our nation and our people. PM Modi has that. It makes him the best person to lead us into the future.

However, losing elections also takes away the opportunity to translate that vision on the ground. Winning the people to vote for you is a totally different task, a political thing. It is as much about adding to one’s own strength, to the capacity for identity and affinity in our people-connect effort, as to cripple the opposition by causing its strengths to dissolve or diminish in people’s estimate. There are “positive” ways of doing that negative thing !

Those who have a stake in the party’s success will be troubled with electoral losses, more concerned upon a total blank and very exercised with repeat reversals. They would want to know why. They would have things to say about likely corrections.

A good political party should be able to listen to its supporters and inform its admirers. Or, should it shove its head into the sky, like a camel, and walk away in silence towards the next electoral rendezvous ?

Nobody has a sure key to electoral success. But let’s keep trying in ways that is neutralising to the tricks and tactics of the opposition. It’s more than a handful, it is evident, since it caused the people to elect the leadership of a convicted felon, known corrupts and their allies, over PM Modi’s vision.

Shall we ?

India : Resurgent Mainstream, Polarised Cacophony & Election Results In Bihar.

Election results from Bihar has streamed in. Its people go to Punjab and Maharashtra foraging for work and career. There is little development in the state to engage them. It had become a den of ISI created Muslim jihad modules, which had carried out bomb blasts on several occasions. BJP’s Narendra Modi and party president Amit Shah had the responsibility of winning the state, for the people of the state and for the country.

They failed. Rather miserably.

It seems they have an ‘idea’ of India, which is the best in itself. But that is not all that for which the people of this country voted them in. Their vote was as much against the corrupt as for development; as much against anti-national forces and the anti-nationals as for national resurgence and make-in-India program.

Modi especially has been harping on half of what the people voted him in for. People in the mainstream do not see in him their hero any more… or, at least not as much as before, as one who will restore their pre-eminence in the land that is theirs.

Maybe Modi feels limited by the position he occupies. Maybe he has a plan. May be he is too preoccupied with his legacy concerns, as Vajpayee was.

They will still do good. They are still the best in our midst. But that, unfortunately, still falls short of what and why the people voted them in for.

* * *

It’s been a cacophony for a while : Muslim, Hindu; Congress, BJP; Nehru, Bose; Beef, Non-Beef; Pak, India; Left, Right; Tolerant India, Intolerant India; NJAC, Collegium; Modi, No Modi; Hate Speech Law, No Hate Speech Law …

Each case might have been represented in a couple of words, at best a few, but it means millions of people on either side of the divide, expressing themselves vocally at least 10 times in person, on web socials and/or mainstream media, and heard or read by many each time… That is, billions of sound bytes rising in a cacophony that spells both its polarised ground and its polarising effect.

The politically correct thing to say is to sidestep the very mention of polarisation and appeal platitudinously for unity in diversity. For a public person, perhaps there is no option since wading into warred-for-issues invariably begins to show one’s own stand, however subtly. But between us, you and yours truly, the phenomena needs to be understood.

I am personally for the rising mainstream, the predominance of Hindu majority in India, on account of which much heartburn has flared up in several quarters :

— the erstwhile ruling regime dynasts who have been since unseated and disempowered;

— the suave left liberals who relied on the unawareness of a gullible electorate to create a power base for themselves;

— the money-game spread by well funded alien religions, evangelical Christianity and political Islam;

— the casteist political outfits without vision or competence who raise themselves purely on tribal identity affinities;

— the freeloading intellectuals and priviledge seeking crowd who fill the dynast durbars for largesse and spoils; and…

— the media barons with a bevvy of creaming up journalists, who are co-opted to be at beck and call on behalf one or more of the paying power brokers.

It would be wrong to say that the current cacophonously polarised atmosphere has been initiated now or recently by those who have lost their power, priviledges and profits : they all were used to the divide and rule game even earlier through henchmen in the civil services, the vote banks politiking based on religion and caste, and the hierarchical cliques to foster cronyism and manage the institutionalised net of corruption.

Those were extremely dark days indeed for the people of this country and the national economy, during the UPA regime that was backseat driven by well-known family dynasts. But the May 2014 general elections proved to be a watershed, ushering a rush of hope and confidence in the wake of Prime Minister Modi’s landslide win and the setting up of a corruption-free, forward-looking and nationalist union government, which has proved to be both resourceful and responsive. It also meant that the gravy train for the favoured ones during the previous government came to an abrupt stop.

Presently out of power, the dynasts prove themselves to be obnoxiously bad losers. They do what they’ve always been best at, now ever more viciously : rabble rouse and harden the social factions through its network of corrupt stakeholders and hired hands. They all had benefited over the years and know their interests lie in bringing their benefactors back to power. The adopted strategy has been known to work like a charm : create bad blood in the society, to deepen the divides, and cause chaos and mayhem at every possible place and opportunity. There is no dearth of stolen stash to pay the trouble-makers, hire mercenaries and crooks, and fund the media to project lies and half-truths repeatedly, till the voting cows come home !

* * *

It is thus, then, that the polarised argumentation has become shriller and shriller, after the mainstream population of the country refused to be taken by the politically self-serving dynasts and as the new post-May 2014 government went on from scoring one success to the next through a slew of creative developmental solutions, bold people-connect, and effective foreign affairs initiatives. The reigning coalition has caused a remarkable turnaround in the country’s mood, from gloom to upbeat, and continues to be ever more popular among people in the mainstream.

One would think, rightly by and large, that there is no way to win against a whole population that has risen and is aware… which now knows the lot that kept them uneducated, poor and dole-dependent, uninformed and easily manipulated, and who creamed off an unheard of chunk of national wealth through stealth, thievery and corruption. One would be forgiven to presume that the same people would henceforth be cautious and heed the call of the honest and able men now at the helm. That, they will oppose all those who divide them and stand together against their familiar methods : favouritism, disinformation, bullying and brow-beating; identity wedging and communal forking by language, religion and caste; and, emotional stroking and stoking of fires from cooled off embers.

But that isn’t how it works in a democracy with India’s diversity of strong identities by clan, religion, language and caste, compounded by income inequalities, education variance, capacity for reason and vision for future.

That is what election results in Bihar prove. The dynasts, casteists and corrupts are back in power. Is it money and liquor distribution, the paid media’s constant harp, or the tamperable voting machines ?

I wouldn’t know.

India : Judiciary Must Not Arrogate Itself On People’s Back. The Govt Must Deliver On Our Constituted Road Map For The Future.


People have a connect with the Legislature, which can add to, subtract from, or amend the Constitution, and from which the Executive is drawn.

The Judiciary is appointed by the Executive and can be impeached out of office by the Legislature which, it is worth repeating, is accountable to the people of the land.

Why, then, does the Indian Judiciary arrogate itself upon people’s back ?

And, why doesn’t the Executive lead the affairs of this nation in accord with the constituted road-map the people have willed for their future ?

Originally posted on Truth Within, Shines Without:

The country is again abuzz with wasteful foolishness in discussing pre-1947 “Hate Speech” laws, entrusting to the Supreme Court the power to adjucate in a matter that should properly be discussed and decided upon in the legislature.

To start with, the Government Of India should have long back reviewed, discussed and debated in Parliamentary Committees, and scrapped as a rule all pre-1947 British mandated colonial era laws, via appropriate Legislative Bill, except those few that still had law and order or justice dispensing value in the democratically vibrant society of post-independent India.

It fails my understanding why have the judges at all admitted the matter for their consideration, when Parliament is the proper forum for thrashing out the appropriateness, or not, of hate speech laws in Indian society today. It is not a matter of mere legalese or scoring vain debating points within closed doors, before a group of few know-all…

View original 2,040 more words

India : Judiciary Must Not Arrogate Itself On People’s Back. The Govt Must Deliver On Our Constituted Road Map For The Future.

The country is again abuzz with wasteful foolishness in discussing pre-1947 “Hate Speech” laws, entrusting to the Supreme Court the power to adjucate in a matter that should properly be discussed and decided upon in the legislature.

To start with, the Government Of India should have long back reviewed, discussed and debated in Parliamentary Committees, and scrapped as a rule all pre-1947 British mandated colonial era laws, via appropriate Legislative Bill, except those few that still had law and order or justice dispensing value in the democratically vibrant society of post-independent India.

It fails my understanding why have the judges at all admitted the matter for their consideration, when Parliament is the proper forum for thrashing out the appropriateness, or not, of hate speech laws in Indian society today. It is not a matter of mere legalese or scoring vain debating points within closed doors, before a group of few know-all individuals who have hardly acquitted themselves as just or wise enough when it mattered.

It demands an understanding of the kind of society we want for ourselves, between freedom to think aloud about all things around us and the mandated caution not to disrespect or alienate people who are merely pursuing their way of life in our togetherness.

The Law Which Fails The Polity…

The Constitution of India and its hate speech laws aim to prevent discord among its many ethnic and religious communities. The laws allow a citizen to seek the punishment of anyone who shows the citizen disrespect “on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever”. The laws specifically forbid anyone from outraging someone’s “religious feelings”.

This law has often been criticised for being misused by individuals, people or groups, and even by police and governments, for simply censoring or trying to censor conflicting point of views raised by another individual, people or group, irrespective of their objective merits.

In the case now being debated in the Court, Dr S Swamy avers that the law should be expunged from the statute book because it is too generic, non-specific, to serve any real purpose. The Govt of India argues otherwise.

A blatant example of misuse of law was a blasphemy case filed by the Catholic Church against Sanal Edamaruku, eventually forcing him out of India into exile, for investigating and challenging a report of divine water dripping from the feet of a crucifix at Our Lady of Velankanni church in Mumbai, which he instead correctly attributed to capillary action.

Two things are obvious in this instance : one, the society failed to get together and resolve the matter amicably, politically if needed, between the unreasonably aggrieved party, the Church and its church-goers, and the rationally minded people of the country who have knowledge of established phenomenal laws of nature.

Secondly, the invoked “hate speech” laws contradict another constitutional provision in Article 51A(h) that imposes on every citizen the duty to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.

It is plain to me, then, that it would have been in order if the government had filed a counter case against the first plaintiff — the Church — for violating and hindering willfully a very important social directive we gave to ourselves, by collective agreement and will of all citizens of this country.

By not doing so, the government of the day failed, fell short by far, in doing the needful in discharge of its responsibility in line with its oath to uphold the constituted will behind the State. As did the other vain debating institution which arrogated itself upon the people’s back : the judiciary.

The Law(s)

India’s hate speech law is contained in two constutional provisions : 153(A) and 295(A). For the scope of this essay, both are similar in import, against those who commit any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious,

racial, language or regional groups

or castes or communities,

and which disturbs

or is likely to disturb

the public tranquility.

If convicted, they shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Going by the punishment, one would have to presume that the crime under these provisions has a range of implication, from minor to serious or severe, which nature is left for the law court to decide. How, on what basis ? Will it be by spontaneous extent of effect or politicised and manufactured rabble rousing by a determined few over a period of time ?

Also, going by its extreme effect on social health, why is the punished capped at 3 years in prison. As such, the law grossly underestimates the power of the word to vitiate social harmony from within, deep in the very way people think, over time that could prove incubatory until its effect actually explodes into open. Very often, too, the viciousness of the effect never attains closure, and continues to simmer for long, to germinate in secrecy and spread through infecting others who would.

These are a few aspects to the vague, non-specific and ill-thought nature of the hate speech law under discussion. As indeed its legislative and judicial history proves.

Legislative History 

A book, Rangila Rasul, was published in 1927. The book concerned the marriages and sex life of Prophet Muhammad. On the basis of a complaint, the publisher was arrested but later acquitted in April 1929 because there was no law against insult to religion.

The publisher was later murdered in Court by one Muslim fundamentalist, Ilm-ud-din. As a result, Ilm-ud-din was honored by the “religious” but inhumane elements in the community with the honorifics : ‘Ghazi’ and ‘Shaheed’.

Representative advocates of the same elements in the Indian Muslim community demanded a law against insult to religious feelings. Hence, the colonial British Government enacted Section 295(A).

This failure of the governing polity is glaring : of the unrepresentative government wedded to the interests of the Crown which, clearly uninterested in fostering long term goals of social and inter-faith harmony, failed to bring the people together and unite their will to the higher national purpose of common good.

There were composite villages in India, it must be pointed, who knew how to manage such differences better, and they did all the time. They still do, even today. But not the government of the day because it had no interest in furthering amity among people. The unspoken “divide and rule” dictum was a tried and trusted policy then.

From how successive governments have behaved through post-Independence decades, I am not sure if the same divide and rule policy lapsed in August 1947. Not by how the Civil Services cadre have lived and acted, by their priviledged status, and not by the manner in which our judiciary has functioned, in its deified isolation.

Judicial Verdicts Against

In 1957, Supreme Court upheld the decision of a lower court that had found publisher Ramji Lal Modi guilty of publishing a cartoon and an article, which allegedly insulted the “religious” beliefs of Muslims. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and fined under IPC 295A. The Petitioner argued that IPC 295A violated freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(A) of the Constitution and that the perceived offense, of insulting religious beliefs, can be allowed to be committed if it spelled no danger of public disorder.

But the judiciary mistook the raging public debate as being equal to social disharmony, and went along with cognition of primacy to the moral subjectivity of the outraged few. Was it right in doing so, in preventing the communities to learn and evolve into accepting strong, diverse attitudes and opposing views, through letting the views of the silent but reasonable majority prevail in time ?

In 1960, the Supreme Court upheld a decision of Uttar Pradesh government to forfeit all six books written by Baba Khalil Ahmad because it contained derogatory reference to Muawiya, who was governor of Syria and contemporary of Prophet Mohammad, which outraged the religious feelings of Sunni Muslim community.

The judgement raises the same questions : did the judges knew what they were dealing with ? Did they have an adequate sense of the real problem : blind belief, on things thousands of miles far and a millennium in the the past, versus a contemporary discourse penned by thoughtful person, in six volumes, for people to read and form their own views on matters discussed ?

In 1961, the Supreme court found Henry Rodrigues guilty of insulting religious beliefs of the Roman Catholics, and acting with a malicious intention in publishing and printing the same in ‘Crusader’ magazine.

The defendant, who was himself a Roman Catholic, stated that he had criticized certain practices and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, which were contrary to what had been stated in the Holy Bible. He further stated that similar views have been expressed in many other well-known works. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and, in default of such payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

In 1984, the Supreme court upheld the decision of Bihar government to forfeit all the copies of book ‘Vishwa Itihas (Pratham Bhag)’ on the ground that it contained derogatory reference to Prophet Mohammad which outraged the religious feelings of the Muslim community. The petitioner, who was the publisher of the work, argued that the author had relied on the authoritative historical works like the “Outline of History” by RG Wells, the “Muhamad at Madina” by W.M.G. Watt and the “Middle East” by S.N. Fisher etc. In discussing the Muhammadan religion he had used his dispassionate expertise as a teacher of history and in fact had praised the Prophet when there was an occasion to do so.

In 2007, R.V. Bhasin’s work “Islam – A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims” was banned, and his house in Maharashtra raided, on grounds that it outrages the feelings of sections in Muslim society. In January 2010, the Bombay High upheld the ban imposed by the Government of Maharashtra.

Judicial Verdicts For

In 1990, the Kerala government banned the play “Jesus Christ Superstar.” In 1991, Kerala High Court upheld the ban and observed that its script is against fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith and the presentation of Jesus Christ in the play was “both sacrilegious and blasphemous”.

But in April 2015, the Supreme Court of India quashed the ban and observed that Ban has outlived its utility. The drama has been staged abroad, including Vatican, and is available online.

In 2005, the Supreme court set aside decision of West Bengal government to forfeit all the copies of book “Dwikhandita” written by Taslima Nasreen. The West Bengal government had ordered forfeiture of all copies of the work on the ground that it outraged the religious feelings of the Muslim community.

Judicial Verdict Unknown

Or Yet To Come…

In 2006, seven states including Nagaland, Punjab, Goa, Tamilnadu, and Andhra Pradesh banned the release or exhibition of the Hollywood movie “The Da Vinci Code” (and the book of same name), Later, two of the states lifted the ban under a High Court order.

In February 2009, the police arrested Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha, editor and publisher respectively of the Kolkata-based English daily The Statesman, for hurting Muslim sentiments. The police charged Kumar and Sinha under section 295A because they had reprinted an article from The Independent, by its columnist Johann Hari.

Titled “Why should I respect oppressive religions?”, the article stated Hari’s belief that the right to criticise any religion was being eroded around the world. Predictably, Muslim protestors in Kolkata reacted to Hari’s belief by violent demonstrations at the offices of The Statesman.

In March 2015, Karnataka Police arrested Sriram Yadapadithaya based on a complaint filed by Fr William Menezes of Mangaluru Catholic Diocese. The complaint alleged that Sriram’s Facebook comments questioned the basic tenets of Christianity. Flavy D’Souza, president of the Catholic Sabha had urged authorities to take strict action against people who indulge in such acts. The Catholic Sabha had warned that it would resort to agitation if the authorities failed to do so.

Judicial Verdict Clear

The Supreme Court on March 3, 2014, dismissed a PIL by Advocate M L Sharma that sought the Court’s intervention and directive to the Election Commission to curb hate speeches during electoral campaigns. Dismissing the plea, the Apex Court said that it could not curb the fundamental right of the people to express themselves.

At Long Last

Now you know.

And, hopefully, the judges realise.

Freedom of expression includes the freedom to make a reasoned statement of one’s own understanding of a matter, even if it offends the beliefs of others, religious or not.

It does not give one the freedom to desecrate symbols of other people’s faith or insult people who live, think or believe differently.

But the freedom to make a reasoned statement, without meaning to rabble rouse, must be assured.

Yet, what is the Govt of India battling for, and why ? Dr Swamy should be able to point out its puerile bases before the bench in the Apex Court.

In India, Islamists Are As Vile As Papal Xtians

Thia is an extract from Radha Rajan’s Article I read on the web.


(India’s present Prime Minister Narendra) Modi dealt Sonia Gandhi and the Generic Church, which manoeuvred her into the house of India’s (third) Prime Minister, a near mortal blow…

The ascent of Narendra Modi and his larger-than-life magnetic appeal sat the Generic Church in the corner with a dunce cap on its head.

But first, a clear definition of ‘Generic Church’ is in order.

Generic Church stands for all White churches of all denominations located in White Christian countries of North and South America, Europe and Australia. It has its pan-national and international instruments of war-by-other-means like the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, IMF, World Bank, global Christian funding agencies and mega NGOs like World Vision International, Red Cross, Action Aid, Greenpeace International, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, DFID, Oxfam and Cordaid among several others.

(These organisations have deep pockets and almost limitless funding for seeming secular programs in areas about which developing countries are first put on defensive, being especially beaten by the righteous rod that white funding countries wield. In India, they are) human rights, women’s rights, Dalit rights, big dams, climate change, anti-nuclear power, anti-fossil fuels, and all such activism which involves muscle flexing and arm-twisting to wrestle non-Christian national governments to the ground.

The Generic Church is a predator which feeds upon non-white and non-Christian nations and peoples while brown, black and other coloured churches are its fawning agent-lackeys.

Secularism is Christianity in Disguise

The Second Vatican Council through the pontifical document Ad Gentes declared,

‘The pilgrim Church is missionary by her very nature…the Church, being the salt of the earth and the light of the world (cf. Matt. 5:13-14), is more urgently called upon to save and renew every creature, that all things may be restored in Christ and all men may constitute one family in Him and one people of God.’

Secularism is Christian and only Christian. It is not religion neutral or non-religious or equal respect for all religions as it is made out to be by deracinated Hindus, Indian Muslims, Christians and the Left-liberal-secular brigade. It is a clear partitioning of the Territory of Christian Empire between the Church and the Christian king and demarcation of their respective areas of jurisdiction and authority.

Whatever queer creature it may be in India, secularism as was first conceived and formalised was a latter day all-Christian power-sharing instrument. Under secularism, the Church and the State were separated but they were both Christian and both committed to furthering Christianity – the Church through religion and the King or State through politics : United Nations, IMF, Ford Foundation, Greenpeace International et al.

The Generic Church is therefore the sum total and consolidation of all instruments, and all weapons old and new, crafted by the White Christian State and White Church to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth or ‘restore all things in Christ’, as stated by Decree Ad Gentes.

St. Augustine (or Saint Austin : 354-430 AD) more than 1600 years ago, in The City of God, Book XIX, Chapter 17, explored the ideal relationship between the ‘earthly city’ and ‘city of God’; this is the same as kingdoms established by Christian kings and the kingdom of God on Earth. St. Augustine held that it was the sacred duty of the earthly city to create the conditions to establish the city of God on earth.

Nature of the Generic Church

The Generic Church is missionary by nature.This superstructure has been raised not out of compassion and desire for the well-being of the world but to bring the entire world under the Christian heel. And until the Kingdom of God is established on earth, Green Card, Permanent Residence, American and EU visas and citizenship, Walmart and Macy’s will give us all glimpses of White Christian paradise. In this paradise, coloured Christians will be second class inhabitants with fewer privileges after all non-Christians have been burnt in Dante’s inferno.

The Generic Church has a single-point foreign policy agenda : every corner of the globe must be placed directly or indirectly under its control. This agenda is no different from the foreign policy agenda of Islam. For both Abrahamic cults, subjugating the world in the name of Jesus and Mohammed has remained unchanged since inception.

While Islam deploys only Jihad as weapon of foreign policy, the Generic Church has invented other, more successful weapons of war. Mega and Meta NGOs funding and supporting domestic NGOs, politically motivated social cause activists, and news media channels in every country where they have a foreign policy strategic intent, constitute the mercenary armies which goad, instigate and foment violent domestic unrest, at the very minimum to influence government policy and at the maximum leading to regime change.

Foreign-funded NGOs and 24×7 media channels are the latest weapons in the Generic Church’s armoury against Hindu India…


To read the main article, click here.

Thank You, Dear Readers !

It feels good to let you know :
This blog will hit the 100,000 mark before the year-end.

Can’t thank you enough !

A quick view of the stats suggests that…

— 70% of the total views occured during the last two years.

— half of the total views are from India and the US. The count from UK and France are comparable. That from Canada compares with UAE and Phillipines.

It’s humbling to know that viewers of this blog in Muslim or Islamic countries are significantly more than those in Buddhist or Hindu majority lands. Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Bangladesh rank way ahead of Thailand, Srilanka, Nepal or Mauritius. Views from Germany is just marginally more than from Pakistan.

Summarily, the blog has found readership in all countries except Greenland and few nations in Africa.

I cannot say that I will try harder because extending the reach of this blog has never been a reason behind what I write, even remotely.

And there is no likelihhod of me putting up posts on fashion, travel, food or sex… which, I am told, are more popular among readers far and near.

In India, the festival season has just begun, since August when siblings celebrated Rakhi. The week-long Durga Puja ended a week back and Diwali — the Festival of Light — will see a pan-India participation just 10 odd days later… Oh, it will remain a mad house well until March next year, with one celebration following another every few weeks or sooner !

My best wishes to you, whatever occasion you observe with happy fervour : Diwali, Christmas or New Year !

I love them all. They each move people to gladness. And that’s a beautiful thing, anyday.

India : Hurdles Within And Abroad

The India media continues with more of its buzz. The daily Times Of India has filled more of its spread with Irfan Habib on saffronisation, Moody’s fears over foreign backlash, Amir Khan for India-Pak boxing fans, Lalu-Nitish in EC over Modi-Shah bluntness, December concert in Lucknow for hawala operative Ghulam Ali, and more outbursts against ‘India under RSS’ and disconnect of this Govt from ‘ the people.’

That is what the Indian recovery of its authenticity is up against: alround media projection of widespread disaffection.

But I am glad, the new awareness of the country’s mainstream is undeterred. It is braced for such opposition to its stand against terror-sponsoriing Pakistan, against its people for not opposing its Islamic state policies against minorities, including Muslims of non-sunni hues, against this reckless cultural corruption with closed thoughts and non-inclusive values, against imagined ideas of what India is, what it means to its people who are hiers to its millennial long history, learning at way of life, history, and their future.

Pakistan and its people can chart their own, to whatever they wish to be. The world can deal with itself howsoever.

India will change.

India will be stopped by nothing and no one. It will survive it all and thrive on its own terms, for itself, for its continuity, its people and their distinctly unique way of life.

Enough is enough…

India arises. Its mainstream are awake.
It is the greatest blessing the world will realise in a few decades. It is the one gap, one true loss, that will henceforth will be made good.

By India, its heritage, and its people.

Vedanta, Yoga And Veganism

By Sunil Srivastava

Spiritualism is a science and it has many benefits to counter negative emotions cultured or inadvertant in human beings. It is a Science which makes you see the Whole as One, which makes you understand the reality of nature. It makes you be happy, peaceful, live in the moment, and not have regrets of past or worries of the future.

All this can be achieved in the path of Yoga and Vedanta. It is a second birth. I believe this was the reason for calling Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas as Dwij – the second born.

But this Knowledge is not taught in schools, colleges and universities. Only a few bump into this when in the class room of life; they get knocked enough, begin to look for answers, and hit upon the path after much trial and error.

This knowledge is no other than the one preached by the Buddha, in which practice and belief non–violence is fundamental.

But alas, the Indian poets, writers, artistes and scientists who question the Indian Govt’s decision to enforce a ban on killing of cows and beef – eating, and encouraging a vegetarian diet in general, present a convoluted logic and espouse the cause of false freedoms.

There are scientific reasons behind promoting a vegan way of life. A person who knows science, biology, chemistry, biochemistry, and their phenomenal effects on the environment and on human mind and body, would arrive at the same conclusion : support for vegan way of life.

Imagine, if you can eat raw meat just after killing ! Imagine, eating your pet who got killed … animals with 2 pair of eyes, 2 pair of ears/gills, 1 mouth/trunk, 4 limbs and so on.  Their forms establish that they are our conscious DNA Relatives.

Like any good or bad habit. if you kill once, the next killing becomes easier. It is hard to drink blood the first time but easier the next time. We get conditioned to killing, to disregarding the value life other than our own. It takes us towards commiting violence without scruples. To a violent state of mind, in other words.

It is no argument to say to ourself that it is not us, personally, who are doing the killing. There are still those, by the millions, who will do the killing to put the flesh on your table, who will embrace an unscrupulous disregard for lives other than their own, and take upon themselves a violent state of mind.

What will these men do ? How will they behave towards other people ? The indiscriminate shootings in the US are a pointer to violence accepting values system. The ISIS is its extreme manifestation. Pakistan, as nation of violent people who promote the violent mind-set amongst themselves, easily harbors terrorists and has no issues with adopting terror as as matter of state policy. What fate befalls the ISIS, the Islamists, and the state of Pakistan, is now being manifest.

India is the spiritual mother of the world. This is the land where the spiritual science of Vedanta, Yoga, and veganism, was established by an unbroken stream of seers over thousands of years. I have seen people from all walks of life, all over the world, congregate at Yoga and Vedanta Ashrams to get this Knowledge. They also embrace the Vegan way of life.

There are enough well-researched grounds today to prove that cancer, chickenguniya, bovine flu, mad cow and several other diseases, auto-immune issues and inflammations are linked to meat based diets. That is, through eating the flesh of life with DNAs close to our own.

India : On Surge For Clean Change

The media is abuzz with its backlash against change surging on the back of mainstream population of the country — the ignored vernacular Hindus. It is a forceful call for clean break against rule of the confabulating few : the nehruvians, gandhians, the congress clan, the lalus and their misas and ill-educated tejasvis, the caste foaming mulayams and mayawatis, the politburo esconced commies, and the ummah loyal muslims. The indigenous people of this ancient and forward looking nation have proclaimed : enough is enough.

All the buzz in the media today is against this change underway. It was Christian outrage, Muslim furore, beef and beef, saffronisation peeve… All projected to be in conflict with the idea of India and its dominant values imagined by secular-liberal minds, veritably burdened with the task of leading the country to alien prompts from western shores, the Vatican and Mecca, and their representing cliques within.

The media led by english language broadcasters is working overtime with its brief for the lost cause. In today’s spread, the Times Of India continues with its big display of calls from “artists and scientists” against the new India, emerging after the rule of select few under successive Congress regimes, of appeasement and caste found politics working against India’s mainstream population, and of the dialectics mouthing communist empty-heads.

The secular-liberal coterie fails to understand that artists and scientists, and whatever other professions it may include, hold no priviledge, no special status, in this march of change signalled by the Indian vox populi. This change is marked by a recovery of India-specific way of life, its history, its values and cultural freedoms. The momentum is set in the surge but has barely even begun.

People — the new people of changing India — are no longer beholden to specialists, especially journalists who are gone extinct in the web era. They might have been good during the 7 decades in India’s past, in days they held the centre stage cordoned off from the mainstream, but are out of sync today and would be still more irrelevant in the future being ushered in.

The changing India is aspiring for a clean break away from its talk-shop management fora, the advisory groups of dynast and oligarch appointees, the foreign funded NGOs and co-opted media barons, and people of granted standing but without the legs to stand on in the mass of common people, now awake to their heritage and destiny.

Amidst all this, the judiciary has come forward with a couple of bold nationalist initiatives : the uniform civil code and call for review to align the Muslim Personal Law with humane provisions in law for common citizens. There is an appeal now pendinding against the Supreme Court’s judgement against the NJAC, which had at its back the near unanimous will of the people.

The history of India is well on its recovery path… Already. And the mainstream political movement, spearheaded by Bhartiya Janata Party, is raising enough discomfort among the status quoists to signal the change I speak of.

Journal : Lyrics Of Rebel


Is the day over ?

Or is the groom’s party

On the boat drowned ?

No dirge from the shores

I hear not a soul’s howl !

Originally posted on Truth Within, Shines Without:

The days pass in bits and parts, night avails in shreds n pieces;

We’re each endowed in accord with heaven’s cover, its reaches.

I’ve wished to know this heart of mine

But have heard the laughs on each try

Like a yell on top at my defeat once more

Will in rout and loss, my life down and beat.

But what of defeats, of their attacks oblique ?

Move on I must, keep on walking

I have the beau after my heart

And this unrest too, ever since.

It starts but is without consequence

When my story is without that name…

That co-traveller who dissolves

In the dark folds of my mane.

Ill-repute, yes, I do embrace

But am lost no more, no more misplaced.

Why must I not heed

The calls of youth in heart ?

Pick at its joyous yields

Its smiles and laughs ?

Not all are…

View original 57 more words

In A Moment On Autumn Morn

Ah good, it’s nippy at 6 in the morning…

I’d love to be among people who see their God in the sun, the earth and moon and sky, rivers and mountains, stones and trees, animals and men.

Which is why I love the Hindu, the only major embracing kind who remain on earth.

It’s long since I’ve had much use for temples except as creations of human imagination, its architecture and art.

I find mosques especially grotesque : that noisy azaan, the human herd, and collective ritual raising their hind to another behind.


Previous Older Entries


All rights to material on this blog site is reserved.
Copyrights rest with either with the owner / author of this site or with those whose ownership / authorship is acknowledged.
Please do not copy, quote, print or publish without permission.

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,987 other followers

%d bloggers like this: