Here is a nice presentation prepared by Gayatri Parivar. Good one. Indias_Gift_to_the_world
Archive for August, 2010
Tags: ancient civilisation, aryabhata, ayurveda, contribution of india, india, mathematics, samskrit, science, sushruta, vedas, yoga
Tags: amit shah, encounters in india, gujarat, modi, sohrabuddin, UPA Govt.
Ajit Kumar Doval
Posted: Wed Aug 04 2010, 02:42 hrs
Beware of half truths — because you may be holding the wrong half. After having seen and read so much about the Sohrabuddin episode in the last five years, one might believe one knows it all. Sohrabuddin is now cast as an innocent victim of police excess.
However, it would be worthwhile to explore the real facts about Sohrabuddin, the nature of police encounters, and the real issues at stake. Sohrabuddin was an underworld gangster who was involved in nearly two dozen serious criminal offences in states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. He maintained transnational links with anti-India forces from the early ‘90s onwards, until his death in 2005. Working with mafia dons like Dawood Ibrahim and Abdul Latif, he procured weapons and explosives from Pakistan and supplied them to various terrorist and anti-national groups (had it not been for his activity, at least some terrorist acts could have been averted). Sohrabuddin was solidly entrenched in the criminal world for a decade-and-a-half. Around the time he was killed, the Rajasthan government had announced a reward on his head. In 1999, he had been detained under the National Security Act by the Madhya Pradesh government.
In a 1994 case investigated by the Ahmedabad crime branch, he was co-accused along with Dawood Ibrahim and convicted for five years, for waging war against the Government of India, planning an attack on the Jagannath rath yatra in Orissa, and other offences under the IPC, Arms Act, etc. During the investigation, 24 AK-56 rifles, 27 hand grenades, 5250 cartridges, 81 magazines and more were seized from his family home in Madhya Pradesh. In 2004, a fourth crime was registered against him by Chandgad police station of Kolhapur district in Maharashtra under sections 302, 120 (b), and 25 (1) (3) of the Arms Act, for the killing of Gopal Tukaram Badivadekar. As fear of him often silenced people from reporting his whereabouts, let alone deposing against him, the Rajasthan government had to announce a reward on his head after he killed Hamid Lata in broad daylight in the heart of Udaipur, on December 31, 2004. So much for Sohrabuddin’s innocence.
However, irrespective of who Sohrabuddin was and what he did, the use of unaccountable force against him is indefensible is the public view of many (often at variance with their private view). There are many who feel that there is a higher rationale for such actions in compelling circumstances, as the law of the land has repeatedly found itself helpless in dealing with individuals bent on bleeding the country. Their argument, that the rule of law is a means to an end and not an end in itself, often finds support in the jurisprudential principles of salus populi est suprema lex (the people’s welfare is the supreme law) and salus res publica est suprema lex (the safety of the nation is supreme law). Even the Supreme Court of India, in the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal [1997 (1) SCC 416] accepted the validity of these two principles and characterised them as “not only important and relevant, but lying at the heart of the doctrine that welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community.” The validity of the principles of salus populi est suprema lex and salus res publica est suprema lex could have been part of an enlightened national discourse, and what could be the governing instrumentalities, empowerments, legal checks and stringent processes if these principles were to be invoked. It is better to accept reality as it is and then strive to change it for the better, rather than what we wish it to be. Feigned ignorance is the worst type of hypocrisy.
But there is another vital question that needs to be addressed. While pursuing the Sohrabuddin case, was the government really serious about stopping the menace of fake encounters, or was it pursuing a different agenda? Encounters have been taking place all over the country under all regimes, at times degenerating into what are called fake encounters. Between 2000 and 2007 there have been 712 cases of police encounters in the country with UP topping the list at 324, and Gujarat figuring almost at the bottom with 17.
In some of the cases there was not much on record, even to establish the criminal past of those killed. Settling political scores through security and investigative agencies like the CBI is not only bad politics, but also destructive for the nation’s security. To convey the impression (explicitly or implicitly) that Sohrabuddin was targeted for belonging to a particular community, thereby creating a sense of insecurity in a section of society, is detrimental to national interests. It is little known that a large number of Sohrabuddin’s victims were Muslims while a good number of his closest associates (including Tulsiram Prajapati, who was also killed in a similar encounter), were Hindu. William Blake could not have been more right when he said that “a truth that is pursued with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent”.
The other negative impact of the Sohrabuddin case is the impression it is creating that all encounters in which police and security forces are involved, are fake. Society needs to be reassured that the majority of encounters are genuine and mostly in response to murderous attacks on security personnel. The fact that, on average, over 1,200 policemen get killed every year grappling with terrorists, insurgents, underworld mafia and other anti-social elements, bears ample testimony to this fact. Playing up a few aberrations and blowing them out of proportion and presenting them as the only truth is not in the national interest.
The other downside of the publicity around such cases is that it erodes the people’s trust in governance. Administrations begin to be seen as instruments of repression and self-aggrandisement and politicians as perceived as manipulating their power for political and personal gains. This erosion can lead to a dangerous delegitimisation of the polity. Democratic politics is an exercise in regime-legitimisation, and to lose the confidence of the governed would set the government on a self-destructive path.
The writer is former director of the Intelligence Bureau
Tags: allah, hadis, hadith, inslam, koran, mohammed, sharia, undersatndiong islam
Simplifying Sharia for Non-Muslims
Book Review by U. Mahesh Prabhu
Sharia Law for Non-Muslims | Author: Bill Warner |Publisher: Centre for Study of Political Islam | Pp: 50 | ISBN: 0-9795794-8-1
With “9/11 mosque” controversy in New York is already making news, not just in the United States but also across every free thinking world. A question as to whether it is appropriate to build a mosque so close to a place where World Trade Centre once stood before it was brought down by Islamic terrorists is fast gaining momentum. The insistence of Muslims and their apologists to build a mosque there itself, against all the resistance put forth by people of several faiths, including Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and the like, is something very baffling. This is specifically so for those, who are unaware of the theology and history of Islam; ones “without” an opinion about Islam. Should they desire to know about the true nature of this totalitarian faith, this book “Sharia Law for Non-Muslims” by Bill Warner must be apt read.
Writes the author “…there are three points of view relative to Islam. These points of view depend upon how one feels about Mohammed. If you believe Mohammad is the prophet of Allah, then you are a believer. If you don’t, you are a non-believer. The third viewpoint is that of an apologist for Islam. Apologists do not believe Mohammed was a prophet, but they are tolerant about Islam without any actual knowledge of Islam.”
He presents a good case to prove this point “In Medina, Mohammad sat all day long beside his 12-year-old wife while they watched as the heads of 800 Jews were removed by sword. Their heads were cut off because they had said that Mohammed was not the prophet of Allah. Muslims view these deaths as necessary because denying Mohammed’s prophet-hood was, and remains, as an offense against Islam. They were beheaded because it is sanctioned by Allah.”
“Nonbelievers” Warner suggests, “look at this event as proof of the jihadist violence of Islam and as an evil act.”
What must be important to note are arguments presented by “Apologists’”, for they claim that “this was an historic event; that all cultures have violence in their past and, thus, no judgment should be passed.” They speak authoritatively “without having any idea about Islam’s foundational texts”. According to them this, killing of 800 Jews, was either “a tragedy”, “a perfect sacred act” or “another historical event. We have done worse.”
Warner also keenly observes that “People often think that the Koran is the bible of Islam. Not true. The bible of Islam is Koran, the Sira and the Hadith; these three texts can be called the Trilogy.” Author observes that “… Koran is only 14% of the total words of the doctrine that is Islam. The text devoted to the Sunna (Sira and Hadith) is 86% of the total textual doctrine of Islam. Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Mohammed.”
By keeping his commentary to minimal author relies mostly on the original scriptures to expose the true nature of this faith and even seeks them to re-confirm from sources should they “doubt their authenticity” thereby leaving no scope for any “misrepresentations”.
Islamic scholars and apologists in the free thinking world often “claim” of equal status for women in Koran. Author systematically debunks these bogus claims by quoting the following sources:
Koran 4:34 | Allah has made men superior to women because men spend their wealth to support them. Therefore, virtuous women are obedient, and they are to guard their unseen parts as Allah has guarded them. As for women whom you fear will rebel, admonish them first, and then send them to a separate bed, and then beat them. But if they are obedient after that, then do nothing further; surely Allah is exalted and great!
Abu Dawud 11, 2142 | Mohammed said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.
Bukhari 7, 62, 132 | The Prophet said, “None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day.” Most of those in Hell will be women.
Bukhari 3, 48, 826 | Mohammed asked, “Is not the value of a woman’s eye-witness testimony half that of a man’s?” A woman said, “Yes.” He said, “That is because a woman’s mind is deficient.”
Koran 4:11 | it is in this manner that Allah commands you concerning your children: A male should receive a share equal to that of two females, […]
The Arabic word “Kafir” is often translated as “non-Muslim”. However, author warns that “The word Kafir means far more than non-Muslim. The original meaning of the word was ‘concealer’, one who conceals the truth of Islam.” adding “The Koran says that the Kafir may be deceived, plotted against, hatched enslaved, mocked, tortured and worse. The world ‘unbeliever’ is logically and emotionally neutral, whereas, Kafir is the most abusive prejudiced and hateful word in any language.”
According to Bill “Islam devotes a great amount of its energy to the Kafir. The majority (64%) of the Koran is devoted to the Kafir, and nearly all of the Sira (81%) deals with Mohammed’s struggle with them. The Hadith (Traditions) devotes 32% of the text to Kafirs. Overall, the Trilogy devotes 60% of its content to the Kafir.” He proves as to how brutal Koran can be against Islam by presenting the following verses from it:
A Kafir can be mocked:
83:34 On that day the faithful will mock the Kafirs, while they sit on bridal couches and watch them. Should not the Kafirs be paid back for what they did?
A Kafir can be beheaded:
47:4 When you encounter the Kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thoroughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly.
A Kafir can be plotted against:
86:15 They plot and scheme against you [Mohammed], and I plot and scheme against them. Therefore, deal calmly with the Kafirs and leave them alone for a while.
A Kafir can be terrorized:
8:12 Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, “I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the Kafirs’ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!”
A Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir:
3:28 Believers should not take Kafirs as friends in preference to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah’s protection and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all will return to Him.
A Kafir is evil:
23:97 And say: Oh my Lord! I seek refuge with you from the suggestions of the evil ones [Kafirs]. And I seek refuge with you, my Lord, from their presence.
A Kafir is disgraced:
37:18 Tell them, “Yes! And you [Kafirs] will be disgraced.”
A Kafir is cursed:
33:60 They [Kafirs] will be cursed, and wherever they are found, they will be seized and murdered. It was Allah’s same practice with those who came before them, and you will find no change in Allah’s ways.”
We often find Muslims telling Christians and Jews that they are “special”. That they are “People of the Book” and “are brothers in the Abrahamic faith”. But in Islam you are a Christian, if and only if, you believe that Christ was a man who was a prophet of Allah; there is no Trinity; Jesus was neither crucified nor resurrected and that He will return to establish Sharia law. To be a true Jew you must believe that Mohammed is the last in the line of Jewish prophets! The following two verses pointed out in the Koran proves this point:
5:77 Say: Oh, People of the Book, do not step out of the bounds of truth in your religion, and do not follow the desires of those who have gone wrong and led many astray. They have themselves gone astray from the even way.
9:29 Make war on those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] but do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day. They do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. The Christians and Jews do not follow the religion of truth until they submit and pay the poll tax [Jizya] and they are humiliated.
Thus, Christians and Jews who do not accept Mohammed as the final prophet are Kafirs.
Koran 1:7 Not the path of those who anger you [the Jews] nor the path of those who go astray [the Christians]
Declares Bill “Jihad means war against Kafirs to establish Islam’s Sharia law” but not before quoting the following verses:
Koran 2:216 You are commanded to fight although you dislike it. You may hate something that is good for you, and love something that is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not.
Koran 4:89 They would have you become Kafirs like them so you will all be the same. Therefore, do not take any of them as friends until they have abandoned their homes to fight for Allah’s cause [jihad]. But if they turn back, find them and kill them wherever they are.
Because Islam holds two views about nearly every subject relating to Kafirs, it becomes increasingly confusing at times to understand the true intent of Islam. While critics of Islam are found quoting the harsher verses its apologists fight back by presenting a rather a very moderate ones. Here is an example:
Koran 73:10 Listen to what they [Kafirs] say with patience, and leave them with dignity.
From tolerance we now move to intolerance:
Koran 8:12 Then your Lord spoke to His angles and said, “I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the Kafirs’ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!”
The Koran is so filled with contradictions such as this that it provides a method to resolve the problem, called abrogation.
Abrogation means that the later verse is stronger than the earlier verse. However, both verses are still true, since the Koran is the exact, precise word of Allah. In the two verses above, the first verse is earlier than the second verse and is, therefore, weaker. It is always that way. The early, weaker “good” verse is abrogated by the later, stronger “bad” verse.
There is a simple reason for the contradictory verses. Mohammed’s career had two distinctly different phases – early and late. In Mecca Mohammed was a religious preacher. Later, in Medina he became a politician and warrior and became very powerful. The early Meccan Koran gives the advice of Allah when Islam is weak and the later Medinan Koran says what to do when Islam is strong. The stronger Mohammed became the harder he waged war against the Kafirs. The Koran gives the proper advice to every Muslim for every stage.
To say the least with “Sharia Law for Non-Muslims” its’ author Bill Warner has created a short yet monumental work that which is lucid. No sensible earthling, should only he read this work, can ever put up with this faith, again, or believe it to be a “religion of peace”.
Book reviewer is the editor-in-chief of Folksmagazine.com and fellow of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London (UK).