Thursday, March 27, 2008

Progress of Islam in Society(from 1 to 100%)

When Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone:
United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law.
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris -- car-burnings) . Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam -- Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%Of course, that's not the case.
To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons."Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel.
-- Leon Uris, "The Haj" Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

My letter to Hindu girls

Pic from shows how adulterous women are dealt with in Islam. The condemned is wrapped in a sheet and half buried. Muhammadans gather around her and throw stones at her, shouting Allah is great.
Prophet Mohammed categorized women in these categories
1. Muslim Women
2. Muslim and prophet’s wife
3. Slave Muslim women
4. Non-believer women.
5. Slave and non-believer women.
He packed preaching’s for all different categories. Before we go in-depth, let me tell what Quran say about women.
# Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." 2:228
# A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282
# Males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11
# Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them. 4:34
# Don't pray if you are drunk, dirty, or have touched a woman lately. 4:43
# Women must cover themselves when in public. 33:59
Now comes to categories of women in Islam……
1. Muslim women – He was so doubtful about the character of women that he unveiled veil for Muslim women, so no disbeliever can see them……. He forbade them to marry to non believers… he forbade them to go out….. talking to men publicly is also restricted …… in short he made women a bed room object.
# Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223
# A husband can accuse his wife of adultery with only one witness. 24:6
# It's OK to have sex with your wives on the night of the fast. 2:187
…in short a Muslim women is respected inside her house and community but need not to keep them out of doubt …… even if she is your mother, sister or daughter…. That’s why a daughter who just touched age of puberty need to veil herself so her father cant see her….. and a mother needs to cover herself so her son cant see her …………..
2. Muslim Wives of Muhammad : This is the worst among all categories. Muhammad had married13 women but never trusted anyone.
# Allah says it is lawful for Muhammad to marry any women he wants. 33:50-51
# If Muhammad's wives are good, Allah will give them "an immense reward." 33:28-29
# The wives of Muhammad will be punished double for lewdness. (And that is easy for Allah.) 33:30
# The wives of Muhammad are not like other women. They must not leave their houses. 33:32-33
# But it's OK for Muhammad's wives to talk with certain people. 33:55
# When Allah or Muhammad decide that a man and woman should marry, they must marry. 33:36
# Muhammad's wives need to be careful. If they criticize their husband, Allah will replace them with better ones. 66:5
3. Slave Muslim women – They are property of their master ….
“It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, except those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses. And Allah is Ever a Watcher over all things.” 33:52
A muslim can marry 4 wives but can keep unlimited number of slaves as concubines
4. Non believer women – They are prime targets.. Islam says attack and get them. In Bangladesh and Pakistan thousands of Hindu girls are abducted and forcefully converted to Islam…….
But they can’t attack here in India ……so they have adopted different strategy ….. Inspired by the tunes of their baaps like Salman , Shahrukh and Aamir , they are hovering around the streets of Hindu colonies of each and every district of this nation …. Targeting the innocent Hindu girls.
The devestating effect
In Bhopal alone, every month 20 girls are being converted to Islam. Why? Because Muslim men can’t accept Hindu girl without converting her
"Wed not idolatresses till they believe; for lo! a believing bondwoman is better than an idolatress though she please you; and give not your daughters in marriage to idolaters till they believe, for lo! a believing slave is better than an idolater though he please you. These invite unto the Fire." 2:221
5. Non believer slave girl
– Just an example
One-day Muhammad goes to his wife’s house Hafsa the daughter of Omar and finds her maid Mariah attractive. He sends Hafsa to Omar’s house, telling her that he wanted to see her. When Hafsa leaves, Muhammad takes Mariah to bed and has intercourse with her. Meanwhile Hafsa, who finds out that her father was not expecting her, returns home much sooner than expected, and to her chagrin finds her illustrious husband in bed with her maid.
These are examples to follow …….so tell me what can u expect from the followers….???
The essence of this article is that Islam is not meant for Hindu girls. It is a evil religion has nothing to do with love and morality…..Vulnerable hindu girls are now their prime target … Muslims clerics openly preach about converting Hindu girls and they even sponsor Muslim guys who are on the prowl for Hindu girls.
Today 1000s of Hindu girls are being converted and married but when they see the horrible face of Islamic lascivious philosophy they don’t have any other scope expect killing themselves….
Sadhwi Ritambhara has alone rehabilitating 100s of girls converted to Islam… Some of these girls have thrown out of Islam because they did not free themselves from Hindu mindset …but most of them have seen brutality and shared their life with 3 other wives of their hubby.History tells us that when the army of Akbar in Rajputana surrounded 16000 brave Hindu women, they preferred to kill themselves rather then get defiled by Muslims.

Sri Sri, Osho and Hindu-Muslim polemics

D R V Acharya examines how Islamic scholar Zakir Naik misled Islamic hordes on Hinduism
First, this is a long article and second I am not a follower of Osho Rajneesh. But I have admired his works and I stop my admiration when the symptoms of greed and materialism becomes evident in his teachings. I like religious, secular and spiritual leaders who have a strong sense of humanism, individuality and service and I felt Rajneesh although he had a strong empathetic social consciousness he never did any practical welfare work for the betterment of society. Rajneesh despite his deep insights into the human condition became a victim of greed and got cut off from the world by his solipsistic tendencies. He eventually became an Ivory tower philosopher albeit an intelligent and colorful one. I have loved reading especially his discourses on the diverse mystical traditions of the world. I also admire his talent of public speaking and his irreverence to religious and political authority. Osho had the guts to critically examine hallowed and respected ideas and people. On most occasions in his public life he exhibited sound reasoning and conveyed extraordinary insights into the human condition.
I recently happened to bump across a website about an Islamic speaker Dr. Zakir Naik and his talks on the concept of God in different religions. Zakir Naik also had a dialogue with the popular self help guru Sri Sri Ravishankar. Although it was termed a dialogue, it turned out to be more of a debate with Zakir Naik pronouncing his typical clich├ęd Islamic rhetoric with a full fledged debunking of polytheists and idol worshippers. Zakir Naik also picked on Sri Sri Ravishankar for publishing a book on comparative Islam and Hinduism. This book had Sri Sri Ravishankar comparing some Islamic ideas and concepts and claiming that it originated from Hindu culture. Sri Sri Ravishankar not anticipating the confrontation tried to play it down and looked like he wanted to rush back to the cave in his Ashram. He also was openly apologetic about the publication of this book and tried to escape from the awkward situation by claiming that this book was printed in a hurry and it was written with an intent of bringing the two religious communities closer in the context of a Muslim-Hindu riot. He also pledged that he would not allow printing of further copies of the book.
Sri Sri Ravishankar is not generally known for his discursive thinking and intellect and his big strength is his emotional appeal to people based on personal charisma and the excellent PR machinery of his organization. Many a times he has goofed up on public platforms. I had once attended a seminar on ‘Science and Conciousness’ in the Indian Institute of Science and evidenced first hand Sri Sri Ravishankar talking utterly irrelevant things. The other eminent speakers on the podium like the Nobel Laureate Charles Townes (inventor of the laser and maser), the mathematician Roger Penrose and Zoologist Jane Goodall were visibly disturbed by his lack of erudition and grasp of what was being talked about. Sri Sri Ravishankar was also rubbished on stage by the renowned artist and film script writer Javed Akthar. On another occassion Sri Sri wrote an article in a national newspaper comparing Marxism with the teachings of the Bhagwad Gita. He was again rubbished by a lot of readers for his utter lack of understanding of the ‘Dialectical Materialism’ of Marx (he was not aware and never even mentioned anything about this in the article) or the Vedantic teachings of Bhagvad Gita. He was just content in stating simplistic homilies.
Coming back to the the ‘Concept of God’ dialogue, Sri Sri Ravishankar completely misjudged the tenor of the whole programme. The audience were predominantly Muslim and were asking well orchestrated and pre-determined questions which I thought came from the medieval missionary polemic against Hinduism. It took sometime for me to realize that at this age and time there are still majority of the people who do fervently believe in such religious jingoism.Sri Sri Ravishankar’s soft stand and unwillingness to debate and confront put him in an awkward position in the programme.
Zakir Naik is well versed in the art of islamic rhetoric and he is quite capable of mesmerizing his Muslim and other unthinking audiences into deception with confusing, illogical and fallacious arguments. Herd instinct is clearly evident in his followers. He makes up for his lack of critical thinking, scientific and rational sense by parroting and quoting by memory verses from religious books and scriptures by their chapter, page, verse and line numbers. This is taken as a sign of scholarship by his flock. He usually receives standing ovation from the Muslim audience whenever he indulges in these theatrics.
My amusement in this debate became more acute when the debater Zakir Naik put poor Osho Rajneesh to the Islamic litmus test, Surah Ikhlas or the touchstone of islamic theology. This Quranic verse or Sura mentions that God is without equal, without origin, without end, and unlike anything else that exists. This is the definition of Allah in the Quran and every other concept of God is weighed against this to create a semantic game to establish that this concept of god is the supreme most. Rajneesh had no defenders in there so it was an one sided debate with the final judgement of fallibility on Osho pronounced by Zakir Naik. Sri Sri Ravishankar was also apologetic about Rajneesh and he appealed to the audience not to judge other holy men like himself using Rajneesh as the yard stick.
In this article I am trying to defend Rajneesh and eastern traditions against the polemics of the Islamic theologians. My intention of writing this article is because it is clear to me that the worldview and the value system espoused by Osho Rajneesh is far advanced and higher as compared to the value system of the old religions in general and Islam in specific. Rajneesh believed in peace, love, celebration, individuality, freedom of speech and enquiry. He encouraged people to challenge archaic values and traditions. His overall value system is quite humanistic, secular and rational as compared to the narrow parochial values espoused in religions like Islam.
Our scholar Zakir Naik begins his diatribe against Osho Rajneesh with the tone of abhorrence to the Indian godmen and pronounces his judgement before explaining the targeted person’s point of view. Picking Rajneesh is kind of very funny because Rajneesh believed in what can be called a Vedantic or quasi pantheistic God. He borderlined on atheism many times. Rajneesh’s god as can be evidenced from his voluminous discourses is akin to Spinoza’s god to some extent. Osho’s God is not the Allah or a personal God at all, and his system provides no reason for the revelatory status of the Bible or Quran or Vedas or of any religion for that matter. Osho identifies his concept of God with Nature and like Spinoza he employed a reductionist scientism while retaining some traditional eastern terminology. Zakir Naik claims himself to be a student of comparative religion but it is plainly obvious that his knowledge of the Eastern religions is very very superficial and about Osho, he believes what he wants to believe rather than what the Oshoietes or Hindus or Buddhists or Taoists or Jains believe. Also to put things in perspective, although Rajneesh’s worldview is quite similar to Hindu, Buddhist & Taoist worldview he never claimed to be a Hindu either by birth or by conviction. He was born a Jain and remained an eclectic. So to pick on him in a debate on the concept of God in Hinduism and Islam is in the first place wrong. Zakir Naik’s claim that the followers of Osho Rajneesh called him almighty god shows his profound ignorance of Osho Rajneesh, his followers and his teaching and also his ignorance of the concept of god in eastern traditions. The Islamic religion like Christianity and Judaism is based on man’s blind and obedient response to a divine revelation in the form of a book, the Quran. Quran is a medieval text inspired by the arabic god Allah to his last and final messenger Muhammad. The god of Islam is in principle similar to a Monarch who creates and rules the world with a set of laws. The concept of God in Islam is of a God who is apart from the universe and who is a skillful maker of the world. This God stands apart from the world and like a medieval monarch rules the incidents of the world and judges you on the judgement day based on the code of conduct as created in the holy book. You are sent to either heaven or hell based on your submission to the will of Allah and the adherence to the code of conduct as depicted in the Quran. Allah in Islam has no form or can never be depicted. However Allah is depicted through similes and metaphors like Allah is Akbar, ie great or Allah is Rahman or compassionate. The not so subtle Islamic theologians fail to grasp that even ‘figures’ of speech are depictions and are a form of idolatry. Idolatry is very much existent in Islam although in a veiled format. Islam is replete with symbols which are held sacrosanct and any blasphemy to those symbols are not treated kindly by the Muslim diaspora around the world. It is sacrilegious in Islam to picturize or idolize God but the attachment to symbols is quite evident in Islam and it is much more than what is present in the so called condemned pagan idolatrous religions. For example the Islamic prayer is only in Arabic it cant be localized in any other languages. All muslims bow their heads towards mecca for their prayer. Allah is an extremely localized god. So to compare a localized god with localized rituals to the concept of Vedantic Brahman which has no name, form and which permeates all existence is like as they say comparing chalk with cheese. The Islamic scholars are morbidly against idolatry in other religions but the mote in their own eye they seeth not.
Zakir Naik’s claim that Muslims are the culmination of Vedantic teachings of non idolatry is ridiculous to say the least. The intent of the Vedantic assertion about the sadhaka or the person on the vedantic path leaving behind all the idols and symbols means the sacrifice and trancendence of all those constructs of thought like symbols, idols and ideologies to realize the unconditioned consciousness, the eternal which can never be limited by thought which is just memory and the past. In the early part of the previous century people witnessed an enlightened person Baghwan Ramana Maharishi who had no need for any rituals, images, symbols or holy texts and he abided all the time in his true nature which is pure consciousness. When Vedantists talk about the culmination or the embodiment of their tradition they refer to a person like Ramana Maharishi. I wonder what the Muslim practice of non-idolatry has got to do with this state. This clearly shows that self proclaimed scholars like Zakir Naik have absolutely no clue about what Vedanta is all about. His understanding of Vedanta is totally flawed and he is content in just picking up those verses from the Upanishads and Bhagwad Gita which depict the (so called) monotheistic principle of Brahman and which is in some ways similar to the concept of Allah. There is a huge difference between the Monism (even dualism or qualified monism) of the Vedanta to the monotheistic belief in a Sky God like Allah. Monism is the acknowledgement of oneness of the universal principle of consciousness or Brahman.
What is the concept of god according to Vedanta. The Upanishads talk of Brahman as Sat-Chit-Ananda which is truth-consciousness-bliss. The Brahman is both unmanifest and manifest as Brahman or God has to be inclusive of everything. It is both Nirguna and Saguna. It has qualities and no qualities. There is a dialectical process of reasoning which is employed to express the inexpressible quality of Brahman or God. Essentially Brahman is the substratum of all that exists and being the substratum it is also different from all that exists. There is a trancendent quality of Brahman which is in some way similar to the monotheistic God. But the Upanishads are unequivocal in their claim that language fails to describe Brahman which is infinite (Anantha) and therefore it is depicted by dialectic reasoning like ‘It is far and it is near, it is the lowest and it is the highest’. There are many extremely poetic verses in the Vedantic texts which describe the dialectic ‘qualities’ of Brahman. Zakir Naik states that “The major difference between the Hindus and the Muslims is the apostrophe ‘s’. The Hindu says, “everything is GOD”. The Muslim says, “everything is God’s”, GOD with an Apostrophe ‘s’. If we can solve the difference of the Apostrophe ‘s’, the Hindus and the Muslims will be united.” Well Zakir Naik got it all wrong. The difference between Hinduism and Islam is that the Hindu believes that everything is ‘God as well as everything is God’s’ and Islam believes that everything is just God’s. The nearest point of convergence between Hinduism and Islam can be achieved by equating the qualities of Allah to Nirguna / Nirvikalpa Brahman and that is only after sanitizing the Allah concept of all the localized Arabic mumbo jumbo. However Brahman is much more than a transcendent and monotheistic sky god as it is both Nirguna and Saguna. It is without qualities as well as it has qualities. Because a god if he(or she or it) is worth being called a god has to be all encompassing. From the literal interpretation of Quran we can deduce that in Islam, Allah is separate from the world and Allah as a being lives probably somewhere up in the sky or another dimension. It is a sky god religion. If the God is separate from the world then Allah has to have a separate location and hence it becomes physical and materialistic with space-time coordinates . It is important to understand that the Islamic god is not Omnipresent and this god or Allah exists at some specific location which is distinct from the world created by Allah. In the vedic paradigm this is considered as nonsense as the universe has no beggining and end and God if he or she or it is worth being called a god has to be omnipresent and not localized at some corner of the universe from where this god directs all the actions of the world.
The idolatory in Hinduism is a symbolic representation of the divinity of the whole universe itself and in its essential form this brings about a reverence to the whole of this wonderful acausal creation. The Vedanta as also the Jain and Buddhist scriptures clearly mention that the world is acausal and it has always existed. To point to the origin of the universe at a specific time in history either through a God creating the universe or through some big bang is a logical fallacy as we would end up with the question as to what existed prior to this creation. How can something come out of nothing. Most of the eastern religions have deduced that the world has always existed in some form or the other. This appeals to logical and scientific sense than the stories of Genesis or the Islamic creation myth. Hence we find that the eastern religions hold a great attraction to the scientific and metaphysical philosophers of the west.
Now coming to the fact of Rajneesh calling himself Baghwan or God. Osho Rajneesh has clarified many times that he is not the God who created this world. ‘No not me’ he mentioned jokingly once. “I didn’t create this world with all the strife and suffering. I would have created a better place had I been God”. Surely Rajneesh never equated himself to the Allah, the medieval monarch like god. It would be good if Zakir Naik and his cohorts read some of the works of Osho (I have provided a link to a well know Osho site in the end for all the readers) and then try to counter him in arguments. Also he might do well to study Upanishadic texts in proper context rather than just using polemics and picking up verses which suit the rigid monotheistic belief system.
One key thing that most Islamists forget when criticising Hinduism and eastern traditions is that in the eastern tradition the spiritual path is individualistic and not based on a single holy book or frozen canon or teachings of a prophet. Hindu traditions are unlike the ‘collective salvation deal’ espoused by the Abrahamic religions. This individualistic approach although a great step in religious and cultural evolution of humanity has politically weakened Hinduism and it has become an easy target to the devious designs of islamists and christian evangelist missionaries, who are hell bent on bringing down a greater tradition to their crude level of understanding of religion.
Many of the evangelists and mullahs are in the habit of ridiculing some cultural symbols and personalities of the Hindu religion. Unlike the Monotheistic religions which are history centric i.e history is all important for man’s access to god, the eastern traditions have many incarnations, perennial access to truth and it is independent of history. That is the reason why Hindus call their religion ‘Sanatana Dharma’, eternal religion. To confine the advent of religion to a single prophet or set of prophets receiving revealation at a specific point of history is to limit the omnipotence of the divine. The intent of the Upanishadic religion or dharma is not just following a book but living as per the natural laws of life. A book however sacred or profound cannot capture truth because truth is a unitary moment which has to be discovered and rediscovered from moment to moment. So it is very silly from the perspective of Vedanta that God chooses some messenger like Muhamad or Jesus or Abraham or Noah and reveals to him some revelation and some dose of good social conduct and disappears into oblivion for eternity. Why is Allah so limited that he needs to communicate to only one person and the rest of humanity just need to follow all these codified injunctions. The message of the Upanishads is that God or Brahman cannot be captured in words much less in books. The semetic religious cannon can be aptly described as a set of few rules, universalized and canonized forever. However the dharma in the eastern traditions allows for an individualistic context based interpretation.
The Dharmic value system is evolutionary and changes with the changing times exept for certain universal absolutes which are eternal. Hence in the Hindu tradition you have two classes of scriptures, the Shruthi and the Smrithi. Shruthi is the inspired part and are universal in their appeal and application. Smrithi, means that which comes from memory and it comprises of the social rules of conduct and other mundane aspects of human existence. Shruthi is changeless and smrithi is something which needs to be revisted and adapted to changing times and circumstances. Shruthi is somewhat akin to the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant and Smrithi is similar to the hypothetical imperative. The essential problem with Islam is the mixture of Shruthi and Smrithi in Quran. Hence you find many recommended practices in Quran which were relevant during the time and context of 7th century arabia and which does not make any sense in a multicultural, cosmopolitan, secular and humanistic world. Zakir Naik’s claim that Quran is the greatest book on Art of Living is a ridiculous claim to majority of the people living by humanistic and democratic values. Sri Sri Ravishankar’s ‘Art of Living’ is similar to many modern day Hindu movements and it is an adaptation of yogic principles of health, vedantic theology, value system of modern humanistic psychology and the practices of the human potential movement. Osho Rajneesh contributed a great deal in the evolution of the Human Potential Movement. Islam with its frozen in time approach comes nowhere close to any of these systems in terms of content and quality.
Unlike the essential belief of one supreme being of the monotheistic semetic religions like Islam, the eastern religious traditions have a different paradigm of looking at this rigid structure of belief. There are some eastern traditional lineages which demand a priori belief in a supreme being and this supreme being can be either a male or female or both or neither. There are traditions which believe in the impersonal nature of ultimate reality and it allows multiple representations and multiple access to the one supreme lord. ‘As many people so many paths’ remarked the famous sage of Dakshineshwar, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa. This flexibility has been considered and ridiculed as a weakness by many of the monotheistic preachers, however this is the inherent strength of the Hindu tradition. This showcases the inherent liberal and catholic(in the sense of all encompassing) views of the eastern religious paradigm. Monotheism has been rightly stated as My-Theism by several secular critiques of religion like Professor Richard Dawkins.
Some thoughts by Osho on brahman and god - “Brahman has nothing to do with the Christian or muslim idea of God. Brahman means godliness, the divineness that pervades the whole existence… the whole, the holiness of the whole.”. In his own words Osho claimed that he is God based on the following “Samadhi begins with subjective awareness and culminates in realization of our divine self, the all permeating godliness - within and without. This is the state in which the ‘Rishis’ in the east declared ‘Aham Brahmasmi’, the state in which sufi mystic Mansur declared ‘Ana’l Haq’, the state in which Jesus says, ‘I and my Father are one’. This state is called ‘Sambodhi’, enlightenment, divine realization”. When the tombstone of Osho has the message “Osho Never Born and Never Died”, it is a mention to the immortal and unconditioned Consciousness - the Self of all or ‘Brahman’. It is not the physical body of Osho as the physical body is perishable and what is not perishable is consciousness the substratum of all that exists. This Consciousness has no origin and no end, it has no ‘adi’ and ‘antya’. When Osho or eastern mystics affirm that they are God, they mean that everything else is as well God and the individual bodies are like waves in the ocean and the self, which is unconditioned awareness is the ocean itself.
Our ‘scholar of comparative religion’ Zakir Naik accuses Rajneesh of proclaiming himself the God in the Semetic / abrahamic / Islamic religious sense. If these scholars of comparative religions can make up a good study of Rajneesh then hopefully they can come up with some wise arguments than just picking him up on some silly semantics. This is the problem with Muslim scholars, they are just too caught in words, symbols, obedience and adherence to arcane medieval texts that make their minds so closeted. But still they have the nerve or rather the foolhardiness to proclaim that Islam is a scientific religion.If you are a scholar of comparative religion or philosophy the first pre-requisite is to understand the paradigms, models and cultural symbols of that particular religion or school of thought. Without this understanding the interpretation of a particular religion will remain parochial and not true to the spirit. Finally I would like to request all the readers to consider and reflect on two of the greatest sentences from Rig Veda, the oldest known religious scripture in the world - “Truth is one but wise men describe it in many ways” and “Let noble thoughts come to us from all sides”. Let’s not limit the noble thoughts to come from a book or a few more books.


Yusuf Ali, Pickthal and Shakir are known as the authentic translator of Quran... See how the Koran directs the believers to tear the non-Muslims to shreds.
YUSUFALI: If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).
PICKTHAL: And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter.
SHAKIR: And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.
YUSUFALI: Those who reject faith and deny our signs will be companions of Hell-fire.
PICKTHAL: And they who disbelieve and deny Our revelations, such are rightful owners of hell.
SHAKIR: And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject our communications, these are the companions of the name.009.029YUSUFALI: 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.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
PICKTHAL: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
SHAKIR: 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.
YUSUFALI: And the Unbelievers said to their messengers: "Be sure we shall drive you out of our land, or ye shall return to our religion." But their Lord inspired (this Message) to them: "Verily We shall cause the wrong-doers to perish!
PICKTHAL: And those who disbelieved said unto their messengers: Verily we will drive you out from our land, unless ye return to our religion. Then their Lord inspired them, (saying):Verily we shall destroy the wrong-doers,
SHAKIR: And those who disbelieved said to their messengers: We will most certainly drive you forth from our land, or else you shall come back into our religion. So their Lord revealed to them: Most certainly We will destroy the unjust.
YUSUFALI: "And verily We shall cause you to abide in the land, and succeed them. This for such as fear the Time when they shall stand before My tribunal,- such as fear the punishment denounced."
PICKTHAL: And verily We shall make you to dwell in the land after them. This is for him who feareth My Majesty and feareth My threats.
SHAKIR: And most certainly We will settle you in the land after them; this is for him who fears standing in My presence and who fears My threat.
YUSUFALI: But they sought victory and decision (there and then), and frustration was the lot of every powerful obstinate transgressor.
PICKTHAL: And they sought help (from their Lord) and every froward potentate was bought to naught;
SHAKIR: And they asked for judgment and every insolent opposer was disappointed:
YUSUFALI: In front of such a one is Hell, and he is given, for drink, boiling fetid water.
PICKTHAL: Hell is before him, and he is made to drink a festering water,
SHAKIR: Hell is before him and he shall be given to drink of festering water:
YUSUFALI: In gulps will he sip it, but never will he be near swallowing it down his throat: death will come to him from every quarter, yet will he not die: and in front of him will be a chastisement unrelenting.
PICKTHAL: Which he sippeth but can hardly swallow, and death cometh unto him from every side while yet he cannot die, and before him is a harsh doom.
SHAKIR: He will drink it little by little and will not be able to swallow it agreeably, and death will come to him from every quarter, but he shall not die; and there shall be vehement chastisement before him.
YUSUFALI: These two antagonists dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord),- for them will be cut out a garment of Fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water.
PICKTHAL: These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads,
SHAKIR: These are two adversaries who dispute about their Lord; then (as to) those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling water shall be poured over their heads.
YUSUFALI: With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins.
PICKTHAL: Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted;
SHAKIR: With it shall be melted what is in their bellies and (their) skins as well.
YUSUFALI: In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them.
PICKTHAL: And for them are hooked rods of iron.
SHAKIR: And for them are whips of iron.
YUSUFALI: Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back therein, and (it will be said), "Taste ye the Penalty of Burning!"
PICKTHAL: Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.
SHAKIR: Whenever they will desire to go forth from it, from grief, they shall be turned back into it, and taste the chastisement of burning.
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, And beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
(9/5) Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Look who is defending secularism?

The communist record in strangling democracy is breathtaking
Nilotpal Basu (the Central Secretariat member of the CPM) makes a case for secularism and democracy in his article -- Saving Secularism -- in Deccan Herald dated March 21, 2008. The article is full of gross distortions, which is a common Communist characteristic and needs to be countered. Here is a point-by-point rebuttal with quotes from the original article.
Basu says: “The RSS recognizes the CPM as a major bulwark against its fascistic and communal machinations”.
The RSS is neither fascistic nor communal and thee is no question of recognizing CPM as a major bulwark. In fact, it is the Communists who are closer to fascism if you consider the Wikipedia definition of fascism as an “authoritarian, political ideology (generally tied to mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.”
Remember Stalin’s large-scale massacre where the victims can be counted in crores. Communists have little regard for democracy as it considers democracy as a “capitalistic” structure. For the Communists, the individuals are indeed subordinate to the State and are just canon fodders for bloody revolution. Even in India, it is no different, if you consider Nandigram and Marad. Regarding RSS, it is a socio-cultural organization that aims at producing men of character in service of the nation and is dedicated to organize the Hindu society.
Basu says: “Unprecedented as it was the CPM headquarters in New Delhi was attacked by the (RSS) goons. They came unannounced and… started pelting stones…”
This is yet another gross distortion. In order to protest agasint the increasing violence against RSS memebs in Kannur district of Kerala, some members of the RSS and other organizations including a large number of women spontaneously marched in a peaceful manner to the CPM headquarters in Dlehi. Betraying their Nandigram style intolerance, the CPM cadres repeated what they have been doing in Kannur – attached the peaceful demonstrators with brickbats and chairs – resulting in unfortunate violence on the Delhi streets.
Basu says: Given the inherent nature of this combine (Sangh Parivar), the importance of keeping constant vigil against them was a prerequisite for safeguarding democracy in the country”
Coming from Communists, this is laughable indeed. The Communist record in throttling democracy is certainly breathtaking. I wonder which Communism Basu is following. If it is not Marxist, it is for him to give the clarification. Communists always believe in the “haves vs have-not” dichotomy and their aversion to democracy is legendary and their role in subversion of democracy has been proved by KGB and Mitrokhin archives.
Basu says: “Therefore, though not yet physically present in a big way in North India and some other parts of the country, the RSS correctly recognized the CPM as a major bulwark against its fascistic and communal machinations”.
This argument is truly pathetic. The Communists are reduced to just two states in the entire nation. Their presence is nil in other parts of the country. Despite this they are having an unholy alliance with the Congress party in pursuit of power. Besides, there are no fascistic or communal machinations, which Basu imagines.
Basu says: “Kannur violence was just a smokescreen. Because in Kannur, as well as in Kerala, since the assumption of the LDF in office, about 13 leaders and activists of the CPM have been killed in an attempt at targeted individual eliminations. Only when faced with resistance in Kannur they are trying to cry hoarse.”
Regarding Kannur, the less said the better. Unable to tolerate the growing strength of RSS, the CPM resorted to murder politics since 1969. More than 60 swayamsewaks have been killed in this district so far. In the whole of Kerala, 192 have been killed so far. It is noteworthy that the Kerala judiciary has, on several occasions, reprimanded the State Police for not preventing such human right abuses by the CPM cadres in Kannur. Particularly scathing were the observations of the Kerala High Court, which openly said that only the presence of central forces could restore normalcy in the region.
Basu says: “But the battle of democracy against fascism – of peace against violence of the type that RSS/BJP wants to perpetrate – and harmony and amity against communal hatred that the Sangh spews will carry on.”
Look who is defending democracy? It is the height of paradox. The Communists have a track record of authoritarianism. USSR has long collapsed while Chain practices totalitarianism. Democracy in Kerala and West Bengal has been reduced to a farce as the Communist party does scientific rigging and political murders to stay in power. As for protecting secularism and preventing communal hatred, Basu would do well to remember that the RSS believes in Sarva Dharma Samabhava (respect for all religions). There is no threat to secularism and democracy from RSS.
On the contrary, it is the atheistic Communists who are a threat to democracy and secularism. Remember the Communist antipathy to religion as the opium of the masses. Religious freedom and secularism are anathema to Communists. Anyway, the Communists are now totally isolated. They have been reduced to just two states in the entire nation. At this rate, only God can save the Communists. Even that is not possible because the Communists do not believe in God.

Government funds for memorials of Islamic invaders: Hindu warriors ignored

The Government has granted Rs. 25 lakhs for the repair and maintenance of the grave of Ibrahim Lodi, while the memorial to Hemu – the Hindu warrior who challenged Akbar – has been encroached by a mosque.
Who is Ibrahim Lodi? He is the invader who attacked Mewar and was defeated by Rana Sanga. His father Sikander Lodi prohibited Hindus from bathing in the holy tank in Kurukshetra and desecrated the Jwalamukhi temple in Himachal. He executed Bodhan Pandit for saying all religions are equal. His grandfather, Bahol Lodi, came from Afghanistan and exploited the political turmoil in India and through manipulation occupied the Delhi throne. Yet the Government has granted Rs. 25 lakhs for the repair and maintenance of the grave of the invader’s grandson, a monument to our slavish mentality.
The burial of Ibrahim Lodi, killed by Babur in the First Battle of Panipat, is protected while mosque has overtaken the memorial to Hemu, challenger of Akbar in the second battle of Panipal”.
“Hemu” refers to Hem Chander of Rewari, Haryana, a valiant warrior who fought 22 battles and won all, and acquired the title of Vikramaditya in a coronation ceremony held in Purana Kila, Delhi. He fought against Akbar who was also involved in various battles against Maharana Praap. Akbar’s father Humayun was fleeing India when he took shelter in a fort, Amar Kot in Sindh owned by Rana Amarchand; there his wife gave birth to Akbar. Humayun’s father, Babur, was from Afghanistan. Akbar’s guardian, Bairam Khan, brought Hema Chander to Akber after the second battle of Panipat and goaded Akbar to behead the infidel Hema Chander with his sword to earn the title ‘Ghazi’. Hem Chander’s head was taken to Kabul and his trunk gibbeted at the gates of Delhi.
Hemu is recorded as the last Hindu king of Delhi as the power passed on to Mughals and then to the British. It is sad that India is building memorials to the invaders Ibrahim Lodi, Babur, and Akbar, and ignoring our valiant sons who fought to defend our territory and civilization.
In the Third battle of Panipat, Sadashiv Bhau lost to the brutal Ahmed Shah Abdali. Yet there is no worthy memorial, commemorating the young Sadashiv Bhau nor is Hema Chander Vikramaditya acknowledged with respect.
Even more deplorable is the news that the Prime Minister visited the Baghe Babur complex in Kabur, which houses the tomb and mosque of Mughal ruler Babur, and was said to see its dilapidated condition. Babur died in Agra in 1530, but his mortal remains were sent to his “beloved Kabul” in 1543 as per his will.
It is pertinent that all foreign conquerors from Alexander onwards, Greeks, Turks, Mughals, Portugese, British, French and Dutch, were rightly designated as invaders by Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam. Yet we are honoring foreign invaders and denigrating our own heroes. Roads and hotels are named after Babur, Humayun, Akbar, Jehangir and even Aurangazeb; few are aware of Indian martyrs like Hema Chander Vikramaditya and Sadashiv Bhau. This attitude reflects a loss of national consciousness and self-respect.
Recently, some British nationals visited Meerut to pay homage to their forefathers who won the 1857 war for the British Empire. China on the other hand made Japan offer a public apology for atrocities committed by Japanese troops in the Second World War.
It would be in the fitness of things for civil society to come forward and build memorials to honour the valiant warriors who gave their lives for our country and civilization. It is time for the youth to rise and initiate a campaign to revive the spirit of national self-respect and confer due recognition and honour to our national heroes.

The Mao-Naxal menace in Hindu terrain

How the bastard offspring of Communism operates
They are called as the bastard offspring of Communism and are very much against the Hindu way of life. It is also wellknown that they are backdoor operators for other frontal organizations. However, very little is known as to just how Maoists and Naxalites have grown to such alarming proportions in recent years.
So, when officers and officials from Maoist-hit states came together for a conference organised by the Institute for Conflict Management, to discuss strategies to combat the Maoist insurgency, they put down the following as the strategies and the strengths of the Maoists.

Solid recruitment strategy: Officials who have long been in the thick of Maoist insurgency say that the main ploy used by the outfit to recruit people is by catching them young. They say Maoists attract youngsters in the regions where they have considerable clout and involve them in some criminal activity.

"This turns the police attention towards the youngsters. Once that happens, the Maoists suck them in further involve them in graver crimes, ensuring that they can never go back to the mainstream," says a senior official with the Maharashtra government.

It is said that in many cases, the Maoists resort to threats. Former minister in the Andhra Pradesh government Vijayarama Rao adds, "Wherever there is a discontentment, there will always be individuals, organisations and ideologies that will urge the use of violence to air their discontentment. That is what the Maoists are doing in most parts of the country today."

Fight for popular causes:The Maoists also take up popular issues of the common man and seek to project themselves as the key to a solution. "They protest against what they perceive to be injustices meted out to the common man.," says Rao, who has also been the director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. As a downside for the Maoists, there are not many students joining their ranks these days.

Organisational powers: One main reason officers attribute to the rise of the outfit is their strong organisational assets. One officer from Andhra Pradesh who has been in the thick of the issue for a long time says their frontal organization is a bigger threat than their armed units. These frontal organizations are the ones who go to the ground level and shape public opinion.

"We need to device a clear strategy as to how we will counter the frontal organisations. They play a much more important role than what is thought to be," the senior Andhra Pradesh officer warns.

Rajya Sabha member Arun Shourie agrees. Shourie says there is a very urgent need to examine the fontal organisations. "Who are behind these organisations? It is the duty of both the government and the media to find out about the people who are behind these organisations and find out what their interests are," he says.

Propaganda: One thing that all officers are unanimous about is the notion that the media lends a more sympathetic ear to the Maoists than to the State. "The Maoists use the media and the intelligentsia to maximum benefit. A most wanted Maoist can sit in the comforts of his hideout and issue threats to the security forces and the politicians. There is nothing that anyone can do about it because the media is too eager to go in and have his version. Such things are of no value to the public. Neither are they in public interest," an officer from Andhra fumes.

Change according to times: The modern day Maoist is tech savvy; has all the modern weapons and is just too well informed of the issues of the day. One senior police officer, without wanting to be named for this report, says, "We were shocked to find that they were using laptops, data cards and other gadgets with ease. Any modernisation you see in the force in that aspect is the result of us having merely followed them."

Nor is the modern day Maoist going to the masses with issues like land reforms. "He talks about LPG prices, effects of globalization, multi-national companies, liberalization, The World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. They are taking up causes like real estate, SEZs and displacement," says Srinivas Reddy.

Beyond all these, the main strength of the Maoists happens to be the biggest weakness of the State -- a poor understanding of who the enemy is. During the course of the conference, one thing that the serving officers, analysts and the former officers failed to have a consensus on was about the motive of the Maoists. While the serving officers -- those who are in the middle of the rut, fighting it day in and day out -- always invariably spoke of the Maoists as a military organisation. They saw them as a military outfit with territorial ambitions. The former officers and top cops often described the Maoists as a political outfit driven blindly by ideology. The observers, analysts and the journalists -- who too see the problem on a regular basis but as outsiders -- felt they were a bit of both.

Shourie aptly summarized: "It is a political movement with military objectives. At the end of the day, they are all about dominance and control." Srinivas Reddy sums up: "Right now, the State is pitted against an invisible enemy, who is engaging them in an unconventional protracted armed struggle. And we must accept that we lag behind in specific areas and address them."