Sunday, February 27, 2011

UP: Temple razed ahead of Mayawati's visit

UP: Temple razed ahead of Mayawati's visit:

Kanshiramnagar (Uttar Pradesh):"A temple was demolished during an anti-encroachment drive ahead of Chief Minister Mayawati's visit here, sparking tension in this town. (we have never heard that any Mosque or Church is demolished by calling it illegal. Hindus should think that why only Temples are targeted ?)"


People undermine the evilness of Muslims. It is unbelievable. These people are devil incarnate -Ali Sina

Politically correct main stream news media did not give details of the rape and just called it sexual assault for the fear that details may offend Muslims. The fools do not know that the Egyptian Muslims were doing what our prophet did after every Jihadi raid and reading the details is like reading Sahih Bukhari Hadiths . Here are the actual details of the incident as reported by Muslim media based on videos taken on cell phones.

- A bearded Muslim was the first one who got the ball rolling . He ripped the top off the (well endowed) reporter to expose her breasts and began clawing them with both his hands. He then pinned her to the ground, removed her pants pulled out his (circumcised) penis and raped her vaginally (what Allah allowed Muslims in ayas 4.3, 4.24, 23.6, 33.50 and 70.30 and what our Prohet did to Safia, Juavaria, Rehana and hundreds of other Kafiras after capturing them)
-After he was done , at least six more Muslims followed him and raped her vaginally while a number of other men raped her anally ( anal sex is allowed in Islam ; Quran says Muslim men an approach their women in any way they desired).
-Some men fondled her breasts while other were raping her ( to gain Allah’s blessings).

-Many men watching the action masterbated on her . (we pray that Allah give them partial credits )
- Some men urinated on her.
- The men were shouting “jew jew” and “Allah u Akbar”..
- The onlookers included women and policemen.

-. Reporter’s breasts were bitten and one of the nipple was bitten off (left)
- One report claims that upto 50 men were involved in the rape/fondling ..


Although Mo’mins (Muslim Believers) of Egypt tried to do to a reporter what our prophet did to his captured women, their actions fell way short of the standards our Prophet set for all Muslim ( 33.21:prophet is your role model).
- Mo’mins (Muslim Believer) raped Laura for an hour and then let her be freed while Prophet claimed the owner ship of all his captured women.

- Mo’mins (Muslim Believer) did not kill any relative of Laura. Prophet Mohammad often killed all male relatives of his victims .
-Laura was 39 year old. In his hey days Prophet would not touch a 39 year old captured woman with a ten foot pole let alone with his six-incher. Prophet was very selective in his choice of captured women. He liked very young meat. Judging from his fondness of sexual activities with 6 year old Aisha , one can safely say that he always chose very young girls as part of his booty.

FFI Editors addendum

Our hearts go out to this young lady. We feel her pains. We wish her best, and hope her journey of recovery will be kind and fast. Make no doubt about it readers: Islam is the culprit. It is the system of belief that produces monsters out of otherwise human beings. Ali Sina got it right when he said: “People undermine the evilness of Muslims. It is unbelievable. These people are devil incarnate.”

Veer Savarkar and the Two Nation Theory

Veer Savarkar and the Two Nation Theory: "
feb 26th, 2011 CE

കുംഭം ൨൪, ൧൧൮൬ കൊല്ല വര്ഷം, തൃക്കേട്ട നക്ഷത്രം (kumbham 24, 1186 malabar era, trikketta nakshatram)

सौर कुम्भ: २४, माघमास:, शिशिरऋतु, शक वर्ष: १९३३, ज्येष्ठ नक्षत्र:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Team

Please choose to display the images

Congress leader Digvijay Singh recently stated (26 Jan) that Savarkar had the original idea of the two-nation theory which was later adopted by Jinnah. This is not the first (and one may safely assume not the last) time that Veer Savarkar has been blamed for putting forth the two-nation theory. Notwithstanding Digvijay Singh's political compulsions in spreading this piece of disinformation, a factual rebuttal is in order.

The entire case of the Savarkar-baiters rests on a solitary sentence culled out from his nearly 6000-page literature. Fortunately, Savarkar has himself answered the charge that he had put forth the two-nation theory. The sentence in question can be found in Savarkar's Presidential address to the 19th session of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha at Karnavati (Ahmedabad) in 1937. Savarkar stated, "India cannot be assumed today to be a Unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main; the Hindus and the Moslems, in India. If the critics bother to read the entire speech (available at, it shall be evident to them that Savarkar had not advocated the two-nation theory. It may be noted that Savarkar was one of the few Hindu leaders who had made a deep study of Islam from its scriptures. He had read a translation of the Quran even while he was a student in England. In the Andamans, Savarkar had read the Quran first in its English and subsequently Bengali and Marathi translations. Responding to the opinion of his Muslim friends that the real beauty of the Quran lies in its original, Savarkar asked them to read each page from the original and then had them translate it for his benefit into Hindi. As Savarkar describes, he heard them recite the Quran with great concentration and after keeping his mind clean and pure as a devout Muslim. In later life, Savarkar read several books written by Western authorities on the Quran. Savarkar's deep study of Islam is evident from his numerous articles such as those on Kemal Pasha, Khilafat movement and various Islamic sects. Savarkar had learnt to read and write Urdu. Thus, Savarkar's views on Islam and Muslims are not those of an ignorant bigot.

The Context

Savarkar's Presidential address is not a run-of -the-mill political speech. After dwelling on the definition and significance of the word 'Hindu', the status of the Hindus as a nation unto themselves, the mission of the Hindu Mahasabha, unified Indian State and the cooperation of the minorities, Savarkar turned his attention to the attitude of the Muslims, He stated. "As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India, several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. Our well-meaning but unthinking friends take their dreams for realities.The solid fact is that the so-called communal questions are but a legacy handed down to us by centuries of a cultural, religious and national antagonism between the Hindus and the Moslems. When time is ripe you can solve them but you cannot suppress them by merely refusing recognition of them." It is in that context that he made that statement. The Islam-scholar, historian and hard-headed realist in Savarkar was simply stating a bland fact and not endorsing it. This is further confirmed two sentences later when he referred to the options before the Hindus under the circumstances. He stated, " form an Indian State in which none is allowed any special weightage of representation and none is paid an extra price to buy his loyalty to the State. Mercenaries are paid and bought off, not sons of the Motherland to fight in her defence. The Hindus as a nation are willing to discharge their duty to a common Indian State on an equal footing." It is noteworthy that the President of the Hindu Mahasabha was not seeking any rights for the Hindus that he was not willing to grant to the Muslims! Throughout his life, Savarkar advocated equal rights for all citizens in a unified Indian State.

Savarkar's defence

Misunderstanding was created after Savarkar made the above utterances. Hence, Savarkar clarified his statement to journalists on 15 August 1943 in the office of the Marathi weekly Aadesh in Nagpur. He also clarified his position in an interview given in Mumbai on 23 August 1943. The interview was published in the Aadesh dated 28 August 1943. Given below is an English translation of Savarkar's clarification as published in the Marathi weekly Aadesh dated 23 August 1943.

"I had clarified this (my statement that there are two nations in Hindusthan) in my Nagpur interview. But instead of reporting this, journalists simply reported that I accept the two-nation theory. This has resulted in the whole misunderstanding. I am surprised that a storm has been raised now on this issue. Because I have always been referring to the two-nation theory right from my Ahmedabad speech. It is a historic truth that the Mussulmans are a 'nation'. I had clarified the historical and racial background of this theory in Nagpur. Islam is a theocratic nation based on the Koran right from its inception. This nation never had geographical boundaries. Wherever the Mussulmans went, they went as a nation. They also came to Hindusthan as a 'nation'. Wherever they go, Mussulmans shall either remain foreigners or rulers. As per the Koran, those who are not Mussulmans are kafirs, enemies of Islam. Even today, after praying in the mosque, Mussulmans ask for atonement for committing the sin of living in a kafir-ruled state. As per the principle of Mussulmans, the earth is divided into two nations: Dar-ul Islam (land of Islam) and Dar-ul Harb where Islam does not rule (enemy land). As per their religious command, their campaign on Hindusthan was as a separate nation. They conquered the Hindu Nation as an enemy nation, not as One Nation. The Hindu Nation arose again and having defeated the Mussulmans at various places, saved the whole of Hindusthan to establish Hindu Padpaadshahi also as a separate Hindu Nation opposed to the Muslim nations. This history certainly cannot be denied. In the recent past, the educated class among the Hindus mostly through the vehicle of the Congress tried its utmost to champion territorial nationalism by saying that at least in Hindusthan, Hindus and Mussulmans are one nation because they reside in one country. Though the effort was well-intentioned, the Mussulmans never gave up their principle of theocratic or scriptural nationalism and the feeling of being a nation separate from the Hindu Nation. And they never shrank from stating this right. Seizing the right opportunity and taking advantage of the Congress' policy of surrender, the Muslim League once again emphatically put forth that same old theory of the Mussulman nation being a separate nation. If one turns a blind eye to this reality, the Hindu Nation is bound to be divided. So we do not care if you consider yourself to be a separate nation. The effort towards Hindu consolidation is to emphatically state that the Hindu Nation is a self-evident and unified Nation. The Mahasabha came forward as a separate and mighty national organization of the Hindu Nation. Hindu Nationalism gave a cutting edge to the effort of consolidation. People still do not understand the important thing that stating the fact of Mussulman and Hindu nations being present in Hindusthan is not to accept the Pakistani adamancy of carving a country of the Mussalmans. If I call someone a grihasta (householder), it does not make him a resident of my griha (house). Whether the Mussulmans consider themselves a separate nation or not, at least as far as Hindusthan is concerned, they are a minority compared to Hindus. Like the English, they have come here as foreigners and if they want to stay in Hindusthan, they should do so only as a minority community. An independent, unified, indivisible and single State should be established in Hindusthan. Hindusthan is the Fatherland and the Holy land of Hindus and even today they are an overwhelming majority in this their country. Hence, even if there are in this country, by force or tyranny, the English, Portuguese, French or those invaders such as the Americans or Japanese who call themselves a nation., Hindusthan should be considered politically a nation of the Hindus as per the principle of peoples' power. If they want, minorities may stay here merely as minority communities. This is the objective; this is the oath of Hindu consolidation. This objective should be achieved through consensus if possible. Else, by strength and should opportunity arise, by force, this or the next generation of Hindus shall achieve this objective. While two or two hundred nations that consider themselves separate from the Hindus have presently entered Hindusthan by force and are demanding Partition of Hindusthan, it is not by a woolly-headed and cowardly denial of this fact but rather by understanding, facing and changing it shall an independent, undivided and indivisible Hindu nation alone shall without doubt, remain in Hindusthan. But as in our history when the Hindu Nation successfully rallied under the Hindu Flag, the Hindus should come forward and rise unitedly."

Savarkar was then asked that if Hindus and Mussulmans are two nations, how will they form a single nation? He answered, "We should not confuse between Nation. and State.. Even if the State goes, the Nation remains. When the Mussulmans were ruling over us, the government (State) was theirs. But the existence of the Hindus was most certainly intact. Even so, there is no problem in a common State of Hindus and Mussulmans. In the past, we had nations (rashtra) such as Maharashtra, Saurashtra and Devrashtra (near Berar). Where are these nations? They mingled with each other. The Shakas and Huns came to Hindusthan as nations. But what is the evidence of their existence today? We digested them. So if the Mussulmans want, they could amicably stay with Hindus as a minority community. In the past, nations such as Prussia, Bavaria etc. existed in Germany. But today, they have all together formed the German nation. By law, no one in Germany may call himself Prussian or Bavarian but German only.

"Regarding the Mussulmans in Hindusthan, it may be said that you (Hindus) are trying to rope them with you but do the Mussulmans so desire? In the end, 'desire' is the most influential and important factor for a 'nation'. If they consider themselves separate, what is achieved merely by saying that you consider them your own? And hence, we need not worry whether they come with us or not. And there is no reason why we should sacrifice Hindu interests and plead with them to perforce say that they are not a separate nation. Hindus are a nation unto themselves. Considering this, the Hindus should continue the freedom struggle by consolidating themselves irrespective of whether the Mussulmans come with them or not. If they so desire, they may stay here, else they shall go where it pleases them."

Savarkar's consistent view on this subject was best summarized by him in his Presidential address in Nagpur in 1938. He said, "It is absurd to call us (Hindus) a community in India. The Germans are the Nation in Germany and the Jews a Community. The Turks are a Nation in Turkey and the Arab or the Armenian minority a Community. Even so the Hindus are a Nation in India-in Hindusthan and the Moslem minority a Community."

It is undeniable that Muslims consider themselves as a nation or Ummah. It was not Savarkar's invention nor did he ever endorse this Islamic concept. It is noteworthy that the Afro-American religious movement started by Wallace D. Fard Muhammad in Detroit, Michigan in 1930 was named 'Nation of Islam'.

Jinnah's inspiration

To say that Jinnah adopted Savarkar's idea is arrant nonsense! Can Digvijay Singh or his ilk quote a single sentence from Jinnah's speeches or writings where he has named Savarkar as his source of inspiration? In a letter to newly elected Congress President Badruddin Tayyabji (1888), Sir Syed Ahmed wrote, "Is it supposed that that the different castes and creeds living in India belong to one nation, or can become nation, and that their aims and aspirations be one and same? I think it is quite impossible." The answer given by Tayyabji, the former President of Digvijay Singh's Grand Old Party is even more revealing. Tayyabji writes, "Now I am not aware of anyone regarding the whole of India as one Nation and if you read my Inaugural address, you will find it distinctly stated that there are numerous communities or nations in India." (Source Material for a History of the Freedom Movement in India, Vol.2, pp70-73). The idea of an independent, sovereign Islamic State carved out of India was first publicly stated by Sir Muhammad Iqbal in his Presidential address to the Muslim league in 1930. Iqbal said, "I would like to see the Punjab, the North West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-Government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Muslim State appears to be to me the final of the Muslims at least of the North-Western India." Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto accurately observed that "the starting point of Pakistan goes back a thousand years to when Muhammad-bin-Qasim set foot on the soil of Sind and introduced Islam in the sub-continent."

It is a travesty that Congressmen who accepted the Islamic demand of a separate State on the basis of religion and Leftists who fervently believe India to be a hotchpotch of multiple nationalities should hurl the charge of advocacy of the two-nation theory on Savarkar, a lifelong champion of a unified India.


Savarkar - The man who saw tomorrow By Ashok Malik

excellent article on veer savarkar from 2008 by ashok malik: savarakar -- the man who saw tomorrow: "

Op-ed daily May 28th 2008

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar would have been 125 today. In life, he was a demonised, marginalised 'political Hindu'. Yet, in contemporary India, Savarkar stands vindicated and Savarkarism is more accepted than ever before

In 2004, when the historian Ron Chernow wrote his eponymous biography of Alexander Hamilton, he was partly impelled by the sense that his subject had not been given his due. Hamilton was an American nationalist, a votary of federal institutions, a Republican, an advocate of limited Government and a patron of the industrial society before these terms were coined or at least entirely understood. He was also the first Secretary of the Treasury of the United States and a widely influential figure in the early years of the new republic.

Yet, over the decades, memories of Hamilton's contemporaries overwhelmed his legacy. He was America's forgotten Founding Father, lost in the crevices between George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. Hamilton had opposed slavery even while his great rival Thomas Jefferson had kept slaves; yet, it wasn't Hamilton who was remembered by human rights chroniclers.

What Hamilton lost in life, Hamiltonism won in history. By the 20th century, Hamilton's ideas had triumphed. His initial postulates continue to define American strategic thinking, foreign policy and economic philosophy. Every White House resident in the past 20 years has paid homage to Ronald Reagan; Reagan himself often evoked Hamilton.

It is tempting to see Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who would have been 125 this morning, as an Indian Alexander Hamilton. By the time he died in 1966, he had shrunk to a limited presence. Surrounded only by a few devoted adherents and members of the Hindu Mahasabha, his writings read mainly by his fellow Maharastrians, his heroic role in the freedom movement had been effaced by official historians.

Savarkar was the intellectual equal of Jawaharlal Nehru. Revisit the writings of the stalwarts of the pre-1947 period and you will encounter few besides these two with a grasp and informed assessment of contemporary world affairs. Yet, in the hard, harsh world of politics and political ideas, Savarkar, by the 1960s, had lost to Nehru's cult and charisma.

There were many reasons why the Left-liberal intelligentsia, most of whom are, in some form or the other, pensioners of the Nehruvian state structure, despised Savarkar. For a start, he was flesh-and-blood refutation of the charge that Hindu nationalism lacked an intellectual tradition. Second, he represented a cogent and coherent position that believed the political choices India and the Congress had made in 1947 (or 1950 or 1952, after the first election) were not necessarily correct.

These were inconvenient truths for Nehruvian fellow travellers, Savarkar the inconvenient man. There was astonishing virulence towards Savarkar. Some, like the perverse and bigoted Mr Mani Shankar Aiyar, even mocked the 10 years that Savarkar spent in Cellular Jail, Port Blair, in horrific conditions, alone in a tiny cell.

The antipathy to Savarkar has to be seen in a larger context. Post-independence, the Congress establishment sought to rewrite history in its own image. It determinedly underplayed the role of the early Indian elites -- the Poona Brahmins, Bombay's Parsi constitutionalists, Calcutta's Bengali and Brahmo activists -- who had dominated public life prior to the Mahatma's mass politics.

As the Congress set out to establish that there was no history and no freedom struggle before Gandhi, and no politics and no consciousness of modern India before Nehru, these pioneer groups became expendable. The Marxist historians who actually wrote the textbooks had their own theories. For instance, not just was Savarkar demonised, even the venerable Bal Gangadhar Tilak was painted in sectarian colours.

Even so, history has a strange way of getting back. Savarkar's idea of the political Hindu, of a polity and of political parties that would be sensitive to the Hindu cultural mainstay of Indian nationhood, that would, while eschewing ritualism and dogma, incorporate robust nationalism into policy-making, is more relevant than it has ever been. Nehruvianism is in retreat and, even though Savarkar has been dead 42 years, Savarkarism has never been more alive.

Written in 1923, Savarkar's slim tract, Hindutva, remains a remarkably contemporary articulation of organic nationalism. Indeed, it anticipates some of the ideas expanded upon by Samuel Huntington in Who Are We? (2004).

Leftist historians often divide Savarkar's life into two -- the supposedly "acceptable" first part, till the mid-1920s; and, his espousal of Hindutva after that. Actually, this division is bogus.

Admittedly, Savarkar's early life was one of a romantic revolutionary. As a student in London, he was in touch with Irish, Turkish and Chinese dissidents and rebels. In 1907, he wrote The War of Independence of 1857. The book was deeply researched and provided an interpretation of documents and events from the Indian perspective.

Admittedly, it is not the last word on the Indian Uprising. In hindsight, Savarkar could be accused of glossing over the differing motivations of the participants of the 1857 war and of being simplistic in believing that there was overwhelming consensus in re-establishing the Delhi throne as a Maratha protectorate -- as had been the case till 1803.

Nevertheless, this was a passionate young man of 24 writing the first non-imperial account of a dramatic struggle. It was passionate and pulsating, being smuggled to India wrapped in dust jackets saying Don Quixote and Pickwick Papers. The British Government arrested Savarkar and sought to send him to India to stand trial. At Marseilles, in a dramatic move, he squeezed out of the porthole and swam to the shore, claiming asylum from the French Government.

It was refused and he was re-arrested on French soil and handed over to the British. This was in breach of international law and among those who protested at Savarkar being denied asylum was Jean Longuet, French lawyer-editor and grandson of Karl Marx.

Savarkar was heavily influenced by Italian thinkers such as Mazzini. He saw Hindutva as an Indian Risorgimeto, conceptualising it as a reawakening of the national spirit and of a pride in, and understanding of, the territorial frontiers of India. He was not a religious sort and did not interpret 'Hindu' solely in terms of worship. He was an early opponent of Dalit exclusion, seeing a Hindu harmonisation process as essential to national unity.

Savarkar was often impatient with the RSS and it is piquant to compare him with MS Golwalkar, 'Guruji' as he is called and the man who made the Sangh the all-India institution that it is today. Savarkar was a thinker, Golwalkar a do-er; Savarkar was the rare Hindu mind who understood statecraft and the importance of state power, Golwalkar sought to change society by working bottom-up from grassroots communities. For Golwalkar (as for Gandhi), the Hindu was ascetic-exemplar; for Savarkar, he was warrior-ideal.

The two streams were not antithetical but clearly complementary. When they finally merged, consciously or otherwise, in the late-1980s, it changed Indian politics and moved the polity irrevocably to the Right. At its best, the BJP is a confluence of Savarkar and Golwalkar.

Savarkar had known it all along. Just before his death, in an emotional piece called "This, My Legacy", he had written: "If we are to live with honour and dignity as a Hindu nation -- and we have the right to do so -- that nation must emerge under the Hindu flag. This, my dream, shall come true -- if not in this generation at least in the next. If it remains an empty dream, I shall prove a fool. If it comes true, I shall prove a prophet. This, my legacy, I bequeath to you."

Savarkar is gone. Let us cherish his legacy, salute the prophet.

Five Jihadis killed in Kerala while making bomb

Five Jihadis killed in Kerala while making bomb

Kozhikode : Five Islamic Jihadis were killed and as many injured when a bomb being manufactured illegally exploded nearby Nadapuram on Saturday night.

Three persons died last night and two persons succumbed to injuries this morning, police said, adding that the injured had been hospitalised.

Those killed were identified as Popular Front (Muslim League) activists from Nadapuram area.

Top district police officials rushed to the spot and were investigating the incident.

जजिया :मुहम्मदी जबरदस्ती !!

जजिया :मुहम्मदी जबरदस्ती !!: "
विश्व में अरब एकमात्र देश है ,जहाँइस्लाम से पूर्व कोई राजा या शासक नहीं था .अरब ले लोग यातो अपने ऊंट किराये पर देकर सामान पंहुचाते थे ,या काफिलों को लूट कर गुजारा करते थे .मुहमद के पूर्वज भी यही करते थे .मुहम्मद अरबों की यह आदत जानता था .इसलिए जब उसने खुद को रसूल घोषित किया तो ,तो अरब के लुटेरों ने उसे अपना सरदार बना लिया .और जिहाद के नाम से लूट करने लगे .

मुहम्मद चाहता था कि कोई ऐसा उपाय किया जाये जिस से नियमित कमी होती रहे .इसलिए उसने अपने शातिर दिमाग से 'जजिया 'का अविष्कार कर लिया ,और कुरान में लिख दिया 'जो इस्लाम को अपना धर्म नहीं मानते ,उन से इतना लड़ो ,के वह अपमानित होकर जजिया देने पर विवश हो जाएँ '

सूरा -तौबा 9 :29 .

जजियाجزية का अर्थ फिरौती Extortion Money .रंगदारी ,हफ्ता या poll tax है .जो गैर मुस्लिमों से लिया जाता है .और जिन लोगों पर जजिया का नियम लागू होता है उनको 'ذِمّي जिम्मी 'कहा जाता है .अर्थात सभी गैर मुस्लिम जिम्मी है .मुहम्मद इतना धूर्त था क़ि उसने जजिया की कोई दर निश्चित नहीं की थी .ताकि मुसलमान मनमाना जजिया वसूल कर सकें .मुहम्मद जजिया से अपना घर भरना ,और लोगों को मुसलमान बननेपर मजबूर करना चाहता था .फिर मुहम्मद की मौत के बाद भी मुस्लिम बादशाहों ने यही नीति अपनाई थी मुहम्मद गैर मुस्लिमों से झूठ कहता था कि हम जजिया के धन से तुम्हें सुरक्षा प्रदान करेंगे ,लेकिन मुहम्मद उस धन को अपने निजी कामों ,जैसे अपनी शादियों ,हथियार खरीदने ,और दावतें करने में खर्च कर देता था .उसके लोग बीमार ,गरीब ,और स्त्रियों को भी नहीं छोड़ते थे .और जो जजिया नहीं दे सकता था उसकी औरतें उठा लेते थे .यहांतक क़त्ल भी कर देते थे .जजिया तो एक बहाना था .मुहम्मद लोगों को इस्लाम कबूल करने पर मजबूर करना चाहता था .जैसा मुसलमानों ने भारत में किया था .

जजिया के बारे में हदीसों और इतिहास में यह लिखा है -

1 -जजिया क्यों

'उम्मर खत्ताब ने कहा कि,जिम्मियों से जोभी जजिया लिया जाता है ,वह उनकी भलाई में खर्च किया जाता है '

बुखारी -जिल्द 2 किताब 23 हदीस 475

'उमरने कहा कि जजिया गैर मुस्लिमों की हिफाजत के लिए लिया जाता है 'अबू दाऊद-किताब 19 हदीस 2955

'अबू आफाक ने कहा की ,रसूल ने कहा कि,जजिया मूर्ख जिम्मियों को सबक सिखाने के लिए वसूला जाता है ,ताकि वस् समझ जाएँ कि अब उनकी जान हमारे हाथों में है 'बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 52 हदीस 256

2 -फिरौती के लिए जजिया

'रसूल ने दूबह के शाहजादे उकैगिर को पकड़वा लिया और कैद कर लिया .रसूल ने उसे तभी छोड़ा ,जब उसके लोगों ने जजिया की पूरी रकम चूका दी थी 'अबू दाउद-किताब 11 हदीस 1301

'रसूल ने उमर इब्न अब्दुल अजीज को को तभी छोड़ा था ,जब उसने जजिया की रकम चूका दी थी ,और इस्लाम कबूल किया था '

मुवत्ता-जिल्द 17 किताब 24 हदीस 46

'एक सीरियन किसान हिशाम बिन हाकिम रस्ते से जा रहा था ,तभी रसूल ने उसे पड़ाव लिया .और उस से जजिया की मांग की .जब उसने इंकार किया तो रसूल ने उसे तपती हुई गर्म रेत पर खड़ा कर दिया .शाम को जब एक ईसाई ने उसके बदले जजिया चूका दिया तो रसूल ने हिश्शाम को छोड़ दिया .'

सही मुस्लिम -किताब 30 हदीस 6328 और 6330

3 -निजी लाभ के लिए जजिया

'उमर खत्ताब जजिया के तौर पर एक जवान ऊंट लेकर आये ,और उसे काट कर गोश्त पकाया .फिर रसूल और उनकी औरतों ने फलों के साथ गोश्त को प्लेट में रखकर खाया .इसके बाद रसूल के साथियों ने खाया 'मुवत्ता-जिल्द 17 किताब 24 हदीस 45

'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि जब रसूल ने आयशा के साथ शादी की थी ,तो शादी खर्चा निकालने के लिए ,मदीना और आसपास के यहूदियों और ईसाइयों से जबरन जजिया वसूल किया था 'बुखारी -जिल्द 5 किताब 58 हदीस 234

4 -लोगों को दबाने के लिए

'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि रसूल का आदेश था कि ,तुम जिम्मियों से इतना अधिक जजिया वसूल करो ,जिस से वह जैसे तैसे जिन्दा रह सकें ,और उनकी संख्या न बढ़ सके 'बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 52 हदीस 288

'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि ,रसूल ने खा ,तुम जिम्मियों से इतना अधिक जजिया वसूल करो कि,वह हमेशा कर्ज से दबे रहें ,कहीं ऐसा न हो कि वह इतने सरकश हो जाये कि ,जजिया देना ही बंद कर दें 'बुखारी -जिल्द ४ किताब 53 हदीस 404

5 -इस्लाम फ़ैलाने के लिए

'अबू मूसा ने कहा कि रसूल ने कहा कि, अल्लाह ने मुझे विजय प्राप्त की है ,और सारे जिम्मियों को मेरे अधीन कर दिया है .इस लिए मुझे अधिकार है कि मैं जिम्मियों से जजिया वसूल कर सकूँ .और इस्लाम को मजबूती प्रदान करूँ 'बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 85 हदीस 220

'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि ,रसूल नेअपने सैनिकों से कहा कि अगर गैर मुस्लिम इस्लाम कबूल करते ,या जजिया नहीं देते तो ,उनसे युद्ध करके उनको इसके लिए विवश कर दो 'सही मुस्लिम -किताब 19 हदीस 4294

6 -हथियार खरीदने के लिए

'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि ,रसूल को हथियारों के लिए धन कि जरुरत थी .इसलिए वह बहरैन पर हमला करके हमें जजिया वसूल करने के लिए ले गए .और हमने वहां के जिम्मियों से जबरन जजिया वसूला ,और हथियार ख़रीदे 'सही मुस्लिम -किताब 42 हदीस 7065

7 -वसूली का तरीका

'रसूल ने मुहमद अल मुगीरा से कहा ,जाओ जहाँ भी गैर मुसिम मिलें उससे जजिया मांगो ,यदि वह जजिया नहीं दें तो उनसे युद्ध करो .और यहाँ तक लड़ो के वह जजिया देने और अलह कि इबादत करने पर मजबूर हो जाएँ 'बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 53 हदीस 386

'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि ,रसूल ने अबू उबैदा बिन अब्दुल्लाह को जजिया वसूल करने को भेजा ,उसने लोगों से कहा कि ,सब अपने घरों से बहार आ जाएँ ,और जिस के पास जो कुछ हो वह रसूल के लिए दे दें .डर के मारे लोगों ने बर्तन भी दे दिए 'बुखारी जिल्द 7 किताब 76 हदीस 437

8 -मृतकों से भी जजिया

'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि ,रसूल ने कहा कि ,अगर की जिम्मी बिना जजिया चुकाए ही मर जाये ,तो उसके घर के लोगों से दोगुना जजिया वसूल करो .'बुखारी -जिल्द 9 किताब 83 हदीस 17 .और बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 52 हदीस 268

9 -बलात्कार से जजिया वसूलो

'एक गरीब औरत ने रसूल से निवेदन किया कि ,उसका पति बीमार है ,इसलिए असूल करने वाले से जजिया कुछ कम करने को कहें .लें उस अधकारी ने उस औरत से बलात्कार कर दिया .रसूल ने कहा तुमने उचित ढंग से जजिया वसूल किया है 'बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 52 हदीस 46

'उमरने कहा कि रसूल ने कहा है ,कि जिम्मी चाहे मौत के बिस्तर पर पड़ा हो ,उससे इतना जजिया वसूल करो कि वह बिस्तर से कभी उठ नहीं सके 'बुखारी -जिल्द 2 किताब 23 हदीस 475

10 -जिम्मी कि हत्या गुनाह नहीं

'अबू मूसा ने कहा कि ,रसूल ने कहा कि ,यदि जजिया वसूल करते समय किसी जिमी कि हत्या भी कर दी जाये तो ,वसूल करने वाला अपराधी नहीं माना जायेगा .कुसूर सिर्फ जिमी का माना जायेगा 'बुखारी -जिल्द 1 किताब 3 हदीस 111

11 -जजिया कब हटेगा

'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि ,रसूल ने कहा कि ,जजिया की बदौलत एक ऐसा समय आयेगा की ,सरे धर्म नष्ट हो जायेंगे ,और सिर्फ इस्लाम ही बाक़ी रहेगा .इसके बाद जजिया की कोई जरुरत नहीं रहेगी 'अबू दाऊद-किताब 37 हदीस 4310

12 -जजिया की दरें

'उमर खत्ताब उन जगहों से प्रति व्यक्ति चार दीनार जजिया लेते थे जहाँ सोने के सिक्के चलते थे .और जहाँ चंडी के सिक्के चलते थे वहां से 40 दिरहम वसूल करते थे 'मुवत्ता-जिल्द 17 किताब 24 हदीस 44

'रसूल ने कहा कि,जिम्मी के पास सिक्के नहीं हों ,औए वस् सलाम करके कुछ और देना चाहे तो उसके बर्तन और खाने का अनाज लेलो ,चाहे उसके पास खाने को कुछ नहीं बचे 'बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 53 हदीस 388

13 -धमकी भरे पत्र भेजो

'अबू हुरैरा ने कहा कि रसूल ने लोगों को पत्र भेजे थे ,जिनमे जजिया कि मांग की गयी थी .रसूल ने एक अमीर एला( aila )पत्रको भेजकर धमकाया था कि ,अगर वह नियमित जजिया नहीं देगा तो उसके लोग सुरक्षित नहीं रहेंगे 'बुखारी -जिल्द 2 किताब 24 हदीस 559

14 -जजिया किन से लिया जाये

'उमर खत्ताब पाहिले तो पारसियों से जजिया नहीं लेता था .लेकिन जब रसूल को पता चला तो वह बोले कि ,जो भी अल्लाह के आलावा और किसी कि इबादत करते हैं , और रसूल पर ईमान नहीं रखते उन सब से जजिया जरुर लिया करो 'बुखारी -जिल्द 4 किताब 53 हदीस 384

भारत में जितने भी मुस्लिम शासक हुए हैं सभी ने हिन्दुओं का खून चूसा है .और मनमाने टेक्स वसूल किये है .जब दिल्ली की गद्दी पर खिलजियों की हुकूमत हुई तो अला उद्दीन खिलजीعلاوؤالدّين خلجي (1296 -1316 ) ने अपने काजी अता उल मुल्क से पूछा कि मैं हिन्दुओं से कैसा व्यवहार करूँ .काजी बोला तुम हिन्दुओं को सिर्फ नजराना और शुकराना देने वाला समझो .यानि जब कोई हिन्दू किसी मुस्लिम पदाधिकारी के सामने जाये तो उसे नजराना के रूप में कुछ धन दे .और जब और जब अधिकारी जाने लगे तब भी शुकराना के तौर पर कुछ धन फिर से दे .अगर मुस्लिम अधिकारी हिन्दू से चांदी का सिक्का मांगे तो हिन्दू उसे सोने का सिक्का देकर उसे खुश करे .यदि अधिकारी थूकना चाहे ,तो हिन्दू अपना मुंह खोल दे ,और उसे मुंह में थूकने दे खिलजी बोला काजी तुझे इस्लाम का पूरा ज्ञान है

(तारीखे फिरोजशाही -जिया उद्दीन बरनी )

इसी तरह शेख हमदानी ने अपनी किताब 'जखिरतुल मुल्क 'में लिखा है औरंगजेब ने जब 1679 में जजिया लागु किया तो ,आदेश दिया कि हिन्दू कोई नया बुतखाना नहीं बना सकते और न उसकी मरम्मत कर सकतेहैं .अगर हिन्दू किसी सम्बन्धी कि मौत पर जोर जोर से रोयेंगे तो जुरमाना लगेगा .शंख बजने ,घंटा बजने पर भी टेक्स लगेगा .अगर हिन्दू जजिया नहीं दे सकें तो उनके मंदिरों को तोड़कर जजिया वसूला जायेगा ,या उनकी लड़कियों को कनीज बना लिया जायेगा .मुसलमान इसी लिए औरंगजेब की तारीफ करते हैं .वह मुसल्लामानों का आदर्श है.

मुसलमानों ने इसी जजिया की ताकत से कई देश मुसलमान बना दिए है .इरान में सन 1884 और ट्युनिसिया और अल्जीरिया में सन 1855 तक जजिया लिया जाता था .इसके कारण वहां के गर मुस्लिम यातो पलायन कर गए या विवश होकर मुसलमान बन गए .यही मुहम्मद चाहता .जिहाद की तरह जजिया भी मुसलमानों का एक आतंक ही है .तालिबानों ने सिक्खों से सन 16 अप्रेल 2009 को 2 करोड़ और 28 जून 2010 सीखो और हिन्दुओं से 6 करोड़ रूपया जजिया वसूल किया था .और सिखों ने चूका दिया था

अगर पंजाब के हिन्दू सिख मिलकर केवल पांच सौ प्रमुख मुले मौलवियों को पकड़ लेते और तालिबानों से कहते या तो अफागानितन के सिखों का जजिया माफ़ करो ,या फिर हम दूसरी तरह से जजिया चूका देंगे .अफसोस कि सिखों कि तलवार म्यान से बाहर नहीं निकली .

सिक्खों को पता होना चाहियेथा कि अगर तालिबानों के पास हजारों सिक्ख हैं ,तो पंजाब में लाखों मुसलमान मौजूद है

इसी तरह हमें कश्मीरियों से झंडा चढाने की इजाजत मांगने क्या जरूरत है .अगर हम कश्मीर के सामान को पजाब के आगे नहीं जाने दें तो ,कश्मीरी अलगाववादी भूखे मर जायेंगे .


संत-महिमा, शिरडी,अर्थ-शास्त्र, मानवीय लालच और अति सर्वत्र वर्ज्ययेत...डा श्याम गुप्त.

संत-महिमा, शिरडी,अर्थ-शास्त्र, मानवीय लालच और अति सर्वत्र वर्ज्ययेत...डा श्याम गुप्त.: "

अब इसे संत-महिमा न कहा जाय तो क्या कहा जायगा कि शिरडी जो एक छोटा सा स्थान था आज साईं-महिमा के कारण एक उन्नत, स्थानीय जनता के लिए अर्थ-प्राप्ति,उद्योग-धंधे का साधन बन चुका है | ऊंचे ऊंचे भवनों से विस्तृत होता जारहा है | यही तो महिमा है संतों की, संत-स्थानों की, तीर्थों की, ईश-स्थानों की |
यह भारतीय अर्थ-शास्त्र का अर्थ-चक्र है | विपणन व स्वतंत्र अर्थ व्यवस्था का क्रम जो किसी भी आर्थिक मंदी-तेजी, बाज़ार -गिरावट से प्रभावित नहीं होता यही तो संत-महिमा, ईश-कृपा व तीर्थों का सांस्कृतिक आधार है ; व्यवहारिक पक्ष है...धर्म-चक्र के साथ अर्थ का क्रम ...| धर्म अर्थ काम व मोक्ष का संतुलित व्यवहारिक क्रम...जैसा ईशोपनिषद में कहा गया है....
"विद्यान्चाविद्यां च यस्तदवेदोभय सह | अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वा विध्ययामृतमश्नुते ||"----अर्थात अज्ञान (संसार, कर्म ) और ज्ञान (धर्म , ईश्वरीय भाव )दोनों को साथ साथ लेकर चलना चाहिए| संसार से मृत्यु को पार किया जाता है और ज्ञान से अमृत की प्राप्ति होती है |
परन्तु मानवीय लालच क्या नहीं करता | "अति सर्वत्र वर्ज्ययेत "...वह लालच संतों आदि को भी बदनामी की राह पर लेजाता है| जो साईं-बाबा श्रृद्धा-सबूरी, धैर्य का अनुसरण व गुणगान और उपदेश देते देते ,एक चोगे, पगड़ी व एक लोटे के साथ जीवन गुजारते रहे , उन्हें आज उनके अनुयायी अपने आर्थिक लाभ-धंधे के लिए सोने के मुकुट के साथ स्वर्ण-सिंहासन पर आसीन कर रहे हैं |
वहीं अन्य देव स्थानों की भांति दुकानदारों ने अपने एजेंट रख छोड़े हैं जो प्रशासन की स्पष्ट नीति-निर्देशों की कमी व अक्षमता के कारण दर्शनार्थियों को ठगने से भी नहीं चूकते | जहां अन्य देव स्थानों पर 5/ 10/ 15/ रुपये का प्रसाद व अन्य पुष्प आदि मिलाजाते हैं वहीं यहाँ ३५१/ का सामान जबरास्ती दिया जारहा है |
मंदिर के अन्दर ही शनिदेव , गणेश व शिव आदि के मंदिर भी स्थापित कर दिए गए हैं ताकि धंधा आगे बढ़ता रहे, अन्य स्थानों का धंधा भी यहीं रहे जैसे एक दुकानदार अपने यहाँ सभी सामान रख लेता है कि ग्राहक कहीं और न जाय | मंदिर के अन्दर ही खाने-पीने का सामान भी होना धंधे को केन्द्रित करने के सामान ही है| आखिर फोटो लेने को क्यों मना है,इसमें कौन सा सुरक्षा-बिंदु है , हाँ लोग यहाँ आने की बजाय घर पर ही दर्शन न करने लगें व कलेंडर बिकना कम न होजायं यह भाव होसकता है |
दर्शन के लिए ढाई घंटे खड़े रहना जहां धैर्य की सीख देता है व कार्य-मुक्ति के कारण तनाव कम करता है जो इन स्थानों का दार्शनिक व चिकित्सकीय पहलू भी है | परन्तु क्या ढाई घंटे खड़े रहना स्वयं में ही तनाव नहीं है |
वस्तुतः कोइ भी संस्थान, देव-स्थान -संस्थान, तंत्र अधिक बड़ा व फैलाव वाला होना ही नहीं चाहिए | इससे अनास्था, अनाचार, भ्रष्टाचार को प्रश्रय मिलता है | अस्पतालों, कंपनियों व सरकारों के लिए भी यह सच है |

A Hindu set afire after son elopes with Muslim girl

A Hindu set afire after son elopes with Muslim girl: "Namakkal (Tamil Nadu): A 61-year-old Hindu man was burnt to death in Periyapatti village of Namakkal district after his son eloped with a Muslim girl of the same village."

Hindus must learn to cultivate similar Chutzpah (“astounding hubris")

Hindus must learn to cultivate similar Chutzpah (“astounding hubris"): "feb 27th, 2011 CE

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ravi
Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:44 AM
Subject: Hindus must learn to cultivate similar Chutzpah ("astounding hubris")

Hindus, especially Hindutva activists, must learn to cultivate similar Chutzpah ("astounding hubris") if they wish to deal with the threat from Islam.

The key to understanding organized Islamic behavior—not the actions of every Muslim by any means, but the groups that represent them and the individuals most formed by Islamic cultural attitudes—is, ironically, chutzpah. In Hebrew, that term means something like 'astounding hubris,' although as it came into Yiddish it took on some more positive connotations. Leo Rosten, author of The Joy of Yiddish, defines chutzpah as "that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan." There is no other way to characterize the way professional Muslims begin to act when they scent weakness in their rivals; conversely, when they meet a show of strength that exceeds their own, they turn almost instantly into craven, self-pitying victims. Just think of how Palestinian activists alternate between empty boastfulness about their power to "drive the Zionists into the sea," and puling complaints about the indignities imposed on them by Israel's greater power.

This should be no surprise to us. As I've written before, Islam is a religion of power, which worships a god whose first and foremost attribute is power, absolute and arbitrary power so boundless by definition that no one and nothing can "chain Allah's hand," not even his previous promises. In the single-minded quest to depict their god as limitless, Muslim theologians have managed to portray Allah as something actually less impressive than any human being who does keep his word; recall that in ancient cultures, oath-keeping was the virtue held in highest esteem. Without it, human action is impossible to predict, trust relationships cannot be formed, and lasting love is impossible. Allah cannot be said to love his creatures, because they can never trust him. Their love for him at best can only ever be servile, the trembling devotion of a whipped dog hoping for mercy.

While that may be the Muslim attitude toward their god, activist Muslims adopt quite the opposite posture toward non-Muslims, whenever they feel sufficiently powerful to get away with it. Robert Spencer told me a story he'd heard of an American convert to Islam (dressed like any other American) who sat down at a cafe, only to be greeted from a neighboring table with "Assalaamu 'alaykum!' The American was stunned, and he turned to the Arab immigrant at the neighboring table to ask, 'How did you know I was a Muslim?' His newfound friend replied, 'You hold and carry yourself like a Muslim. You hold your head high, as if you bow before no man, but only before Allah.'


use mobile to mobile to eliminate black money in Indian economy

use mobile to mobile to eliminate black money in Indian economy: "feb 27th, 2011 CE

does this sound feasible?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ram Narayanan

Dear Rajeev:

This is an important article and I hope GOI and RBI will quickly act upon its recommendations.


Have mobile, will travel

Ashok Jhunjhunwala , Feb 22, 2011,

Dictators in Tunisia and Egypt have fallen. Internet technologies played their small part in this. India is not like Tunisia and Egypt. Its economy has belied expectations and grows at 8 to 9% year after year. As large sections do not benefit adequately from this growth, there has been considerable focus on government programmes to make it inclusive. At the same time, our press has demonstrated its independence. The RTI Act enables citizens to demand and get information. Our CAG stands tall, just as our Election Commission and courts do. Yet India is in a crisis. Its citizens are tired of governance deficit, corruption, black money and an inspector-raj.

Everyday we see scams (sometimes even when they are not there) being exposed in the media, demonstrations, Parliament jams and court orders. But there is little positive action. What is needed is action against black money, the driver of all corruption. Are we citizens ready to move beyond protests and take a small step that could hit at the heart of black money?

Black money thrives in the cash economy. If we introduce traceability in financial transactions, it will be difficult to hide. We can do this using some simple available technologies. It is possible to carry out all transactions in electronic form, where money is transferred from the payer's bank account to the payee's. The back-end core banking system of almost all banks allows that. ATM withdrawals, any-branch banking and internet banking thrive on it. The internet, however, is used by a small section. Credit card (and debit card) based payments and transaction could be another way, but have not caught on much (except for use of debit cards for cash withdrawals).

But India has over 750 million mobile phone connections, and growing at 15 million per month. Over 500 million invididuals are believed to have mobiles. In a few years, mobile telephony could touch most of India's adult population. It is now possible to link one's mobile phone to a bank account. So, it is possible to carry out most transactions including money transfer, bill payments, balance enquiry and checks on past transactions. A bank's computer uses the caller line identification (CLI) and a customer's PIN to authenticate her, following which any transaction can be carried out using an application loaded on her phone. End-to-end encryption makes transactions secure. Transactions are instantaneous: for example, any payment is notified by sending an SMS to the payer as well as payee.

The Mobile Payment Forum of India, RBI and National Payment Corporation of India worked with banks, telecom operators and technology providers to make money transfer possible between customers of any two banks, any two operators and any two technology providers. One does not even need the bank account number to make payments, as the payee's mobile number and a mobile money ID (MMID) uniquely map to her bank account.

Mobile payments would make cash redundant. One could pay a vegetable vendor who displays a mobile number and MMID at the shop. Similarly, auto fare or kirana shop payments can be made instantaneously. Money can be transferred whether the recipient is near or far. Doing so from Mumbai to an Orissa village would now be a simple matter. A single day amount could be small, say Rs 50, or as much as Rs 50,000.

Safe, secure, simple, instantaneous, and with a complete list of payments and receipts in one's passbook, there is no reason why anyone would not use this method. Using mobile payments instead of cash could be our way to bring in traceability and say no to the black money economy.

Do all banks provide mobile-to-mobile payments? About 10 banks do and another 15 will by the end of next month. Will there be teething troubles? Sure, but nothing that can't be handled. Will transaction charges be too much? Banks and telecom operators can make transactions below Rs 1,000 free and charge one or two rupees for transactions up to Rs 10,000. Will SMS come in real time? Telcos can ensure that.

One may argue that many in rural India and some in urban India do not have bank accounts. With financial inclusion initiatives, no-frill accounts can be opened quickly. In fact, mobile payments would incentivise people to open such accounts. Further, telecom operators are tying up with banks to come up with phone-based pre-paid cards (mobile wallets) for making payments and transferring money as in mobile banking. Will illiteracy be a bottleneck? Several banks and technology providers use mobile voice banking: one just has to speak to carry out a transaction. So, there may be some hiccups, but there are technological answers.

Many of us will remember that computerisation of railway reservations in the 1980s dealt a blow to rampant corruption. As an example of technology being used to bring in transparency, mobile payments give us a much bigger opportunity. In due course, we would demand that government recalls 500 and 1,000 rupee notes and makes it mandatory for all shops and vendors to accept only electronic payments. But let us take the initiative. Let us get our MMID and start making mobile payments instead of using cash. Let shops start displaying their mobile numbers and MMID. That would be a big statement against black money.

The writer teaches electrical engineering at IIT Madras and is on the PM's Scientific Advisory Committee.