Watch this video and share it with others
Catholic Church Apologizes for Rwandan Genocide:
When Will It Do So for The Goa Inquisition?
Shefali Vaidya – November 26, 2016, 9:04 am
Among the comparatively milder measures of the Goa inquisition were forbidding more than 42 Hindu customs, including wearing the sacred thread, the tilak on the forehead, greeting people with a Namaste and removing of slippers outside a place of worship.
The palace has been razed to the ground. Hordes of chattering tourists walk over the site now, clicking selfies against the massive white-washed facade of Saint Catherine’s Church in Old Goa. Children crowd around an ice-cream cart. Couples canoodle under an ancient banyan tree nearby. No traces remain of the dreaded ‘Vhodle Ghor’ or the ‘Big House’ as it was referred to in hushed tones by the terrified people of Goa, except a few moss-covered blocks of laterite stones that lie scattered in the grass. Those stones are the only surviving witnesses of the bloodiest chapter in Goan history — that of the Goa Inquisition.
Return to the ruins of the Palace of The Inquisition in the evening, after the last busload of tourists has departed. Sit a while on a laterite block as the sun goes down. If you are sensitive enough, you can still hear the terrified screams of hapless victims being tortured inside the ‘Vhodle Ghor’ by the Inquisitor’s court. In 1560, the erstwhile palace of Adil Shah, the sultan of Bijapur, in Old Goa was turned into a terrible torture chamber with the addition of a chapel, the residence of the inquisitor, more than 200 windowless prison cells and many torture chambers.
Not many people outside Goa know about the terrible Goa Inquisition. The Inquisition was introduced in Goa in 1560 by the then Portuguese king Joao III at the behest of Francis Xavier, the Jesuit monk whose mummified remains lie in a Church just across the road from the site of the Palace of Inquisitions. Inquisition lasted in Goa till 1812 – a period of more than 250 years! It was temporarily abolished in 1774 by the relatively moderate Marquis De Pombal, but was reinstated promptly in 1778 after his fall from grace. Under the inquisition, thousands of people, both men and women, were arrested on charges of heresy and subjected to inhuman torture. Many were burnt alive at ritualistic public spectacles known as autos-da-fe.
The court of inquisition was set up as a royal tribunal, headed by a judge answerable only to the king based in Lisbon. One of the first acts of the inquisitor’s office in Goa was to forbid public practice of the Hindu faith. Hindus were forbidden to worship their Gods and Goddesses in public. In 1566, a vice-regal order prohibited Hindus from constructing temples or repairing old temples. In 1567 the Portuguese started destroying Hindu temples. In Bardez district alone, more than 300 temples were razed to the ground and Churches built in their place.
All Hindu rituals including marriages, thread ceremonies and cremations were banned by law. All people above 15 years of age were forced to attend Christian preachings. The palace of inquisition became a torture chamber for Hindus, Jews, Muslims and even for converted Christians who clung to their Hindu customs and traditions. More than 42 Hindu customs were considered heretical, including wearing the sacred thread, wearing a tilak on the forehead, greeting people with a Namaste and removing of slippers outside a place of worship.
Historian Alfredo de Mello describes the Goa Inquisition as a collection of ‘nefarious, fiendish, lustful, corrupt religious orders which pounced on Goa’. According to François Pyrard de Laval, a Frenchman who lived in Goa between 1608-1610, the Goa Inquisition was more severe than the one practiced in Portugal. The most authentic account of the tortures of the Goa Inquisition comes from another Frenchman, a doctor named Dillon, who was imprisoned at the palace of the Inquisition. He describes his experiences in his book ‘De Relation L’Inquisition De Goa’. The translation of this book is a part of the famous Goa historian A. K. Priolkar’s seminal work on the subject.
For me, the Goa Inquisition was not just a sterilized remote term to be read in history textbooks. My own family had borne the brunt of the Inquisition. My ancestors had to leave behind their village, their land and all their wealth to save their faith. As their original village Nagoa was destroyed by the Portuguese under the religious command of the fanatical Jesuit priests, my family moved to Cuncolim and started a new life. They made a choice to not surrender their faith. Some others chose otherwise. Converting to Christianity meant official patronage and a good life. The Court of Inquisition guaranteed “protection” to Hindus who converted to Christianity and gave them rights over the lands of people who had chosen to leave their homes rather than convert to Christianity.
In 1583, all temples in my own village of Cuncolim were destroyed by the Portuguese army under direct orders from the court of Inquisition. The proud warriors of my village were not ones to suffer in silence. They led an armed rebellion on 25 July 1583 against the Portuguese. Five Jesuit priests and 14 local converts were killed in the attack. Enraged by this, the Portuguese sent a massive army that burnt and pillaged the village and unleashed unspeakable atrocities on the people. The local warriors still did not give up. They merely hid in the surrounding forests and attacked the Portuguese forces using guerrilla tactics. The Portuguese then tried to be cunning. They invited the leaders of the revolution for talks at a nearby fort and in a stunning act of treachery, sixteen unarmed chieftains were brutally massacred by the Portuguese. Only one escaped by jumping into the river. The sacrifice of the chieftains of Cuncolim is still remembered in Goa as its first ever freedom struggle.
The effects of the Goa Inquisition are felt in Goa till today. There are families torn forever into two, one branch still carries the ancestral Hindu name while the other bears a Christian name. Churches exist where temples once stood.
A few days ago, the Catholic Church apologized for its role in the horrific 1994 genocide in Rwanda. A church statement officially accepted that its members planned, aided and executed the genocide, in which more than 800,000 people were brutally massacred. In 2015, Pope Francis had apologized for the “many grave sins” committed by the Church against the indigenous people of South America while speaking in Bolivia. Before that, his predecessor, Pope John Paul II had apologized to the Muslims for the crusades and to the Jewish people for the anti-Semitism of the Catholics that had aided the holocaust and for the involvement of the Church in African slave trade.
When will the Catholic Church apologize for the terrors of the Inquisition it inflicted upon the people of Goa?
Violent Protests in Indonesia Blow an ill Will for Religious Tolerance
In Jakarta violence between protestors and police broke out Friday night, November 4, 2016 when an estimated 200,000 Muslims emerged from Friday prayers in mosques to rally outside the Indonesian President’s palace. Clashes with police led to tear gas being used on demonstrators, and Indonesia’s president, Joko Widodo, had to postpone his planned visit to Australia to deal with the crisis.
The crowd was calling for the arrest of Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, known as Ahok, the Chinese Christian governor of Jakarta, which is Indonesia’s capital and the largest city in the world’s fourth most populous nation.
A video had gone viral showing Ahok referring in a speech to chapter 5, verse 51 of the Qur’an. He warned his listeners not to give credence to those who might try to deceive them with this verse or others like it.
Ahok has faced criticism before from hardline Muslims, who objected when he stood as Deputy Governor of Jakarta in 2012. Yet Ahok is very popular, and seems set to win the next gubernatorial election in February 2017. He previously took office as Governor in 2014 after Joko Widodo resigned his position as Jarkarta mayor to take up the Presidency of the nation.
Muslims opposed to Ahok had been citing verse 5:51 from the Qur’an to try to delegitimize his candidacy. The verse reads:
You who believe! Do not take the Jews and Christians as allies. They are allies of each other. Whoever of you takes them as allies is already one of them. Surely Allah does not guide the people who are evildoers. (5:51)
The word translated here as allies (Arabic) awliya, is ambiguous. It can mean ‘allies’, but also ‘patrons’ or ‘guardians’.
The rejection of dependence upon disbelievers is emphasized repeatedly in the Qur’an (e.g. in verses 3:28 and 4:141, 144).
In Indonesian translations of the verse 5:51 is rendered ‘do not take Jews and Christians as your leaders (pemimpin-pemimpinmu)’.
Ibn Kathir, an authoritative medieval commentator on the Qur’an, explained this verse as follows:
Allah forbids his believing servants from having Jews and Christians as allies or patrons, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them.
The immediately preceding verse, 5:50, urges Muslims not to seek the ‘judgment of the time of ignorance’. In explaining this, Ibn Kathir denounces anyone who follows man-made laws instead of laws revealed by Allah. Such a person:
is a disbeliever who deserves to be fought against (i.e. to be killed), until he reverts to Allah’s and His Messenger’s decisions, so that no law, minor or major, is referred to except by His Law.
Ibn Kathir is insisting that the only valid form of legislation is the Islamic sharia, that only Muslims can rule, and any Muslim who looks to non-Muslims for political or legal direction is an infidel.
According to verse 5:51, such a person is already ‘one of them’: in other words, they have to be considered an infidel too, and have apostatized from Islam, for which the penalty is death.
The admonition to Muslims not to take non-Muslims, and especially Christians or Jews, as allies or leaders is orthodox, mainstream Islamic teaching.
In the light of this, it is disappointing that the Australian Age newspaper’s Indonesian correspondent, Jewel Topsfield, offers the following gloss:
some interpret [verse 5:51] as prohibiting Muslims from living under the leadership of a non-Muslim. Others say the scripture should be understood in its context — a time of war — and not interpreted literally.
It may be true that a few contemporary moderate voices may say this verse should not be taken literally, but this is certainly not the mainstream view of centuries of Islamic jurisprudence.
The Muslim aversion to non-Muslim political leadership has many out workings around the world.
In Egypt Christians make up around 10% of the population, but less than 1.5% of the parliament is Christian. For decades, there had been no Christian governors for any of Egypt’s 27 governorates, until Mubarak appointed Major General Emad Mikhail as governor over Qena. However massive protests broke out after imams preached sermons in Qena mosques teaching that God does not permit Christians to have authority over Muslims. Demonstrators marched the streets crying, ‘A Muslim governor in a Muslim country’ and ‘There is no god but Allah and Christians are the enemies of Allah’
The protests led to the governor’s appointment being temporarily suspended in order to reestablish the order.
Ahok’s position is difficult. Since his opponents were unable to discredit him politically for being a Christian, they are now upping the ante by accusing him of blasphemy instead, demanding that the state launch legal proceedings against him.
In Ahok’s speech, he had brushed aside those who were citing 5:51 against him, saying they were telling lies. In fact, he made no comment on the Qur’an itself, apart from implying that a particular interpretation was false. His offense was to criticize the misuse of the text by others for political purposes. Yet this gave enough leeway for a vast crowd to be inflamed against him.
There is a famous hadith or tradition of Muhammad, which states:
Whoever sees an evil, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart — and that is the weakest of faith.
This is interpreted by many to mean that a Muslim must use the highest level of force available to remove something evil.
The protestors in Jakarta were exercising their religious duty by speaking out against a Christian being in political authority over a 95% Muslim city, using his alleged blasphemy as a trigger point.
Some went further than just words, threatening action ‘with the hand’: former terrorist Nasir Abas, turned police consultant, carried a sign saying ‘Punish Ahok or our bullets will’.
The phenomenon of Muslims taking political or legal processes into their own hands is widespread.
An example was the offer made by Pakistani Imam Maulana Yusuf of a bounty of $6,000 to anyone who would murder Asia Bibi, a young Christian woman on death row for a trumped-up blasphemy offense. Recently Muslim activists have been conducting mass public protests across Pakistan calling for Bibi to be lynched. ‘It will be a war if accursed Asia escapes’, said Mukhtar, one of the protestors in Lahore.
Another example comes from the UK in 2009, when Geert Wilders was invited to a private meeting at the House of Lords in London.
In response Lord Nazir Ahmed, a Muslim peer, threatened to personally mobilize 10,000 Muslim protestors to physically prevent Wilders from entering the House.
Muslims taking the law into their own hands to act against non-Muslims who rise to high political office is not a new phenomenon.
Egypt’s only Christian Prime Minister was Boutros Ghali, who served from 1908. He was the grandfather of the former UN Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali. He was assassinated in 1910 by a European-educated Egyptian Muslim, Ibrahim Nassif Boutros Ghali -Wardani.
An example from further back in history was the crucifixion of Joseph Ibn Naghrela, vizier of Granada, by a Muslim mob in 1066, as well as a pogrom against the Jewish population.
Although Joseph had been appointed to his high office by a Muslim king, Badis al-Muzaffar, local Muslims resented having a Jew in authority over them.
The Muslim jurist Abu Ishaq wrote a diatribe to incite the violence, arguing that non-Muslims’ blood was no longer protected under the terms of their covenant (of surrender), since they had risen to a position of authority over Muslims:
Do not consider it a breach of faith to kill them — the breach would be to let them carry on. They have violated our covenant with them, so how can you be held guilty against the violators? How can they have any pact when we are obscure and they are prominent.
Indonesia is often held up as a model of a moderate Muslim-majority nation. Its constitution is not Islamic and many Indonesian Muslims espouse moderate views.
However, the global Islamist movement has nevertheless made strong inroads in this the most populous Muslim nation.
Undoubtedly it will be a landmark test for Indonesia’s tolerance whether Ahok is permitted to continue in office.
Those Muslims who are raising both their voices and their hands to protest against him will not be easily silenced.
This outbreak of intolerance bodes ill for Indonesia’s future.
Governor Ahok is being supported by significant Muslim leaders. GP Ansor, the former chairman of the largest Indonesian Youth organization called the complaints a ‘hoax’, and politician Nusron Wahid stated that Ahok had said nothing to insult Islam.
For his part, Governor Ahok has apologized to Muslims, saying, ‘To Muslims who felt insulted, I apologize. I had no intention to insult Islam’.
He stated that ‘Religion is a very personal matter and should not be mixed up with public discourse’.
However, his Muslim opponents clearly hold a different view about the place of Islam in public life!
Ahok is being questioned this week by the police, pending a possible charge of blasphemy.
The thought that an Indonesian court might find Ahok guilty of such a charge is troubling.
To do so would require proof that Ahok intended to incite hatred against Muslims, defame Islam or incite apostasy.
The prosecution might argue that in pooh-poohing the legitimate and well-established Islamic prohibition against non-Muslims taking authority over Muslims, he was denigrating the religion.
Even if no charges are laid, Ahok will certainly come under very great political pressure to withdraw his candidacy.
In Indonesia, today it is apparently unacceptable to some Muslims that a prominent Christian might express an opinion about what the Qur’an says.
Yet the same Muslims claim the right to stridently disallow this Christian candidacy for political office, based on the very same Quranic passage.
This is supremacist reasoning, which incites hatred while denying the object of hatred any voice in the matter.
If this intolerance is given credence by the Indonesian police and courts, it bodes very ill indeed for the nation’s future.
Yet the greater concern is a question for us all: Does the Islamic sharia permit non-Muslims to live alongside Muslims as equals in one world?
This is a crucial question, not just for Indonesia, but for Europe, for America, indeed for every nation with more than a tiny minority of Muslim citizens.
According to the hundreds of thousands protesting in the streets of Jakarta this week, the answer to this question is a resolute and loud ‘No!’
Dr. Mark Durie is an academic, human rights activist, Anglican pastor, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Adjunct Research Fellow of the Arthur Jeffery Centre for the Study of Islam at Melbourne School of Theology.
गुरु नानक और अकर्मयता का रोग
(गुरु नानक प्रकाशोत्सव पर विशेष रूप से प्रकाशित)
डॉ विवेक आर्य
गुरु नानक ने बाबर नामक राक्षस को भारत की प्रजा पर अकथनीय अत्याचार करते अपनी आँखों से देखा था। गुरु नानक ने इस अत्याचार से व्यथित होकर अपने मन की इच्छाओं को अपनी रचनाओं के माध्यम से प्रस्तुत किया था। यह रचनायें उस काल में देश तथा समाज की तत्कालीन समस्याओं के प्रति उनकी जागररुकता को प्रकट करती है। ‘उस समय में देश के शासक भोग- लिप्सा तथा मातृभूमि के प्रति अकर्मण्यता का भाव से पीड़ित थे। विदेशियों और विधर्मियों का प्रतिरोध करने के बजाय वे अपनी स्वार्थ पूर्ति और रंगरेलियों में लगे रहते थे। यह देखकर गुरू नानक ने उनको बड़े रोषपूर्वक फटकारा।
गुरु नानक लिखते है-
राजा सिंह मुकद्दम कुत्ते- जाइ जगाई बैठे सुत्ते ।।
चाकर नहंदा पाईन्ह घाउ- रत पितु कुतिहां चटि जाहु।
जिथै जींआ होसी सार- नकी बड़ी लाइन बार॥
अर्थात्- ‘‘वर्तमान समय के राजा शेर- चीतों की तरह हिंसक हैं और उनके अधिकारी कुत्तों की तरह लालची हैं और निर्दोष जनता को अकारण ही पीड़ित करते रहते हैं। राजकर्मचारी अपने नाखूनों से जनता को घायल करते रहते हैं और उसका खून कुत्तों की तरह ही चाट जाते हैं। परलोक में जब इनकी जाँच की जायेगी तो इनकी नाक काटी जायेगी।’’
बाबर के सैनिकों ने चारों तरफ तबाही पैदा कर दी और लोगों के धन, मान तथा इज्जत को मिट्टी में मिला दिया। उस भयंकर काल में भारतीय नारियों की दुर्दशा का चित्रण करते हुए उन्होंने लिखा है-
जिन सिरि सोहनि पाटियाँ माँगी पाई संधूर ।।
से सिर काती मुनीअन्हि गल बिच आवे धूड़ि। ।।
महला अंदरि होदीआ हुणि वहणिन मिलन्ह हटूरि॥१
जदहु सीआ बिआहीआ लाड़े सोहनि पासि।
हीडोली चढ़ि आईआ दंद खंड दीदे रासि।
उपपहु पाणी बीरिऐ झले झपकनि पासि।।२
इक लखु लहन्हि बहिठीआ लखु लहन्हि खड़ी आ।
गरी छुहारे खाँदीआ माणन्हि से जडीआ ।।
तिन्ह गलि सिलका पाईया तुरीन्ह मोत सरी आ॥३
धनु जोवन दुइ वैरी होए जिन्ही रखे रंगु लाइ ।।
दुता नो फुरमाइया लै चले पति गवाई। ।।
अर्थात्- ‘‘जिन स्त्रियों के सिर में सुंदर पट्टियाँ शोभित होती थीं, जिनकी माँग में सिंदूर भरा हुआ था, अत्याचारियों ने उनके केश काट डाले और उन्हें भूमि पर इस तरह घसीटा कि गले तक धूल भर गई। जो महलों में निवास करती थीं, उनको अब बाहर बैठने को भी जगह नहीं मिलती। विवाहित स्त्रियाँ जो अपने पतियों के पास सुशोभित थीं, जो पालकियों में बैठकर आई थीं, जिन पर जल न्यौछावर करते थे, जड़ाबदार पंखों से हवा करते थे, जिन पर लाखों रूपये लुटाये जाते थे, जो मेवा मिठाई खाती थीं, सेजों पर सुख भोगती थीं, अब अत्याचारी उनको गले में रस्सी डालकर खींच रहे हैं और उनके गले की मोतियों की मालाएँ टूट गई हैं अभी तक धन और यौवन ने उन्हें अपने रंग में रंग रखा था, अब वह दोनों उनके बैरी हो गये। सिपाहियों को आज्ञा मिली और वे उनकी इज्जत को लूटकर चले गए।’’ अपने देश के संपन्न वर्ग की उस कठिन समय में कैसी दुर्गति हुई, उसकी एक झलक इस कविता में मिलती है।
जब मनुष्य इस प्रकार विवश हो जाता है और अत्याचार का कुछ प्रतिकार नहीं कर सकता तो वह भगवान् को उलाहना देने लगता है कि तुम कैसे न्यायकारी और करुणासिंधु हो जो संसार में ऐसा अंधेरखाता मचवा रहे हो। इस भाव से प्रेरित होकर नानक जी ने आदिग्रंथ में लिखा-
खुरासान खसमान कीआ हिंदुस्तानु डराइआ।
आपै दोसु न देई करता जमु का मुगल चढ़ाइआ।
एती मार पई कर लणे तैं की दरदु न आइआ।
करता तू समना का सोई।
जो सकता सकते कउ मारे ता मनि रोसु न होई।
सकता सीहू मारे पै वर्ग खसमै सा पुरसाई। ।।
अर्थात्- ‘‘हे भगवान् ! बाबर ने खुरासान को बर्बाद किया ,, पर तुमने उसकी रक्षा न की और अब हिंदुस्तान को भी उसके आक्रमण से भयभीत कर दिया है। तुम स्वयं ही ऐसी घटनाएँ कराते हो, परंतु तुमको कोई दोष न दे इसलिए तुमने मुगलों को यमदूत बनाकर यहाँ भेज दिया। सर्वत्र इतनी अधिक मार- काट हो रही है कि लोग त्राहि- त्राहि पुकार रहे हैं। पर तुम्हारे मन में इन निरीह लोगों के प्रति तनिक भी दर्द पैदा नहीं होता। हे भगवान् ! तुम तो सभी प्राणियों के समान रूप से पालनकर्ता कहलाते हो, फिर यदि एक शक्तिशाली दूसरे शक्तिशाली सिंह, निरपराध पशुओं के झुंड पर आक्रमण करे तो उनके स्वामी को कुछ तो पुरूषार्थ दिखाना चाहिए।’’
इस तरह परमात्मा को जोरदार उलाहना देकर नानक जी ने इस देश के प्रमुख शासकों तथा बड़े लोगों को भी फटकारा है कि तुमने अपने कर्तव्य को बिसरा दिया और भोग- विलास में डूब गए, उसी का नतीजा इस तरह भोग रहे हो-
रतन बिगाड़ बिगोए कुतीं मुइआ सार न काई।
आगो देजे चेतीए तो काइतु मिलै सजाइ।
शाहां सुरति गबाईआ रगि तमासै चाइ।
बाबर वाणी फिरि गई कुइरा न रोटी खाई।
इकता बखत खुआई अहि इकंहा पूजा खाई।
चउके विणु हिंदवाणीआ किउ टिके कढहि नाइ ।।
राम न कबहू चेतिओ हुणि कहणि न मिलै खदाई।
अर्थात्- ‘‘इन नीच कुत्तों (विलासी शासकों) ने रतन के समान इस देश को बिगाड़कर रख दिया। इनके मरने के बाद कोई इनकी बात भी नहीं पूछेगा। अगर ये पहले से ही सावधान हो जाते तो हमको ऐसी सजा क्यों मिलती? पर यहाँ के शासक तो सदा रंग तमाशों में ही डूबे रहे, उन्हें अपने कर्तव्य का ध्यान ही न था। नतीजा यह हुआ कि इस समय चारों ओर बाबर की दुहाई फिर गई है, किसी को रोटी तक खाने को नहीं मिलती। मुसलमानों (पठानों) की नमाज का समय जाता रहा और हिंदुओं की पूजा छूट गई। अब चौके के बिना हिंदू स्त्रियाँ किस प्रकार अपनी पवित्रता की रक्षा करेंगी? जिन्हें कभी राम शब्द भी याद नही आया था, अब वे आक्रमणकारियों के भय से खुदा को याद करना चाहते हैं, परंतु जालिम लोग उनको खुदा भी नहीं कहने देते।’’
खेद का विषय है कि इस प्रकार की जिल्लत उठाकर और अमानुषी दंड सहन करके भी हिंदुओं की आँखें नहीं खुलीं। उसके पश्चात् भी मानसिंह, जयसिंह, यशवंतसिंह आदि प्रमुख राजपूत नरेश मुगल बादशाहों के अनुचर बनकर अपने ही भाइयों को पराधीन बनाने का पाप- कर्म करते रहे। उसके बाद जब अंग्रेज आए तब भी हिंदुओं ने ही उनके सहायक बनकर शासन- कार्य में हर तरह से सहयोग दिया और आज के दिन भी इस जाति की पारस्परिक फूट, मत- विरोध, कर्तव्यहीनता स्पष्ट दिखाई पड़ रही है।
यह अकर्मयता, विलासिता, चिरनिंद्रा, जातिवाद का रोग आज भी वैसा का वैसा अपितु पहले से भी भयंकर बना हुआ है। पाकिस्तान, बांग्लादेश में हिंदुओं की हालात का तो विचार कब होता। अपने ही देश में कश्मीर,असम, बंगाल, केरल, कैराना उत्तर प्रदेश में हिन्दू चंद वर्षों में अल्पसंख्यक हो गए मगर तब इनकी आंख नहीं खुली। जागो अब तो जागो। नानक के सन्देश को समझो। और अपनी जाति, अपने वेद, अपने राम और कृष्ण की रक्षा करो।
From: Maj Gen Ashok Coomar < > wrote:
Subject: A Request to PM Modi about Triple Tallaq and UCC
# triple talaaq
Pleases allow Muslims of India to follow the triple talaaq system as prescribed by sharia, and just pass a law that all Muslim criminals will be punished according to law of sharia. All Muslims arrested will not be prosecuted under Indian penal code but they will be tried by a sharia court separately conceived by state and central govt. Each state each city each district should have a sharia law center that’s a court with its head judge appointed by the concerned state. Why follow sharia with a half heart? Let’s make them follow it with full support. All Muslims arrested for any crime should be presented in such courts and punished according to sharia at that very moment of crime without any delay e.g.:
- A rapist should be buried half in the mud and stoned by public to death.
- A thief should have his hands amputated there on the crime scene itself.
- A murderer should be hanged publicly on a tree
- All Muslim bank accounts should be made interest free, they should not receive any interest on deposits according to sharia.
- All hajj subsidies should be abolished since its Haram हराम as per sharia.
- All Muslim men should be debarred from using alcohol and tobacco products.
- They should not be allowed in music concerts, theatres and debarred from any means of recreation or entertainment like मुशायरा, क्वालियाँ etc.
- No Muslim should be allowed to sing, play musical instrument, dance lude (even the so-called Hindus should stop it,) or make drawings or images of living beings.
- Those who don’t follow sharia should be lashed 100 times and then let off.
Of course, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, etc. non-Muslims can follow the rule of land as they don’t have any problem with marriage act or any other law.
(Good idea. The Hindustani Muslims need to know the fact that Islam has invaded by force in Hindustan, and therefore it has no right to be there. Additionally, the Hindus agreed to partition Hindustan in 1947 and created Pakistan for the Muslims per Muslim’s demand. Therefore, the Muslims have no right to complain anything in Hindustan that has Hindu flavor. If they do not like Hindu dharma or culture or pro-Hindu laws, then they are free to move to Pak. – Skanda987)
‘Mahatma frighteningly unrealistic on non-violence’
Shemin Joy, NEW DELHI, Oct 29, 2016, DHNS
Gandhi could not overthrow British, says Tharoor in book
Evaluating the appeal of Gandhism in the book An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India, Tharoor believes that Gandhism ‘flounders’ when right and wrong are less clear-cut and cited Gandhi’s inability in preventing partition.
Mahatma Gandhi sounds “frighteningly unrealistic” on non-violence and it is “difficult to find many major instances of its effectiveness” in present times, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor writes in his new book.
Tharoor says it is increasingly argued that Gandhi could “embarrass” the British but “not overthrow them” and the colonisers realised their game was up when the Indian soldiers who were fighting with them rebelled during the World War.
“They could jail an old man and allow him to fast, but they could not indefinitely suppress an armed rebellion that had 320 million people behind it. Gandhi won the moral case, the ‘soft power’ battle, in today’s parlance, but even without military victory, the rebels and mutineers in uniform won the ‘hard-power’ war,” he writes.
Evaluating the appeal of Gandhism in the book An Era of Darkness: The British
Empire in India, Tharoor believes that Gandhism “flounders” when right and wrong are less clear-cut and cited Gandhi’s inability in preventing partition. In more complex situations, “it cannot and, more to the point does not work as well”.
Describing Gandhi’s view that the “willing sacrifice of the innocent is the most powerful answer to insolent tyranny” as frighteningly unrealistic, he says, “for many smarting under injustice across the world, that would sound like a prescription for sainthood or for impotence. Mute suffering is all very well as a moral principle but it has rarely brought about meaningful change.”
Though it attracted luminaries like Martin Luther King and Nobel Peace Prizes for self-declared Gandhians, he said non-violence has offered no solutions to people who fell prey to the might.
A slew of countries got freedom only after violent struggles, he reminds.
He argues that non-violence could work only against opponents vulnerable to a loss of moral authority and governments capable of being shamed into conceding defeat. The British were “susceptible to such shaming”.
“But in Mahatma Gandhi’s own day, non-violence could have done nothing for the Jews of Hitler’s Germany, who disappeared unprotestingly into gas chambers far from the flashbulbs of a war-obsessed press. It is ironically to the credit of the British Raj that it faced an opponent like Mahatma Gandhi and allowed him to succeed,” Tharoor writes.
He quotes Nelson Mandela, who admired Gandhi, to buttress his point, saying the South African icon “explicitly disavowed non-violence as useless in his struggle against the ruthless apartheid regime”.
However, Tharoor says if Gandhism has had its limitations exposed in the years after his assassination, there is no denying Gandhi’s greatness as he destroyed the credibility of colonialism by opposing principle to force.