Rhinoplasty and “Pizza effect”

Most of the readers are unaware that just a few decades ago, Pizza was looked down upon as a food item in Italy, the native place of Pizza. Italian immigrants to America packaged it as a delicacy of Italian cuisine, first to Americans, and then exported it to Italy. Ironically, it is considered as an up market food item in the same very Italy today. This gave rise to the term 'Pizza effect'. The term 'Pizza effect' was coined by late Swami Agehanand Bhaarti. Born as Leopold Fisher in a Christian family, he worked a professor at Syracuse university for thirty years. Gifted with a sharp and analytical mind, he fell in love with the vibrant nature of Hinduism. This term is used to denote the process by which cultural exports are transformed and reimported to their culture of origin, or the way in which a community's self-understanding is influenced by (or imposed by, or imported from) foreign sources.

Let us learn another term; Rhinoplasty. It is the name given to the surgical procedure of reshaping, changing or attaching nose to a patient.

What is the relation between these two terms, belonging to different fields, one to sociology and the other to medical science?

Well, Everything.

Most of our countrymen have been forced to believe that the modern medical science is a gift of Europeans and/or Americans, including plastic surgery. But the facts are just the opposite.

The following is an excerpt from the diary of a British doctor,one Dr. H.Scott, dated 1^st January, 1794.

In a conversation that I had some time ago with Captain Irvine of this presidency who had come to Bombay on some business from Poona where he is stationed, my curiosity was much raised by the account he gave me of a practice that is not uncommon among the Gentoos (Hindus) of putting new noses on people who have had them out cut. He told me that he first came to the knowledge of this from a sepoy who had his nose cut off by Tippoo during the last War (Tipu Sultan was utterly barbaric to all non muslims). In consequence of it he had become an invalid in the Company's pay which he received every month from Captain Irvine. One day he came to Captain Irvine and begged his permission to go for a certain time to some distance that he might get a new nose, for he said that his wife could not bring herself to like him in his present situation. Captain Irvine thought at first that he wished to impose on him, but the man assured him that he was speaking only the truth and that he would shew him one of his friends who some time before had received a new nose. He accordingly brought him and Captain Irvine had reason to believe the story for he saw a nose which altho' not actually so perfect as if it had been formed by nature was yet sufficiently agreeable to the eye. Captain Irvine learned at the same time from Mr. Findlay the Company's surgeon with the Resident that the sepoy had some time before been with him to beg to have a new nose put on but Mr. Findlay had assured him that such a practice was not known among the Europeans. Captain Irvine gave the sepoy leave of absence and in some weeks afterwards he came back to Poonah with a pretty good nose. It was somewhat too roundand uniform but such as would not be taken notice of for being disagreeable. All the gentlemen in the Company's service at Poona were witnesses of this change. When Captain Irvine came to Bombay which was soon after the operation, the sepoy still wore plugs, I believe of cotton, in his new nose. There was a discharge from some slight ulceration within it, nor had the part acquired entirely the natural heat of the body. It appeared otherwise to be well joined and healthy and the man had acquired great security in his late acquisition.

This conclusively proves that the science of Plastic surgery was not known to the European world till the eighteenth century. On the other hand, it was a practice from 'times immemorial' for Hindus.

Further Dr. H.Scott writes:

As I wished much to be further acquainted with this curious subject I wrote to my friend Mr Findlay concerning it and I cannot do better than send you a copy of his own words in answer.

"On the second instant I was favoured with your last letter wherein you express a strong desire of having some facts collected respecting the custom in this country of putting noses on those who have lost them. It affords me pleasure to inform you that we have ascertained in the most satisfactory manner that individuals or rather families of a certain cast of people in Hindostan have from time immemorial been acquainted with and practise the art of putting on noses, and I have ample grounds to believe that the operation is in general successful. I have at this moment before me two Mahrattas pensioners of the Bombay Government, whom I saw on their arrival here from Syringaputtam in may or june 1792 without noses. These two men have now their faces decorated with noses of a natural size and tolerable shape which are firmly united and receive nourishment from the stumps of their original noses. These two facts which have fallen under the observation of all the gentlemen of this Residency as well as my own afford sufficient testimony on this subject; but the following proof may be deemed still more satisfactory.

"Through Sir Charles Mallet's obliging influence Mr Cruso and I were permitted to see the operation performed on the 26 ultimo by a man of the Koomar cast ( a class of Hindoos chiefly employed in making the common earthenware of this country) who, with an old razor borrowed on the occasion, dissected with much composure a portion of the frontal integuments from the pericranium of the patient and grafted it, a new operation to us in surgery, on the stump of the original nose. He there retained it, by a cement without the aid of stitches sticking plaster, or bandages. The patient is at present in good health and high spirits. An adhesion has taken place seemingly in every part; when it is perfected and cuatrized I shall give you a particular history of the operation and subsequent treatment". (Poona 12 December 1793.)

The above is all the information that I have yet procured concerning the restoration of noses. It must be understood only of the soft and not the bony part of the nose; so much of it I suppose as a knife can readily remove; for this has been a common punishment with the despots by whom this country has been ruled. The cement, by which the old and new parts are kept together till they unite, appears to be a desideratum in our surgery. I cannot discover wherefore the skin is not taken from a more ignoble and a less conspicuous part than the forehead. I should suppose that a piece of skin would but ill supply the place of the septum and the other cautilages of the nose, its muscles, membrane & c ; but so far as appearance is concerned, and this must be acknowledged to be a consideration of great moment, it makes an excellent substitute.

Altho' this operation of the Gentoos is supported by the analogy of some well known facts there are people I doubt not who will call in question the truth of this relation. I beg leave to repeat that two of the Company's surgeons Mr Findlay and Mr Cruso both men of eminence in their profession have actually seen the operation performed and the sepoys who are mentioned above are known to all the gentlemen of the Residency at Poona. You are very welcome Sir to make use of my name in any way you may chuse to mention this singular operation for I am perfectly assured of the unquestionable honour as well as of the good sense of those from whom I have received the accounts.

H.Scott

Bombay, Jany 1, 1794.

If any further proof for this age old tradition of advanced surgery of our forefathers, one can read it from the comments of another eminent Briton. He was J. C. CARPVE, F.R.S. Member of Royal College of Surgeons, London. In 1816, he wrote:

This art is practised by the Koomars, a caste of Hindoos. Some religious ceremonies are first performed. Betel and arrack are put into the patient's hands, and he is then laid on his back, his arms stretched along his sides, on the ground, and he is ordered, on no pretence whatever, to use his arms during the operation; and they impress him with this idea, that it cannot be successful unless he complies strictly with this injunction."

On undertaking the first of the two cases to be hereafter narrated, I was induced to make such personal inquiries as were within my reach in this country, concerning the Indian method, I did myself the honour to write to Sir Charles Mallet, who had resided many years in India, and who obligingly confirmed to me the report, that this had been a common operation in India, from time immemorial; adding, that it had always been performed by the caste of potters or brickmakers, and, that though not invariably, it was usually successful. Mr. James Stuart Hall, a gentleman who was many years in India, assured me, that he had seen the operation performed, and that it was of tedious length. From Dr. Barry, of the India service, I learned, that he also had seen the operation; that it occupied an hour and a half, and was performed with an old razor, the edge of which, being continually blunted in dissection was every moment re-set. Tow was introduced to support the nose, but no attempt to form nostrils, by adding a septum, was made. I am obligingly informed by Major Heitland, of the India service, that in India, several years ago, in the time of Hyder Ali, Mr. Lucas, an English surgeon, was, in several instances, successful in the operation, which he copied from the Hindoo practitioners.

Is it not surprising that since the times of the great sages Charak and Sushrut, the 'shalya chikitsa' was preserved by our ancestors for more then two thousand years?

And here we are, just about two centuries later, admiring the Europeans and Americans as the custodians of the sciences.

This is a classic case of Pizza effect. Hope we get rid of it soon.

Direct Experience Vs. Blind faith

Any belief which is not consistent with reason and logic should be discarded at the earliest. Any inference which can not be verified directly at some level of consciousness by experimenting or experience is useless. This is a basic proposition of Sanatan Dharm. This is also the basic proposition of science. The claims by a scientist should be verifiable and repeatable.

Let us understand it this way. All of us have different levels of consciousness. If a statement or teaching of Bhagwad Geeta, Upnishads or Veds does not stand to the test of direct experience when the experimenter has attained the required level of consciousness, then the teaching is superfluous and useless.

Directly opposite to this proposition are the monotheistic creeds. None of them allows its proponents to follow the path of logic and reasoning. They offer a circular argument as proof. The existence of God is to be believed because their prophet is saying (or has said) so and prophet is to be believed because God is saying so (which only prophet can hear).

To understand and appreciate this difference between Sanatan Dharm and prophetic creeds, we will take examples from the texts of the two traditions.

In the present times, the advertising industry has used the principle laid down in Bhagwad Geeta to their advantage. To what extent is the advertising industry using this principle ethically is not the point of debate here.

The verses 62 – 63 of second chapter says:

ध्यायतो विषयान्पुंसः सङ्गस्तेषूपजायते ।

If one keeps on thinking about an object, he/she develops an attraction for it.

सङ्गात्संजायते कामः कामात्क्रोधोऽभिजायते ॥

This attraction leads to a desire of possessing the object. This desire leads to anger/frustration, if not immediately gratified.

क्रोधाद्भवति संमोहः संमोहात्स्मृतिविभ्रमः ।

Once possessed by anger, it leads to obsession. Obsession results in a loss in the sense of right and wrong

स्मृतिभ्रंशाद् बुद्धिनाशो बुद्धिनाशात्प्रणश्यति ॥

Which leads to destruction of intellect. Loss of intellect opens the doors for disaster.

This sequence of thoughts and actions can be observed in any shopping mall or automobile showroom. Since the advertising agencies are not concerned with the last two lines of the shlok, we can ignore that part for our experimental verification of the claims. The results are there for us to see.

Belief in Krishn

Did Lord Krishn exist? If yes, was he an avtaar of Brahm? Was he an extra ordinary human being, and a good motivator?

Whether the answers to these questions is Yes or No is immaterial for the sustenance of Hinduism. The emphasis is not on the person but on the message. No one is going to issue a fatwa or will imprison you for blasphemy even if you outrightly reject Krishn as a fiction. No one is going to ex communicate you or call you a Kaafir. Everyone has a right to have his/her opinion.

Belief in Jesus

Now let us turn to the claims of prophetic creeds. Islam and Christianity, both believe in prophets mentioned in Bible. The Christians claim that Jesus was the 'son of God', not only that, he has been the only son of God. As a result he was a unique person and no other human being can achieve that status. The Muslims are ready to accept Jesus as one of the many prophets but do not grant him the exalted status of 'son of God' which Christians expect. The same is mentioned in their book Quran, supposed to be dictated by Islamic god called Allah to their godman Muhammad.

Let us look at the stand of Muslims regarding Jesus: (Quran: Chapter 19, Verses 88 to 93)

They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!"Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant.

So, according to islamic doctrine, the Christian stand is monstrous. It is not a logic but a mere statement which has to be accepted as it is because Quran says so.

This brings Christianity in direct conflict with Islam because if the church accepts or even tolerates this, whole of the creed crumbles. It loses its self proclaimed sole franchise of God.

Fortunately for the world, the west has undergone a period of rationalism in the last two and a half centuries, which helped it to see through the dogmatic stands of church. The rationalism helped Europeans and Americans outgrow Christianity. Moreover, with advances in historical research and its allied fields like anthropology and archeology, it has been established that there is no proof of Christ being a historical character. Going by the dead sea scrolls, the person called Jesus was almost the direct opposite of what he is portrayed to be by the church.

The concept of 'only son of God' is so alien to the pluralistic Hindu world view that average Hindus fail to understand its significance for the survival of Christian creed. It was Gandhi who was able to articulate the Hindu stance regarding this assertion.

I regard Jesus as a great teacher of humanity, but I do not regard him as the only begotten son of God. That epithet in its material interpretation is quite unacceptable. Metaphorically we are all sons of God, but for each of us there may be different sons of God in a special sense. Thus for me Chaitanya may be the only begotten son of God. God cannot be the exclusive Father and I cannot ascribe exclusive divinity to Jesus. 

 Harijan: June 3, 1937

Here it is pertinent to mention that this comment was based on taking the stand of church at its face value.

Belief in Muhammad

Contrary to a very big question mark on the very existence of Jesus Christ, the historicity of Muhammad is not questioned. Therefore, for the present discussion, we assume that Muhammad was a historical person.

According to Islamic doctrine, the creator of universe is to be addressed as Allah or his other names approved by islamic theology. Calling him by any other name is an unpardonable crime in Islam. Ipso facto, he can not be called Raam, Krishn, Shiv, Durga or Jesus. This Allah has been sending prophets from time to time who act as medium of transmission of message of Allah to humans. Thus, the creator talks to his created beings through proxy and not directly. The last prophet in this list was Muhammad. The message given by Allah to humanity, via Muhammad, is claimed to be recorded in Quran. It is the complete message from which nothing can be removed and to which nothing can be added.

Existence of Allah has to be accepted as Muhammad said so and the status of Muhammad as the final prophet has to be believed because Quran says so.

Since Muhammad had borrowed generously from Bible, therefore Jesus is mentioned in Quran but since Bible predates Muhammad, it is silent on the status of any final prophet. But it has very clear instructions regarding for the question 'how are future prophets to be treated?'

In fact, according to Bible, anyone claiming to be a prophet for other Gods is to be killed. anyone who worships any other God except the Biblical God called Jehova/Yahweh/God/Elohim should be killed. (Bible, Deuteronomy 13, verses 1 – 5)

If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

As a result, Muslims are worshipping 'other God', a category deserving the same treatment as their prophet. (Bible, Deuteronomy 13, verses 6 – 10)

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

Naturally, Christians completely reject Muhammad as a final prophet. They consider him an imposter or a false prophet. It has resulted in the worst blood baths on the planet between the two prophetic creeds for more than a thousand years. The Crusades were a response to the Islamic Jihad. In the post colonial world, a school of thought has changed its line of attack. They have started sending feelers with an aim to convert Muslims to Christianity. In this tussle of market share, they say that we are willing to accept Muhammad as a prophet if you are willing to accept Jesus as 'only son of God'. This trade off is harmful to the Islamic cause as it reduces Muhammad to one of the prophets and not the final prophet, thereby reducing his status of being the final prophet whose word is supposed to overwrite that of all others, including Jesus.

Readers will have to use their discretion to chose between Direct Experience and Blind Faith.

Syed Khan was a 'reformer': NCERT

The page no. 120 of NCERT for class 8, titled OUR PASTS - III (Part 2) is titled Organising for reform.

The sixth paragraph is titled The Aligarh Movement

It states that (NCERT link) :

The Mohammedan Anglo - Oriental College, founded by Sayyid Ahmed Khan in 1875 at Aligarh, later became the Aligarh Muslim University. The institution offered modern education, including Western science, to Muslims. The Aligarh Movement, as it is known, had an enormous impact in the area of educational reform.

Alongside, a picture of Sayyid Ahmed Khan has been shown. On the same page a picture of Swami Vivekanand has also been show. The typical balancing act. Placing a monster with a monk will be sufficient to fool 12 year old children into thinking that Sayyid Ahmed Khan was some great human being.

The contrast between Swami Vivekanand and Sayyid Ahmed Khan could not have been more. One opposed Britishers and Christianity tooth and nail where as Ahmed Khan was not only the pet poodle of Britishers but also wanted Christianity to stay in our motherland to defeat Hinduism.

Let us take a closer look.

Just after the 1857 uprising, this 'reformer' had written a book, the title of which will give the readers an idea of his mindset. It is called 'The loyal Mohammedans of India'. If you are wondering as to the subject of loyality of Mohammedans of India, as mentioned by Sayyid Khan, then here is an extract from one of his letters

extract from 'The life and work of Syed Ahmed Khan'
by G.F.I. Graham

He was a lick spittle of Britishers, from the beginning to the end.

During the unrest of 1857, when some freedom fighters were trying to liberate our motherland from the clutches of Britishers, This NCERT reformer was playing his part to perfection. So faithful was he to the Britishers that he was given suitable rewards. 

Take a look.

That is how NCERT is subverting the thought process of the nation.

BEHIND THE MASK OF MAOISTS - 1

If you have ever wondered about the ideology of 'Maoist' movement in our country, here are a few tit bits which leave no doubt that the real source of this gangsterism is not Maoism but an extension of the biggest organized criminal gang on the planet - The Church. These have been extracted from 'Maoist information bulletin', thus from their own mouthpiece. The bulletin contains terms like Muslims, Hindu, Christians and Shankaracharya. 

Now, why would supposedly atheistic Maoists use religious terms. The aim becomes clear when one understands the implication of these words by the tone and tenor used. Let us take the words one by one.

The word Muslims appears only once in the 'bulletin'. It is...

The votaries of fake democracy.....shamelessly talk of democracy even when 3000 Muslims are murdered in cold blood by the saffron terrorists in Gujarat.

The sympathy for Muslims and hatred for Saffron is strange from a so called atheistic 'Maoistic' ideology. As for the exaggeration and fakeness of the number of muslim victims, which was less then 800, read here. 
This sympathy of 'Maoists' is not limited to Muslims. It spills over to Christians also, alongwith the hatred to Sanatan Dharm. Sample this:

They cannot explain how a democracy allows some terrorists of the saffron variety to murder Christian men and rape women

Then again on page 37, 

An important group which reached the tribal areas were the Christian missionaries who set up schools there followed by Hindu right-wing groups who decided that the tribals must be “saved” from the Christians.

So far Now to the word Hindu in the report. It appears four times. One is mentioned above and the rest of the three are

Gandhi’s so called non-violence is meant for the poor, the oppressed, and the victims of feudal violence, imperialist violence, upper-caste violence, Hindu fascist violence, and structural violence in varied forms.

and

In DK, the brutal state offensive had entered a new phase with the launching of the murderous terrorist armed campaign of salwa judum in June 2005 under the leadership of the Congress chieftain Mahendra Karma and the Hindu fascist Raman Singh government in Chhattisgarh.

One more reference if from a news item of 'Hindustan Times'. 
Do you get the drift ??

The terrorists are all saffron and Hindus are all 'Hindu fascist'. Muslims are victims and Christians are also either victims or are important group. 

The point is if these had been really maoists, they would have despised all the religious identities and not exaggerated them to target one particular religion. The real Maoism has died with Mao, just like Communism. The present maoism is just a fake prop of anti India forces.

So, next time you hear the term Maoists, you know who is pulling the strings. The foot soldiers of the Maoists do not even know that they are playing in the hands of fanatic Christians.

LOOT: SPECIAL GIFT FOR MUSLIMS FROM 'ALLAH'

In this post, all the verse of Quran have been taken from the translation rendered by 'Hilali and Khan' and it is said to be the most widely circulated translation in the world. 

According to पतंजलि योगसूत्र, one of the golden rules is not to take what is not rightfully yours. This is called अस्तेय. The वैदिक/सनातन धर्म has had a hoary tradition on these lines. It talks of rising above such illusory gains.

Islam has no such tradition of योग so that one can rise above the pleasure of the senses. So different is Islam from वैदिक/सनातन धर्म that the eighth chapter of Quran is dedicated to justification of looting from other religions. The name of the chapter is Anfal or अन्फाल, which means loot of war. The title should be sufficient for an alert and balanced mind that if one of the longest chapters is devoted to such a topic, what kind of ideology can it preach. In this post, we will find how Jihad, killing of others, terrorizing the others and looting of others is justified.

To understand the post, it is better to get acquainted with a few Islamic words.

Mushrik - It means those who consider any one else as God, except Allah. The word 'shirk' or शिर्क means participation and its verb is shirkat or शिरकत. Thus, all those who worship the supreme creator by any other name like ब्रह्म, ब्रह्मा, शिव, कृष्ण, राम, दुर्गा, विष्णु, अय्यप्पा, मुरुगन, Jesus, Jehova or any other name are Mushrik. This word is primarily used to represent those who are involved in मूर्तिपूजा which is called 'बुत परस्ती' in Islam. Thus all Hindus and Buddhists are mushrik. In fact, the word बुत has its origins in the word बुद्ध because of the large carvings of Buddh which were revered by Buddhists.

'Ahle Kitaab - As compared to Mushriks, the people of Judeo-Christian origin are better placed. They are referred to as 'people of the book' or 'अहले किताब'. This preferential treatment to them is because the founder of Islam, Mohammad, borrowed generously from old testament and new testament. 

Kuffar - It is a term which includes Mushrik as well as people of the book. Singular of Kuffaar is Kaafir or काफिर.

Aayat - Verses of Quran. Hindi - आयत, singular -Aaya or आया.


Anfal - War booty, loot, also called ग़नीमत or Ghanimat.

Like evangelists, whom Gandhi ji rightly called 'vendors of goods', Islamists have also found out that Hindus have lost their intellectual agility and can be deceived by using the right kind of phrases and face expression. The days Hindus become intellectually active and courageous, they will not only be able to stem the tide of predatory creeds but will be able to save those poor souls who have been converted to Islam. Muslims all over the world and especially on our sub continent, are victims because they have been uprooted from their ancestral faith and converted to Islam, either with sword or some other inducement.


Islam was started by a seventh century Godman called Muhammad bin Abdullah (Muhammad son of Abdullah).

In the year 695 A.D., at 25, he had married a 40 years old wealthy and successful business lady named Khadija. This alliance was economically very fruitful for Muhammad. For next 25 years he did not have to worry about earning a livlihood. 
She died after 25 years and now Muhammad had to take care of his daily needs. He married a very old lady named Sauda to take care of his and Khadija's children and married six years old Aisha within a year of demise of Khadija. Since he had proclaimed himself to be a Godman, Allah obligingly 'revealed' the Surah 8 to take care of the monetary angle of his 'prophet'.


The gist of this chapter is that Allah wants his latest courier and his followers to raid, loot, kill and rape innocent persons and share the booty among themselves. The only fault of these innocents is that they do not follow the self styled 'prophet'. 


It so happened that Muhammad and his 305 followers had raided a Caravan. The caravan belonged to Mecca and its leader had been alerted about the evil designs of Muhammad and his cronies. He sent a message for reinforcements to protect the precious Caravan from the robbery, changed the route and reached Mecca safely. The raiding party of Muslims encountered the reinforcements. The meccans outnumbered the Muslims but were reluctant to fight as they felt that Muhammad and his men were their relatives. The Muslims did not have any such qualms and they attacked with their full might and defeated the Meccans. Some of the chiefs of Mecca were killed and the others left the field, leaving their belongings behind. It was a poor consolation for the war hungry Muslims so they started quibbling among themselves for the distribution. It was at this opportune time that Allah's latest instalment of instructions was 'revealed' through Muhammad.


The first verse is :

They ask you (O Muhammad SAW) about the spoils of war. Say: "The spoils are for Allah and the Messenger." So fear Allah and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad SAW), if you are believers.

With this verse, Allah sanctioned the muslims to kill and loot all those who did not believe in Allah. The chapter has 75 verses in which 'Allah' uses a colourful vocabulary to denounce the followers of any other faith. I will quote some of these verses here.

And (remember) when Allah promised you (Muslims) one of the two parties (of the enemy i.e. either the army or the caravan) that it should be yours, you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours, but Allah willed to justify the truth by His Words and to cut off the roots of the disbelievers (i.e. in the battle of Badr).

In the verse 12 of this chapter, Allah commands to behead the Kaafirs and cause TERROR in their hearts.

(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."

In the next verse, the reason for the terrorist activity is clarified

This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then verily, Allah is Severe in punishment.

Then Allah warns all non Muslims in verse 38:

Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven. But if they return (thereto), then the examples of those (punished) before them have already preceded (as a warning).

In next verse, Allah gives the command to fight till all non Muslims are finished off.

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

Then the cat comes out of the bag in verse 41, where Allah asks for 20% in the robbery:

And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allah, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad SAW)], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masakin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad SAW) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allah is Able to do all things.

Badr is the name of the place where this confrontation took place. Very few people know that the attack on Kargil was code named Al-Badr, taking inspiration from this robbery raid. Allah displays his anger on disbelievers. 
Quran - Chapter 8, verse 55

Verily, The worst of moving (living) creatures before Allah are those who disbelieve, - so they shall not believe.

Thus, Allah considers all those to be worst of creatures, who do not believe in ayats of Quran. So, except Muslims all are detested by Allah.

If Allah dislikes them then how should the faithfuls treat them. It is clearly explained. [8:57]

So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson. 

Hindi rendering is more clear

तो अगर वह लड़ाई में तुम्हारे हाथे चढ़ जाएँ तो (ऐसी सख्त गोश्माली दो कि) उनके साथ साथ उन लोगों का तो अगर वह लड़ाई में तुम्हारे हत्थे चढ़ जाएं तो (ऐसी सजा दो की) उनके साथ उन लोगों को भी तितिर बितिर कर दो जो उन के पुश्त पर हो ताकि ये इबरत हासिल करें 

Allah really hates Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Zorashtrians, Jews and Christians. So, [8:59]

And let not those who disbelieve think that they can outstrip (escape from the punishment). Verily, they will never be able to save themselves (from Allah's Punishment).

Ajmal Kasab or Afzal Guru became terrorists because [8:60]

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

The above statement gives us an idea as to why radical Islamists are never short of money. 

We keep on hearing the word Jihad. Here is its true meaning [8:65]

ऐ रसूल तुम मोमिनीन को जिहाद के वास्ते आमादा करो (वह घबराए नहीं ख़ुदा उनसे वायदा करता है कि) अगर तुम लोगों में के साबित क़दम रहने वाले बीस भी होगें तो वह दो सौ (काफिरों) पर ग़ालिब आ जायेगे और अगर तुम लोगों में से साबित कदम रहने वालों सौ होगें तो हज़ार (काफिरों) पर ग़ालिब आ जाएँगें इस सबब से कि ये लोग ना समझ हैं  

When the Muslims had won the confrontation, they held about 50 Meccans as captives so that more money could be earned in the form of ransom (if this is not gangsterism, what is?). Out of these poor captives were two men named An-Nazr and Ukba, who used to tease Muhammad by saying that he was not a prophet. Now they were at the mercy of Muhammad. An-Nazr was immediately beheaded by Ali on command of Muhammad (so much for freedom of expression and mercy). Ukba asked Muhammad as to why was he being executed, Muhammad replied

Because of your enmity to Allah and his prophet

To this Ukba pleaded:

And my little girl! who will take care of her?

Muhammad replied

Hell-fire!

And Ukba was cut into pieces.
Then Muhammad said to the corpse of the man:

I give thanks unto the Lord that hath slain thee, and comforted mine eyes thereby.

Life of Mahomet by William Muir, pp 229,230

The ever obliging Allah sent the justification of this cold blooded murder immediately. Allah, through his prophet has a desire for slaughter of Kuffar. Thus they have to be killed.[8:67]

It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise. 

Then in verse 69, the loot money is given sanction, making it lawful for Muslims.

So enjoy what you have gotten of booty in war, lawful and good, and be afraid of Allah. Certainly, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

After declaring that loot is a good deed for Muslims and 20% of it is for 'Allah', he goes on to define the real Muslims in verses 72 - 75:

जिन लोगों ने ईमान क़ुबूल किया और हिजरत की और अपने अपने जान माल से ख़ुदा की राह में जिहाद किया और जिन लोगों ने (हिजरत करने वालों को जगह दी और हर (तरह) उनकी ख़बर गीरी (मदद) की यही लोग एक दूसरे के (बाहम) सरपरस्त दोस्त हैं और जिन लोगों ने ईमान क़ुबूल किया और हिजरत नहीं की तो तुम लोगों को उनकी सरपरस्ती से कुछ सरोकार नहीं-यहाँ तक कि वह हिजरत एख्तियार करें और (हॉ) मगर दीनी अम्र में तुम से मदद के ख्वाहॉ हो तो तुम पर (उनकी मदद करना लाज़िम व वाजिब है मगर उन लोगों के मुक़ाबले में (नहीं) जिनमें और तुममें बाहम (सुलह का) एहदो पैमान है और जो कुछ तुम करते हो ख़ुदा (सबको) देख रहा है...और जो लोग काफ़िर हैं वह भी (बाहम) एक दूसरे के सरपरस्त हैं अगर तुम (इस तरह) वायदा न करोगे तो रूए ज़मीन पर फ़ितना (फ़साद) बरपा हो जाएगा और बड़ा फ़साद होगा...और जिन लोगों ने ईमान क़ुबूल किया और हिजरत की और ख़ुदा की राह में लड़े भिड़े और जिन लोगों ने (ऐसे नाज़ुक वक्त में मुहाजिरीन को जगह ही और उनकी हर तरह ख़बरगीरी (मदद) की यही लोग सच्चे ईमानदार हैं उन्हीं के वास्ते मग़फिरत और इज्ज़त व आबरु वाली रोज़ी है...और जिन लोगों ने (सुलह हुदैबिया के) बाद ईमान क़ुबूल किया और हिजरत की और तुम्हारे साथ मिलकर जिहाद किया वह लोग भी तुम्हीं में से हैं और साहबाने क़राबत ख़ुदा की किताब में बाहम एक दूसरे के (बनिस्बत औरों के) ज्यादा हक़दार हैं बेशक ख़ुदा हर चीज़ से ख़ूब वाक़िफ हैं

Thus Jihad is the best duty of a Muslims. This is the true Islam and true Muhammad.

VEDIC WAR WISDOM

ऋग्वेद मंडल १/सूक्त ४२/मन्त्र ३ 

अप त्यं परिपन्थिनं मुषीवाणं हुरश्चितम ।

दूरमधि स्त्रुतेराज ।।

जो कोई चोर, कुटिल, पापी राक्षस तेरे मार्ग में रास्ता रोककर खड़ा हो, तू उसे पकड़ कर मार्ग से दूर फेंक दे।

ऋग्वेद मंडल ९/सूक्त ६३/मन्त्र २९  

अप घनंत्सोम रक्षसो अभ्यर्ष कनिक्रदत ।

द्युमन्तं शुष्ममुत्तमम ।।

हे वीरता के देव, राक्षसों का विध्वंस करता हुआ, गर्जता हुआ आगे बढ़। जाज्वल्यमान उत्तम बल को प्राप्त कर।

ऋग्वेद मंडल १०/सूक्त १५२/मन्त्र ३  

वि रक्षो वि मृधो जहि वि वृत्रस्य हनु रूज।

वि मन्युमिन्द्र वृत्रहन्नमित्रस्याभिसतः।।

हे वीर! राक्षसों का संहार कर, हिंसकों को कुचल डाल, दुष्ट शत्रुओं की दाढ़ें तोड़ दे। जो तुझे दास बनाना चाहते हैं, उन के क्रोध को चूर चूर कर दे।

ऋग्वेद मंडल ४ /सूक्त ४/मन्त्र ४   

उदग्रे तिष्ठ प्रत्या तनुष्व न्यामित्रां ओषतात तिग्महेते।

यो नो अरातिं समिधान चक्रे नीचा तं धक्ष्यतसं न शुष्कं ।।

हे अग्नितुल्य वीर, उठ खड़ा हो, अपने प्रभाव का विस्तार कर। तीक्ष्ण ज्वाला वाले, शत्रुओं का वध कर दे। हे दीप्तिमान, जो हमसे शत्रुता करे, उस नीच को सूखे काठ के सामान जला दे।

यजुर्वेद सूक्त ११/मन्त्र ८०  

यो अस्मभ्यमरातीयाद यश्न नो द्वेश्ते जनः।

निन्द्याद्यों अस्मान धिप्साच्च सर्वं तं मस्मसा कुरु।।

जो हमसे शत्रुता करे, जो जन हमसे द्वेष करे, जो हमारी निंदा करे और हमारी हत्या करना चाहे, हे वीर, उन सभी को तू मसल डाल।

यजुर्वेद सूक्त १५/मन्त्र ३९ 

भद्रा उत प्रशस्तयो भद्रं मनः कृष्णुष्व वृत्रतूर्ये।

येना समत्सु सासहः।।

स्मरण रहे, तेरी प्रशस्तियाँ भद्र होनी चाहियें। राक्षसों के संहार में अपने मन को भद्र बनाए रख, जिससे तू संग्रामों में शत्रुओं को सच्चे अर्थों में जीत सके।

अर्थर्ववेद मंडल १/सूक्त २१/मन्त्र 2

वि न इंद्र मृधो जहि नीचा यच्छ पृतन्यतः।

अधमं गमया तमो यो अस्मां अभिदासति ।।

हे वीर! जो हमारी हिंसा करने आये, उसे नष्ट कर दे। सेना लेकर धावा बोलनेवाले को नीचा दिखा दे। जो हमें दास बनाना चाहे, उसे घोर अन्धकार में डाल दे।

Related posts -

Women - A Vedic perspective

Women - A Biblical perspective

DARK SIDE OF SUFISM

This is a guest post from Sh. Ram Ohri, IPS (Retd)

            A Reappraisal of  the Role of  Sufis Working as Missionaries of Islam

For centuries the Sufi creed and Sufi music have been tom tomed as great symbols of spiritualism and promoters of peace and harmony between the Hindus and the Muslims. The cleverly marketed concept of  Sufi spiritualism has been unquestioningly accepted as the hallmark of Hindu-Muslim unity.   It is time we studied the history of Sufis, tried to track the narrative of  their coming to India and analysed their explicit missionary role in promoting conversions to Islam.   More importantly, it needs to be assessed how did the Sufis conduct themselves during reckless killings and plunders by the Muslim invaders ?  Did they object to the senseless mass killings and try to prevent unremitting plunder of  Hindu temples and innocent masses?  Did the Sufis ever object to the capture of  helpless men and women as slaves and the use of  the latter as objects  of carnal pleasure ?  These are some of   the questions to which answers have to be found by every genuine student of  Indian history.  

Most Sufis came to  India either accompanying the invading armies of  Islamic marauders, or followed in the wake of  the sweeping conquests made by the soldiers of  Islam. At least the following four famous Sufis accompanied the Muslim armies which repetitively invaded India to attack the Hindu rulers, seize their kingdoms and riches and took recourse to extensive slaughtering of  the  commoners.  Almost all Sufi masters were silent spectators to the murderous mayhem and reckless plunder of  temples ands cities by the marauding hordes across the sub-continent.  Taking advantage of the fact that the Hindu masses are deeply steeped in spiritual tradition and mysticism, the Sufis used their mystic paradigm for applying sort of a healing balm on the defeated, bedegralled  and traumatized commoners with a view to converting them to the religion of the victors.  The following well-known Sufi masters came to India along with the invading Muslim armies which repetitively invaded India in wave after wave:

1. Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer had accompanied the army of Shihabuddin Ghori and finally settled down at Ajmer in the year 1233 A.D 
2.  Khawaja Qutubuddin came to Delhi in the year 1236 in the train of  Shihabuddin Ghori and stayed on to further the cause of  Islam. 
3.  Sheikh Faridudin came to Pattan (now in Pakistan) in the year 1265.
4. Sheikh Nizamuddin Auliya of  Dargah Hazrat Nizamuddin  came to Delhi in  the year 1335 accompanying a contingent of  the Muslim invaders.  

 Additionally,  the famous Sufi Shihabuddin Suhrawardy of  Baghdad was brought to India for carrying out the missionary work of conversions by Bahauddin Zakariya of  Multan several decades after the Hindu ruler had been defeated and the kingdom laid waste after repetitive plunder and manslaughter.  Like all Sufi masters, his main task was to apply the balm of spiritual unity on the traumatized Hindu population and then gradually persuade them to convert to Islam. Not a single Sufi, the so-called mystic saints, ever objected to the ongoing senseless manslaughter and reckless plunder, nor to the destruction of  temples, nor  for that matter to the ghoulish enslavement of  the so-called infidel men and women for sale in the bazaars of  Ghazni and Baghdad. Operating from the sidelines of spiritualism they even participated in the nitty-gritty of governance to help the Muslim rulers consolidate  their authority in the strife torn country. And significantly, their participation in the affairs of the State was not conditional upon the Muslim rulers acting in a just and even handed manner. On the contrary, the Sufis invariably tried to help the Sultans in following the path shown by the Prophet and the Shariah.  Another important objective of the spiritual and mystic preachings of the Sufi masters was to blunt the edge of Hindu resistance and prevent them from  taking up arms to defend their hearth and home, their motherland and their faith, through the façade of peace and religious harmony. The Naqashbandi Sufis had very close relations with Jahangir and Aurangzeb.    The well known Sufi Saint of  Punjab, Ahmad Sirhindi (Mujadid) of  the Naqashbandi order (1564-1634)  held that the execution of  the Sikh leader Guru Arjun Dev  by Jehangir was a great Islamic victory.  He believed and openly proclaimed that Islam and Hinduism were antithesis of  each other and therefore could not co-exist.   Even  the Chishti Sufi, Miyan Mir, who had been a friend of Guru Arjun Dev, later on  turned his back on the Sikh Guru when the latter was arrested by Jahangir and sent  for execution

It may be recalled that the great Sufi master of the eleventh century, Al Qushairi             (A.D.1072) had unambiguously declared that there was no discord between the aims of the Sufi ‘haqiqa’ and the aims of  the Sharia.  The definition given by Al Hujwiri should be able to quell any doubt about the commitment of Sufis in upholding the supremacy of the Islamic faith over all other religions.  That dogma has been the key component of  the philosophy of  Sufism not only in India, but across the world     - from India to Hispania (i.e., the Spain).  The great Sufi master, Al Hujwiri, laid down the golden rule that the words “there is no god save Allah” are the ultimate Truth, and the words “Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah” are the indisputable Law for all Sufis. In other words, the Sufism and the ulema represent the same  two aspects of the Islamic faith which are universally accepted and obeyed by all Muslims.  By definition therefore Sufi masters could be no exception. The renowned ninth century Sufi master, Al Junaid, also known as “the Sheikh of the Way”, and widely revered as the spiritual ancestor of  Sufi faith, had categorically proclaimed that for Sufis “All the mystic paths are barred, except to him who followeth in the footsteps of the Messenger (i.e., Prophet Muhammad)  [Source:  Martin Lings, What is Sufism, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1975, p.101].

As pointed out by Reynold A. Nicholson in the Preface to the famous tome,  ‘Kashaf al Mahjub’ (Taj & Co., Delhi, 1982).  “no sufis, not even those who have attained the highest degree of  holiness, are exempt from the obligation of  obeying the religious law”.  In fact, the famous tome, ‘Kashaf al Mahjub’ written by Ali bin Al-Hujwiri, who was also known as Data Ganj Baksh, was widely regarded as the grammar of  Sufi thought and practice.   Most Sufis have invariably drawn on the contents of this treatise for preaching the sufi thought ( also known as sufi silsilas). As already stated, on page 140 of  Kashaf al Mahjub Al Hujwiri loudly proclaims that “the words there is no God save Allah are Truth, and the words Muhammed is the Apostle of  Allah”  are the indisputable Law.   

K.A. Nizami in his celebrated book, The Life and Times of  Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya (Idarah-I Adabiyat-i-Delhi, Delhi) has stated that the Auliya openly used to  say  that “what the ulama seek to achieve through speech, we achieve by our behaviour.” 

 The Auliya was a firm believer in the need for  unquestioned  obedience of every Muslim, every Sufi,  to the dictates of the ulema.  According to K.A. Nizami, another Sufi saint Jamal Qiwamu’d-din wrote that though he had been associated  with the Shaikh Nizamuddin Auliya for years, “but never did he find him missing a single sunnat …… ”.

The well known authority on Sufism,  S.A.A. Rizvi has recorded in his book, ‘A History of  Sufism in India’  that Nizamuddin Auliya used to unhesitatingly accept enormous gifts given to him by  Khusraw Barwar which implied that the Auliya was unconcerned with the source of  the gift, provided it was paid in cash. Yet the Auliya was a firm believer in the need for a Muslim’s unquestioned loyalty and obedience to the ulema.  As reiterated by K.A. Nizami, Auliya used to preach that the unbeliever is the doomed denizen of  Hell.  In his khutba he would leave no one in doubt that  Allah has created Paradise for the Believers and Hell for the infidels “in order to repay the wicked for what they have done”.   It has been categorically stated on page 161 in the famous treatise, Fawaid al-Fuad, translated by Bruce B. Lawrence (Paulist Press, New York, 1992)  that  the Auliya confirmed  on the authority of  the great Islamic jurist, Imam Abu Hanifa, that the perdition of  the unbelievers is certain and that Hell is the only abode for them, even if  they agreed to confess total loyalty to Allah on the Day of Judgment.   

In the above mentioned treatise on Sufi philosphy, Fuwaid al-Fuad,  a very interesting instance of  enslaving the kaffir Hindus for monetary gain has been cited which shows how another Sufi, Shayakh Ali Sijzi, provided financial assistance to one of his dervishes to participate in the lucrative slave trade. He had advised the dervish that he should take “these slaves to Ghazni, where the potential for profit is still greater”.  And it was confirmed by Nizamuddin Auliya that “the Dervish obeyed”.  Obviously therefore, neither spiritual ethics and nor justice to all, including the infidels, were the strong points of  Sufi saints.

If  the narrative of  the preachings  and acts of  Khawaja Moinuddin Chishti of Ajmer are taken as indication of  his religious philosophy and deeds, he emerges as a sufi master who nursed a deep hatred against the infidel Hindus and showed utter contempt for  their religious beliefs. As elaborated by S.S.A. Rizvi in ‘A History of Sufism in India, Vol. 1 (Munshiram Manoharlal, 1978, p. 117),  there is a reference in the book, Jawahar-i- Faridi,  to the fact that  when Moinuddin Chishti reached near the Annasagar Lake at Ajmer, where a number of holy shrines of  Hindus were located, he slaughtered a cow and cooked a beef  kebab at the sacred place surrounded by many temples. It is further claimed in Jawahar-i-Faridi that the Khwaja had dried the 2 holy lakes of Annasagar and Pansela by the magical heat of  Islamic spiritual power. He is even stated to have made the idol of the Hindu temple near Annasagar  recite the Kalma. The Khwaja had a burning desire to destroy the rule of the brave Rajput king, Prithviraj Chauhan, so much so that he ascribed the victory of Muhammad Ghori in the battle of  Tarain entirely to his own spiritual prowess and declared that “We have seized Pithaura alive and handed him over to the army of  Islam”. [Source: Siyar’l Auliya, cited by Rizvi on page 116 of  ‘A History of Sufism in India’].

Throughout the Muslim rule all Sufis enjoyed full confidence, royal favour and patronage of  the cruel Muslim rulers. Though foolishly accepted as “secular”  by  most Hindus seeking spiritual solace after being battered, bruised and marginalised, almost all Sufi saints dogmatically followed the commandments contained in the Quran, the Hadith and Sharia. Historians have recorded that many Sufi saints had accompanied armies of the Muslim invaders to use their spiritual powers in furtherance of  Islam’s conquests. Not one of them raised even a little finger to forbid slaughter of the innocents, nor did they question the imposition of jiziya by Muslim rulers. In fact, most of them guided the

Muslim rulers in carrying forward their mission of  conquest and conversion by furthering their campaigns of  plundering the wealth of Hindus of which many Sufis willingly partook  share. It was almost a taboo for Sufis, the so-called saints,  to accept a Hindu ascending the throne of  any kingdom during the heydays of  the Muslim rule. . In an example narrated by S.A.A. Rizvi on page 37 of  his well researched book, The Wonder That Was India (Vol.II, Rupa & Co, 1993, New Delhi)  it is pointed out that when the powerful Bengali warrior, king Ganesha, captured power in Bengal in the year 1415 A.D., Ibrahim Shah Sharqi, attacked his kingdom at the request of outraged ulema and numerous Sufis of  Bengal. In the ensuing strife, the leading Sufi of Bengal, Nur Qutb-i-Alam, interceded and secured a political agreement to the benefit of  the Muslim community and satisfaction of Sufis.  Under dire threat King Ganesha was forced to abdicate his throne in favour of  his 12 years old son, Jadu, who was converted to Islam and proclaimed as Sultan Jalaluddin  -   to the satisfaction of the Sufi masters. Similarly Sultan Ahmed Shah of Gujarat (1411-42), though a practitioner of  Sufi philosophy, was a diehard iconoclast who took delight in destroying temples, as stated in the same tome,  by S.A.A. Rizvi.  The Sultan also used to force the Rajput chieftains to marry their daughters to him so that they would become outcastes in their own community.  And the endgame of the Sultan could as well be that perhaps some of  the outcaste Rajputs might then opt to become Muslims.  

Unfortunately due to relentless colonization of the Hindu mind during 1000 years long oppressive Muslim rule, the Hindu masses till date have failed to realize that the so-called Sufi philosophy of  religious harmony is a one-way street.   This trend of Hindus praying at tombs and dargahs has been nurtured by the strong undercurrent of  belief in spiritualism among Hindu masses, even educated classes. That is the crux of the matter.  Deeply steeped in their traditional belief in spirituality and mysticism, the Hindus have developed the custom of  visiting dargahs and continue to  pray at the tombs of  Sufis.  No Muslim, nor any Sufi, has ever agreed to worship in a  Hindu temple, nor make obeisance before the images of  Hindu Gods and Godesses. For them it would be an act of  grossest sacrilege and unacceptable  violation of  the basic tenets of  Sufism.   That is the truth about the Sufi saints and their philosophy of inter-religious harmony.   

Related posts:
Sufi Sayyid Ali Hamdani
Sufi Moin-ud-deen Chishti
Sufi Muhammad Ghaus
Sufi Amir Khusro