REWRITING INDIAN HISTORY 

By Francois Gautier

Chapter 5 - Negationism and the Muslim Conquests

-:Belgian scholar Koenraad Elst:-

It is important to stop a moment and have a look at what the Belgian scholar Koenraad Elst, has called "negationism in India". In his foreword to the book of the same title, Koenraad explains that negationism, which means in this context "the denial of historical crimes against humanity", is not a new phenomenon. In modern history, the massacre by the Turks of 1,5 millions Armenians, or that of the 6 million Jews by the Nazis, the several millions of Russians by Stalin, or again the 1 million Tibetans by the Chinese communists, are historical facts which have all been denied by their perpetrators... But deny is not the exact word. They have been NEGATED in a thousand ways: gross, clever, outrageous, subtle, so that in the end, the minds of people are so confused and muddled, that nobody knows anymore where the truth is. Sometimes, it is the numbers that are negated or passed under silence: the Spanish conquest of South America has been one of the bloodiest and most ruthless episodes in history. Elst estimates that out of the population of native Continental South America of 1492, which stood at 90 million, only 32 million survived; terrible figures indeed but who talks about them today ? "But what of the conquest of India by Muslims", asks Elst? In other parts of Asia and Europe, the conquered nations quickly opted for conversion to Islam rather than death. But in India, because of the staunch resistance of the 4000 year old Hindu faith, the Muslim conquests were for the Hindus a pure struggle between life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and their populations massacred. Each successive campaign brought hundreds of thousands of victims and similar numbers were deported as slaves. Every new invader made often literally his hill of Hindu skulls. Thus the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000, was followed by the annihilation of the entire Hindu population there; indeed, the region is still called Hindu Kush, 'Hindu slaughter'. The Bahmani sultans in central India, made it a rule to kill 100.000 Hindus a year. In 1399, Teimur killed 100.000 Hindus IN A SINGLE DAY, and many more on other occasions. Koenraad Elst quotes Professor K.S. Lal's "Growth of Muslim population in India", who writes that according to his calculations, the Hindu population decreased by 8O MILLION between the year 1000 and 1525. INDEED PROBABLY THE BIGGEST HOLOCAUST IN THE WHOLE WORLD HISTORY. (Negat.34)

But the "pagans" were far too numerous to kill them all; and Hinduism too well entrenched in her people's soul, never really gave up, but quietly retreated in the hearts of the pious and was preserved by the Brahmins' amazing oral powers. Thus, realising that they would never be able to annihilate the entire Indian population and that they could not convert all the people, the Muslims rulers, particularly under the Hanifite law, allowed the pagans to become "zimmis" (protected ones) under 20 humiliating conditions, with the heavy "jizya", the toleration tax, collected from them. "It is because of Hanifite law, writes Mr Elst, that many Muslim rulers in India considered themselves exempted from the duty to continue the genocide of Hindus". The last "jihad" against the Hindus was waged by the much glorified Tipu Sultan, at the end of the 18th century. Thereafter, particularly following the crushing of the 1857 rebellion by the British, Indian Muslims fell into a state of depression and increasing backwardness, due to their mollah's refusal of British education (whereas the elite Hindus gradually went for it) and their nostalgia for the "glorious past"'. It is only much later, when the British started drawing them into the political mainstream, so as to divide India, that they started regaining some predominance.

Negationism means that this whole aspect of Indian history has been totally erased, not only from history books, but also from the memory, from the consciousness of Indian people. Whereas the Jews have constantly tried, since the Nazi genocide, to keep alive the remembrance of their six million martyrs, the Indian leadership, political and intellectual, has made a wilful and conscious attempt to deny the genocide perpetrated by the Muslims. No one is crying for vengeance. Do the Jews of today want to retaliate upon contemporary Germany? NO. It is only a matter of making sure that history does not repeat its mistakes, as alas it is able to do today: witness the persecution of Hindus in Kashmir, whose 250.000 Pandits have fled their 5000 year old homeland; or the 50.000 Hindus chased from Afghanistan; or the oppression of Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan. And most of all, to remember, is to BE ABLE TO LOOK AT TODAY WITH THE WISDOM OF YESTERDAY. No collective memory should be erased for appeasing a particular community.

Yet, what has happened in India, at the hand of Hindus themselves, is a constant denial and even a perversion of the genocide committed by Muslims in India. Hasn't the "radical humanist" M.N. Roy, written "that Islam has fulfilled a historic mission of equality and abolition of discrimination in India, and that for this, Islam has been welcomed in India by the lower castes". "If AT ALL any violence occurred, he goes on to say, it was a matter of justified class struggle by the progressive forces against the reactionary forces, meaning the feudal Hindu upper classes.." Want to listen to another such quote? This one deals with Mahmud Ghaznavi, the destroyer of thousands of Hindu temples, who according to his chronicler Utbi, sang the praise of the Mathura temple complex, sacred above all to all Hindus... and promptly proceeded to raze it to the ground: "Building interested Mahmud and he was much impressed by the city of Mathura, where there are today a thousand edifices as firm as the faith of the faithful. Mahmud was not a religious man. He was a Mahomedan, but that was just by the way. He was in the first place a soldier and a brilliant soldier"... Amazing eulogy indeed of the man who was proud of desecrating hundreds of temples and made it a duty to terrorise and humiliate pagans. And guess from whom is that quote? From Jawaharlal Nehru himself, the first Prime Minister of India and one of the architects of independence!

M.N. Roy, and Nehru in a lesser degree, represent the foremost current of negationism in India, which is Marxist inspired. For strangely, it was the Russian communists who decided to cultivate the Arabs after the First World War, in the hope that they constituted a fertile ground for future indoctrination. One should also never forget that Communism has affected whole generations of ardent youth, who saw in Marxism a new ideology in a world corrupted by capitalism and class exploitation. Nothing wrong in that; but as far as indoctrination goes, the youth of the West, particularly of the early sixties and seventies, were all groomed in sympathising with the good Arabs and the bad Jews. And similarly in India, two or three young generations since the early twenties, were tutored on negating Muslim genocide on the Hindus. In "Communalism and the writing of Indian history", Romila Thapar, Harbans Mukhia and Bipan Chandra, professors at the JNU in New Delhi, the Mecca of secularism and negationism in India, denied the Muslim genocide by replacing it instead with a conflict of classes. The redoubtable Romila Thapar in her "Penguin History of India", co-authored with Percival Spear, writes: "Aurangzeb's supposed intolerance, is little more than a hostile legend based on isolated acts such as the erection of a mosque on a temple site in Benares". How can one be so dishonest, or so blind? But it shows how negationism is perpetuated in India.

What are the facts? Aurangzeb (1658-1707) did not just build an isolated mosque on a destroyed temple, he ordered ALL temples destroyed, among them the Kashi Vishvanath, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism and had mosques built on a number of cleared temples sites. All other Hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them. A few examples: Krishna's birth temple in Mathura, the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujurat, the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir mosque now overlooking Benares and the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. (Neg 60). The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in 4, if not 5 figures; according to his own official court chronicles: "Aurangzeb ordered all provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the Pagans and to make a complete end to all pagan teachings and practices". The chronicle sums up the destructions like this: "Hasan Ali Khan came and said that 172 temples in the area had been destroyed... His majesty went to Chittor and 63 temples were destroyed..Abu Tarab, appointed to destroy the idol-temples of Amber, reported that 66 temples had been razed to the ground".. Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples, their users were also wiped-out; even his own brother, Dara Shikoh, was executed for taking an interest in Hindu religion and the Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb's forced conversions. As we can see Romila Thapar and Percival Spear's statement of a benevolent Aurangzeb is a flagrant attempt at negationism. Even the respectable Encyclopedia Brittannica in its entry on India, does not mention in its chapter on the Sultanate period any persecutions of Hindus by Muslims, except "that Firuz Shah Tughlaq made largely unsuccessful attempts at converting his Hindu subjects and sometime persecuted them". The British, for their own selfish purpose, were of course greatly responsible for whitewashing the Muslims, whom they needed to counterbalance the influence of the Hindus and the Congress. It is sad that Jawarlhal Nehru and the Congress perpetuated that brand of negationism. But that is another story.

The happiest in this matter must be the Muslims themselves. What fools these Hindus are, they must be telling themselves: We killed them by the millions, we wrested a whole nation out of them, we engineer riots against them, and they still defend us!... But don't the Hindus know that many orthodox Indian Muslims still cling to the Deoband school, which says that India was once "Dar-ul-Islam", the house of Islam, and should return to that status. Maulana Abul Kala Azad, several times Congress President, and Education Minister in free India, was a spokesman for this school. The Aligarh school on the contrary, led by Mohammed Iqbal, propounded the creation of Pakistan. What particularly interests us in the Aligarh school is the attempt by Muslim historians, such as Mohamed Habiib, to rewrite the Chapter of Muslim invasions in India. In 1920, Habib started writing his magnum opus, which he based on four theories: 1) that the records (written by the Muslims themselves) of slaughters of Hindus, the enslaving of their women and children and razing of temples were "mere exaggerations by court poets and zealous chroniclers to please their rulers". 2) That they were indeed atrocities, but mainly committed by Turks, the savage riders from the Steppe. 3) That the destruction of the temples took place because Hindus stored their gold and jewels inside them and therefore Muslim armies plundered these. 4) That the conversion of millions of Hindus to Islam was not forced, "but what happened was there was a shift of opinion in the population, who on its own free will chose the Shariat against the Hindu law (smriti), as they were all oppressed by the bad Brahmins"...!!! (Negationism p.42)

Unfortunately for Habib and his school, the Muslims invaders did record with glee their genocide on Hindus, because they felt all along that they were doing their duty; that killing, plundering, enslaving and razing temples was the work of God, Mohammed. Indeed, whether it was Mahmud of Ghazni (997-1030), who was no barbarian, although a Turk, and patronised art and literature, would recite a verse of the Koran every night after having razed temples and killed his quota of unbelievers; or Firuz Shah Tughlak (1351-1388) who personally confirms that the destruction of Pagan temples was done out of piety and writes: "on the day of a Hindu festival, I went there myself, ordered the executions of all the leaders AND PRACTITIONERS of his abomination; I destroyed their idols temples and built mosques in their places". Finally, as Elst points out, "Muslim fanatics were merely faithful executors of Quranic injunctions. It is not the Muslims who are guilty but Islam". (Negationism in India, p. 44)

But ultimately, it is a miracle that Hinduism survived the onslaught of Muslim savagery; it shows how deep was her faith, how profound her karma, how deeply ingrained her soul in the hearts of her faithfuls. We do not want to point a finger at Muslim atrocities, yet they should not be denied and their mistakes should not be repeated today. But the real question is: Can Islam ever accept Hinduism? We shall turn towards the Sage, the yogi, who fought for India's independence, accepting the Gita's message of karma of violence when necessary, yet had a broad vision that softened his words: "You can live with a religion whose principle is toleration. But how is it possible to live peacefully with a religion whose principle is "I will not tolerate you? How are you going to have unity with these people?...The Hindu is ready to tolerate; he is open to new ideas and his culture and has got a wonderful capacity for assimilation, but always provided India's central truth is recognised.. (Sri Aurobindo India's Rebirth 161,173) Or behold this, written on September 1909: "Every action for instance which may be objectionable to a number of Mahomedans, is now liable to be forbidden because it is likely to lead to a breach of peace. And one is dimly beginning to wonder whether worship in Hindu temples may be forbidden on that valid ground (India's Rebirth p. 55). How prophetic! Sri Aurobindo could not have foreseen that so many Muslim countries would ban Rushdie's book and that Hindu processions would often be forbidden in cities, for fear of offending the Muslims. Sri Aurobindo felt that sooner or later Hindus would have to assert again the greatness of Hinduism.

And here we must say a word about monotheism, for it is the key to the understanding of Islam. Christians and Muslims have always harped on the fact that their religions sprang-up as a reaction against the pagan polytheist creeds, which adored many Gods. " There is only one real God they said (ours), all the rest are just worthless idols ". This " monotheism versus polytheism business " has fuelled since then the deep, fanatic, violent and murderous zeal of Islam against polytheist religions, particularly against Hinduism, which is the most comprehensive, most widely practiced of all them. It even cemented an alliance of sorts between the two great monotheist religions of the world, Christianity and Islam, witness the Britishers' attitude in India, who favoured Indian Muslims and Sikhs against the Hindus; or the King of Morocco who, even though he is one of the most moderate Muslim leaders in the world, recently said in an interview: " we have no fight with Christianity, our battle is against the Infidel who adores many gods ". But the truth is that Hinduism is without any doubt the most monotheist religion in the World, for it recognises divine unity in multiplicity. It does not say: " there is only one God, which is Mohammed. If you do not believe in Him I will kill you ". It says instead: " Yes Mohammed is a manifestation of God, but so is Christ, or Buddha, or Krishna, or Confucius ". This philosophy, this way of seeing, which the Christians and Muslims call " impious ", is actually the foundation for a true monotheist understanding of the world. It is because of this " If you do not recognize Allah (or Christ), I will kill you ", that tens of millions of Hindus were slaughtered by Arabs and other millions of South Americans annihilated by the Christians. And ultimately the question is: Are the Muslims of today ready to accept Hinduism ? Unfortunately no. For Muslims all over the world, Hinduism is still the Infidel religion " par excellence ". This what their religion tell them, at every moment, at every verse, at the beginning of each prayer : " Only Allah is great ". And their mollahs still enjoin them to go on fight " jihad " to deliver the world of the infidels. And if the armies of Babar are not there any longer; and if it is not done any more to kill a 100.000 Hindus in a day, there is still the possibility of planting a few bombs in Bombay, of fuelling separatisms in the hated land and eventually to drop a nuclear device, which will settle the problem once and for all. As to the Indian Muslim, he might relate to his Hindu brother, for whatever he says, he remains an Indian, nay a Indu; but his religion will make sure that he does not forget that his duty is to hate the Infidel. This is the crux of the problem today and the riddle if Islam has to solved, if it wants to survive in the long run.

We will never be able to assess the immense physical harm done to India by the Muslim invasions. Even more difficult is to estimate the moral and the spiritual damage done to Hindu India. But once again, the question is not of vengeance, or of reawakening old ghosts, but of not repeating the same mistakes. Unfortunately, the harm done by the Muslims conquest is not over. The seeds planted by the Moghols, by Babar, Mahmud, or Aurangzeb, have matured: the 125 million Indian Muslims of today have forgotten that they were once peaceful, loving Hindus, forcibly converted to a religion they hated. And they sometimes take-up as theirs a cry of fanaticism which is totally alien to their culture. Indeed, as Sri Aurobindo once said: "More than 90% of the Indian Muslims are descendants of converted Hindus and belong as much to the Indian nation as the Hindu themselves"...(Rebirth of India, p.237) The embryo of secession planted by the Mahomedans, has also matured into a poisonous tree which has been called Pakistan and comes back to haunt India through three wars and the shadow of a nuclear conflict embracing South Asia. And in India, Kashmir and Ayodhya are reminders that the Moghol cry for the house of Islam in India is not yet over.

Rahul punched, kicked me: Dimpy Ganguly Mahajan

Yogesh Sadhwani and Lekha Menon

A Spoiled Brat named Rahul Mahajan..................??!!

Rahul Mahajan’s second wife, Kolkata model and Bengali girl, Dimpy Ganguly, left his Worli house in the early hours of Thursday after what she has described as a night of violent abuse.

Mumbai Mirror met up with Dimpy at Dadar on Thursday, just hours after she left Rahul's house vowing never to return. There were bruises on her shin, right and left hand, while her left cheek was swollen. There was also a lump on her head.

Dimpy said Rahul beat her up early on Thursday morning after waking her up to know the contents of a message that had just beeped on her phone. Since the phone had the key-pad lock on, Rahul was unable to operate it.

When Dimpy asked him to let her sleep, he flew into a rage and began hitting her. She said he punched, kicked and dragged her by her hair.

When she could not take it any more, Dimpy pushed him, picked up her phone, ran down the stairs and hid in the passageway. This was 3.30 am. Dimpy then called a friend, who picked her up around 4 am.

Her father arrived at Rahul's house at 4 pm after she related the incident to him over the phone. That's when she returned to the house, packed her bags and left.

When contacted, Rahul denied he hit Dimpy. "It is not true at all. I just had dinner with Dimpy's father," he said.

Dimpy, who married Rahul on TV reality show Rahul Dulhaniya Le Jayega in March this year, had made desperate calls for help to her family and friends in the past couple of weeks.

A source said the abuse had started just a month after their national TV wedding. "However, the intensity increased in the past month-and-a-half," he said.

Dimpy further said that the problems started after her insistence on appearing for her second year exam. Rahul was not happy with her trips to Kolkata for the same.

When he got angry, he would also get physical. "One such fight got so out of hand that I had to call my mother-in-law. Later he was angry that I had involved his mother in the affair," Dimpy said.

She also alleged that during another fight, Rahul had pointed a gun at her. "He is a nice guy, but when he loses it, there is no telling what he might do."

This is not the first time Rahul, son of late Bharatiya Janata Party leader Pramod Mahajan, has been accused of domestic violence.

Media reports had indicated his separation from his first wife, commercial pilot Shweta Singh, was because he used to hit her. The couple divorced in August 2008.

Saudi Women Vow To Breastfeed Their Drivers

Riyadh: Saudi women plan to turn a controversial fatwa (religious ruling) to their advantage and launch a campaign to achieve their long-standing demand to drive in this conservative kingdom.

If the demand is not met, the women threatened to follow through the fatwa which allows them to breastfeed their drivers and turn them into their sons.

The campaign will be launched under the slogan: "We either be allowed to drive or breastfeed foreigners," a journalist told Gulf News.

Amal Zahid said that their decision follows a fatwa issued by a renowned scholar which said that Saudi women can breastfeed their foreign drivers for them to become their sons.

"As every Saudi family needs a driver, our campaign will focus on women's right to drive," she said.

The controversial fatwa, which was regarded as both funny and weird, issued recently by Shaikh Abdul Mohsin Bin Nasser Al Obaikan, member of Saudi Council of Senior Scholars and adviser to the king, has sparked a debate in society.

The renowned scholar said Saudi women can breastfeed their foreign drivers for them to be become their sons and brothers to their daughters.

Under this relationship, foreign drivers can mix freely with all members of the family without breaking the Islamic rule which does not allow mixing of genders.

Breast milk kinship is considered to be as good as a blood relationship in Islam.

"A woman can breastfeed a mature man so that he becomes her son. In this way, he can mix with her and her daughters without violating the teachings of Islam," the scholar said.

‘Ridiculous and weird'.

Al Obaikan based his fatwa on a Hadith (saying) of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) which was narrated by Salim, the servant of Abu Huzaifa.

Later, Al Obaikan clarified that his fatwa was being distorted by the local media which ignored the condition that the milk should be drawn out of the woman and given to the man in a cup to drink.

Speaking to Gulf News, a number of Saudi women condemned the fatwa. Fatima Al Shammary was quoted by the local Arabic daily Al Watan as saying the fatwa was "ridiculous and weird".

"This fatwa has become a hot topic of debate among women. Is this is all that is left to us to do: to give our breasts to the foreign drivers?" she said.

Another Saudi woman, who spoke on condition of anonymity, questioned: "Does Islam allow me to breastfeed a foreign man and prevent me from driving my own car?

"I have not breastfed my own children. How do you expect me to do this with a foreign man? What is this nonsense?" she said.

Another woman said the fatwa should also apply to the husbands who should be breastfed by housemaids. By doing so, all will be brothers and sisters," she said.

Hamid Al Ali, a journalist for an electronic newspaper, recalled that an Egyptian driver who had a crush on a female teacher he drives to school asked her to breastfeed him. When she retorted angrily, he said: "I want to be your son."

Saudi writer Suzan Al Mashhadi sarcastically asked Al Obaikan: "Do the women have to breastfeed the driver in the presence of their husbands or can they do this alone?"

"Who will protect the wife if the husband entered the house unexpectedly and found his wife breastfeeding the driver?" she asked.

Source: Gulfnews.com

Egyptian Sunni Cleric Denounces Women’s Rights, Promotes Wife Beating:

MEMRI TV reports on a Sunni Islamic supremacist Egyptian cleric, Mazen Al-Sarsawi promoting wife beating and denouncing women’s rights. Mazen Al-Sarsawi has also previously attacked other branches of Islam, and has condemned all Shiite Muslims.

Egyptian Cleric Maze...n Al-Sarsawi Cites 7th-Century Muslim Scholar: If Your Wife Bothers You – Beat Her with the Rod.

MEMRI reports: “In a recent TV sermon, Egyptian cleric Mazen Al-Sarsawi extolled the virtues of corporal punishment to keep wives in check. Using stories from the early days of Islam to support his argument, Al-Sawsawi said that when there are marital problems, "The solution is to give the man a free hand to discipline his family members and to control them. By no means can a woman be the head [of the family]."

In the sermon, aired in early part of 2010 on the Egyptian Islamic channel Al-Nas TV, Al-Sawsawi recounted the story of Said Ibn Al-Musayyib, a 7th-century Muslim scholar known for his piety, who married off his daughter to his student, Abu Wada’.

Al-Musayyib imparted to his son-in-law advice on how to deal with his new wife: "If she bothers you – if something annoys you, or if you suspect anything – beat her on the spot with the rod. Break her head.”

He continued with another story – that of Asmaa, the daughter of the Caliph Abu Bakr, whose husband Zubeir would tie her to his other wife by their hair and beat them both. When Asmaa complained to her father about this unfairness, (’He beat me black and blue, even though I didn’t do a thing”), Abu Bakr’s response was: "Go back to Zubeir. He is a good man, and he may become your husband in Paradise."

Al-Sarsawi blamed modern media – television and the movies – for fomenting ‘a revolution in domestic leadership,’ such that today ‘in many homes, the woman is the man. She tells her husband what to do, and he says: "Yes, ma’am.”

He warned that handing over the leadership to women, who “Cannot drive a car, let alone head a home, or anything beyond that,’ is destroying Muslim homes.”

Al-Sarsawi also lashed out at women’s rights supporters, saying that they hate women and “bring them down to sin.”

He said that women who go out to work expect equality and want to discuss everything – with the result that the home is turned “into a parliament.” “Women’s rights supporters in Europe and America are all swindlers,’ he said.”

SO NOW WHAT TO DO MARRIED GUYS......START BEATING YOUR WIVES BLACK AND BLUE, TO DISCIPLINE THEM FOLLOWING ISLAMIC DICTATES......!!

ARE YOU STILL A MUSLIM MORON....??!! 

LIBERATE YOURSELF....!!!!

By DR.TAWFIK HAMID

I was born a Muslim and lived all my life as a follower of Islam. After the barbaric terrorist attacks done by the hands of my fellow Muslims everywhere on this globe, and after the too many violent acts by Islamists in many parts of the world, I feel responsible as a Muslim and as a human being, to speak out and tell the truth to protect the world and Muslims as well from a coming catastrophe and war of civilizations. 

I have to admit that our current Islamic teaching creates violence and hatred toward Non-Muslims. We Muslims are the ones who need to change. Until now we have accepted polygamy, the beating of women by men, and killing those who convert from Islam to other religions. 

We have never had a clear and strong stand against the concept of slavery or wars, to spread our religion and to subjugate others to Islam and force them to pay a humiliating tax called Jizia. 

We ask others to respect our religion while all the time we curse non-Muslims loudly (in Arabic) in our Friday prayers in the Mosques . What message do we convey to our children when we call the Jews "Descendants of the pigs and monkeys".. Is this a message of love and peace, or a message of hate?

I have been into churches and synagogues where they were praying for them infidels, and to hate them. We immediately jump in a 'knee jerk reflex' to defend Prophet Mohammed when someone accuses him of being a pedophile while, at the same time, we are proud with the story in our Islamic books, that he married a young girl seven years old (Aisha) when he was above 50 years old. 

I am sad to say that many, if not most of us, rejoiced in happiness after September 11th and after many other terror attacks. Muslims denounce these attacks to look good in front of the media, but we condone the Islamic terrorists and sympathise with their cause. Till now our 'reputable' top religious authorities have never issued a Fatwa or religious statement to proclaim Bin Laden as an apostate, while an author, like Rushdie, was declared an apostate who should be killed according to Islamic Shariia law just for writing a book criticizing Islam. Muslims demonstrated to get more religious rights as we did in France to stop the ban on the Hejab (Head Scarf), while we did not demonstrate with such passion and in such numbers against the terrorist murders. 

It is our absolute silence against the terrorists that gives the energy to these terrorists to continue doing their evil acts . We Muslims need to stop blaming our problems on others or on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. As a matter of honesty, Israel is the only light of democracy, civilization, and human rights in the whole Middle East . We kicked out the Jews with no compensation or mercy from most of the Arab countries to make them "Jews-Free countries" while Israel accepted more than a million Arabs to live there, have its nationality, and enjoy their rights as human beings. 

In Israel , women can not be beaten legally by men, and any person can change his/her belief system with no fear of being killed by the Islamic law of 'Apostasy,' while in our Islamic world people do not enjoy any of these rights.  

I agree that the 'Palestinians' suffer, but they suffer because of their world. On the other hand, we used to see thousands of Palestinians going to work with happiness in Israel , its 'enemy'. 

If Israel treats Arabs badly as some people claim, surely we would have seen the opposite happening. We Muslims need to admit our problems and face them. Only then we can treat them and start a new era to live in harmony with human mankind. 

Our religious leaders have to show a clear and very strong stand against polygamy, pedophilia, slavery, killing those who convert from Islam to other religions, beating of women by men, and declaring wars on non-Muslims to Muslims have to Change'.  

Every moment: THANK GOD IF YOU ARE NOT A MUSLIM. 

Note: Dr. Tawfik Hamid (aka Tarek Abdelhamid), is an Islamic thinker and reformer, and one time Islamic extremist from Egypt. 
He was a member of a terrorist Islamic organization JI with Dr. Ayman Al-Zawaherri who became later on the second in command of Al-Qaeda. Some twenty-five years ago, he recognized the threat of Radical Islam and the need for a reformation based upon modern peaceful interpretations of classical Islamic core texts.

Mr.MITHUN CHAKRABORTY: 

THE HIDDEN PHILANTHROPIST:

Mithun Chakraborty, who shot into fame after the block buster (hit film) Disco Dancer, is a wonderful person in Bollywood. He is not only one of the finest actors of his times but also a good human being.

According to my sources in Bollywood, he donated Rs.15 lakhs for the benefit of the Technicians and other small levels staffs in Bollywood, 17 (seventeen) years back. Just tell me how many celebrities think for spot boys, camera attendants, etc in Bombay where money is the ultimate garment.

Anyway, this fund has now multiplied to give a corpus of Rs.25 Cr (Twenty-five crore), which is now been used for distributing pensions to the workers, education for their children and the like.

Now our very own Mithun da, is thinking of starting provident fund schemes for the grass root levels workers, with the future thought of coming up with economic housing schemes for the benefit of the hand-to-mouth-workers and their families.

I do not know how many such philanthropists are there in Bombay to the help the ground level staffs of Bollywood........Mr. Amitabh Bachchan works in Bollywood but buys land in Uttar Pradesh....Huh!!

Illegal madrassas: A breeding ground of Islamic Terror

At class V level in these madrassas, students are taught that Hindus helped the British set up their empire in India. In class VI and class VII, the students are clearly told that there is no way in which they should reconcile with India, since the only way to attain total freedom is by fighting and becoming martyrs.
Vicky Nanjappa

Intelligence agencies are worried about nearly 9,000 illegal madrassas which have mushroomed across India without requisite approval by the authorities.

India has over 21,000 registered madrassas approved by the respective state governments and the Wakf Board.

IB sources say efforts are on to shut down illegal madrassas and the state authorities have been warned about their operations. Intelligence officials suspect Pakistan-based outfits may be using these illegal madrassas to carry out their operations in India, after the crackdown on terror modules and sleeper cells.

IB officials say nearly 3,000 illegal madrassas have been set up in the last year, with Maharashtra and Kerala having the maximum concentration. They claim that Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence has managed to pump in nearly Rs 20 crore to fund these illegal institutions.

These institutions do not report to the Wakf Board and their syllabus is the same as the one followed in madrassas in Pakistan, say IB sources. The syllabus is based on the Anwar al-Awlaki school of thought, which has been adopted by Lashkar-e-Tayiba's front organisation Jamat-ud-Dawa, and speaks of 44 different ways to perform jihad

At class V level in these madrassas, students are taught that Hindus helped the British set up their empire in India. In class VI and class VII, the students are clearly told that there is no way in which they should reconcile with India, since the only way to attain total freedom is by fighting and becoming martyrs.

Earlier, the various terror outfits concentrated on recruiting people for sleeper cells and modules, but soon realised that the concept of jihad needed to be introduced at an younger age to encourage fundamentalism. The illegal madrasas want to ensure that the students learn to internalise the jihadi school of thought.

Tracking such madrassas poses a problem for intelligence agencies, as they keep shifting base, and the fact that most of their students are children invariably shields them from any kind of suspicion.

Was the Mughal Emperor, Akbar Really Great??!! Find out....!!

Introduction: History of India has witnessed innumerable invasions by hoards of armed marauders coming in from the west, perhaps attracted to the riches and wealth India then possessed. Apart from looting of wealth and destruction of property, the 'aliens' who remained, who committed grave atrocities against the local populace, and themselves, wallowing in immoral and unethical behaviour; except for one, it is said, Akbar.

Akbar, the third generation Moghal emperor who lived from 1542-1605 A.D, has been extolled as the greatest of all Moghals, righteous in deed and noble in character. He is praised to be the only and truly secular Emperor of the times, very caring and protective of his subjects. However, assessment and analysis of contemporary notings expose this unjustified edification of Akbar and provides a remarkably different picture of Akbar's personality.

The following is not a comprehensive report on Akbar's reign, but an attempt to provide a summary to the reader, on the real nature of Akbar based on contemporary records. It is hoped that the reader will make a judgement on Akbar's "greatness" based on the information provided below.

Akbar's Ancestors: Akbar's ancestors were barbarous and vicious, and so were his descendants like Aurangzeb and others' down the line. Akbar was born and brought up in a illiterate and foul atmosphere characterized by excessive drinking, womanizing and drug addiction. Vincent Smith in "Akbar - The Great Mogul" (p.294) writes, " Intemperance was the besetting sin of the Timuroid royal family, as it was of many other muslim ruling houses. Babur (was) an elegant toper ... Humayun made himself stupid with opium ... Akbar permitted himself the practices of both vices .. Akbar's two sons died in early manhood from chronic alcoholism, and their elder brother was saved from the same fate by a strong constitution, and not by virtue." With such an atmosphere to nourish Akbar's thoughts, it is rather unsual for Akbar to become "divine incarnate"!

Describing the demoniac pleasure which Babur used to derive by raising towers of heads of people he used to slaughter, Col. Tod writes that after defeating Rana Sanga at Fatehpur Sikri "triumphal pyriamids were raised of the heads of the slain, and on a hillock which overlooked the field of the battle, a tower of skulls was erected and the conquerer Babur assumed the title of Ghazi." (p.246). Akbar seems to have preserved this "great" legacy of erecting minarets as is obvious from the accounts of battles he fought.

Humayun, the son of Babar, was even more degenerate and cruel than his father. After repeated battles, Humayum captured his elder brother Kamran and subjected the latter to brutal torture. A detailed account is left by Humayun's servant Jauhar and is quoted by Smith (p.20), which says, " .. (Humayun) had little concerns for his brother's sufferings .. One of the men was sitting on Kamran's knees. He was pulled out of the tent and a lancet was thrust into his eyes .. Some lemon juice and salt was put into his eyes .. After sometime he was put on horseback." One can imagine the cruelty and torture that Humayun was capable of inflicting on others when he subjected to his own brother to such atrocities. Humayun was also a slave to opium habit, engaged in excessive alcohol consumption and a lecherous degenarate when it came to women (Shelat, p.27). He is also known to have married a 14 year old Hamida Begum by force. The cruelties perpetrated by of Akbar's descendants (Jehangir, Shahjahan, Aurangzeb, etc.) are not entirely different from those of his ancestors. Having brought up in the company and under the guidance of a lineage of drug addicts, drunkards and sadists, it is rather anamalous that Akbar held such a gentle and noble character. Even assuming that he fancied nobility, it is amazing that Akbar let his comtemporaries and Generals, like Peer Mohammad, loot and rape the helpless citizenry that he was ruling! It would however be interesting to observe the incidents in Akbar's reign and evaluate his character.

Akbar's (Immoral) Character and Nature: Akbar possessed a inordinate lust for women, just like his ancestors and predecessors. One of Akbar's motives during his wars of aggression against various rulers was to appropriate their women, daughters and sisters. The Rajput women of Chittor prefered "Jauhar" (immolation) than to be captured and disrespectfully treated as servants and prostitutes in Akbar's harem. On his licentous relations with women, Smith refers to a contemporary Jesuits testimony (p.81) thus, "... Akbar habitually drank hard. The good father had boldly dared to reprove the emperor sharply for his licentous relations with women. Akbar instead of resenting the priests audacity, blushingly excused himself." Both drinking and enganging in debauched sexual activities was inherited by Akbar from his ancestors.

Fazl in Ain-i-Akbari (Blochmann,V.1,p.276), ".. His majesty has established a wine shop near the palace ... The prostitues of the realm collected at the shop could scarcely be counter, so large was their number .. The dancing girls used to be taken home by the courtiers. If any well known courtier wanted to have a virgin they should first have His Majesty's [Akbar's] permission. In the same way, boys prostituted themselves, and drunkeness and ignorance soon lead to bloodshed ... His Majesty [Akbar] himself called some of the prostitutes and asked them who had deprived them of their virginity?" This was the state of affairs during Akbar's rule, where alcoholism, sodomy, prostitution and murderous assaults were permitted by the king himself. The conditions of the civic life during Akbar's life is shocking!

Sodomy was a precious service of Akbar's own family. Babur, Akbar's grandfather, has given a lengthy description of this sodomic infatuation for a male sweetheart. Humayun was no different. Though perhaps Akbar did not engage in sodomy, he "allowed" it to be practiced by his servants, courtiers and sycophats. Abul Fazal in Ain-e-Akbari provides accounts of some such acts which are too disgusting to even mention. Such perverse gratification was prevelant during the Moghal rule, and in Akbar's times.

That Akbar remained monogamous throughout his life is indeed history falsified myth. Again quoting V.Smith (pp.47),".. Akbar, throughout his life, allowed himself ample latitude in the matter of wives and concubines!" and further, " Akbar had introduced a whole host of Hindu the daughters of eminent Hindu Rajah's into his harem." (pp.212). An account of how the Jaipur rulers were coerced into sending their daughters to the Mogul harem is found in Dr. Srivastava's book Akbar - The Mogul (Vol.1). Shelat notes (p.90)," (after the "Jauhar" that followed the killing of Rani Durgawati) the two women left alive, Kamalavati (sister of Rani Durgawati) and the daughter of the Raja of Purangad (daughter-in-law of the deceased queen) were sent to Agra to enter Akbar's harem." It should also be observed that adimittance into Akbar's harem was available mainly to virgins and others' were "disqualified". Inspite of such disgusting and lewd personal affairs, inducting women of abducted or killed Hindu warriors into his harem as slaves and prostitutes, it is bewildering that Akbar is hailed as a righteous and noble emperor.

The personality and nature of Akbar has been nicely summed up by the Editor of Father Monserrate's Commentarius. The editor's introduction states, "In the long line of Indian soverigns, the towering personalities of Ashoka and Akbar (because of his dread) stand high above the rest... Akbar's greed for conquest and glory and his lack of sincerity form a marked contrast to Ashoka's paternal rule, genuine self-control and spiritual ambition. Akbar's wars were those of a true descendent of Timur, and had all the gruesome associations which this fact implies."

"The old notion that Akbar's was a near approximation to Plato's philosopher king has been dissipated by modern resarches. His character with its mixture of ambition and cunning has now been laid bare. He has been rightly compared to a pike in a pond preying upon his weaker neighbours .. Akbar was unable to give up his polygamous habits, for no importance needs to be attached to the bazaar gossip of the time that he once intended to distribute his wives among his grandees."

Whole of India was reduced to a brothel during the Moghal rule and Akbar, one of the Emperors, is being glorified as one of the patrons of the vast brothel. The above instances may suffice to convince the impartial reader that Akbar's whole career was a saga of uninhibited licentiousness backed by the royal brute.

Akbar's Barbarites: Glancing at the events in the reign of Akbar, it is a compelling deduction that he was no less cruel a tyrant than any of his ancestors. With his trecherous nature and the unlimited power than he wielded over a vast region qualifies him to be one of the foremost tyrants and sadists in India's history, or perhaps, even world history.

Vincent Smith (p.50) says that in a privately executing Kamran's son [namely, Akbar's own cousin] at Gwalior in 1565, ".. Akbar set an evil example, initiated on a large scale by his descendents Shahjahan and Aurangzeb." This does not cause a serious alarm knowing the percious heritage of duplicity and trechery handed down to Akbar by his ancestors. Generations of martial races (Rajputs) were cut off by his (Akbar) sword ... he was long ranked with Shahbuddin and Alla (Allauddin) and other instruments of destruction, and with every just claim; and like these he constructed a Mumbar (a pulpit for islamic preachers) for the Koran from the altar of Eklingji (the deity of the Rajput warriors)." (Todd, p.259) Not only that he forcibly annihilated innumerable humans, he also had no respect for temples and deities and willingly indulged in destruction of such places of worship.

That Akbar refused to strike a helpless and injured prisoner seems to be utterly false. At an tender age of 14, Akbar slashed the neck of his Hindu adversary Hemu brought before him unconcious and bleeding. After the fateful battle of Panipat, the unconcious Hemu was brought before Akbar who smote Hemu on his neck with his scimitar, and in Akbar's presence, the bystanders also plunged their swords into the bleeding corpse. Hemu's head was sent to Kabul and his trunk was gibbeted at one of the gates of Delhi. After victorious forces pushing south from Panipat after that great victory (at Panipat), writes Smith (pp.29), "marched straight into Delhi, which opened its gates to Akbar, who made his entry in state. Agra was also passed into his possession. In accordance with the ghastly custom of the times, a tower was built with the heads of the slain. Immense treasures were taken with the family of Hemu whose aged father was executed." This "tower of heads" tradition and ceremony was religuously preserved by the "magnanimous" Akbar.

After the capture of Chittor, says Smith (p.64), ".. Akbar exasperated by the obstinate resistance offered to his arms, treated the town and garrison with merciless severity. The 8000 strong Rajput garrison having been zealously helped during the seige by 40,000 peasants, the emperor ordered a general massacre which resulted in the death of of 30,000 (even thought the struggle was over). Many were made prisoners." Such terrible was his humanitarian outlook as towards his defeated adverseries. L.M. Shelat writes more on this incident that (pp.105), "neither the temples nor the towers escaped the vandalism of the invaders". There were events where intolerant Akbar ordered the excision of one man's tongue, trampling opponents to death by elephants and other private or informal executions and assacinations. After a victorious battle at Ahemadabad, in accordance with the gruesome custom at the times, a pyramid was built with the heads of the rebels, more than 2000 in number. At one time, enraged on seeing a hapless lamplighter coiled up near his couch, Akbar order that the servant be shreded into thousand pieces! What else can one expect the barbaric and unscrupulous Akbar?

Akbar's reign of horrid cruelties includes the following incident which must be considered the jewel in the crown of horrid pastimes. Vincent Smith writes (pp.56) "An extraordinary incident which occured in April while the royal camp was at Thanesar, the famous Hindu place of pilgrimage to the north of Delhi, throws a rather unpleasant light on Akbar's character... The Sanyasins assembled at the holy tank were divided into two parties, called the Kurs and Puris. The leader of the latter complained to the King that that the Kurs had unjustly occupied the accustomed sitting place of the Puris who were thus debarred from collecting the pilgrims' alms." They were asked to decide the issue by mortal combat. They were drawn up on either side with their arms drawn. In the fight that ensued the combatants used swords, bows, arrows and stones. "Akbar seeing that the Puris were outnumbered gave a signal to some of his savage followers to help the weaker party." In this fight between the two Hindu sanyasin sects Akbar saw to it that both were ultimately annihilated by his own fierce soilders. The chronicler unctuously adds that Akbar was highly delighted with this sport. How can an emperor, so noble and great, can have a sadist mind that relishes and obtains "delight" by ordaining and watching two Hindu sanyansin sects being slaughtered?

Killing and massacring others' was regarded as a pastime and diversion by a bereaved Akbar. The chronicler Ferishta notes (Briggs, p.171), "Prince Murad Mirza falling dangerously ill (May 1599) was buried at Shapoor. The corpse was afterwards removed to Agra, and laid by the side of Humayun, the prince's grandfather. The kings grief for the death of his son increased his desire for the conquering the Deccan, as a means of diverting the mind." Could there exist a more sinister kind of sadism?

Akbar's cruelty towards the Hindu women kidnapped and shut up in his harem were stagerring and his much vaunted marraiges said to have been contracted for communal integration and harmony were nothing but outrageous kidnappings brought about with the force of arms. This is apparent from Akbar's marriage to Raja Bharmal's daughter that occured at Deosa "when people Deosa and other places on Akbar's route fled away on his approach." (Shrivastava, pp.63). Why would the people flee in terror if at all Akbar was "visiting" Raja Bharmal and that the marraige was congenial and in consent with the bride's party? Far from abolishing the practice of Sati, Akbar invited the Jesuit priests to watch the "considerble fun" and supporting it by his weighty judgement and explicit approbation. (Monserrate's Commentary, pp.61).

Many more horried facts on Akbar's rule can be added. Even the infamous tax, which supposedly was abolished by Akbar, was continually being collected in Akbar's reign. A number of persons were secretly executed on Akbar's orders and a list of such people is provided by Vincent Smith. Akbar's reign was nothing but terror, torture and tyranny for his subjects and courtiers as is obvious from the quoted events. There are numerous other occasions and recorded events from Akbar's life that personifies him as a devil incarnate, contrary to what has been propagated.

Akbar's Fanaticism: Akbar was born a muslim, lived like a muslim and died as a muslim; that too a very fanatic one. Histories have dubbed him as a true believer who accomplished a synthesis of the best principles of all religions. The infamous Jiziya tax, which is special tax exaction from the Hindus, was never abolished by Akbar. Time and time again different people had approached seeking exemption from Jiziya. Everytime the exemption was ostensibly issued, but never was actually implemented. Throughout Akbar's reign, temples used to razed to the ground or misappropriated as mosques and cows were slaughtered in them, as happened in the battle at Nagarkot. No symbol of Hindu origin and design was spared from the iconoclastic wrath of Akbar.

Xavier, a Jesuit in Akbar's court, gives a typical instance of Akbar's perfidy in making people drink water in which his feet had been washed. Xavier writes, says Smith (p.189), Akbar posed " as a Prophet, wishing it to be understood that he works miracles through healing the sick by means of the water in which he washed the feet." Badauni says that this [the above] special type of humiliation was reserved by Akbar only for Hindus. Says Badayuni, "... if other than Hindus came, and wished to become disciples at any sacrifice, His Majesty reproved them." Where was his broadminded and tolerant nature then?

Yet another Xavier's letter (MacLagan, p.57 and Du Jarric, p.90) states, "The Christian fathers got little opportunity of holding religious discussions with Akbar or influencing him in favour of Christianity ...Akbar silenced Xavier by telling him that the freedom accorded to him in preaching his religion was itself a great service." Akbar was not at all a tolerant of other religious faiths.

Akbar had filled both his hands with 50 gold coins when Badayuni expressed his strong desire to take part in a "holy war" (massacring Hindus) and "dye these black moustachois and beard in (hindu) blood through loyalty to Your Majesty's person" (sic). Akbar far from dispproving of Badayuni's despicable desire, gladly presented him with a decent premium.

The Hindus were treated as thirdclass citizens in Akbar's reign is evident from the Ain-i-Akbari. Abul Fazal writes, "... he [Husayn Khan, Akbar's governer at Lahore] ordered the Hindus as unbelievers to wear a patch (Tukra) near the shoulders, and thus got the nick name of Tukriya (patcher)." (Bochmann., p.403) The patch was obviously to mark the "unbelievers" out as pariahs for providing special degrading treatment.

The holy Hindu cities of Prayag and Banaras, writes Vincent Smith (p.58), were plundered by Akbar because their residents were rash enough to close their gates! No wonder Prayag of today has no ancient monuments -- whatever remain are a rubble! It is rather obvious that Akbar had no respect and reverance for cities considered holy by Hindus, let alone esteem for human life and property. Also, it is evident from this instance that Akbar's subjects were horrified and scared upon the arrival of their king into their city. If at all Akbar was so magnanimous, why then did not the people come forward and greet him?

Monserrate, a contemporary of Akbar, writes (p.27), "the religious zeal of the Musalmans has destroyed all the idol temples which used to be numerous. In place of Hindu temples, countless tombs and little shrines of wicked and worthless Musalmans have been erected in which these men are worshipped with vain superstition as though they were saints." Not only did the muslims destroy the idols, but usurped the existing temples and converted them into tombs of insignificant people.

Akbar has neither any love or compassion for Hindus as is apparent from the above examples. Hindus were openly despised and contemptously treated under Akbar's fanatical rule as under any other rule. Akbar was only one of the many links of the despotic and cruel Moghal rule in India, and enforced the tradition of his forefathers with sincerity and equal ruthlessness.

Akbar's (mal) Administration: Akbar was so penurious and retentive of money that .." he considered himself to be heir of all his subjects, and ruthlessly seized the property of every deceased whose family had to make a fresh start ... Akbar was a hard headed man of business, not a sentimental philanthropist, and his whole policy was directed principally to the aquisition of power and riches. All the arrangements about Jagirs, branding (horses) etc., were devised for the one purpose namely, the enhancement of the power, glory and riches of the crown." (Smith, p.263). The latter statement indicates what a marvellous and altruist administrator Akbar was!

Akbar's lawless and rapacious rule also led to horrible famines -- Delhi was devastated and the mortality was enormous. Gujrat, one of the richest provinces in India, suffered severly for 6 months in 1573-74. Smith writes, "The famine which began in 1595 and lasted three or four years until 1598 equalled in its horrors the accession year and excelled the visitation by reason of its longer duration. Inundation and epidemics occasionally marred Akbar's reign." And Akbar is said to have done nothing to ameliorate the sufferings of the masses, instead accumulated all the wealth he had amassed into forts and palaces.

Refering to the Gujarat famine, Dr. Shrivastava (p.169) writes, "... the famine was not caused by drought or the failure of seasonal rains, but was due to the destruction wrought by prolonged wars and rebellions, constant marching and counter-marching of troops, and killing men on a large scale, and the breakdown of admnistrative machinary and the economic system ... The mortality rate was so high that on an average 100 cart-loads of dead bodies were taken out for burial in the city of Ahemadabad alone .."

Smith asserts that epidemics and inundiation often marred Akbar's reign, and at the time of such distress, writes Badayuni (Blochmann, p.391), parents were allowed to sell their children. Utter lawlessness and stately permissions to carry out immoral activities seem to the norm during Akbar's reign. Deadly pestilence and frightful famine appeared on the scene from time to time and lasted for years together, due to Akbar's callous and inadequate administrative capacities.

Noble in character that Akbar was that his generals and courtiers, even including his son Jehangir, revolted against him. Interminable wars and unending rebellions were continuing somewhere or the other in his so-called peaceful reign. Dr. Shrivastava nicely summarizes (p.381) , "The vast empire hardly ever enjoyed complete immunity from some kind of disturbance and rebellion. Some chief or the other taking advantage of slackness of administration, lack of vigillance ... or the occurance of a natural calamity raised its head in revolt. It is tedious to recount cases of civil disturbance.". On an occasion of an accident, rumours spread about the seriousness of the injury and possibly the death of Akbar which caused revolts and rebellions in distant parts of the country, and many paraganas were plundered by turbulent people!

Had Akbar been do generous as he is often made out to be and his reign so just and kind, peace and contentment should have prevailed during his lifetime and upon his death, the subjects should have looked upon his children with devotion love and respect. However, due to nature of Akbar's rapacious rule, everyone from princes to paupers wished to overthrow Akbar.

The (usurped) Buildings: With constant famines, wars and revolts occuring the Akbar's era, where then did he get the time and money to construct buildings of magnificence and grandeur, like the Fort at Agra ? Akbar is said to have built several forts and palaces and founded many townships. However, as seen earlier, Akbar simply renamed pre-existing townships of Hindu origin and claimed to have been built by himself.

One such unfortunate township is that of Fatehpur Sikri. It has a massive defensive wall around it, enclosing redstone gateways and a majestic palace complex, explicitly in the Rajput style. It is the creation of these buildings and gateways that are accredited to Akbar. Fatehpur Sikri (or Fatehpur/Sikri) was an ancient independent principality before its occupation by the muslims. Testifying to this Todd says (p.240), " [Rana Sangram Singh] came to the Mewar throne in 1509 A.D. Eighty thousand horses, seven Rajas of the highest rank, nine Raos and 104 cheiftains, bearing the titles of Rawal and Rawut with 500 elephants follwed him into the field (against Babur). The princess of Marwar and Amber did him homage, and the Raos of Gwalior, Ajmer, *Sikri* ... served him as tributaries .." The above passage makes it clear that even during the reign of Akbar's grandfather Babur, Sikri was ruled by a "Rao", who owed allegiance to Rana Sangram Singh of Mewar. Another reference to Fatehpur Sikri is of the year 1405 (150 years before Akbar) when Ikbal Khan was killed and his head was sent to Fatehpur (E&D, p.40). Also it is stated (E&D, p.44) that Khizr Khan (the founder of Sayyad dynasty, 1500 A.D.) remained in *Fatehpur* and did not go to Delhi. Even Babur has stated that Agra and *Sikri* housed several palaces equally magnificent (E&D, p.223). These 15th century references will, for now, suffice to prove the existence of Fatehpur Sikri before even Akbar was born, and that the beautiful buildings were not built by Akbar.

The Red Fort of Agra, also originally of Rajput design and construction, was usurped by Akbar. However, an account says that Akbar demolished the fort in 1565, apparently for no reason, and constructed another in its place. Surprisingly, in 1566, Adham Khan was punished by being thrown down from the second storey of the royal apartments inside the fort! Keene (Handbook for Visitor's to Agra and Its Neighbourhood) quotes this rumour and casts a very pertinent doubt that is the fort was demolished in 1565, how is it possible for Akbar to stay there in 1566 and a man was flung down from the second story? Keene adds that even the foundation of the extensive fort could not have been complete within three years. Neither did Akbar demolish the fort, nor did he rebuild an entire structure. He simply comandeered the fort from its original inhabitants, and claimed to have been built by him.

Similarly, the palaces and mansions in Ajmer, Allahabad, Manoharpur and other townships were simply usurped by Akbar. He never ordered engineers and architects to build to build magnificent buildings. Testifying to this, Monserrate in his Commentarius (p.16) remarks, ".. musalmans whose nature is indeed that of barbarians, take no interest in such things (erecting massive and ornate buildings and townships). Their chronicles being scanty and unreliable and full of old wives tales..." The fraudulent claims that Akbar designed and built these monuments are fabricated stories written by muslim chroniclers toadying for Akbar's favours.

Summary: Akbar's life has been full of acts of cruelties, barbaric behaviour, lust for women and wine. Considering the background in which Akbar was brought up and the environment in which he lived, it was indeed a surprise that he would develop qualities of compassion and love. Even assuming that such miracles can occur, unfortunately, Akbar's reign and state of administration contradict such an assumption and one is compelled to conclude that Akbar was no better a monarch than his forefathers. Apparently from what was described above, Akbar has been given unecessary credit of being tolerant, secular and an altruist king. His sycophantic courtiers, including the court chroniclers, alloted to him all the praises he desired. Upon some inspection, the nine-gem story of Akbar's court becomes a sheer invention of court flatterers, who sought Akbar's favour for self-aggrandizement. Akbar's recalcitrance and callousless in the matters of caring for his subjects and domain, led to untold misery in the form of famines and pestilence. Wars, revolts and rebellions constantly erupted concluding is mass mayhem and killings. There was no tranquility nor peace in Akbar's reign, let alone material and spiritual prosperity. That an avaricious miser Akbar was, it is rather unbelievable for him to have spent on creating expensive buildings and mansions. He was no better than other muslim monarchs, constantly on the prey to usurp power and pelf by whatever means they could. Morality and humanitarian principles took a back seat to self aggrandizement and lechery. Even after exercising numerous abductions, kidnappings, murders Akbar have been refered to as noble, compassionate and great. Even though religious fanatism never decreased in his reign, nay, was sponsored by Akbar himself, he has been termed as a secular, broadminded person. Such blunders of a serious magnitude have been committed by historians reconstructing and writing accounts on Indian history.

It may be worthwhile to research and present the "true" story of Akbar exposing to the world the true nature of Akbar and his personality. The Moghal rule in India was indeed very ruthless and full of difficult times for the people and the country; truly a "dark" age.

References:

Smith, V., "Akbar, The Great Mogul," 2nd Edition, S.Chand and Co., Delhi, 1958.

Todd, James.,"Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan," 2 volumes, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London, 1957.

Shelat J.M, "Akbar," Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, 1964, Bombay.

Blochmann, H., "Ain-e-Akbari," translation of Abul Fazal's Persian text, 2nd Edition, Bibliotheca Indica Series, published by the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal.

Briggs, John, "History of Mahomedan Power in India (till the year 1612 A.D)," Vol.2, Translated from the original Persian of Mahomad bin Ferishta, S. Dey Publication, Calcutta, 1966.

Shrivastava, A.L., "Akbar the Great," Vol.1, Shiv Lal Agarwal and Co., Agra.

Monserrate S.J., "The Commentary," translated from original Latin by J.S. Hoyland, annotated by S.Banerjee, Humphrey Milford, Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1922.

Blochmann H., "Ain-i-Akbari" edited by D.C Phillot, Calcutta, 1927.

Elliot and Dowson," Tuzak-i-Babari", Vol.4..

Islamic Fanaticism at its peak: Muslim Groups Demand Closure of Large Church in Indonesia

Samuel Rionaldo, Compass Direct News

URL: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/11626798/

February 26, 2010

JAKARTA, Indonesia (CDN) — Hundreds of Muslims from outside the area where a 600-member church meets in West Java staged a protest there to call for its closure this month in an attempt to portray local opposition.

Demonstrators from 16 Islamic organizations, including the hard-line Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), gathered on Feb. 15 to demand a stop to all activities by the Galilea Protestant Church (GPIB) in the Galaxy area of Bekasi City.

The Rev. M. Tetelepta, pastor of the church, told Compass that the church has had the required consent of local residents and official permission to worship since its inception in 1992.

"From the beginning we had permission to worship from both the government and the nearby residents," Tetelepta said. "We worked on the building permit and had received principle clearance from the mayor of Bekasi. We had also received permission from the Bekasi Interfaith Harmony Forum."

At the Galaxy area demonstration, FPI Bekasi branch head Murhali Baeda tried to impugn the legal status of the Galilea church by telling ANTARA, the official news agency of the Indonesian government, that he was "certain" that "a number of the church buildings" in the area "do not have complete permission."

"This is proved by the large number of posters and banners that are displayed in the alleys and public gathering places rejecting the presence of these [church] buildings," Murhali told ANTARA.

A Joint Ministerial Decree promulgated in 1969 and revised in 2006 requires the permission of more than 60 neighbors and a permit from local authorities to establish a place of worship in Indonesia.

Representatives of Islamic organizations at the demonstration shouted, "Churches are not allowed in Galaxy" and carried posters and banners declaring, "We Faithful Muslims Reject the Presence of Churches," as well as "Beware of Christianization of Galaxy."

Local organizations represented at the demonstration included the Bekasi Dakwah Council, the Bina An Nisa Dakwah Council of Bekasi and the Galaxy Mosque and Mushola Forum, but Tetelepta said he was sure that 95 percent of the protestors were not local people.

Also present at the demonstration were representatives of the Islamic Youth and Student Forum, Islamic Unity, the Committee to Enact Syariah (Law), Muhammadiyah, the Islamic Youth Movement, the Syariah Concern Society, the Islamic Youth Federation, the Bungin Dakwah Council, the Gembong River Society, Irene Centre and the Indonesian Mujahadin Council.

Baeda of the FPI accused the church of "Christianizing" local residents by distributing food "and the nine essentials at a reduced price."

"The church is distributing these things as incentive to confess Jesus as their Lord," Baeda told Compass. "We have received several reports of this from people who have accepted these distributions."

This type of activity disturbs society, he added. "I consider this wrong-doing."

The local FPI leader told ANTARA that there are at least six churches and a number of homes that function as churches.

"At night praises to their God in the form of songs disturbs the people's sleep," he reportedly said.

Tetelepta denied that the church had tried to "Christianize" people.

"We have never distributed food or the nine essentials," he said. "The only thing we have done is to spray for mosquitoes near the church."

Before coming to Galaxy the congregation had worshipped in various places in Bekasi. At the suggestion of the government, Tetelepta said, the church purchased the property in Galaxy in 2006 in order to construct a worship place.

He added that there has been an effort to discredit the church in the Bekasi area.

"Our worship services will continue as usual in spite of the demonstrations," he said. "We are coordinating things with the police."

Is Iran a Rapist Islamic Republic??!!
By Jahanshah Rashidian

Since the inception of the Islamic regime in Iran in 1979, rapes of political prisoners have increasingly been committed, although rarely reported. Many courageous victims have recently revealed their subjection to rapes. Surprisingly, however, after the controversial June 2009 election, the losing candidate Mehdi Karrubi revealed that both male and female, detained during the post-election protests, have been systematically subjected to vicious rapes.

After the conquest of ancient Persia by the Arab Muslims in 644, tens of thousands, probably, millions of Iranian female were raped, enslaved, and transported away as war-booty to be sold in slave-markets of Arab-Islamic territories. The Persian word 'Tajovoz' does not only mean 'rape' by which a man seized or stole a wife, but also means destruction and occupation of one’s environment by invaders. In a belief system that a passive nine-year-old girl can be raped by her ‘husband’, rape, as an extension of such a patriarchal societal control over females, was introduced by the Islamic Arabs as the most hideous, shameful, and submissive element in the culture of occupied Iran. Since the occupation by Arab Muslims, Iranian women, who once equated with their male compatriots, have been since viewed as male-possessions, first of their fathers, then of their husbands. In case of rape in Islamized Persia, they were subjected to blame and shame more than their rapists.

Rape of Female Prisoners:

Shortly after the 1979 revolution, many intellectuals, political activists, and Mullah-sympathisers of the leftist opposition were arrested, and many of them were summarily executed. Virgin prisoners were generally raped before being executed. The reason is that according to the Islamic regime’s interpretation of Islamic laws, killing of a virgin woman is prohibited, because a virgin’s soul goes to Heaven, not to Hell, after death. To solve the dilemma, the night before the execution, the virgin is married by one of the guards, and the marriage is consummated overnight, before carrying out the execution. Apart from such rape, the interrogators of the Mullah regime routinely use rape as a tool of torture to obtain information, confession, or, simply, to humiliate the prisoner.

Rape of Male prisoners:

The rape of a male victim typically consists of forced penetration of the anus by a penis or other object as has been reported by some Iranian rape-victims. Because of traditional self-censor, male-rape has until recently remained unreported in Iran. It is believed that a man in a patriarchal culture should be masculine, strong and able to protect himself. Therefore, nothing can be worse, more shameful, for a proud man than being forcibly raped. Young men, who have survived the post-election rapes, are now suffering from rigorous psychological injuries. Rape of male prisoners in the Mullahs’ jails has caused serious damage to inner organs of the victims and depression to them. Since male victims feel shame to identify themselves, they avoid medical treatment unless the victim is seriously injured.

It is believed that religious permission of rape, including male-rape, of opponents of the Islamic regime has been recently updated by Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, the monitor and spiritual guru of president Ahmadinejad. Islamic authorities usually deny that rape is being committed in their prisons, fearing strong reaction from the public, both inside and outside.

In an interview at the Jamkaran gathering after the revelation of rape in the Mullah’s prisons, Mesbah Yazdi was asked: Can an interrogator rape the prisoner in order to obtain a confession? He is reported to have answered:

The necessary precaution is for the interrogator to perform a ritual washing first and say prayers while raping the prisoner. If the prisoner is female, it is permissible to rape through the vagina or anus. It is better not to have a witness present. If it is a male prisoner, then it’s acceptable for someone else to watch while the rape is committed.

Zahra Bani Yaghoub, Azar Al Cana’an, and Roya Toloui are among the female prisoners, who were raped and murdered in past years under the same Islamic regime. Additionally, at least two recent teen female victims of the post-election oppression in Iran, Tahmineh Mousavi and Saeedeh Pour Agha’i, were documented by the media as being burnt in an attempt to cover up the hideous crime.

To shed light on Mesbakh Yazdi’s permission of rape, it is believed that in numerous offensive raids, called ‘Ghazawat’, of early Muslims, under the Prophet, attacked ‘infidel’ tribes; they killed men, robbed their properties, and took whichever females they wanted, raped them, and then brought them to their tribe as their slave-possession.

Tolerance of such brutalities in Islam may not be universally believed by Muslims; most might be regarded it as a myth. However, these are the mindsets of the brutal Islamic regime that rules Iran and commits such horrendous crimes.

In an ultimate psychological analysis of rape, rapists seem to come from a subculture of violence, whose values may be different from those of the mainstream. A rapist is often a poorly educated man from the lower socioeconomic strata, who had criminal records. Therefore such a man may be demonstrating his toughness and masculinity in a more violent and antisocial manner, but in the case of a rapist of the Mullahs’ prisons, this is not the dominant factor.

Rapists of the Mullahs' prisons are not necessarily the psychopathic and antisocial torturers, but most likely 'pious' Muslims, married men, and even can be kind fathers. They just follow the 'divine' guidance of the Islamic regime, and do not consider those rapes as a crime, and do not feel remorse after the assault. These sexual 'offenders' are not accountable for their sexual assaults, because rape is allowed or tolerated by Islamic clerics of the regime.

Rape in the Mullahs’ prisons is not an individual decision of an interrogator, as one may commonly believe; it is a systematic process based on a belief system, and for promoting a political agenda. In the Mullahs’ prisons, rapes are often planned. The primary motive for rape is not sexual. They regard and believe in rape as a routine duty, due to its prescription by Islamic clerics of high stature like Ayatollah Mesbakh Yazdi, and its acceptance by the entire Mullah regime.
With that in mind, their act of rape is not merely a question of psycho-criminality, but an Islamist and thus "justified" crime.