Reference
pamphlet �Time for Stock Taking�, my views on the two documents from Dr.
Shreerang Godbole are enumerated as under
FIRST DOCUMENT
1.
What is the harm in adding Jesus and Mohammad to the 33 crore Hindu gods
and goddesses?
There is difference between
love and infatuation. Infatuation can be one-sided but love is reciprocal.
Devotion is blind. Quite a few Hindus appear infatuated with Muslims. First
the Sikhs sang � �Pahle Allah Noor Upjaya�, and adorned themselves
with blue uniform like that of Mullahs and Sufis, yet Guru Teg Bahadur,
Guru Arjun Dev, Guru Govind Singh and Banda Bairagi were made martyrs by
Muslim tyrants. Pakistan helped Khalistanis against Hindus. Gandhiji too
sang, �Ishwar Allah tere nam� and of unity of Ram and Rahim, but
with no effect, response or echo from Muslims. The treachery continued.
In Hindi films, Hindus are shown singing the word �Khuda� or �Allah� but
never with reciprocity from the Muslim characters, who never utter Rama
or Krishna. In fact, the real question is whether Islam allows addition
of any God other than Allah, not whether Hindus are willing to include
Mohammad or Allah among their Gods. The fact is that Hindus have been doing
it since the Muslim invaders entered India, but the Muslims have yet to
show any flexibility or cracks in their dogmas.
2.
All religions (including Islam) lead to God.
This concept is alien to
Semitic religions. I have read Koran and Bible. As per Koran, only the
members of the �UMMAT� (i.e., those who believe in Allah and his last prophet
Mohammad) can attain Heaven and the rest will be cast into Hell. Similarly,
as per Bible, only Christians can attain salvation. Since Hinduism is not
a religion, but Dharma and a way of life, it is they and only they who
believe that all religions are different ways towards the One God.
Muslims still use the word �Jihad� - a fight against Kafirs (non-Muslims), while Christians before acquiring half of the world used the word �Crusade�. Even now, Western militancy has four wings - the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Church.
We can�t forget that Sultan Sikandar Lodi put Bodhan to death for no other offence than saying that �Hinduism is a true religion like Islam�.
3.
Islam is good but Muslims are bad
Since Koran is the word
of Allah and Mohammad is his last prophet, their words are a must meant
to be followed in letter and spirit. Because of his scriptures a Muslim
cannot afford to be tolerant to Kafirs or non-Muslims as they order him
not to reside near non-Muslims, not to salute or greet them, not to mix
with them, but to hate them, kill them, loot them, and always to maintain
a separate identity.
Any tolerance shown by Muslims is �Maslihat� in their words, i.e., a timely compromise and tact. Or a Muslim showing compassion or mercy to Kafirs, does so under dictates of his conscience, momentarily forgetting the rigid dogmas and firmans of Allah and the Prophet towards Kafirs.
4.
If Muslims are told of their common ancestry they will unite with Hindus.
This is ridiculous and a
mere flight of imagination. 99% of Muslims in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh
are descendants of converted Hindus and they know it - Jinnah, Liaqat Ali,
poet Iqbal and Bhutto, for example. All of them knew their Hindu origin,
but became fanatic bigots and more brutal than Arab invaders.
They can unite with Hindus under one and only one condition, and that is if Hindus start to behave and deal with Muslims as the latter behave with Hindus i.e. if Hindus are united, strong and aggressive.
5.
Congress used Muslims. Congress treats Muslims as vote-bank. We (BJP) will
treat Muslims as human beings.
In fact, Muslims used the
Congress and deserted it when new powerful champions were found to achieve
political gains. Now they have better quislings from amongst the Hindus
than during the Khilafat Movement, and achievement of Pakistan and Bangladesh.
They wooed our Sikh brothers to fight Hindus in Punjab, wooed Kashmiri
Muslims for Jihad against Kashmiri Hindus, and are now wooing anti-India
groups in Northeastern States.
In the eyes of every Muslim, Hindus are Kafirs and not worthy of tolerance. They understand only one language which is the language of Jews in Israel, i.e., tit for tat.
6.
Sufis are tolerant Muslims.
Again a preposterous idea.
Sufi saints (?) established Dargahs and Mazars, and never allowed any other
kind of worship. In fact, Sufis were the advance party or the sappers and
miners of invading Muslim armies. Hundreds of persons, in the garb of Sufi
saints, swarmed into India and established their hemitages(?) i.e. Dargahs
in deserted or usurped Hindu buildings and temples, as in Delhi, Ajmer,
Fatehpur Sikri and several other places throughout India. They posed as
a balm to the insulted, humiliated and plundered Hindus. Look at Medieval
History and you find numerous Sufis springing up like mushrooms (kukurmuttas)
everywhere, but are now extinct after the elimination of Muslim rule, as
if their breed was a thing of the past like Dinosaurs. Now-a-days in India
at least, one cannot find any new �Sufi-saint�, but only their Dargahs
and Mazars, where Qawwali is held and Muslims (of course some misguided
Hindus too) throng to worship the graves for mundane benefits.
I personally know such a Dargah, that of Pahalwan Sahib at Bareilly. He was actually the murderer of a Hindu. But Muslims (and alas! Hindus too) daily go there to bow and worship.
7.
Muslim leaders are responsible for the ghetto mentality of Muslims.
I agree with Dr. Godbole
that Islamic theology i.e. Koran and Hadis, besides Mullahs and Maulvis
and Muslim leaders tell Muslims how they are superior to Kafirs, and how
tactfully they should behave in a country where they are in minority and
not in power.
The example of Syed Shahabuddin, ex M.P., a candidate for Jinnahship, is before us. In the case of Shah Bano, he agitated till Rajiv Gandhi passed an enactment, nullifying the Supreme Court judgement giving benefits to Muslim women. He took out Ram Janma Bhoomi/Babri Masjid dispute out of cold storage and then inflamed it. He boycotted participation of Muslims in Independence Day celebrations, preached apartheid by opposing the singing of Vande Mataram by Muslims; and went to Minakshipuram in support of Mullahs who had indulged in wholesale conversion of Hindus to Islam.
Indian society is secular in character and culture and Muslims and Christians are increasing and prospering here, whereas in Muslim countries the two sects, Shias and Sunnis, cannot offer Namaz together in a mosque, nor Protestants can go to a Catholic Church in a Christian country.
Separatism is the keyword propagated by Mullahs and Maulvis and the ghetto mentality is their own creation, as they detest and abhor assimilation in the main national stream. They are always scared of losing their identity.
8.
Namaz offered on a disputed site (like Ayodhya) is not acceptable to Allah.
This theory was advanced
by Sri Harihar Shankar Jain, Advocate, and the Secretary of the Vishva
Hindus Adhivakta Sangh, in a Writ Petition in the Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri
Masjid Case. In fact, this wrongful plea is based on an imaginary presumption
and not on any Muslim Scripture.
Islam forbids idol-worship, and so, when Mohammad conquered Mecca, he destroyed 360 idols affixed in the Kaaba, before offering Namaz. In the so-called Babri Masjid structure, there were human figures engraved on pillars on which the three domes rested. As per the Waqf Board Case, Muslim conquerors read Khutbas there upto 1934 A.D. Namaz was often offered on Fridays by Muslim gatherings, after which Muslims left it unattended. Similarly, the other two mosques built by Aurangzeb on Swargadwar and Treta Ke Thakur were left unattended and turned into ruins.
Mullahs of the stature of Imam Bukhari of Delhi and other Muslim leaders had declared through press statements that once Namaz is offered at a place, it becomes a masjid for ever. So the Muslims in general demand reconstruction of Babri Masjid at the same place in Ayodhya so that the symbol of national shame must hurt the Hindus always.
Bishambhar
Nath Pandey has tried to justify the greatness of Islam, its culture and
compassion through his book, Paigambar Mohammad, Koran/Hadis-Islam Darshan,
concealing the true contents of Koran and Hadis instead of exposing them.
We should remember that a case was filed in a Calcutta court citing those
Ayats of Koran that preach hatred, bloodshed and loot of Kafirs, but which
was not heard under pressure (from Rajiv Gandhi) and dismissed.
SECOND DOCUMENT
�Sarva Panth Samãdar Manch� was floated by the B.M.S. to give a platform for extending equal honour to all ways of worship, the original idea being of Sri Dattopant Thengdi, founder of the B.M.S.
Formation of such a Manch is absurd, for Hindus do not need such preachings; only the Muslims and Christians need them. Hindus already believe in Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, while Semitic religions believe in their exclusive superiority. In fact, Muslims think of Hindus as a pack of fools who organise such Manchs for unity, Bhai-Bhaiship, reservation in services, secular songs, seminars, stage plays (like that of Sahmat) or support drawing of nude portraits of Hindu Gods and Goddesses (as was done by Hussain), or demand ban on books showing any critical evaluation of Muslim theology.
To speak
for Hindus by the Hindus in Hindu India is neither wrong nor illegal. Emperor
Prithviraj Chauhan fought Ghori, Rana Sanga fought Babar; Maharana Pratap
fought Akbar despite Man Singh; Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj fought Aurangzeb
despite Jaswant Singh; Banda Bairagi fought and became a martyr despite
neutrality of several Hindu kings who remained silent spectators. The fight
continues and now when we are independent why can�t we wipe out symbols
of national shame imposed by foreign invaders. It is unthinkable that a
few pseudo-secularists or fifth-columnists can stop the great Hindu tide.
Let us, instead, form �Remove National Shame Manch� in each and every district
of India, and unitedly do the rest.
Footnotes:
The
writer is a retired R.M.O. living at Haldwani in District Nainital, U.P.
