Start this weekend by reading Sandeep’s views on the Hindu Holocaust.

Next an impassioned plea for broadminded, enlightened Indian Muslims to speak out. Amazingly, it was written more than 16 years ago! Unfortunately I have no URL link to this article, so I am reproducing it in full below.

Finally, a thought-provoking essay on Interfaith Marraiges by Dr Dilip Amin. It is a long article but I have reproduced excerpts below.

.

*** Excerpts from Remember the Hindu Holocaust ***

…When we examine the specifics, we can with little doubt say that Islamic jihad has carried out a virtual Hindu Holocaust.

Some years ago, French journalist Francois Gautier had posed the same question (“Where’s India’s holocaust museum?”, October 21, 2003). Mr Gautier asserted that based on available historical evidence, it is sufficient to conclude that a Hindu Holocaust has occurred.

The Holocaust evokes horrific images and is associated typically with a specific event. As we shall see, we can safely apply it to the Islamic conquest of Hindu India.

The Oxford English Dictionary first used the word to describe Hitler’s treatment of Jews in as early as 1942. With time the term has come to be equated with the Nazi genocide of Jews in conventional parlance. The Holocaust elicits horror mostly due to these important reasons:

The Holocaust is a fairly recent event, and thanks to the efforts of the Jews, its memory has been kept alive. A few generations in future, it will at most evoke pity sans the intensity of experience. The chill of experiencing horror first hand doesn’t have the same shock value 100 years later.

Barring the sheer numbers of Jews exterminated in a specific historical period, the other defining features of the Holocaust apply equally to the Hindu genocide. Indeed, ‘holocaust’ is a rather apt term because the root meaning of holocaust is ‘burn’. Islam’s violent history in India is a bloody record of burnt idols, temples, libraries, and entire cities. There’s yet another crucial differentiator: Hindu genocide was at least three-fold. On the purely physical plane, millions of Hindus were killed because they were Hindus. On the socio-cultural plane, those who were not killed were spared because they agreed to convert to Islam, a good instance of cultural genocide. Finally, on the economic plane, those that were allowed to live as Hindus were subject to the unjust jizya, a tax system, forcing them into perpetual penury, an instance of economic genocide.

In his Growth of Muslim Population in India, Prof KS Lal estimates that the Hindu population decreased by 80 million between 1000 AD and 1525 AD, an extermination unparalleled in world history. This number is overwhelming but then the Hindu genocide, unlike the Jewish Holocaust, happened in painfully-regular installments.

…The conquest of Afghanistan in 1000 AD saw the annihilation of its entire Hindu population….In 1399, Taimur killed 1,00,000 Hindus in a single day, and the Bahamani Sultans made it a sacred duty to kill 1,00,000 Hindus every year.

…It is tragic that thousands of educated and intelligent Indians seek to negate the Hindu Holocaust —— mostly unwittingly. That is partly the result of reading fabricated history right from childhood, and partly of being politically correct. No nation can be built on a foundation of half truths and outright lies about its own history. It leads to mistrust within its own people, as is evident today. Our own perverse political parlance sustains these falsehoods and its attendant consequences. When our Prime Minister says Muslims have the first claim on resources, is the underlying message any different from Aurangzeb’s diktat that all Muslims were exempt from tax?

*** End of Excerpts ***

.

*** ”When will silent Muslims speak out?” ***

This article was apparently written by Salim Hameed and published in “Weekend Observer” on July 4, 1992 (Courtesy, Ashok-ji). Unfortunately I do not have a URL link. Reproduced below in full (copyright reserved with original author/publisher).

Recently an event took place in Bombay which merited more media at­tention than it got. I am referring to the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan and the Anjuman-e-Islam joining hands to establish a college of commerce and management at the Anjuman-e-Islam complex.

Given the times we live in it’s such stories that should be flashed prominently on the front pages of newspapers. But sorry to say, it found itself buried in the inside pages of most dailies.

However the thing to be more sorry about is the demonstration held by about 300 members of various Muslim organisations. They were protesting against the teaming up of Anjuman-e-Islam with Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.

At the moment these 300 men were shouting slogans and voicing their protest, ostensibly in the interest of Muslims and their cultural Identity, the founder of Anjuman-e-Islam, Justice Badruddin Tyabji — a man who championed the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity and came to be regarded as an apostle of the cause, must surely have been turning in his grave.

I am a Muslim. I am glad I am one. But I am an Indian first, Muslim next. When India was partitioned by the English­men (I firmly believe that it is they who are responsible for the tearing apart of the country) the Muslims had two options: to remain in India and make India their mulk or go to Pakis­tan. My ancestors chose the former. I am glad they did that. My grandfather didn’t leave my father any valuable inheritance in monetary or real estate terms. But he left some­thing far more valuable which his grandson cherishes with all his heart and being today - he decided to opt for India, a secular, democratic nation as his homeland, not Pakistan. I am today the proud inheritor of this from my father.

But today that grandson is sad. Sad because he finds to his dismay that having chosen to stay in India, his co-religionists aren’t behaving themselves. They are creating problems which can, do irrepar­able damage to the Muslim community in India.

These 300-odd are representa­tives of those misled, brain-washed group among the Mus­lims who are unwittingly allowing themselves to be led by the nose by self-styled Muslim leaders with dark, heinous ulterior motives. They say they read the Koran daily, offer namaaaz to Allah five times daily, and call themselves true followers of Islam. But they come out into the streets to shout, scream, burn, loot and kill.

The personalities they look up to are not the Maulana Abul Kalam Azads of history, but shallow and time-serving Syed Shahabuddins of the day and the illiterate but foxy, cunning and unashamedly bigoted clergy.

It is this handful of misled people who defile an otherwise calm and peaceful atmosphere of brotherhood and amity in India. They ire a blot on the Muslim community in this land. Before their breed multiplies and before they create more problems, these 300 pseudo-Mus­lims should be packed off to Pakistan, where they belong.

Also to be disbanded and ostracised are the men who run parties like the Indian Union Muslim League, Insaf Party, Mahjhis-el-Ittihad-ul-Muslimin etc. They claim to protect the ‘minority’ status of the Muslims. They are here, they say, in order that Muslims too will have a rightful share in the sociopolitical scene in India. But in reality, the presence of such parties and their activities have more often harmed the Muslims than helped them. Muslims are mere vote banks for their selfish political ends.

Take for instance Kerala. A state where the IUML has an active presence in the political field. The time was when Hindu­-Muslim riots were associated only with northern states like UP. The fact that we hear about such riots even from a southern state like Kerala, does not augur well for our national fabric.

A reviewer of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses wrote: “I read The Satanic Verses in the way that a child reads Animal Farm.” A Muslim pro­fessor in India who opened his mouth to voice some sane, rational thoughts about the book found his students screaming for his blood.

As if one Salman Rushdie was not enough to slake the thirst for blood and mayhem, some Muslims recently pulled up Dr AR Bedar, director of the Khudabaksh Oriental Library for his utterances on the world kafir.

It is often regretted that Mus­lims are stagnating educationally, intellectually and socially. If this is so. Muslims themselves are to blame for their plight. They have willingly succumbed to prejudices, super­stitions and myths. They take the Holy Book as if it is the ultimate word on everything. They don’t exercise their common sense. The word kafir does not mean a non-Muslim. But it is in this meaning that this word is bandied about. Indeed the word refers to a person who does not believe in Allah. But the word ‘Allah’ refers to nothing but God Al­mighty, whom the Christians call the Father and the Hindus Ram.

It is because the broadminded, enlightened Indian Muslims re­main silent that these 300 men get away with what they do. If the silent majority speaks out, if instead of remaining a mute and passive onlooker, it protests against these 300 pseudo-­protesters with misplaced, perverted zeal, then Indian Islam will get rid of the burr of orthodoxy and fundamentalism. That is if only they speak out..

*** End ***

.

*** Excerpts from “Interfaith Marriages:What Young Dharmists Should Know“ ***

…As the former president of a Balvihar, I only regret one point of our collective inaction: though we had taught our kids about our religion, we failed to teach them the practical aspects of interacting with young people from other faiths. In the Western world, it is quite common that young adults date those from other faiths during their college years, therefore it should come as no surprise that about a third of our young generation of Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists (Dharmic) marry a person from outside of these Dharmic faith traditions.

In almost all cases where a non-Dharmic life partner is selected, the decision is made by our young adults without pre-emptive advice, guidance, or consultation with their parents. As cited in this article, religious differences could bring complexities in their married life, starting with an unintended religious conversion of Dharmic and their progeny to the faith of their intended spouse.

Further, divorce rates in interfaith marriages are double compared to within the same faith marriages. For these reasons, it is increasingly important for our young adults to understand potential complications before entering into a serious relationship, ideally during the years in which they still reside under their parents’ roofs.

While interfaith relationships should develop based on a mutual respect for religious diversity, sometimes major differences in fundamental beliefs (e.g. here and here) pose difficulties in finding a common ground.

Dharmics carry this tolerant attitude that all faiths help you attain God, and everyone should respect not only their own religion, but other religions as well. But this tolerant attitude is not universal. Many families belonging to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (Abrahamic) believe in the supremacy of their ‘monotheistic’ dogma. Their holy books reject what they consider ‘polytheistic’ beliefs of Dharma. For example, Hindus believe that although the Ultimate Reality can be worshiped in many forms (Saguna Brahman), but this recognition and practice is forbidden in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and poses a serious issue when it comes to puja or worship (which is considered very bad -’idol’ worship by Abrahamics).

According to the Ten Commandments: “I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God…”

Another example, Islam forbids marriage with a non-believer (in Allah). Non-believers are expected to convert to Islam by taking the Sahadah oath, the declaration that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad as his apostle.

Religious conversion may be a matter of just a brief ceremony, but do not underestimate this ritual as a trivial matter. Taking this oath will set a tone for your life and your children’s lives. …one should be prepared to accept conversion to a new religion as a serious and irreversible process.

Most conflicts in inter-religious marriages will surface after you have children. For Abrahamics, it is vital that children from their marriage follow only the rules of their individual holy book. A Muslim spouse and the community may demand your kids have sunat (religious circumcision) and bear only an Arabic name. A Jewish person may not ask for a religious conversion for the spouse but may want Bris circumcision to declare the Jewish faith for the child. A Christian spouse may require Baptism of children and require them (and you too) to attend Church every Sunday, while you may wish to take your child to the Mandir or Balvihar.

…In the truest sense, marriage is a secular act and not a religious one. Unfortunately, some religious leaders and communities would like to use the wedding as a tool for their ambition of religious expansion. I learned of a case in Boston where without the Sahadah and Islamic wedding (nikaah), the wedding was denounced by a local Imam and most Muslim relatives did not attend the wedding reception party.

…While investigating the possibility of a relationship with those from other religions, be sure to find out if there is going to be any pressure to convert for you and your future kids from not just your future life partner, but also from his or her family members and religious community.

Not all Abrahamics impose their religious beliefs and practices on their spouse, but it is very important to find out the facts sooner than later. It is also important to note that despite all the potential marital pitfalls, a successful and fulfilling inter-religious marriage is possible, ideally, by not imposing one’s respective religious beliefs on the other partner.

…Bollywood star Rhitik Roshan and Suzanne Khan kept the religions out and got married by a civil wedding, and it is an admirable act. If someone you are dating cannot show you this same respect and expects you to forsake your own religion for marriage, even just in name sake, you must ask yourself if you are prepared to tolerate the intolerance being practiced against you.

…Before entering into a relationship, one should have an open dialog about religious expectations (especially the conversion business) and recognize the far reaching consequences. Though dealing with this issue early on will obviously be important for the well being of the couple, it is also a significant issue for their children, not to mention the couple’s extended families who take pride in preserving their religious and cultural traditions that have been passed down for generations and generations.

http://satyameva-jayate.org/