So is this how people get brainwashed

i came across this article,and I was kinda a bit shocked...Is everything that's written here true,or is it false..if someone could enlighten me on this😊...I really am not too sure about the authenticity of the article,so before I can say anything,I want to know if this is true

Indian Muslims need to remember lessons of the martyrdom of the Babri Mosque

By Zawahir Siddique

http://www.muslimedia.com/ARCHIVES/special00/babri.htm

India's fascist media interprets the history of India since the mid-80s, when the "Ram janmabhoomi" (Rama's birth place) agitation was initiated, as marked by animosity, avarice and cynical abuse of religious idiom. The reality is that ever since the Aryan invasion, the Brahminist forces (the so-called upper caste Hindus) have enslaved the masses of India with their brutal ideology. For centuries, all power has remained in the hands of a small group of hereditary exploiters whose lives and interests have always been, and remain today, antagonistic to the welfare of the masses of India.

On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid was martyred, signalling the final end of Muslim security in India. The demolition was no simple matter of vandalism. Behind it lies a long history of Hindutwa politics which celebrates aggression and violence, declares war against other communities, and scorns legal and democratic norms. The Sangh Parivar (family of parties), the intolerant Brahministic chain which comprises the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), and the Bharathiya Janatha Party (BJP), among others, had developed a brutal plan to proclaim its anti-Muslim priorities. The Babri Masjid was chosen as a token victim. The Ram Janmabhoomi agitation was designed to demoralize the Muslims, the Sangh Parivar having decided to express its supremacy by destroying the 464-year-old mosque and constructing a Ram temple in its place.

As the news of the demolition of Babri Masjid spread, a new phase of murderous Hindu-Muslim riots, accompanied by police firing in several places, began. The worst incidents took place in Bombay, Ahmedabad, Banaras and Jaipur. Bombay witnessed two spells of rioting from December 6-12 , 1992 and then from January 7-16, 1993. It is estimated that roughly 227 people died in the December riots and 557 in the January riots.

These were followed by 317 deaths in March 1993, after the serial explosions at the stock exchange in Bombay. The loss to public and personal property was unfathomable with 50,000 people being rendered homeless. Reports reveal that most victims were Muslims, and the police commissioner of Bombay, S. K. Bapat, later acknowledged that the police were active participants in killing Muslims.

Ayodhya, the place where the historic Babri Masjid was bult by the Mughal emporor Babur in 1528, became a site for conflict only in the 19th century. The issue of whether Ayodhya was the birth place of Ram, and whether the Mosque was built over the temple, has left many historians preoccupied. This was a result of a well planned propaganda plotted by the anti-Muslim forces to deny the historical and archaeological evidences favoring the Muslim place of worship. A large section of Hindus were forced to believe that Babur had built the Mosque on the birth place of Ram. The first recorded conflict over Ram Janmabhoomi took place in 1853. After a major armed struggle between the Hindus who occupied the mosque and Muslim who sought to liberate it, it was decided that both the communities should be allowed to worship there, Muslims inside the mosque and Hindus outside it.

After the uprisng of 1857, the British ruled that the respective places of worship of the two communities should be demarcated. The Hindus were allowed to build a raised platform in front of the mosque to commemorate the birth place of Ram. A grill fence was raised between the mosque and the temple. The Babri Masjid-Ram janmabhoomi controversy acquired a new momentum as both the communities put forth rival claims for the control of the mosque. A number of communal incidents rocked the area in 1912-13. There were also major incidents in 1934, when Hindus briefly took over the mosque and destroyed two of the domes.

In 1949, after a concerted Hindu agitation, it was proclaimed that an image of Ramlala (the infant Ram) had appeared inside the mosque. This was regarded as an auspicious omen heralding the recovery of Ram's birth place. The Muslim community protested the illegal placing of idols in the Mosque's inner sanctum, and the State Chief Secretary and the Inspector-General of Police ordered the removal of the idols from the Mosque. However, the district magistrate, conscious of the problems that would follow such an action, locked the Mosque and asked the Imam to leave while allowing puja (Hindu ritual) within the Mosque. Prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru ordered that the idols be removed, but the court countered the order and allowed the puja to continue. In effect, the mosque was shut down.

The Sangh Parivar burst into Indian politics in the 1980's, confirming the final dissolution of the so-called secular spirit that had been hypocritically institutionalized by the first generation leaders of India. The establishment of a Hindu state organized around the liberation of the 'sacred' site at Ayodhya became the dominant symbol in a cluster of ideological formulations that challenged practically all the accepted aspects of secularism — minority rights, freedom of religion and equal citizenship. Ayodhya was transformed into a metaphor for the impoverished spirit of Hindus who could not recover their sacred spaces, for the illegitimacy of minority entitlements, a historical allegory for Muslim invasions, and a spatial one for the construction of the space of a Hindu nation.

The power of this metaphor was so great that events moved rapidly from the mid-1980's onwards. In 1985, the VHP filed a petition demanding a re-opening of the 'disputed structure' for worship by Hindus. The VHP simultaneously restructured and strengthened its organization. In 1984, the Bajrang Dal had been formed at the militant youthwing of the VHP, with the stated intention of recruiting men for militant action for the establishment of a Hindu nation, and for the liberation of the Ram temple. Internationally, the VHP organized a series of conferences to appeal to the Hindu diaspora. Hindus abroad sent huge funds and tons of bricks for the programme.

In 1986, a court ordered that the doors of Babri Masjid be opened and puja permitted there. Muslims were forbidden from offering prayers in their place of worship. Neither the central government nor the state government reversed the decision. But this did not satisfy the Sangh Parivar, who called upon the government to transfer the property rights of the Ayodhya site so that the biggest temple in the world could be built there. The Ram Janmabhoomi became a symbol of resurgent nationhood and the symbol of militant Hindu nationalism intent on recovering its patrimony.

In 1990, L. K. Adwani (one of those charged in the Babri Masjid demolition case and now home minister of India) launched his Rath Yathra from Somnath. Travelling 10,000 km, the Rath Yathra evoked muscular emotion and provoked several communal riots. A group of young men offered Adwani a cup of blood signifying their readiness to achieve martyrdom. On October 30, 1990, members of the Sangh Parivar stormed the mosque and raised a flag above it. Fifty people died in police firing. The rest is history — the demolition of the mosque and the transformation of BJP into a party of government following the'1998 and 1999 elections.

In terms of the rule of law, January 1989 marks a crucial watershed. Meeting on the fringes of the Kumbh Mela in Allahabad, the Dharma Sansad — the VHP's trumped up religious assembly — decided that no earthly power, such as the government or the judiciary, could thwart it in its divine mission of constructing a temple at Ayodhya. And so it proved. Despite all the historical and archaeological evidence, and the laws of the land, 'secular India' could not prevent the destruction of Muslim security in India on December 6, 1992.

Eight years later, neither the judiciary nor the government has been able to settle the issue on democratic or judicial norms. There is no sign of a trial for those charge-sheeted in connection with the demolition, and L K Advani is by no means the only one to be serving in government. Meanwhile, thousands of Muslims are languishing in the jails under the banner of TADA — India's draconian and discriminatory "anti-terrorism" law — ever since the demolition of the mosque occurred.

The Sangh Parvar's call for the demolition of the 464-year-old Mosque was regarded as empty rhetoric until it was translated into a reality on December 6, 1992. Today, it would be a blunder to perceive the campaign for the construction of a Ram temple over the ruins of the historic mosque as mere rhetoric. The VHP gave the construction programme new impetus when it decided in April 2000 to build a huge model of the proposed temple and consecrate it at Karsevakpuram in Ayodhya. The Sangh Parivar is expected to announce a date for starting the construction of the Ram temple very soon. Pillars and other elements of the proposed temple are already being built at various places. The Ram temple juggernaut is all set to roll once again to Ayodhya, this time from the arid terrain of the Thar desert.

In peril are peace and harmony in a vast region through which the proposed yathra of the VHP is to pass, carrying a marble model of the temple it proposes to build at Ayodhya. Besides the marble model is a 30 inch tall, 100kg statue of Ramlala seated on a lotus, is believed to add glamour to the procession. The lotus is the election symbol of BJP and it would be foolish to assume that its use in the statue is a coincidence.

The media, the constitution, the government and the Muslim leadership failed to check the demolition of Muslim Pride eight years ago. Today the threat of the reconstruction of Hindu fanatism is fresh in the temple agenda. The Muslim leadership has so far shown no signs of preparation to accept the challenge of dislodging the attrocities of the Sangh Parivar.

Limits of tolerance in liberal democracies

The West's commitment to liberalism and democracy has always been a convenient faade that falls apart at times of crisis. People have freedom so long as they do not need it; the West is tolerant only to the point that people conform to its prevailing values and policies. Dissent is tolerated only to the extent that the dominant systems do not feel threatened, which is not very far when it comes to Muslims. Any talk about rights and freedoms immediately leads to accusations that Muslims are advocating extremism that threatens the rest of society. Muslims have lived as minorities in Europe and North America for decades, but they are still not accepted as equal citizens. In some European countries, foreign immigrants are denied citizenship rights; in others, where citizenship is granted, they are treated as second or third-class citizens. In the Netherlands, for instance, immigrants applying for citizenship are required to view po*nographic movies to prove that they are sufficiently enlightened to qualify for the honour.

It would be tempting to blame 9/11 for this turn of events, but a systematic campaign to demonize Islam was under way long before that. It got into high gear when it became clear that Soviet forces were about to be defeated in Afghanistan and that the Soviet Union itself was on the verge of collapse. The West needed another enemy, and Muslims were the perfect fit: they were a soft target and thoroughly disorganized. The West, especially the US, found this most convenient as, with few exceptions, Muslim governments were also subservient to the West and the ruling elites were so alienated from the Muslim masses that they could not stand up to US/Western bullying. This still left the issue of Muslims residing in Western societies unresolved. They could raise embarrassing questions about the West's policies, but could not be singled out from the rest of the population in the application of law – until 9/11.

Since 9/11, Muslims have been transformed into the enemy within, with the media acting as cheerleaders for government propaganda. In the US itself, more than 5,000 people have been arrested and abused in detention. Few have ever been charged with any crime, but the image of a terrorist threat from local Muslims has been firmly established in the public imagination. The same has happened in other countries, including Canada, and in Europe. In Britain, for instance, last month the police terrorized a Bangladeshi family in East London, raiding their home and shooting one youth, before later acknowledging that they had no involvement in terrorist activities. This case hit the headlines because of the shooting, but hundreds of similar cases of police harrassment of Muslims in Britain go unreported. The situation is little better in the rest of Europe.

While the immigration of non-white foreigners to European countries has always been an issue, and the US is known for its long history of racism and bigotry against its own African-American population, Canada has traditionally had a reputation for fairness, tolerance and an easy-going lifestyle. It is not an imperial power and has no such pretensions; its policy of multiculturalism is the envy of many. But all this appears to be changing. The manner in which the case of the 17 Muslim youths has been dealt with raises troubling questions about tolerance and the rule of law in Canada. One must point out that Canadians in general are not racists; they come from all backgrounds and cultures, and even the notion of a "typical Canadian" is a little quaint. It is the government and the media that have whipped up a storm about the alleged "homegrown threat" from Muslims. Among the refrains that are being heard with increasing intensity is that Muslims cannot fit in Canadian society, and that Islam and democracy are incompatible. The Canadian government wants to appease Washington because of its economic dependence on Uncle Sam, while the media no longer feel any constraints about printing blatantly Islamophobic cant. The same goes for the broadcast media; on radio and television programmes, the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial are no longer values considered worth upholding.

Perceptive Muslims living in the West have always understood that, as the West's conflict with the Muslim world intensified, they too would come under pressure. Few expected, however, that anti-Muslim feeling would erupt with such ferocious intensity or that they would be targeted so blatantly. Muslims have legitimate concerns about the West's policies vis--vis the Muslim world, to which Canada also now fully subscribes, as its military deployment in Afghanistan confirms. But this is not something peculiar only to Muslims; a majority of Canadians of all backgrounds are opposed to the West's aggression against Muslims. So the question arises: why are Muslims being singled out? The simple answer is that they are an easy target because they are disorganized and ill-prepared to respond to attacks on them. There is, however, an emerging realization among Muslims that unless they change this state of affairs, they will be crushed as a community, and their future generations are unlikely to survive as Muslims, if they are to survive at all.

What remains to be seen is whether Muslims are capable of rising to this challenge.

😕

are these true,or is it one of the "brainwashing" methods 😕 ....I mean,if these are false, then one can understand as to how the terrorists are poisoned....

Iron bhai, didn't Aurangzeb impose Zazia on all non-muslims during his rule which was a kind tax.

I know what I am going to write may not be likened by some, but I am always amazed whenever Muslim Columnists crib about Democracy, how many of Muslim countries have democracy? Most of them are theocracies, citizens have no rights, women are suppressed there, no human-rights, no press freedom, non-muslims are treated shabily.

Doosro ko kosne ki bajay agar apne girebaan mein jhaanke to achha rahega.

Originally posted by: SolidSnake

women are suppressed there, .

LOL solidsnake,zara ise padiye...uska be jawaab hai unke paas😕😆

Global poll exposes the reality about Muslim women's attitudes to Islam and the West

The supposedly inferior position and treatment of women in Islam is often used by Westerners to attack Islam. A recent poll of Muslim women reveals very different attitudes towards their own lives, Islam and the West. WASEEM SHEHZAD reports.

Of all the allegations hurled against Muslims and Islam, one of the most widespread is the alleged mistreatment of Muslim women. The common refrain is that Muslim women are oppressed because they are forced to wear hijab, and are not allowed to work outside the home or mix freely with men. Even a cursory glance at this litany of charges reveals that they relate to Western lifestyles and that the real purpose of the propaganda is to force Muslims, especially women, to adopt Western values and norms. Secular Muslim women have fallen for this line and happily parrot these silly allegations, all the while proclaiming that they have been "liberated" and are not like their domesticated, oppressed sisters because they go to clubs, drink alcohol and have boyfriends. Some even proclaim that they have found nirvana because they have had children out of wedlock and are living with their non-Muslim boyfriends, much like some of their sisters in the Christian and Jewish communities.

Given so much else that is wrong in Muslim societies, Muslims have not yet succeeded in refuting these allegations in a systematic manner, apart from stating that Muslim women are not oppressed and that their different role in society as outlined in the noble Qur'an does not mean that they are inferior or oppressed. The propaganda against Islam and Muslims over this issue is so strong that it has not been effectively challenged. Although Muslims have made little headway against non-Muslim opinion, the Gallup Organization, which conducts surveys to assess people's opinions, has found some startling facts, probably to its own chagrin. In a survey released by the organization on June 6 it reported that it has found that "Muslim women do not think they are conditioned to accept second-class status or view themselves as oppressed," according to Helena Andrews in the New York Times (June 8, 2006).

The Gallup survey also demolished some other cherished Western myths. Expecting that the hijab and burqa (the garment worn by some Muslim women to cover their body and face) would be the number-one villain with Muslim women, the survey asked what they resented most about their own societies. This was a loaded question, intended to elicit a negative response about Muslim societies that would confirm Western prejudices, but "a majority of Muslim women polled said that a lack of unity among Muslim nations, violent extremism, and political and economic corruption were their main concerns," according to the New York Times. Westerners have spent a lifetime trying to "liberate" Muslim women from "oppression" or, as the writer Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak put it so succinctly in Can the Subaltern speak?: "White men saving brown women from brown men". Equally revealing is the Muslim women's response to another Western obsession, namely sex. A clear majority of Muslim women do not see this as a priority because there are other pressing issues in their lives; they regard "sexual equality" as a Western concern. The most frequent response to the question, "What do you admire least about the West?" was the general perception of moral decay, promiscuity and po*nography that pollsters called the "Hollywood image", which is regarded as degrading to women. This was not bearded Muslim men but Muslim women speaking to women pollsters.

The poll was conducted in 2005 by interviewing, face-to-face, 8,000 women in eight predominantly Muslim countries including Pakistan, Lebanon, Egypt and Morocco, none of them ruled by "Muslim fundamentalists". An overwhelming majority of those polled in each country cited "attachment to moral and spiritual values" as the best aspect of their own society. Similarly, a majority of respondents do not think adopting Western values would help the Muslim world's political and economic progress. In Pakistan, 53 percent of the women polled said attachment to their religious beliefs was their country's most admirable trait; in Egypt this percentage was up to 59 percent.

The survey, "What Women Want: Listening to the Voices of Muslim Women," is a part of the Gallup World Poll, which plans to survey 95 percent of the earth's population during the century. In Western mythology, Muslim women are projected as victims of vicious Muslim men, a myth that is also peddled by secularised Muslim women to curry favour with their Western masters. This line is particularly popular with Western-backed non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that have infested Muslim societies in recent years. Their lack of grassroot support has been exposed, for instance, in Afghanistan, where hundreds of NGOs have set up offices ostensibly to help liberate Afghan women from oppression. Since the removal of the Taliban from political power, the plight of Afghan women has worsened; greater numbers are being killed; incidents of rape (unheard of during Taliban rule) have increased, and the abduction and rape of young children has escalated alarmingly. The presence of thousands of Western troops has helped to corrupt and pollute this most traditional society.

In Pakistan, another favourite target of the West's 'liberating' "theology of sexuality", the NGOs have repeatedly been exposed as fronts for Western propaganda and promiscuous behaviour. Even in their professed area of work, such as helping villagers and other poor people, they have been found wanting. Last October, when the devastating earthquake struck Kashmir and Northern Pakistan, Western-backed NGOs that had collected hundreds of thousands of dollars, ostensibly to help the mountain people, were nowhere to be seen. It was the much-maligned bearded Muslim men who were at the scene long before the constipated government machinery moved. While the government and the Pakistan army made pathetic excuses about their lack of action, ordinary people, most of them poor, reached the affected areas on their own and busied themselves in rescue work.

Perhaps, before white men continue their crusade to rescue poor brown women from "oppressive" brown men, they should listen to the voices of real Muslim women, not those who apply heavy makeup, flirt and speak with an affected British accent. The West has a tendency to hear only what it wants to hear, not the truth that is often at variance with its own preconceived notions. Muslim women will not take the West seriously at any level while Westerners carry on not listening.

link:

http://www.muslimedia.com/muswomen-poll.htm

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=71125

😕

There is another problem in India, if someone tries to point out problems in Muslim society, s/he is immedietely branded a communalist. There ain't many moderate muslim voices and certainly not in political spectrum.

Originally posted by: Iron

See Buffie..since they are minoority and these incident do raise eyes towards them and that is why they feel insecure. I did not realize it till we faced it our self in US after 9/11 attack. As most americans not knowing difference between Hindus and muslims and afgans were targeting either of them. so the ladies were being told not to wear their traditional dress for a while too. Althogu i also live in a great neighbour and in kind of quiet countryside..but i could feel some tension. At that time I realized how insecure it is to be minority. SO now I feel more bad for our true muslims who have no hand in these kind of Jihads. But I do know why they feel insecure.

That's understandable..Finally,all that the terrorists achieve is the tarring of all people of their community black...

Apparently,the muslims find it hard to get apartments in Mumbai....But then,after the 93 blasts and the 06 blasts,its really quite hard to distinguish between the true partiots and the quislings....Its hard on them,i know,but its men of their own community who are responsible for their plight

good topic,
i dont know much about indian history since i wasnt raised in india but i do know that my dad was in RSS back in the 80's and they had brainwashed him into thinking all christians and muslims were evil people. He left after a year of joining the RSS. He said that the leaders often bribed the young people, promising them glorification and other things like that. He told me that it was the worst experience of his life.