Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Sir, When you speak about insaaf and 'taking the perspective of history' AND

SATISFYING the claims and/or Needs of various parties in conflict, please do not
forget that

1. one or more of the parties must be amenable to a solution. Not everyone is like
you, and specifically, ISLAM is NOT built for solutions. It has history of
claiming the right to be the supreme truth, beginning from its prophet, who a
priori claimed his right to be the most perfect messenger of a god. You know the
details. As a lawyer, you must agree with the principle of falsifiability.

Let us return to this prophet. Whenever a situation arose, he apparently received

some inspiration that instantly became the binding truth for that moment and for
all time, for his followers. As a Muslim, you also have to agree on this most
important point. Do you or do you not? You have to make this clear, without the
slightest equivocation for any successful dialogue. And the same applies with any
negotiation, or any INSAAF!!

(This very dear lady, Jasleen, herself is probably not aware of the development of
the creation and development of the SIKH identity in British India, a point worth
mentioning in the same breath as INSAAF, since Toronto is a hotbed of Khalistani
sentiments and Khalistani legislators. An Air-India jumbo jet from Toronto was
blown out of the sky by these people, and the Canadian government, including those
sheltered by Trudeau seem not too keen on hunting out the perpetrators. We know how
excellent the RCMP, etc. are when given a free hand. Why is it when Hindus are
involved, INSAAF suddenly becomes loaded with ifs, ands, buts? and the irony is,
SIKHS have forgotten their own history, from 1903 onwards. SAD! Shiromani Akali
Dal, SAD!)

Note well, Barrister sahib , this point: that prophet and his followers INSISTED
that any direct command DURING THE LIFETIME by that self-proclaimed perfect and
ultimate prophet was punishable by instant death, and this was rigidly followed to
the letter. E.g. the tribe of Bani Qurayz. And the details are well-described,
point by point.

So, let alone the morality, there is the peculiar problem of being able to move the
goalpost, and ALWAYS to your own advantage. You can go back to as peculiar an issue
of one of the prophet's companions creeping around and spying on the prophet's wife
defecating. First of all, what business had he doing so? And, btw, the prophet
never pulled him up for this obvious malafide perversion, spying on women in their
private affairs, in a bedouin society where ALL SUCH MATTERS WOULD ALREADY HAVE
BEEN WELL_ESTABLISHED BY CONVENTION for thousands of generations. Barrister Saheb,
do you get this very vital point? A nomadic society already would have well-
established rules of toilet for their male and female sexes, as well as social
conduct well-hammered out, since these units cannot afford internal friction. Do
you agree? And why was this man, a mature warrior, spying on his guru's wife at her
toilet? Is that a moral or defensible position? You work it out?

And this swine's guru, the perfect prophet, instead of thinking through that
situation, has a conference with his god, and comes back with a revelation, that
has led tot he hijab, the niqb, the burqa, and the many difficult civil society
rules and arguments of freedom of the person, or the right of the woman, etc. So I
am not cherry picking, but bringing up a point which has had huge reverbrations,
from France, to Belgium, to so many countries. The right to cover faces in public,
the right to vote with covered faces, passport photos, and so many, many legal
issues, BARRISTER SAHIB. WHEN YOU SPEAK OF INSAAF, and of settling disputes that
satisfy all parties, I am bringing up a point asking WHAT IF THOSE PARTIES DIG IN
THEIR HEELS BASED UPON THIS man, who knows it all, and his followers who feel it is
their sole right to inherit the world, and to change it to their own ways, or their
prophet's ways?

ALL MUSLIMS who are momin, must believe the sunnah that they either MUST live in a
land that is under the sharia or live where they are actively engaged in bringing
about change towards sharia-controlled dominion, or bring those other under jizya.
Nowhere can a momin exist without one of these 3 conditions being fulfilled. You
may be a leftist liberal and also claim to be a Muslim at the same time, but not
everyone will agree. Please listen to what the Ahle Hadees people are saying all
the time, and they are the real Muslims, as far as most Indian Muslims are
concerned, most of whom believe the HUZURS! Especially the Indian Muslims of the
Diaspora, and with a vengeance!! You are sitting in Canada and pretend not to
understand this?????? The most insanely radical Muslims are the "indian" origin
scoundrels in North America and EU.

DIALOGUE, by its etymology, DIA=across, logos = communication, necessarily implies

a CHASM, a gap to be bridged, and communication across that gap. But if one party
is already convinced that only they have the absolute truth on their side, that
they have a divinely-ordained mandate, then there cannot be any DIALOGUE, ever.
Take the case of JERUSALEM. For the Jews, this is the single focus that has kept
them alive for thousands of years despite many displacements, from the Assyrians to
the WWII, to USSR. And, now they come across Muslims who claim an inalienable righ
to the precise area they consider their most sacred! There cannot be any dialogue.
However, the Muslims cannot accept any Jewish claims on MEDINA, no matter how
strong those claims are, e.g. the BANI QURAYZ, and the absolute injustice done to
the latter. What INSAAF are you talking about, Honored Sir? For ISLAM, WHAT IS

What INSAAF are you arguing about BARRISTER SAHEB? Are you talking out of two sides
of your mouth? Please be totally honest or do not pretend to be urbane and just.
Are you willing to say, without equivocation, that ISLAM MUST ALSO recognize that
what was conquered by the sword, can be either re-conquered by the sword OR can be
required to be adjusted according to humane laws as per the present situation?

In the case of the LATTER, Kashmir becomes very simple: go to point 2.

2. There needs to be an exhaustive, i mean exhaustive understanding of the role of


NO interlocutor, including the scoundrel Karan Singh, is sufficiently well-versed

in this history, to be a responsible actor. NONE. There are many such scholars, but
they are not politicians and nor are they activists of any sort. None of the
historians active on any side of the debate have any depth. So there is the need to
first train up a group IN DEPTH. A. D. RAFIQUI, SUFISM IN KASHMIR, now sadly not
read by anyone I know, provides a glimpse into the type of scholarship that will be
needed, from both the Hindu and Muslim sides. Plus there needs to be a deep
understanding of the Buddhist SIDES, which is also missing from both the other two.
First let us understand the terrible trauma of the HINDUS and BUDDHISTS IN DEPTH.
Barrister Saheb, try to internalize a horror: NOT ONE, NOT ONE BUDDHIST SANSKRIT
the post-Muslim invasion, 1207, the destruction of Nalanda and of Vikramashila,
which is story by itself. The Vikramashila event reverbrates still among Vajrayana
and amongst Shaktas in Bangabhumi like myself, just as much as the HOLOCAUST does
among Jews. SICKULAR Indians are deracinated Shaitan ke aulaad, thinking in
English. We are NOT, Barrister Saheb. And without connecting with us, NO PROBLEM

“Islam, this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which

poisons our lives”.———Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Father of the Turkish nation.
and Sir Winston Churchill is a CHRISTIAN name
"Islam in man is as dangerous as rabies in a dog". Sir Winston Churchill
and Xi Jinping is a BUDDHIST name
"Islam is a contagious ideological illness". Xi Jinping. General Secretary of the
Communist Party of China
the world hates you and your Prophet

May you live long and continue with your great programs on TAG TV. Shubhamastu.
Hare Srinivasa