Abolish Wakf & therefore abolish Islam itself

[This is a piece I got from the net. I have commented on it within red brackets a.] ABOLISH WAKF & THEREFORE ABOLISH ISLAM ITSELF Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Wakf Board on March. 9, 2005 claimed that the Taj Mahal was a religious place of Muslims and demanded it be taken out of control of Archaeological Survey of India and declared a wakf property. [Is Taj Mahal a mosque?] Mohd Usman, Chairman of the Board, told reporters here that since the Taj Mahal has the grave of Mughal emperor Shahjahan and a mosque, [Where within the Taj Mahal precincts is there a mosque? If the Taj Mahal is a graveyard, does it make it a mosque?] it is a religious place for the Muslim community [Are graveyards religious palces of Muslims?] and therefore it should be a wakf property and not under ASI [How did the ASI come to acquire it?]. The Board has issued notices to the Central government and the ASI in this connection and says that the Board is planning to take a ex-parte decision on March 30, 2005 to register the monument as waqf property if the ASI and Centre government fail to appear before it. This issue has brought forward the need for abolishing Wakf. The Wakf is the biggest urban landlord in India which the outcome of conquest on India and includes some 30,000 temples that were turned in to mosques. The institution of Wakf was abolished by the caliph of all Sunni Islam and the Ottoman Emperor in 1917 and thus, there are no Wakfs in Turkey, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. In 1956, Wakf was abolished in Tunisia. During 19th century an Indian dispute over the Wakf was declared to be invalid by the British judges and they described the Wakf as "a perpetuity of the worst and the most pernicious kind". Yet Jinnah persuaded the Legislative Council in Delhi to pass the Wakfs Act of 1913 and we are suffering its ill effects even now. India is the result of the merger of 565 princely states, at the time of Independence, that owned their respective principalities and Wakf Act on these constituents is an aberration of law. All these years, the temple issues were treated as a property dispute. With Wakf being brought in the issue of Bhojshala at Dhar, Taj Mahal, and for Ayodhya it may viciate the relations between the communities and 1946 may revisit us. So GOI should take steps to abolish Wakf Act.Another historic aspect that is not told in our classes is that Taj Mahal was a Vedic Temple and its construction and photographs prove the point. Taj Mahal, is considered as one of the great wonders of the world. It was supposed to have been built as an expression of Shah Jahan’s love for his wife Mumtaz. Yet there is evidence that the Taj Mahal was never built by Shah Jahan and Taj Mahal pre-dates Shah Jahan by several centuries and was originally built as a Hindu temple or palace complex. Shah Jahan merely acquired it from its previous owner, the Hindu King Jai Singh. the photographic evidence that will provide greater insights into this. The point to consider is how much more of India's history has been distorted if the background of such a grand building is so inaccurate.Archaeology Survey of India (ASI) has been researching the evidence that proves the Taj Mahal and many other buildings were not of Muslim origin, and those interested can read "The Question of the Taj Mahal" (Itihas Patrika, vol 5, pp. 98-111, 1985) by P. S. Bhat and A. L. Athavale. It uncovers the reasons for the rumors and assumptions of why it is said that Shah Jahan built the Taj Mahal, and presents all the inconsistencies of why that theory doesn't hold up. It also covers such things as the descriptions found in the old Agra court papers on the Taj; descriptions and measurements of the building in the old records; Aurangzeb's letter of the much needed repairs even in 1632 which is unlikely for a new building; records that reveal Shah Jahan acquired marble but was it enough for really building the Taj or merely for inlay work and decorative coverings; the observations of European travelers at the time; the actual age of the Taj; how the architecture is definitely of Indian Hindu orientation and could very well have been designed as a Shiva temple; the issue of the arch and the dome; how the invader Timurlung (1398) took back thousands of prisoner craftsmen to build his capital at Samarkhand and where the dome could have been incorporated into Islamic architecture; how it was not Shah Jahan's religious tolerance that could have been a reason for Hindu elements in the design of the Taj; how the direction of the mosque does not point toward Mecca as most mosques do; [this is something of a clinching evidence if it is a fact that all mosques 'point' towards Mecca. If there are exceptions, why?] the real purpose of the minarets at the Taj; the Hindu symbolism recognized in the Taj which would not have been allowed if it was truly Muslim built; and even as late as 1910 the Encyclopaedia Britannica included the statement by Fergusson that the building was previously a palace before becoming a tomb for Shah Jahan; and more. "An Architect Looks at the Taj Mahal Legend" by Marvin Mills, is a great review of the information available on the Taj Mahal and raises some very interesting questions that make it obvious that the Taj could not have been built the way or during the time that history presents, which makes it more like a fable than accurate history. This suggests a construction date of 1359 AD, about 300 years before Shah Jahan. The True Story of the Taj Mahal. This article by P. N. Oak (from Pune, India) provides an overview of his research and lists his 109 proofs of how the Taj Mahal was a pre-existing Hindu temple palace, built not by Shah Jahan but originally at least 500 years earlier in 1155 AD by Raja Paramardi Dev as a Vedic temple. Mr. P. N. Oak is another who has done much research into this topic, and such a study is hardly complete without considering his findings. The evidence he presents here is a most interesting read, whether you agree with it all or not, or care for some of the anger in his sentiment. Mr. Oak has presented his own conclusions in his books, most notably Taj Mahal--The True Story (ISBN: 0-9611614-4-2). The Letter of Aurangzeb ordering repairs on the old Taj Mahal in the year just before it is said to have been completed. The Badshahnama is the history written by the Emporer's own chronicler. This page shows how Aurangzeb had acquired the Taj from the prevous owner, Jai Singh, grandson of Raja Mansingh, after selcting this site for the burial of Queen Mumtaz. This site http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A5220 gives the BBC's view on the Taj Mahal and briefly explains both sides of the story, that maybe Shah Jahan built the Taj and maybe he didn't. [The writer should expand this article by giving a brief history of how the Wakf Board came about and what's its constitutional validity today].

Burning of Missionaries

Death sentence for murdering the Australian missionaries? Death sentence for killing invading foreign soldiers? If defending national sovereignty is sacrosanct, then why not defending religious sovereignty? Isn’t there a law that says that killing in self-defence is not murder?

Many would say that defending the nation is appropriate but defending religion likewise is amiss because religions ought to ever be in a flux, with people being free to seek refuge in whichever religion they fancy whenever they want. Religious conversions, therefore, say such people, is the order of a free society.

I ask, is not religious conversion based on the premise that one religion is better than another? It might be that individuals might prefer this or that religion. But the culture should be an acceptance of all religions being valid, each in its own way. Therefore mankind should celebrate its various religions, not propogating one religion to the denigration of all others.

28.01.05

Padma Shree for Gladys Stains. For conversions? I think such an award should have been given to Dara Singh, the symbol of opposition to conversions. Conversion is born out of the belief that one’s religion is the only true religion. This is not Hindu thinking. All religions are so many different ways to the same goal. And then again they talk about secularism? According to them it has two definitions – sarvadharma samabhava and separation of state and religion. On both these counts only Hinduism passes muster. In fact secularism is an uniquely Hindu vision. And to think that Nehru has been getting the credit for secularism!

Corruption and Education

09.06.06

According to me, so long as we are materialists (that is, dependent on the external), we cannot but end up being corrupt. We have to be spiritual (dependent on the power within ourselves - i.e. 'in-dependent') to be free from all forms of corruption. Corruption begins with the feeling of lack and in truth this is an erroneous feeling because this feeling is based on ignorance. Our search for ending our perceived lack continues till we realise that there never was, is or will be a lack in us – for we are as perfect as the idea of perfection we have. Understanding this is true education. Today what goes on in the name of education is simply a training in technology – training in all sorts of methods to eradicate the sense of want that is nagging us. How can our training and technology help us when in actual fact we have no need for them?

And so on and so forth goes the argument. A very boring subject really, but a vital subject none-the-less. Traditionally Indian culture has called this subject Vedanta. So, according to me, if we want to make education corruption free, we must be teaching/learning the Vedantic principles. Swami Sukhabodhananda, I can make out from his talks on TV, is a great teacher of Vedanta. Lok Hith should think of inviting persons like him to talk. (There might be a problem here because ‘secular’ folks might say that he is preaching Hinduism. But if we understand that quintessential Hinduism is nothing but the art of freedom, then such ‘secular’ folks might see Hinduism in a new light). If we call any non-Vedantic speakers, they would only be talking of proper action. The effect would be to simply make corruption an ordered thing so that we don’t feel guilty about corruption. We need speakers who understand that the problem cannot be solved by any type of action, but by an understanding – an awakening to our true self and the reality.