गुरुवार, 7 सितंबर 2017

समाजकी आनुवांशिक स्मृति

समाजशास्त्र व मानसशास्त्र दोनोंमें यह सिद्धांत आता है कि जब कोई समाज किसी बहुत बडे सुख या दुखकी घटनाको एकसाथ झेलता है तब उस पूरे समाजकी एक आनुवांशिक स्मृति बनती है जो अगली कई पीढीयोंमें एक आनुवांशिक गुणसुत्रके रूपमें उतरती है। जाने-अनजाने वे पीढीयाँ उस सुख या त्रासदीको लेकर चलती हैं।

रामजन्मका आनंद, रामके वनगमनका दुख और वनवाससे लौटनेकी खुशियाँ जो कई हजार वर्षोंसे लोगोंकी कथा-गीतों-नाट्यमंचनमें उभरी हैं वे केवल एक वाल्मिकी-रामायणके रच जानेसे नही, बल्कि इसलिये कि वह वास्तविक घटनाएँ थीं जिसे लोगोंने सहभागिता पूर्वक झेला है।
रामके वास्तविक इतिहास-पुरुष होनेका यह एक समाजशास्त्रीय प्रमाण है। यही प्रमाण कृष्ण व महाभारत के लिये भी उपलब्ध है। 

रही बात राम या कृष्णके अवतारी पुरुष होनेकी। उसके प्रमाणके निकष कुछ अन्य होंगे। वह फिर कभी।
-- ्अपूर्ण 
कदाचित निम्नलिखित त्रासदी  ही वह कारण है जो धर्म-वापसीकी सुषुप्त इच्छा जगाती है और जो बचे रहे उनमें कुछ और भावनाएँ संचरित होती हैं।

Ronnie Mendonca [TheBecoming]

Copied from another discussion group:

The Good, bad and the ugly. These are the three categories I will use to explain the Muslim mindset and practice 

The "good" Muslim

The first category is that of good Muslims.  By good I mean true believers—those who follow the teachings of their prophet, the Quran and the Sunnah to the letter, who try to emulate him in every way and are strict and pious Muslims.  Since the teachings and the examples of Muhammad are full of violence and terror, the more one follows and emulates him the more radical one becomes. Muhammad raided and butchered people merely because they were not his followers. The good Muslims do the same.  All the bombings and terrorism perpetrated by Muslims are replicas of Muhammad’s raids, or "ghazwa", as he called them.  Taking Women as sex slaves, which the Islamic State and Boko Haram practice was also practiced by Muhammad and he sanctioned it in the Quran (33:50; 23: 1-6; 70:30; 4:24; 66:1-2).  He ordered the assassination of his critics stoning the adulterers, chopping the hands of thieves and killing the apostates.  So, the terrorists are actually good Muslims.

The "bad" Muslim 

The second category is of bad Muslims.  These are those who don’t practice their religion and are often ignorant of it.  They may pray or chant the Quran, but have no clue of its content.  They read it for sawab (reward) without understanding it.  These Muslims are ordinary people we all know.  Like everybody else, some are good and some are not so good. Some of them are friendly, but they see themselves as superior, by virtue of their faith, and of “higher morals.”

Morality in Islam has nothing to do with what others understand by this word.  Morality for Women is to cover their hair lest it arouse sexual feelings in men.  For Men, it is not to shake hands with Muslim women lest it arouse them sexually, or not to masturbate, etc. Morality in Islam is primarily about genitals and their use.  For example, while having sex out of marriage is considered immoral, stoning people caught in such act is not immoral. While looking at bare arms and legs of Muslim women is considered immoral, raping non-Muslim women is not immoral.  Homosexuality is immoral, but pedophilia is not.

These Muslims migrate to the West to better their lives, but they segregate themselves, form isolated communities and warn their Children to not learn the ways of Unbelievers or take them as Friends unless they intend to convert them to Islam.  They give huge amounts of money to charity.  But Islamic charity has nothing to do with charity.  All that money goes to build mosques, print Islamic materials and promote Islam.  If any of that is spent for the needy, it is to enlist them for jihad or support the families of the suicide bombers.  The bad Muslims are the lifeline of Islam and the breeding ground for good Muslims.  All Muslim terrorists, unless they are converts, are born in and emerge from this group.  Without the moral and financial support of the bad Muslims Islam will cease to exist.

The "ugly" Muslim

Then we have the ugly Muslims.  As we learned the good Muslims are not good at all, and the bad ones are not really bad people, the ugly Muslims actually look beautiful.  Islam is a world down the rabbit hole.  Nothing is what it is because everything is what it is not.  The ugly Muslims are clean-shaven, handsome or attractive, eloquent, articulate, and highly intelligent, just the kind of people you want to hang around with.  They are journalists, professors, regular guests and contributors to mainstream media.  They know what to say to gain your approval and your applause.  They are charming.  Their words are reassuring and their faces are familiar.  You like them and trust them.  So why do I call them ugly?  Because they lie! Their job is to deceive you and to make you believe that the “real Islam” poses no threat to you.  These wolves in sheep clothing are the most dangerous group.  Deception is deadlier than terror.  Do you fear more a ferocious animal that you can see or a deadly virus that you can’t?  The enemy within is a lot more dangerous.

Unlike the bad Muslims, the ugly ones are not ignorant of their religion.  They know of Muhammad’s raids, rapes, assassinations, genocides, tortures, beheadings, but they deny them, twist the facts and defend him.  They accuse the good Muslims of having hijacked their religion of peace when they know they lie. They claim to be Reformers when they know that Islam cannot be reformed.  Islam is what it is.  To reform Islam one has to change the Quran.  Over 70% of it must be scrapped, and the other 30% is just sheer nonsense.

These self-styled Reformers don’t want to change the Quran.  They just want Muslims to practice it less.  In theory it works.  Even the deadliest poison in small doses is not lethal. But how can they convince all Muslims to not take their holy book seriously?  This project is doomed from the start.  This is either naiveté and wishful thinking, or a ruse to deceive the non-Muslims, to give them false hope so they can buy more time for Islam to take over the world, which is the goal of every Muslim, the good, the bad and the ugly."

Ex Muslims United

From: devindersingh gulati <>
To: iftekhar.hai <>; Msa40 <>
Sent: Tue, Sep 5, 2017 8:59 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Att: Hindu Haters of Islam: Re: Do you respect the Quran?

The Vulgar meaning (see the preceding post) of Quran has been implemented by most Muslims in power.

Dr. Koenraad Elst in his article “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” states:
“There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like punishing the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty.
The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526).”
He also writes in his book “Negation in India”:
“The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter.”
Will Durant have argued in his 1935 book “The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage” (page 459):
“The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period.”
Francois Gautier in his book ‘Rewriting Indian History’ (1996) wrote:
“The massacres perpetuated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese.”
Writer Fernand Braudel wrote in A History of Civilizations (1995), that Islamic rule in India as a
“colonial experiment” was “extremely violent”, and “the Muslims could not rule the country except by systematic terror. Cruelty was the norm – burnings, summary executions, crucifixions or impalements, inventive tortures. Hindu temples were destroyed to make way for mosques. On occasion, there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burnt, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves.”
Alain Danielou in his book, Histoire de l’ Inde writes:
“From the time, Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of ‘a holy war’ of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races.”
Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:
“While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.
Mughals hacking children apart, wax statue reenactment in India.
Islamic methods of punishment in India.
“Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage…”
A sample of contemporary eyewitness accounts of the invaders and rulers, during the Indian conquests
The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 – 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ – written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns: “The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at the Indian city of Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it…the infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river…but many of them were slain, taken or drowned… Nearly fifty thousand men were killed.”
In the contemporary record – ‘Taj-ul-Ma’asir’ by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko – Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.
The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book ‘Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar’ that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twenty thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.

कोई टिप्पणी नहीं: