Philosophy Amazing Grace

Philosophy Amazing Grace
There is no doubt we live in a fast-paced society that does not show any signs of slowing down any time soon. To relieve some of the stress associated with always being on the go, many people have turned to online to find ways of pampering themselve and looking good. Here at A Woman"s Place Too.com we offer a variety of skin care services, which are listed above. Use this list to help you determine what products you may be interested in. We bring you the latest break throughs in skin care technology at an affordable price. We are committed to helping you improve and maintain skin wellness. Our focus is on anti-aging treatments and looking younger and more beautiful without surgery. Specialty products include laser hair removal, microderm abrasion, Acne Blemish Control, Aromatherapy, Cellulite Treatments, Massage items, Anti-Aging Products, and finally Scar & Stretch mark Reduction. We hope you enjoy our treatments and enjoy shopping!

Replying the Wrong Quotes on Hinduism

Onslaught on Hinduism

True meaning of Religion known to Non-Hindus

INTRODUCTION

I have, mentioned in nearly every chapter, the wrong notion people carry about Hinduism. This chapter is dedicated to answer to specific people, who have tried to bring their religion on top of Hinduism. Though, Hinduism does not teach to attack, it helps to bind people to God and Humanity, supports any methodology that is harmless and helpful to the society and is based on methodologies that unite people on their diversities, diversities being the basis of existence. Yet, people have tried to take out occasional incidences and outspread it as a hype of common Hindu practice. Arrogantly and enviously, they have cut out Hindu texts from actual context and tried to convince the world that Hinduism is a religion, with lots of pitfalls, wrong beliefs and blind faith. While Hinduism as a religion has never attempted to have comparative education, these leaders have forced Hinduism to become comparative. In the sections to follow, we will analyze how this great religion was attacked and is still under onslaught of various devastating forces.

HISTORICAL ATTACKS ON HINDUISM

We cannot go and elaborate each and every event of history in this book and hence, we will have quick background of how people of the eternal religion had suffered massacres and tortures by the invaders to India forcing their beliefs and practices from centuries.

Threat to ‘Sanatan Dharma’ started with Islamic invasion long back since 800 A.D. Will Durant says in his 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 of 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’

French Journalist François Gautier says:

‘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’

Any historian as they know history, can see the figure in below table and understand what is has been happening to the country called ‘Bharat’ or ‘Hindustan’ or now India – a country every peaceful for the world, a country which is still majority of Hindus, Hindus that seem to be living as refugees in their own motherland – this book is a dedication to all of them.

Data relating to Attacks on Hindus:

Muhammad Ghazni (997 – 1030): Killed more than 50,000 Hindus, river at Thanesar was foaming with blood, people not able to drink the water

Muhammad Ghori (Around 1192): Slaughtered 20,000 Hindus and their heads offered to crow

Qutab-Ud-Din-Aibak (Around 1206): Slaughtered around 50,000 people, slaved 20,000

Badauni in 1254: Killed every male visible above the age of 8 and bound the women.

Firoz Shah Tughlaq (1360): Attacked an island on the sea-coast where "nearly 100,000 men of Jajnagar had taken refuge with their women, children, kinsmen and relations". The swordsmen of Islam turned "the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers". A worse fate overtook the Hindu women. Sirat-i-Firuz Shahs records: "Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered and enchained, and pressed as slaves into service in the house of every soldier."

Timurlane (December 1398): Ordered the execution of at least 100,000 captives before the battle of Delhi, and after the battle those who had not been killed were taken as slaves

During Timur's invasion in 1399 he quotes the Quran in his Tuzk-i-Timuri: "O Prophet, make war upon the infidels and unbelievers, and treat them severely." He continues: "My great object in invading Hindustan had been to wage a religious war against the infidel Hindus...[so that] the army of Islam might gain something by plundering the wealth and valuables of the Hindus." To start with he stormed the fort of Kator on the border of kashmir. He ordered his soldiers "to kill all the men, to make prisoners of women and children, and to plunder and lay waste all their property".

By now Timur had captured 100,000 Hindus. As he prepared for battle against the Tughlaq army after crossing the Yamuna, his Amirs advised him "that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolators and enemies of Islam at liberty". Therefore, "no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword". Tuzk-i-Timuri continues: "I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death."

Bahamani Sultans (1347 – 1528): Killed around 1,00,000 Hindus.

Akbar (1556 – 1605): Emperor Akbar ordered the massacre of about 30,000 (captured) Rajput Hindus on February 24, 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod. Another reference indicates that this massacre of 30,000 Hindu peasants at Chitod is recorded by Abul Fazl, Akbar's court historian himself. The Afghan historian Khondamir records that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, 1,500,000 residents perished.

Centuries later, the same fanatical bloodlust that drove tyrannical Muslim emperors and their generals into an orgy of slaughter and destruction continues to this day in Kashmir.

To classify with an example about the Barbarism faced by Hindus, a quote from ‘Tarikh-i-Firuz Shah written during Firuz Shal Tughlak’ says:

‘An order was accordingly given to the Brahman and was brought before Sultan. The true faith was declared to the Brahman and the right course pointed out. but he refused to accept it. A pile was risen on which the Kaffir with his hands and legs tied was thrown into and the wooden tablet on the top. The pile was lit at two places his head and his feet. The fire first reached him in the feet and drew from him a cry and then fire completely enveloped him. Behold Sultan for his strict adherence to law and rectitude’

Millions of Hindus were butchered including children and women, tens of thousands of their temples demolished during the Muslim rule in India. Hindus have seen the biggest slaughter of Humans ever known to the world and even today they are facing it in its fullest form, clouded under political and national boundaries. No other religion is as peaceful and tolerant as Hindus, no other religion is as matured as Hindus and no other religion has embraced any other religion as Hindus – and hence it is said that if God have ever come to land, He has come for Hindus and if He has to come again, he would come for Hindus – because it is only the Hindus who has understood God and shown their understanding over time through their sustained maturity and love towards even the Butchers. It is not that Hindus were not great fighters, instead they were not cowards – how can it be that the land of Gods would be devoid of bravery. Their bravery starts from holding the capacity to forgive even demons and allowing them to grow up as a human, and the one of the best example is Prithvi Raj Chauhan (who defeated and forgave Md. Ghori 16 times, but 17th time with help of Jaychand when Mr. Ghori won he did not hesitate to show his devilish character – a character Hindus would never have in their Hindu leaders). Hindus were the hardest fighters and the most valiant men world would ever see. Right from the existence, Hindus have shown unparallel courage. Mahabharat depicts many such realities. But Hindus were not cowards, they were not political and they were not among those who attacked hideously. India would not have seen the devilish face of Mughals, had Prithivi Raj achieved the union of Jaichand. Mughals would have again been overthrown had Mahrana Sanga been not deceived by Babur. Bravery is the property of the soil of India. It is defeated by treachery at times, but it again erupts to stand for the cause of Hinduism on this land.

In fact, tolerance of Hindus is itself a sign of bravery, which when it turns to battle never allows the enemy so easy to get across. True men are brave men. Hinduism is truth, and hence Hindus are the bravest on earth and their bravery is first reflected through their tolerance. Anyway, it would look unnecessary boasting as recent History has gone against Hindus, disintegrating them and then winning over them though. Even today, no religion stands near to Hinduism, no religious leader has courage to face Hindu saints and so they attack the lower section of the illiterate Hindu society to deceive and force conversions – a cowardly act full of inhuman activities.

ISLAM AGAINST HINDUISM

To understand the biased and conspiracies created against Hinduism, by other religious groups we would start with and elaborate writings and speeches of one of the most known Islamic leader of current days – Dr. Zakir Naik. In his book, ‘Concept of God in Major Religion’ he has said a lot about Hinduism. I will not comment on whatever he has said about his own religion and all other religion other than Hinduism, as Hinduism do not teach me to do so. My focus would be purely to expose the facts about the notions created by him against Hinduism. He writes:

‘The Aryan religions are further sub-divided into Vedic and non-Vedic religions. The Vedic religion is given the misnomer of Hinduism or Brahminism. The non-Vedic religions are Sikkhism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. Almost all Aryan religions are non-Prophetic religions.’

I would not comment on his categorization as Aryan religions and the divisions that he has made, as he has simply done this as other Western Historians. But, I would note, the use of word ‘Brahminism’ as a synonym of ‘Hinduism’ and calling them both as misnomer. First of all, did Dr. Naik at all understand the meaning of Brahminism – probably not? The way he mentioned this clearly implies that he has tried to correlate it with casteism, while ‘Brahminism’ in Hinduism clearly relates to ‘Brahma’ – the creator of Universe. We would anyway try to find out ahead in his book, if he has supported his perception in any form. Additionally, he has categorically told that Sikkhism, Buddhism and Jainism are not Vedic religions. He saying so clearly reflects from Hindu point of view that he knows neither of these religions in their true shape – they all are Vedic religions, as their philosophy is no different from Vedas. They may have developed their own base books, but the philosophy of these religions do not go against the constructive part of Vedas. In fact, if Dr. Naik had known Veda, he would have understood that even Islam is not outside the scope of Veda – only thing is that Islam have adopted in majority the destructive (‘Tamasika’) part of natural laws as described in Vedas.

Coming ahead in his book, in the chapter ‘Concept of God in Hinduism’, he has started with a description about ‘Hindu’ being the name given to inhabitants of people beyond Indus Valley – like other Historians. I have talked a lot on this under the chapter ‘Myth of Truth’ and just brief here that Hinduism is no religion known to Hindus, as the word Hindu or Hinduism is no where found in any of the Hindu scriptures – this name itself, including Brahminism is a deceit to the world about this eternal religion called as ‘Sanatan Dharma’.

Going ahead, he states:

‘Hinduism is commonly perceived as a polytheistic religion. Indeed, most Hindus would attest to this by professing belief in a multitude of Gods. Some Hindus believe in the system of three Gods, while some Hindus actually believe in the existence of thirty-three crore. However, learned Hindus who are well versed with their scriptures insist that a Hindu should believe in and worship only one God.’

Dr. Naik has produced three different views about Hindus, not based on the Hindu scriptures, but based on what he thinks is practiced and is known through the western Historians. I have addressed in detail about Hinduism as a polytheist religion in the chapter ‘Idolatry and 33 Crore Gods of Hindus’. Here, I just reiterate that the perception that Hindus believe in multitude of Gods or three Gods are ignorance of Dr. Naik about Hinduism and he should go through my chapter ‘A Hindu God’ to understand the actual Hindu God.

‘The major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim perception of God is the common Hindus’ belief in the philosophy of Pantheism. Pantheism considers everything, living and non-living to be divine and sacred. The Hindus therefore consider the trees, the sun, the moon, the animals and even the human beings as manifestations of God. For the common Hindu, everything is God.

Islam, on the contrary, exhorts man to consider himself and his surroundings as examples of divine creation rather than a divinity itself. Muslims therefore believe that everything is Gods’ i.e., God with an apostrophe‘s’. In other words we believe that everything belongs to God. The trees, the sun, the moon and everything in this (Universe belong to God).

Thus, the major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim beliefs is difference of the apostrophe’s’. The Hindus say everything is God. The Muslims says everything is Gods’, the God with an apostrophe’s’.

This is where I got impelled to write down an explanation to his writing. He is clearly reflecting his understanding of Islam being superior to Hinduism. No Hindu believes in such comparison and focuses on simply concentrating on God, unlike above ideology where the fight begins. How can God be superior or inferior, no matter how you call him – and this broad understanding is Hindu ideology, which is given a name of Pantheism? Moreover, developing an understanding of superiority and enforcing on others understanding is a sign of arrogance, a human nature under ‘Tamasika’ or destructive aspect, as said earlier.

But since Dr. Naik has brought this point, I am thankful to him as this point would clarify, why and how Hindus are more correct in their understanding of everything as a manifestation of God. Though this is elaborated in the chapter ‘The Hindu God’, I would still brief to clarify the wrong notion. First thing, if everything is Gods’ (an apostrophe’s’), then it implies that God is an entity (materialist) who owns everything. The attitude to own is human nature and hence by saying so that everything belongs to God, it reflects that God is like a king among many others like him, who owns this Universe (one of the many) as a property – a classical example of closed and materialistic thinking, binding God to materialistic behaviors, though the religion says God is not material and infinite. This also implies that God being the owner is a different and separate entity than the creations. While Islam stops thinking here, Hindus have gone beyond to think more on this. And starts asking simple questions: ‘How do you say that everything is Gods’? Is it because, Islam believes God created this Universe? Who is this God? How has he produced this material (Universe), if he is immaterial?

The law of conservation of mass and energy in a more universal form was laid down with proof by Hindu science thousands of years before modern science understood it. To understand the concept of God as manifestations, let us take an example of ‘Pot and Potter’. Potter creates the Pot, and he creates it out of Earth. Hence, Potter is the creator, and Earth is the source. While earth still remains the same even after creation of ‘Pot’ and simply goes cyclic transformation, ‘Potter’ is no more than a medium to make this transformation take place. In the world of creation, Hindus has similar questions well answered. If God created this Universe, from what did he create? And the answer is – if conservation is maintained, then Universe has to be the transformation of God himself and God has to be the medium too. This no doubt goes with the understanding of modern science – God being the infinite energy transforming into matter and existing as energy in them too. This also establishes the old saying – God is omnipotent and omnipresent. Thus, Hindus believe that everything has to be a manifestation of God has a very profound and well established law of nature behind this philosophy. This creation law has to be in place, because law of conservation is holding the universe in balance. The other way around question envelops, if this law is incorrect in any sense for God, then why we don’t find from thousands of years an incidence of imbalance. There is no explanation in this world – scientific or religious which can describe creation in completeness like in Hinduism. (Refer Rig Veda, 10.29, 10.30 and 10.31). I have simply tried to brief it out in reply to Dr. Naik’s philosophy of apostrophe’s’.

Philosophically, a perception about everything as a manifestation of God creates a mass ideology of respecting and utilizing everything as per natural laws, thereby creating a harmless and peaceful society. Hindu scriptures emphasizes on the fact that arrogance and ego are the cause of many sufferings and violent differences. And these two attitudes can be killed only by the strength of respect and love in worship-able form. And hence, a consideration of everything as a manifestation of God naturally brings down the ego and arrogance and helps a weak human understanding to strengthen his inner self. The concept that everything belongs to God, should not be falsified by inhuman acts, an example can be killing of animals and humans in the name of God. How can a creation of God be humiliated with a consideration that God has made if for humans? Either God has not created animals, or if he has created, it is respectable and lovable – after all God has created it and humans understand this. Very importantly, when God and we are viewed as two different entities, it immediately brings a separation between these two, thereby laying the foundation of all wrong and harmful doings (Boundaries, right and wrong both can be very easily laid down on this ground). While a unity of God and us, inspires us to hold and perform Godly and prosperous acts.

And it is not that Hinduism had not considered Dr. Naik’s apostrophe’s’ philosophy. In fact, Hinduism has matured as a religion after enveloping in so many fields like science, socialism, philosophy, psychology, etc. As another case, why has not other religions considered a simple truth – that no other planets has life as on earth or we require another galaxy and similar environment to realize life; such a planet is not known to modern science yet, it is detailed in Purans though. We can understand the concept of God and Creations being same and parallel and relative to each other, by simply considering the existence of other planets without life. A simple question – who would have talked about God had there been no life on earth? Who is talking about God on Jupiter, Venus or Mercury? How will God prove that all those planets belong to him and to whom would he prove over there? God becomes immediately meaningless if we consider that there is no life. Thus everything belongs to God becomes a meaningless sentence had there been no life on earth, while everything being a manifestation of God would still hold its meaning. Hence, life and God has to be parallel to each other and they are as per the far extended study of Hinduism. And if life and God are so important to each other, if so exists the relation between the two, it is also possible to realize this relation. But how! It is possible only if either of them is reachable. While Dr. Naik’s apostrophes’ conveys the message that God is ‘there’ segregating life and God and not allowing human to reach God in any terms, Hinduism understands the depth and first says under the manifestation theory that God is ‘here’ – in our Self in the form of life. First step thus in Hinduism is to realize the Self and then feel the God in the light of life-God relation.

Here are few quotes from Bhagwad Geeta that can initially be interpreted as what is emphasized by Dr. Naik, confirming that Hinduism have gone past all the considerations of Islam or any other religion of this world. And Hinduism, do not stop on putting a full stop that everything belongs to God. It goes ahead and ahead to ask questions that brings it near and dear to God.

Bhagwad Geeta,

9.4: This entire world is pervaded by Me in My unmanifested form; all beings exist in Me, but I do not dwell in them.

9.5: Not do beings exist in Me, behold My Diving Yoga! Bringing forth and supporting the beings, My Self does not dwell in them.

9.9: These acts do not bind Me, sitting as one neutral, unattached to them.

9.11: Unaware of My higher state, as the great Lord of beings, fools disregard Me, dwelling in the human form.

9.13: But the great-souled ones possessed of the Divine Prakriti, knowing me to be the origin of beings and immutable, worship Me with a single mind.

9.14: Glorifying Me always and striving with firm resolve, bowing down to me in devotion, always steadfast, they worship Me.

Till here, Dr. Naik would find everything matching to his concept of Apostrophe’s’, as God is said to be not dwelling in beings or non-beings, and asking the great souls to concentrate on one and only God. And Dr. Naik would get happy to cut these scriptures in say of this support. But then he is incomplete in his knowledge of Hinduism, as these scriptures are just a consideration of one of the philosophy known and understood by him. Hindus would not stop here. They do not want to close their eyes and go back into ignorance with one, only and limited philosophy. They want to understand God more. They want answers related to life and death. They want answers related to happenings in this world and universe. And hence, they move ahead from here. Thus, what Dr. Naik declares as a difference of apostrophe’s’, is actually a stepping stone too early in Hindu’s search of God. Let us see few more sentences ahead in Bhagwad Geeta in the same chapter.

9.8. Animating my Prakriti (nature), I project again and again this whole multitude of beings (Universal creation including life), helpless under the sway of Prakriti (nature).

9.10: By reason of My proximity, Prakriti produces all this, the moving and the unmoving; the world wheels round and round, because of this.

9.15: Others, too, sacrificing by the Yajna of knowledge (i.e., seeing the self in all), worship me and the All-Formed, as one, as distinct, as manifold.

9.16: I am the father of this world, the mother, the sustainer, the grandfather, the purifier, the (one) thing to be known, (the syllable) Om, and also the Rk, Saman and yajus; The Goal, the supporter, the lord, the witness, the abode, the refuge, the friend, the origin, the dissolution, the substratum, the storehouse, the seed immutable. I give heat; I withhold and send forth rain; I am immortality and also death; being and non – being am I.

Suddenly the meanings in the same chapter seem to be changing. It started as God do not dwell in being or non – being and it is coming to God is being and non – being both.

9.22: Persons who, meditating on Me as non-separate, worship Me in all beings, to them thus every zealously engaged, I carry what they lack and preserve what they already have.

The meanings go deep, and I have dealt with this depth in my chapter ‘The Hindu God’. Here, I have just brought to notice, that the picture exposed to the world about Hindus is either limited or negative.

Going ahead, we find Dr. Naik bringing in the texts of religious books.

‘The Holy Holy Quran says:

Come to the common terms as between us and you. The first common term is that we worship none but Allah.

So, let us try and find commonality by analyzing both Hindu and Islamic scriptures.

The most popular among all the Hindu scriptures is Bhagwad Geeta. Consider the following verse from Geeta.

Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own nature.

Bhagwad Geeta, Chapter 7, Verse 20’

The lines of Bhagwad Geeta, seems to be saying the same thing as in Holy Quran, as long as the context and actual lines of Bhagwad Geeta are not exposed.

I would quote the actual lines here:

‘Kamaistaistarhritgyanah Prapadyantenyadevatah

Tang tang niyammasthaya prakritya niyatah swya’

Meaning: “Others again, deprived of discrimination by this or that desire, following this or that rite, devote themselves to other gods, led by their own natures.”

At one instance, this seems to be similar to what has been written by Dr. Naik. But there is a difference: while Dr. Naik’s translation hides the context (‘Tang Tang’), my quoted translation, not missing out all words, reflects that there is a context which is there in the word ‘this’ and the meaning becomes deep in context.

Translating the verse 19: “At the end of many births, the man of wisdom takes refuge in Me, realizing that all this is the innermost self, very rare is that great soul.”

This makes clear that Hindu text emphasizes on concepts like knowledge of self and self – confidence as a power of humans, in the path of realizing God.

As far as the concept of God as ‘One’ is considered, it is for sure that God cannot be bound by the smallest finite number and he is not so easy to be measured as ‘One’. If we say God is ‘One’ and ‘One’ only, questions add up – where is that One? And this would falsify many concepts, as God is not an entity and if he is not material, how can we define him as ‘One’.

The above two sentence from Dr. Naik also reflects the variance in boundaries between the two religions. While Holy Quran, according to Dr. Naik, strictly specifies that one has to come to common terms (an ideology that forces not to think ahead and not to challenge anything beyond what is said), Bhagwad Geeta, according to same Dr. Naik, very humbly lays down the path of wisdom to be followed by one’s own nature (an ideology that never puts a full stop on human thinking, allowing the knowledge to grow immensely to extent of achieving Godly qualities by self realization as a first step).

Dr. Naik further either very dexterously, or within his biased and partial study, starts quoting scriptures from Upanishads, hiding the actual text and exposing just what seems to support his understanding and his religion. This is also biased, as he seems to be apprehensive of disclosing the immense knowledge hidden in Upanishads, if he somehow and to some extent knows them. As a matter of fact, Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas are subject to higher studies in Hinduism and quoting a word or a group of words from them shows that the person has simply overlooked the details and tried to steal things which help him to criticize or limit Hindu understanding. Vedas and Upanishads should not be viewed and understood the way Dr. Naik has tried to do. If he really wanted to quote from these books, he should have quoted ten lines ahead and ten lines following the line that he has quoted and presentation would have completely changed. Anyway, I will for you, quote the whole lines and their explanations, following the quote of Dr. Naik (Svetasvatar Upanishad, 6.9).

‘Na casya kasuj janita na chadhipah’

Of him there are neither parents nor Lord.

A Hindu agrees to above meaning, but further asks: why there are neither parents nor lord. And the answer lies in the complete verse, which is not exposed. The complete verse goes as:

‘Na tasya kaschit patirasti loke

Na cheshit naiv na tasya lingam

Sa karnam karnadhipadhipo

Na casya Kaschijanita na chadhipah’

Meaning: Lord is the cause of everything; he is the creator and creation both. He is all manifestations. Had there been a parent or lord to him, he would himself be one from the manifestations. If he is not the Whole, if He is not the one that is all manifestation, if he exists as a separate entity than all manifestations and all belongs to him – then who made him? Some logic would then fit to prove that God is a manifestation of some Super God. Hence, there cannot be a parent or lord to him, as he is all manifestation himself – an answer that is not found in any other religious books.

(Svetasvatar Upanishad, 4.19)

‘Na tasya pratima asti’

There is no likeness of him.

A Hindu agrees to above meaning, but again asks: Why is there no likeness of him? The complete verse goes as:

‘Nainmurdhwam na tiryanchan na madhye parijgrabhat

Na tasya pratima asti ysya naam mahadyashah’

Meaning: No one can hold him either from beginning or end or in middle, as he is infinite in divinity and manifestations. He cannot be explained in words or images as human imagination cannot reach there, as he is all infinite manifestations. Now, one would come here to ask immediately, from his mood of onslaught, that then why do Hindus have images and idols – let them read my chapter ‘Idolatry and 33 Crore Gods of Hindus’ as an answer.

Dr. Naik very cleverly quotes the whole verse, where he in some form finds similarity to the verse of Holy Quran.

[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]

‘Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canaiam. Hrda hrdistham manasa ye enam, evam vidur amrtas te bhavanti’

Dr. Naik explains above lines as follows and immediately correlates it with Holy Quran.

His form is not to be seen; no one sees him with the eye. Those who through heart and mind know Him as abiding in the heart become immortal’

The Holy Holy Quran refers to this aspect in the following verse:

No vision can grasp Him But His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, Yet is acquainted with all things’ [Holy Quran 6:103]

I have not contradicted his quotes, about Hindu scriptures above; I have just exposed his partial quotations. What seemed to him similar to Holy Quran he brings forth in support and what goes against, he do not dare to look into them and simply diverts the topic to incidences of wrong practices in the society. Dr. Naik is wrong to perceive that Hindu scriptures if detailed would be against Quran. In fact, Hindu texts goes beyond Quran and Quran would be the stepping stone towards Hindu scriptures, if a Muslim would dare to know more about God. Probably, some fear envelops Dr. Naik, which he needs to break and first step would be to kill his own arrogance and accept that knowledge is not limited and is as vast as God. And thus, Quran alone or any scripture alone is not enough to wrap everything. Thus, Muslims should be allowed to grow in their knowledge and not live in boundaries, particularly those boundaries that give them wrong fame. This book can be an earnest request to Dr. Naik, or to Muslim brothers, to understand a very basic fact – had Hindu scriptures been against Muslims, they would not have enjoyed a free growth (from 5% to 20%) in country like India, particularly when Hindus are diminishing in their countries.

Had I wished to do a similar act, as Dr. Naik did by Quoting from Hindu scriptures, I would have easily and clearly formulated hundreds of similarity and contradictions between Quran and Hindu scriptures. But Hindus are not taught about this. Hindus have the culture of respect and regard in their blood, executed through the practice of worship and love. And, I have every reason to respect the Holy Quran, as long as it remains peaceful for humanity and creatures outside its practitioners.

I do not want to comment on what Dr. Naik has said about Quran and God in Quran, as it is in his understanding an attempt to define God, and follow that definition and should be respectable. But, coming across he lays down an example:

‘Tape recorder, for instance, are manufactured in large numbers. It has never been suggested that in order to understand what is good for the tape recorder the manufacturer should become a tape recorder himself. One simply assumes that the manufacturer will publish an instruction manual, since he has complete knowledge of his product. In short, the instruction manual gives the dos and don’ts for the machine.

If you think of Human Being as a machine, it is indeed a complex creation of Allah. Our Lord and creator Allah, need not come in the form of a human being to know what is good or bad for the human being. He only has to reveal the instruction manual to mankind. The Holy Quran is the instruction manual for human beings.

Moreover, Allah will call this creation to account on the Day of Judgment. It therefore stands to reason, that Creator informs us about the dos and don’ts of life’.

Now, here lies great error in such explanations.

1. First, comparison of Tape-recorder with human being is not a correct one. Tape-recorder is not the Realizer of its manufacturer. It is humans who created Tape-recorder and it is humans who judge it for dos or don’ts. And hence, human has to be human to judge it; and this is what a Hindu says that God has to take the utmost shape of Human to correct human errors. If the tape-recorder was to judge its operation and report back to its manufacturer, then it would have been a meaningful comparison to say that Quran is the manual for us and also a creation of Allah and would be judged based on the manual. And hence, the example would produce an effect like there are many Allah and creation of one is being judged by others based on the manual Quran; in fact, this can be thought as manifestations which is denied by Islam. Even Muslims would not agree to this.

2. Second, manuals are produced for the users of the tape-recorder, and it can go up gradation as the features enhances in the tape-recorder. Manual is produced for humans and hence, the manufacturer has to be necessarily being a human and enter the mind of its users to create a readable manual. Again, the manual is not a complete and closed chapter for the tape-recorder, as further improvement and enhancement to the tape-recorder features are possible, which would upgrade the manual. Obviously, humans are changing every day in their behaviors. So, Quran (the human manual) should accordingly change, which is not happening. The example and actual are contradicting.

3. Very importantly, such concepts are insult to Allah himself. We all know that humans have existed since thousands of years. There must be instruction manuals before Quran too, and they are probably Bible or even before that Vedas. If all these manuals are written by humans and not Allah, then what happened to the manual given by Allah during creation, as his creations have existed since thousands of years and human cannot have the power to destroy Allah’s manual. Either we accept with equal grace to the all the religious books (which Hindus do in respect of God or Allah) and there would be no fight, no comparison, no contradictions and no superior-inferior combat – all would be creations of Allah and Quran probably an upgrade to earlier versions, or we simply stop claiming that Quran is the last say or manual from Allah. As a matter of fact, earlier versions like Vedas, Upanishads, Purana, and Bhagwad Geeta of Hindus are so vast that Quran seems to be a river in the sea.

4. And one important error is to declare that Allah would go into the accounts only on the Day of Judgment. What about the people who are dying today and who have already died? Haven’t they seen the Day of Judgment? If Dr. Naik is talking of some specific day, which would probably be the end of the world, he is not doing a good job towards humanity. As this would strengthen his people to do inhuman acts in assumption that everyone would anyway get killed and punished on the final day. Vedas have described such destruction in terms of ‘Yug’ and that too don’t go without logic. It has considered that human population would grow, unlike other species, but not the size of the earth. Population would contain good and bad, constructive and destructive people with powers distributed in both. Ignorance and knowledge would always be there, diversities is the basis of existence, and hence the day would come when this would result in natural imbalance through various means like increasing pollutions of various types, attempts to tamper environmental balance through technological advancement, mass human envy in the name of religion, etc. And to come to such situation of imbalance, it takes a period described as ‘Yug’ in Vedas, following which Natural force (in form of Natural power of highest order in human form, otherwise resembled to God, in order to make sure that nothing unnatural takes place even in the phase of creating balance again – a concept of Hindu that is so logical and realistic) would come into play to reorder and reestablish the stability and balance. To me, it seems to be a logic, as this is what is happening – human population are increasing at a pace and humans have every reason to diminish population of animals and birds (some species have already extinguished). Pollution of all orders are traveling towards their top, human diversity are impatiently and agitatedly taking pace in the name of religion, region, nation, politics, policies, socialism, etc. Where would it lead to one final day? But this doesn’t mean that there would be a day of judgment for Allah and rest are for us. Though a calculation, Hinduism emphasizes on humans to behave so as to work towards the betterment of humans and all other creatures within the laws and limitations of natural laws.

5. Last but not the least; Allah has created millions of species, all living in the same world as us. Where is the manual for them and who makes them understand those manuals? And what stopped God from creating more species as intelligent as human? If Dr. Naik do not have the answer to this, let me state to him that manuals are meant to describe machines, machines that cannot do anything by itself. And if Quran is a manual, it means that its followers do not have emotions like humans (and is this the reason given by Mr. Naik to support terrorism). Actually, this is the biggest difference between Hinduism and Islam – while Islam (as I understand from Dr. Naik’s conclusions) is an ‘Order’, while Hindu scriptures are ‘Messages’. These two have different implications – ‘Order’ proves that humans are incapable and illogical, while ‘Message’ reflects that humans have their own thinking and they can interpret the message and do the right or wrong. While ‘Orders’ restrict human to go beyond, ‘Messages’ allows him to expand to outreach God.

As a conclusion, in no way, can the example of Tape-recorder suit an explanation that Allah cannot take human form. In reality, Bhagwad Geeta described why nature creates one in ages, a human capable of Godly qualities (Refer to chapter ‘A Hindu God’).

Dr. Naik quotes another example:

‘Each attribute of God is unique and possessed by him Alone’.

The example supporting above say goes as:

‘If someone says Neil Armstrong is an American, the attribute of being American possessed by Neil Armstrong is correct but not sufficient to identify him. Similarly, Neil Armstrong is an astronaut. The attribute of being an Astronaut is not unique to Neil Armstrong. To identify the person uniquely we must look for a unique attribute. For example, Neil Armstrong was the first human to set foot on the moon. So, when one asks; who was the first man to set foot on the moon, the answer is only one, i.e., Neil Armstrong. Similarly, the attribute of Almighty God should be unique e.g., Creator of the Universe. If I say creator of the building, it may be possible and true that it is not unique. Thousands of people can make a building, so there would be no difference between man and God. But each Attribute of Allah points to none but Allah.’

‘For example,

Ar-Reheem: the most Merciful

Ar-Rahman: the most Gracious

Al-Hakeem: the most Wise’

‘In continuation with the earlier example, if somebody says Neil Armstrong is an American Astronaut who is only four feet tall, the attribute (American Astronaut) is correct but its associated quality (only four feet tall) is false. Similarly, if someone says that God is the Creator of the universe with one head, two hands, two feet, etc. the attribute (Creator of the Universe) is correct but the associated quality (in the form of human being) is wrong and false.

Since there is only one God all the attributes should point to one and the same God. To say that Neil Armstrong was an American Astronaut who first set foot on the moon, but his the second was Edwin Aldrin is wrong. Both have unique qualities similarly to say that the Creator is one God and the cherisher is another God is absurd because there is only one God with all these attributes combined together’.

Again Dr. Naik has done the same mistake as in previous example.

1. The say and the example both clearly, forces God to be an entity, an identifiable entity, an identifiable physical entity with known attributes.

2. Unique is a term applied only when there are huge numbers of similar forces. Thus, this also implies that there are many equivalent forces as Allah, but Allah has unique attributes that segregates him from them. I do not know, how much Muslims agree to this, but Hindus do not surely.

3. The quotes that Dr. Naik has quoted do not fit to the example. The ‘most’ merciful, the ‘most’ gracious, and the ‘most’ wisest, is correct to give him identification. But it is then, not possessed by him alone and hence not unique to him. As the word ‘most’ clearly signifies that these qualities are held by many others, including humans. Thus, Allah simply excels to humans in these qualities. The qualities are thus not unique to Allah, only the quantity of these qualities surpasses his competitors. I do not say that the definition is wrong, but it is incomplete. Hindus go beyond to fathom that none can understand God actually nor can anyone measure the multitude of his manifestations. As far as ‘most’ is concerned, we have manifestations of God in human forms also with those qualities.

4. There must be many Neil Armstrong on earth. Every human being on this earth is unique, and can be made unique through various identifiable meanings as name, address, achievements, date of birth, etc. An attempt to define Allah with attributes and unique attribute, would lead to vision his world composed of many like him but with different features and qualities, thus requiring Allah to create uniqueness for himself for his identity. No doubt, these terms leaves an individual into darkness when it comes to actually understanding God and realizing God. This darkness is nothing but called Ignorance and answered in Vedic philosophy.

5. As far as trying to find Uniqueness of God is attempted by Dr. Naik, he has failed to realize that by the grace of same God, each and every creature of each and every specie are created unique, with variance in some other way. Hence, my features are unique and do not match to anyone in the world. Even the definition of God as per Quran has failed to convey a simple message that everything is a manifestation of same God because every other thing is unique in its nature. Thus, Hindu ideology has a universal meaning which is sound proof from all angles.

6. Very importantly, when Dr. Naik says, ‘Since there is only one God all the attributes should point to one and the same God’, he is committing a great error. An attempt to define and close God cannot take place as a part of human explanation. The sentence clearly shows how hard is the boundary on Allah that he should necessarily hold attributes that points to him alone. It reflects an immaturity in understanding God. This is also reflected further in his texts when he attaches hearing, seeing and other human attributes to God.

At one instance, he has mentioned about Vishnu as God and having four hands and other attributes of human. Though, I have elaborated this in detail in the chapter ’33 Crore Gods of Hindus’, I must reiterate here that Vishnu is not considered as God, but again a manifestation of God in natural and immaterial form (he is one of the Tri-Deva, thus a deity as Lord Shiva and Lord Brahma). God is very vastly explained in Hinduism (Refer chapter ‘A Hindu God’), and is subject to very high study. I suggest the religious leaders of the world to listen to the preachers and saints of Hindus – I am sure they would not find any onslaught on any religion, they would not find a word ‘Hindu’ in their preaching and most of the time the preaching would be philosophical, social, psychological and scientific. This would surely help them to change their perception about Hindu Gods and limited understanding of endless Hindu ideologies.

Apart from the understanding of God, Dr. Naik has also brought in the scriptures related to living standards and behaviors of Hindus, including their eating habits. In his book, ‘Answer to Non-Muslims, Common questions about Islam’, in the Chapter 6 – Eating Non-Vegetarian Food, he has mentioned many Hindu texts to support Islamic way of killing animals and feasting on non-vegetarian food. Though, I have detailed on this topic in my book ‘From the Laws of Nature’, I would at least visit Dr. Naik’s quotations from Hindu scriptures and expose the realities.

I would avoid commenting on anything in Quran, as Quran do not talk about Hinduism as such. And focus only on what Dr. Naik is saying about scientific and religious understanding of non-vegetarian diet.

‘3. Meat is nutritious and rich in complete protein (He mentions Iron, Vitamin B1 and Niacin).

First thing, there are rich sources of protein (cereals like ‘Dal’) and these elements in vegetarian diet as well. Hence, he is correct not to mention ‘only’ in non-vegetarian diet.

‘4. Humans have omnivorous set of teeth.

5. Human beings can digest both vegetarian and non-vegetarian food.

In his explanation, Dr. Naik either doesn’t know about Omnivorous teeth or has tried to hide in his explanation about it. Both Omnivorous and Carnivorous animals have sharp, pointed and protruded set of teeth, which they use to kill and tear animals naturally. Does Dr. Naik want to convince his followers that, we have natural ability to kill animals by our teeth and tear them live? We have pointed teeth, but they are not protruded and not pointed enough to tear live flesh. And this is one of the major reasons, why people mostly around the world cook meat and make them edible, which is not natural.

As far as digestion is concerned, our digestive system is not at all made to digest non-vegetarian food. Consider following points:

Herbivorous & Humans Carnivorous Omnivorous

Stomach acidity: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach Stomach acidity: pH less then equal to 1 with food in stomach Stomach acidity: pH less then equal to 1 with food in stomach

Stomach capacity: Less then 30% of total volume of digestive tract Stomach capacity: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract Stomach capacity: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract

Small Intestine: More then 10 times of body length Small Intestine: 3 to 6 times of body length Small Intestine: 3 to 6 times of body length

Colon: Long and complex Colon: Simple, short and smooth Colon: Simple, short and smooth

Kidney: Moderately concentrated Urine Kidney: Extremely concentrated Urine Kidney: Extremely concentrated Urine

Humans have exactly the Herbivorous type of stomach. The digestive system undergoes tremendous pressure, wear and tear in order to digest uncooked non-vegetarian diet. Our immune system has the capacity to build the wear and tear and thus is not exactly understood by consumers of non-vegetarian diet. Anyway, we move ahead to reach that point, which is religious and impelled me to consider this topic as a part of this chapter.

Dr. Naik says:

7. Hindu scriptures give permission to have non-vegetarian food.

a. There are many books which are strictly vegetarians. They think it is against their religion to consume non-vegetarian food. But the true fact is that the Hindu scriptures permit a person to have meat. The scripture mentions Hindu sages and saints consuming non-vegetarian food.

b. It is mentioned in Manu Smriti, the law book of Hindus, in Chapter 5, Verse 30: ‘The eater who eats the flesh of those to be eaten does nothing bad, even if he does it day after day, for itself created some to be eaten and some to be eater.’

c. Again next verse of Manu Smriti, that is Chapter 5, Verse 31 says: ‘Eating meat is right for the sacrifice, this is traditionally known as the rule of the God’

d. Further in Manu Smriti, Chapter 5, Verse 39 and 40 says: ‘God himself created sacrificial animals for sacrifice,…, therefore killing in a sacrifice is not killing’

The first thing people must know that the divine creation in Hinduism is Vedas. Upanishads and Bhagwad Geeta are based on Vedas. Manu Smriti is pure human creation, based on life styles in those times. Anyway, life style has nothing to do with vegetarian or non-vegetarian food, as humans were then and are now humans only. More importantly, Manu Smriti had been rejected by Hindus long back as it goes against Vedas at many places. Somehow, the critics took this opportunity and brought it back to onslaught the Hindus, by declaring that Manu Smriti is the law book of Hindus. However, what is shown to the world of that book is not the true and complete picture.

To clarify this, I will quote from the same book that yet conveys the rules from Vedas.

Chapter 5, Verse 4: ‘Through neglect of the Veda study, through deviation from the rule of conduct, through being remiss in the fulfillment of duties, and through faults committed by eating forbidden food, death becomes eager to shorten the lives of Brahmin.’

The above statement clarifies that Vedas prohibits eating of non-vegetarian food as a rule of conduct (as natural law) and Vedas are made for the man kind and not for Brahmins alone. In fact, as I have detailed in my Chapter ‘Casteism’, Vedas do not segregate the society at all based on birth. It clearly says that the four fold path of an individual to exist in this world is necessary and the choice depends on individual to individual as per their nature and attitude. Thus, Brahmanism is not a caste or a birth in Vedas; it is the highest state of spiritual knowledge and true human behavior as per natural laws.

First misdirection by Dr. Naik is that he says ‘Manu Smriti’ is the law book of Hindus. In fact, for his knowledge, Manu Smriti is an optional subject for those who are learning Vedas and are directed to take is just for the knowledge sake. There is no law book for Hindus, there are only knowledge books. Vedas, Upanishads and Bhagwad Geeta are the only authenticated books that are to be followed and they are law books not because those laws are imposed on Hindus, but because they simply contains details of nature and natural way of leading life.

Let us look few more verses from the same chapter of Manu Smriti and things would be clear:

Verse 42: A twice born man who, knowing the true meaning of Veda, slays the animal for these purposes causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state.

Sage Manu, starts emphasizing that a man (twice born: first in society, second in the world of true knowledge of Vedas), would kill the animal only to enter a blessed state. He does not mention here that he kills and eats the flesh of the animal. The killing happens only for the betterment of the society, maybe in war, in forest to protect the self, or for other reasons. And he makes his point further clear in terms of eating flesh.

Verse 33: ‘A twice born man who knows the law must not eat meat except in conformity of the law; for if he has eaten it unlawfully, he will, unable to save himself, be eaten after death by his victims.’

Verse 43: A twice born man of virtuous disposition, whether he dwells in his house, with a teacher, or in the forest, must never, even in times of distress cause an injury to any creature which is not sanctioned by Veda.

Verse 46: He, who does not seek to cause the sufferings of bonds and death to living creatures, but desires the good of all beings, obtains endless bliss.

Verse 49: Having well considered the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.

Verse 51: He who permits the slaughter of animal, he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells meat, he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, must all be considered as slayers of animals.

Verse 52: There is no greater sinner than that man who, though not worshipping the Gods and or the manes, seeks to increase the bulk of his own flesh by consuming the flesh of other beings.

From the above verses, it becomes very clear, how some people are trying to misdirect, the world about Hinduism as a religion. Unfortunately, not all Hindus read these books (most of them stick to Bhagwad Geeta alone – as it is concise form of the vast knowledge), and do not confront to these conspiracies.

At last, Dr. Naik, has quoted a conversation between Ydhistira and Bhishma, talking of animal sacrifices as a process of ‘Sraddha’ a ritual in Hindus. Moreover, Bhishma is describing the sacrifice and not the consumption of meat as a common practice. It is also to be noted that the whole episode of Mahabharat is based on the fact that crime and unlawful activities were at peak and birth of Lord Krishna was to ensure that the laws are reestablished.

Thus, first, the conversation cannot be taken as a base of authentication that Hindu scriptures allow non-vegetarian diet.

Second, Yudhistira and Bhishma are both from ruler and soldier family and killing (killing in war) is as per their nature. Had they been so correct and authenticated, Lord Krishna would have explained the whole Bhagwad Geeta to Arjuna. Discussion between these two soldiers are not the law of nature, it is simply their perception. And Veda Vyas has mentioned these things so as to make people realize that these things are not correct for the living standard of humans.

Third, Bhishma has just started describing the beliefs of Sraddha here. Later in the scripture, Bhishma described how the process of Shraddha started as a pure vegetarian diet, even without salt. As it is a very long discussion, I cannot mention them all. It is suggested to read the whole conversation before concluding on the cuttings of Dr. Naik.

Fourth, Hinduism, as I had emphasized always, is not a boundary of thoughtless laws. It allows people to think and do anything that can be constructive. It lays on the fundamental principle that definitions cannot bind the infinite God and Creations, only directions can be set towards them. Hence, vegetarianism is an explanation in Hinduism as a healthy and righteous food (Sattvika food). Hence, Dr. Naik’s claim that it is allowed in Hinduism is not a correct statement; it is only mentioned as harmful diet in Hinduism.

He further says:

‘7. Hinduism was influenced by other religions

Though Hindu Scriptures permit its followers to have non-vegetarian food, many Hindus adopted the vegetarian system because they were influenced by other religions like Jainism.’

This is absurd, and explained in detail above. To ensure, see below scriptures of Bhagwad Geeta, which I believe existed far before Jainism or any known religions of the world:

Bhagwad Geeta, Chapter 17, Verser 7, 8, 9, 10:

‘The food also (like worship, yajna, austerity, almsgiving, knowledge, action, intellect, fortitude, happiness, and others) is threefold’

‘The foods which augment vitality, energy, strength, health, cheerfulness, and appetite, which are savory, oleaginous, substantial, agreeable and pure, are Sattvika’.

‘The foods that are bitter, sour, saline, excessively hot, pungent, dry and burning, are Rajasika’

‘That which is stale, tasteless, stinking, cooked overnight, refuse and impure are Tamasika’.

No way has the concept of vegetarian a gift of Jainism. Jainism have gone the hard way, and produced out of Hinduism. Jainism has only tried to live the ‘Sattvika’ way described in Hinduism.

He further mentions:

‘8. Even plants have life

9. Even plants can feel pain

10. Killing a living creature with two senses less is not a lesser crime’

I don’t understand that a literary man like Dr. Naik cannot differentiate between vegetarian and non-vegetarian diet, even in terms of life, the way they are composed as organism, the way they exist as creatures.

I have detailed about Vegetarianism in second volume, yet let us see few things as known even to children.

We understand very well that animals grow proportionally within their body and after certain time period even that also stops while unlike animals, plants have the power to spread its life within and outside its body (we need not know the methodology of plant growth here). Plants grow on natural resources, while animal depends either on plants or other animals. More importantly, we can preserve plants for longer period in contrast to animals. Now what is more important to understand here is that preservation effects are different in both cases. When we are preserving plants, we are preserving their life. But when we are preserving animals, we are just keeping the dead body away from biological effects. Plants do not eat as animals do. Plant does not move as animals do. We all know these differences between Plant and Animal kingdom. Reasoning that when we eat plant we kill them is not at all rational. It can very simply be realized that when we eat plants we consume it in lively state, unless we cook them, but when we consume animals, we consume them dead. In fact, humans do not consume dead plants and the rotten part gets visible immediately unlike meat. Hence, there is no reasoning that can proof that eating of plant is same as eating of animals.

Moving ahead, we find more reasoning from him.

’11. Over population of cattle

If every human being was a vegetarian, it would lead to overpopulation of cattle in the world, since their reproduction and multiplication is very swift. Allah (swt) in His Divine Wisdom knows how to maintain the balance of His creation appropriately. No wonder He has permitted us to have the meat of the cattle.’

It is amazing to realize that Islam has no boundary on controlling its own human population, but allows humans to control other creature’s population. Do Dr. Naik want to say that cows multiply faster than human population – he may compare the two population in any country, any region to understand this, where people do not eat cow.

Second important thing: who is capable of controlling population, human or nature? If Dr. Naik thinks that human is the one who is controlling the population of millions of species, then I do not have to say further. But, if nature has this capacity, the conclusion becomes baseless. It is simply one reason in protection of our human taste.

‘12. Cost of meat is reasonable since all aren’t non-vegetarians

I do not mind if some people are pure vegetarians. However they should not condemn non-vegetarians as ruthless. In fact if all Indians become non-vegetarians then the present non-vegetarians would be losers since the prices of meat would rise.’

The price of meat is anyhow far more than vegetarian diets. Dr. Naik is so poor in his reasoning; I had not come to know till this point. It is so simple, if all Indians go non-vegetarians, there won’t be meat to meet the demand. But if all Indians go vegetarians, there would still be enough food to meet the ever growing demand and price also would come down and that is why nature created humans as vegetarians – balance is not broken.

How can the human say that human are more important than all other creatures? What if God would have not created trees and plants and created only humans? What if there would not have any water? What if there would not have been air? In fact, to make human realize the importance of all creatures and creations of equal value, God have created other planets which do not have these things and we all know what is the environment there – no life, no humans, no one to realize even God? Hence, every creature is of equal importance to God and they are expected to behave as per natural laws. All other actually behaves so, barring humans. Though naturally made vegetarians, they enforce methodologies and endeavor to support their unlawful behavior through various challenged logics that these pretty and helpless creatures are made to be murdered by them and for them (their taste and authority).

Thus the belief that Hinduism is against meat is true, as Hinduism understands that life is a property of God and life simply do not means human life, it relates to every other entity that is involved in creating life support system, it relates to every creature which has realized such system. The data that more than 99 percent criminals and 100 percent terrorists are meat eaters, allows the vegetarians to condemn eating of meat. Eating meat is a barbarian act and as per Hindu understating, who kills it, who sells it, who buys it, who cooks it, who serves it and who eats are equal contributors in the murder of humble animals. They all contribute to the killing of humbleness which in turn induce in them the barbaric nature, some carry this to ahead to become criminals, murderers and terrorists.

About the Author

How Post-slave Psychology and Afrocentricity are Joining With Colonialism to Undermine Black Africa's Cultural Integrity

“What is Wrong with Black People?” (ISBN 978-1-84799-323-6), is the book in which the answer to this question can be found. In fact, this is a book that simply personifies a totally different type of intuition, where the most unsuspected – yet, the most damning – causes of the suffering of the people of Africa as well as the struggles of their brothers and cousins of the West are not only laid open with courage, but also resolved with vision, for a greater understanding of the true needs and aspirations of Africans in today’s world.

Please read Author’s Introduction to the book:

The very simple reason why I want to face up to the question as to what is wrong with Black people is because there is so much that has been said and written about it, but which, far from improving the Black man’s condition, has rather made things even worse for him, due to a set of oxymoronic conceptions and psychotic attitudes that have been spawned by the emotional dispositions of most – if not all – of the best known scholars and intellectuals who have, thus far, attempted to explore the issue.

Therefore, what we are going to do in this book is to clarify a number of things related to the most fundamental misconceptions that have resulted from these dispositions; misconceptions that have remained almost totally insurmountable to the rest of us.

By so doing, what we are going to achieve is to show where they are all missing the point. We are going to put into the open the true reasons for the Black race to have become a Karmic target on earth. And our main objective in this exercise is to suggest a more effective way to break the Karmic cycle, to turn the Black man into a dignified human; a human that it shall no longer feel so good to brutalise anywhere in the world.

We are prepared to achieve this by all means that abide by the Laws of the Spirit. If it ought to take altering Karmic targets, then we are going to have to do it that way for the sake of the Black man’s redemption and dignity in the world. We are going to have to make it possible for another race to take the place of the Black race in this bad Karma; or we are going to have to force God to cancel the bad Karma altogether.

But, in order to do either, we need to be enlightened, wise, objective, and courageous enough to confront some discomforting issues that have taken the bad habit to make people cringe. We need a serious anti-allergy treatment – anti-political correctness therapy – if we should ever be able to make sense of what is actually wrong with Black people; and perhaps, too, to make sense of what is wrong with White people on their side, since they are the main torturers or Black people; but above all, to make sense of the point that we are all missing in the debate on what is now known as the African condition.

To prepare the reader to the type of methodology that we are going to employ all along this exploration, I need to undo the riddle as off now, with no need to beat around the bush, by enunciating that the point that we are missing in this debate is an anthropological point; and perhaps a spiritual point too; but anthropology is above spirituality.

Anthropology is the science that studies human collectivities on a purely cultural angle. It explores human entities as related to the essence and substance – nature and manifestation – of the trans-individual soul that defines their cultural existence. In better words, Anthropology studies the nurtural factors that ensure perceptive congruity, communicative harmony and behavioural affinity between human entities that, by the force of these nurtural concordances between them all, and which result in the fuelling of societal instinction (gregarious impulse), are, thus, known as a group of people pertaining to one specific identifiable cultural community.

This is the concern of Anthropology, which is very different from the concern of Biology. Biology, on the other hand, is the science that studies living beings on a purely anatomical angle. It explores the structure and the functioning of their body as independent organic units.

To be clear, the practical difference between Anthropology and Biology is such that if a man is born affected by one of those neuromotor syndromes that lead to the type of condition that the Anglo-Saxons euphemistically and politically correctly often refer to as “severe learning disability” – the kind of people who spend their entire lives slumped speechless and almost motionless in a wheelchair, drooling, urinating and defecating like newborn babies with no control over their own being – such a man can still be the object of biological study, since he has a body inside which we find a set of organic systems that can be explored by biologists, except for the fact that his spinal system will be reported as deficient. But no one would be able to lead an anthropological study on such a man, since the man would not be an active member of any known cultural community, with the capacity to take in and retain data related to his cultural heritage in a way to be equipped, from nurture, with the aptitude to achieve harmonious interaction with other members of his cultural universe as a society of individuals each one of which is a living medium of expression and manifestation of the values, qualities and abilities developed by the group as experienced in the group’s mode of existence. Such a man would simply not be a representative sample of any cultural community at all; since he would not be able to think, speak and behave in a way that would precisely help anyone to identify him as a German or a Russian. Therefore, an anthropologist would have nothing to learn out of his soul; although a biologist will have an entire universe to transcribe out of his body.

This is the difference between these two scientific disciplines. One deals with the soul whereas the other one deals with the body; and neither deals with both.

For us to make any sense of anything that is going to be said in this book, this is the one fundamental differentiation that we need to assimilate. We don’t need to know more than that if we are to understand this book; because this is where the whole issue that we are going to tackle in this book lies; however naïve this might sound, but the implications of this naïve enunciation are, however, surprisingly astonishing, as we are going to see.

The premeditated ignorance that the experts of modern “popular science” and social politics have ruminated and injected to the masses regarding the thick line between Anthropology and Biology is the one single phenomenon that has made it impossible for anyone to make any sense of the reasons why the Black race has become a Karmic target in today’s world; due to the fact that these experts have been busy using concepts from both scientific disciples as if they were dealing with one field. In fact, they have created an amalgamated version of both sciences; which has limited our understanding of what anthropology is about, and has even made it impossible for us to make use of anthropological knowledge to solve problems arising from anthropological phenomena in human existence, since we sometimes believe that we are dealing with biological phenomena when it is not the case at all.

This is why I need you, dear reader, to pay careful attention to the meaning of the words that we are going to use all along this discussion; because what we are essentially going to do is to disclose the spirit behind these words with courage and virulence irrespective of sensitivities; but above all, we are going to be able to identify which words belong to which science. The end product of this methodology is the enactment of the compelling divorce between Anthropology and Biology, so that we may be able to make sense of the whole issue of Black people’s troublesomeness in today’s world.

We therefore need to begin by making a serious effort to stop cheating on language; because the more we cheat on language, the less we can take hold of the phenomena of existence that language alone has the ability to render understandable. I therefore thank Jean Gilbert Enal who, in the preface to this book, has reminded us how seriously we need to take the word “understanding” in this discussion.

But understanding itself is closely related to realism. It is very difficult, and even impossible, to understand something unless we can observe or visualise an instance of it from the mechanics of the real world. This is why what we are committed to do in this exploration is to analyse facts with concision and punctuality rather than feeding the reader with extensive literary references.

Literary referencing is incumbent on literature and scholarship. We are not interested in either. We do downright phenomenology; because we do not believe in the modern intellectual and academic disease that holds that the force of an argument resides in how much quoting it contains. We have read many such books with hundreds and thousands of literary references, but that do not provide any practical, productive solutions to any real problem. This is why we rather believe that the force of an argument resides in how much pertinent it is to any real something.

We believe in rational perception and technical objectivity; because we see existence, be it animal, mineral, vegetal, radioactive or spiritual, as a machine; a machine that has its own technical applications governed by mechanical rules. Human existence itself, which is our main object in this discussion, is, too, as we see and know it, only another machine, like any other machine, with its own technical wheel-work.

This is why we want to call upon the spirit of anthropology to give us a big hand in this exercise; because anthropology is the only science that is fit for the exploration of the technicalities that govern the mechanics of human existence, and more particularly the mechanics of societal viability in human existence (because it is from the point of societal viability that humanity is viable as a whole). A human society is to an anthropologist what an engine is to a mechanic. He may not have devised it. But he knows its nature and understands its mechanics. He knows its structure, its functions and its values. He knows its core, its volume and its scope. He knows its location, its situation and its identification. An anthropologist sees human beings as industrial parts that are produced and shaped to fit in unique patterns of interconnection and operation in specific types of machines (human societies). And the object of an anthropologist is to seek to identify the nurtural factors that define the collective soul of the specific group of people of his study as reflected in the values that govern their mode of existence as a cultural community.

This is what anthropologists do. The type of ‘anthropologists’ that have been going around the world taking measurements of human skulls are not anthropologists. They are something else. But this does not discredit anthropology as a scientific discipline. It only discredits fake anthropologists. And those who wish to insist on calling them ‘anthropologists’ are as ignorant and fake as these so-called anthropologists themselves.

These ignorant and fake anthropologists were like the Western priests who were sent down to Africa to spread goodness, but who used basements of their own buildings as slave transits. Many Western churches still undertake similar obscure practices all over Black Africa until today. But this does not discredit religious missions. It only discredits fake missionaries. We only need to be able to make the difference between real ones and fake ones before it is too late for our own sake.

Indeed, to have the ability to make the difference between reality and fakery – and most particularly Western fakery – is the second most important thing that we need to assimilate in this discussion if we are to have a proper understanding of what is going to be said in this book; because Western fakery, as we are going to see it, is central to Black people’s detrimental plight in modern history. Many of us have thought, for centuries, that we have been dealing with Western barbarity. But this is just not the case at all. We have been dealing with Western fakery; sometimes turned into some form of barbarity. But Western barbarity itself, as we are going to see, is only a face of Western fakery.

In fact, most – if not all – of the philosophical and scientific misconceptions that have led to the misapprehension of the reasons why the Black race has become a Karmic target in modern history are but the products of Western fakery; which, at its origin, was effected by the use of a very subtle technique; the one which consists in throwing a stone where the target is not, to force the enemy to shoot on the wrong spot.

If we check it out, we will find that when the people of Europe began to raid those of Africa five-hundred years ago with the intention to subdue them in all forms of exploitation, here and there alike, most European nations, especially those that were deeply involved in the enterprise, were already quite advanced in their knowledge of some important principles of human development. The evidence is that they were powerful enough to undertake such an intellectually, scientifically, technologically, economically, politically, militarily, and even spiritually demanding enterprise as to cross thousands of oceanic miles to negotiate the purchase of ten million people to be set to work across another thousands of oceanic miles. Ignorants do not succeed in tasks of such magnitude.

Moreover, since the notion of race does not seem to have any space in Western medieval and classical philosophies, but rather the fight for the consolidation of cultures, the illumination of the human mind through metaphysical exploration, the transcendence of the human spirit through artistic inspiration, the improvement of human existence through the exploitation of nature etc. etc., which made Western societies very competent in the first place, it goes without saying that the Europeans equally knew, as they know till this today, that the thing that turns human communities into powerful political structures and successful civilisational models does not have much to do with skin colour.

But, because they did not want the ignorant peoples of Africa to know anything about their real source of power and success, or because they needed to divert their attention from such precious knowledge, they began to throw stones at race, to create an empty target in the battle field.

I believe that we can visualise the reaction from the other side – the panicky turnaround, the frantic ravaging of empty spots, the waste of ammunitions, but most of all, the fatal exposure of the nervous shooter in the visual field of a very shrewd enemy. Actually, we can see it in our everyday life – race, race, race and race, again and again, everywhere, out of the mouths and pens of the peoples of Africa as well as their brothers and cousins of the West.

It is this strategic injection of the race mentality to Black servants by their White masters – the enthronement of Biology in all things related to humanity, even non biological things – that has resulted in the total diversion of our attention from the anthropological point that we are all missing in this exploration. We have come to a point where people believe that certain things happen to them because of their skin colour even when skin colour has very little – or even nothing – to do with what happens to them.

But such a chronic transmutation of causalities only holds from the fact that biology has taken over many other scientific disciplines, and most particularly anthropology, due to the blinding racial veil that has fallen upon both the buffalo soldier and the elephant veteran at war with an enemy that they cannot see; an enemy that knows how to throw stones away from its own location; an enemy that knows how to make piece in the evening and plot to assault overnight; an enemy that knows how to break all rules of engagement in such a subtle way that the violations can be barely established; in a word, an enemy that knows how to fake its moves to mislead a distracted fighter. Is this really an enemy, or just a shrewd player?

The Chinese say: “a good hunter does not keep aiming at the branch on which a monkey was perched after the monkey has jumped on to the next branch.” It seems that during the days of submission both in slavery and colonialism, the White man played a set of games which fitted into the rules of slavery and colonialism to alienate and brutalise the Black man. But as emancipation and independence came, the games had to move on to fit into the rules of emancipation and independence to carry on the same exercise in a very subtle way. As a consequence, in either case, a new order has failed to bring a new condition, not necessarily because in a purely logical universe emancipation and independence are at odds with freedom and sovereignty, but because the establishment of these new orders did not actually aim to the inauguration of new conditions. It was only all about faking moves. Unfortunately, our blind soldiers and distracted veterans could not see how fake the moves were.

To take a few examples, President Abraham Lincoln himself, the very father of the American Negro’s emancipation (I am using the term ‘Negro’ here because it semantically fits into this context), did not choke on his words whence he declared that he was not interested in the freedom of the Negro, but rather in the union of America; which resulted in him holding on to the position that if he could unite America without setting the Negro free, he would do so. But if setting the Negro free was the only road to uniting America, then he would have to set the Negro free for the sake of union. In President Lincoln’s own mind, the emancipation of the Negro was not an end, but a means to an end. Quite naively, it was taken for an end by many.

Approximately ninety years later, President Charles de Gaulle, the father of Africa’s decolonisation, found himself in a similar situation on the other side of the Atlantic, whence he did, too, very diplomatically spouse an identical position by propounding that he was not interested in the decolonisation of Africa. All he was interested in was to make peace with Africa on the issue of the Africans who had died to liberate France from German occupation and in the name of whom many Africans were now requesting some kind of political payment – independence –; which resulted in de Gaulle holding on to the position that if he could make peace with Africa and keep colonialism, he would do so. But if decolonisation was the only road to making peace with Africa, then he would have to decolonise Africa for the sake of peace. Again, in President de Gaulle’s mind, decolonisation was not an end, but a means to an end. Quite naively, again, many saw an end in it.

As a consequence, neither did the Emancipation Proclamation stop brutality on Black Americans, nor did the promulgation of African independences stop the savage exploitation of Black African lands by the West. Why? – Because these measures were actually not intended for a practical enactment of their pledges. They were only fake moves. And there are millions of such fake moves in the history of Western legislations, conventions and policies that are set up to give the impression of improvement in matters of the treatment of the Black man, to cover the fierce fight behind closed doors to keep the Black man in a ‘brutalisable’ condition.

One could go even much further back in time to make this point by advancing that William Wilberforce’s noble battle for the abolition of the slave trade was not itself due to the sympathy that the Anglo-Saxons might have felt for the slaves; but rather because, after the Anglo-Saxons succeeded in building the most powerful colony of population on earth (the USA) by means of slavery, they feared competition from the Portuguese and the Spanish who then began to take a keen interest in treading into their footsteps by importing Africans for Brazil and Cuba. As a strategy to win the impending competition they decided, instead, to enact the abolition of the means of competition for their competitors.

Of course, this is not how the enterprise was presented to you. It was presented to you as a highly moral and humanistic Christian godly endeavour; there is very little wonder that you believe in “Amazing Grace”.

Yet, if sympathy for the slaves was the motivation for the abolition, why did it come about that when slavery was abolished, the English government gave financial compensation to former slave owner; but there was no such support for the slaves. I cannot be more surprised that the Anglo-Saxons actually did this because of their great humanistic sense of mercy for the victims of slavery rather than for the perpetrators of slavery. Yet, this is how many people still see it today. They even celebrate abolition centenaries.

I see the most recent replicate of this pattern of fake moves (the abolition of the means of competition for the competitor) in today’s war on nuclear weaponry. Nuclear proliferation needs abolishing, not because of the risks of human destruction entailed in its possession and use, but rather because there are some people who must not have it; otherwise the competition is going to be too fair to win; which might dangerously turn ‘human values’ upside down in case things went the other way.

Here, it seems that the surest way to win the competition is to sabotage the competitor’s rehearsal, to eschew fairness. But you have to do it very subtly in a way that no one would see anything.

But since you know that you cannot win such an argument on purely dialectic grounds, considering that the use of nuclear weaponry has often proved to be an effective coercive capability to impel belligerent parties to abdicate and make peace unconditionally; and sometimes a dissuasive deterrent to prevent the launching of the hostilities in the first place – as recognised by political scientist John Mearsheimer, that “had Iraq and Serbia possessed nuclear weapons, the United States might not have gone to war” –; then, you have to close the argument by making it clear that only angels deserve to have this type of capability; not devils. In this situation, the urge to score a point against some die-hard devils who seem unwilling to give up competition forces into being the initiation of some form of diplomatic channels through which the devils are persuaded to sign compensatory deals which it would also be too naïve to expect the trickiest heirs of modern intelligence to comply with.

I recently saw President Muammar Gaddafi of Libya complaining about the promises that were made to him by the Anglo-Saxons upon agreeing to abandon his nuclear ambitions; promises that have never been fulfilled. Why? Because the Anglo-Saxons decided to rescind their compliance with these promises in 2005 before their accountability could be fully investigated and established, leaving all potential recipients with no option but to forget about it. In the meantime, the unfortunate recipients will already have destroyed their nuclear facilities. This is a very shrewd game, indeed!

Noam Chomsky, one of the most influential political thinkers of our time, exposes these Western manoeuvres in his recent book, Failed States (2006), where he demonstrates, with the upmost impressive number of policy references, Anglo-America’s failure to comply with its political rhetoric; to meet its obligations in questions related to security, human rights, and democratic principles, including the surprising practice, among others, of protecting its own protégé ‘terrorists’ such as Luis Posada Carriles whilst championing the so-called ‘war on terror’. The game is very shrewd!

However, my own feeling is that, by referring to the states that make use of this type of manoeuvres as failed states, Chomsky may himself have failed to see that these practices do not actually express failure. Rather, they express fakery – trickery.

To take one case brought to light by Chomsky himself, in May 2002, Judge Goldsmith advised Prime Minister Blair in a leaked memo that “given the patent criminality of regime change by invasion, it would be necessary to create the conditions in which we [the Anglo-Saxons] could legally support military action; seeking to provoke Iraq into some action that could be portrayed as casus belli [cause for war]”.

Under such circumstances, it is very difficult to assert that any action that led to the bombing of Iraq was a failed action. – No. Instead, they were all fake actions, tricky provocations. You may call them ‘unjust actions’ if you wish. But my business is not to use religious or dogmatic terminology to construct inflaming propaganda through the condemnation of the frivolous behaviour of those who have the power to destroy others, however unjustly. All moralists have done it. They are still doing it. Not only is it boring; it is also ineffective. The truth of the matter is that the will to power is unswerving until it confronts power. This is why I do not believe in “injustice”. I use the word because it exists in human language and refers to certain facts. But the interpretation of these facts is distorted at large by the practitioners of dogma and propaganda.

Indeed, trying to differentiate between “injustice” and “justice” by means of moral interpretation is like trying to distinguish “crime” from “sin” by means of technical objectivity. It is almost impossible.

For example, if a man who suffers absolute impecuniosity in a self-centred and highly regulated society enters a shop instinctively after a few days with no food in his stomach and walks out of that shop furtively with a chocolate bar in his pocket before he pays for it, a judiciary review between the shopkeeper’s advocates and God’s chaplains may be hardly conclusive; because, on the one hand, such a man will be committing a crime; but, on the other hand, he will not be committing a sin at all, although he will be stealing in either case. I have seen such cases resulting in what is commonly known as “suspended sentences” where

most claimants often go crazy about the verdict.

They want to see the thief severely punished, but there is something called “common sense” that often tells the judges that some crimes are due to natural impulses rather than evil intentions. Is it unjust to leave criminals unpunished in such cases? – Otherwise, what would be just?

This brings us to the reason why I don’t believe in “justice” either; not least of all on the grounds of my distaste for the fact that justice is almost never practised as laid down in texts, but most essentially because the vast majority of legal texts are themselves only multiple standard tricks. And when you add to these tricks an indefinable degree of adjudicatory discretion, you find yourself dealing with personal opinions rather than selfless rulings. There is no wonder that appeal systems exist.

Additional to this sad reality is the fact that not only is justice confounded with vengeance in most people’s minds, it is equally true that vengeance is itself a ground on which justice plays without a referee (the self-defence argument); which leaves the referees with no choice but to arbiter the games after the final whistle has been blown by the players themselves.

Under such circumstances the parties that tell the best story to the referees win the game. And most of the time, it is the parties that have learned the art of faking injuries that win it. And when reporters are, sometimes, called upon to give testimony, the referees often seem to give more credit to sensational testimonies than clinical testimonies; because this is just how it goes. Fouls are scarcely punished for, but foul reports are, for certain.

When you add to these arbitral uncertainties another string of cover-up strategies characterised by conceptual relativisms, terminological subtleties, regulatory misgivings, and ‘technical’ exemptions, which include social standing, political influence and financial – and other sources of – power, you find yourself confronted with justice systems that personify the very type of modern political intelligence that Chomsky is forced to refer to as “failure” in his desperate attempt to make sense of the underpinnings of Anglo-Saxon foreign policy –

“foreign justice”. But this is no failure. It is fakery.

“Failure” takes place when you don’t get the desired results; when things don’t turn up as expected. That is only when we talk about failure.

Take, for instance, the Christian principle of ‘anointed sacrifices’. [Please, forget about religion; just listen to the argument]. Although it might have been painful for God to watch one of his preferred segments on earth being savagely tortured on the Calvary, but delivering a man to torture did, yet, achieve the results that God desired – the redemption of the fallen. Did God fail because a man’s blood was shed? – No. On the contrary, it was that very blood that was needed for the fallen ones to be redeemed. There was no failure. There was just a painful exchange between what He wanted to get and what He needed to give away.

In parallel, if neglecting relentless warnings of attack on New York was going to get the Twin Towers down at some point, which would give the Anglo-Saxons some kind of reason – however unsubstantiated – to overthrow the Talebans and topple Saddam Hussein, as they did, indeed, did they fail because, along the way, they had to sacrifice a few thousands of their own soldiers, a few hundred thousands of Middle Eastern people, and destroy a certain amount of infrastructure in the countries to invade?

For my part, as much as I believe in God’s success in redeeming the fallen ones by means of shedding the blood of one of us, I also believe in the success of the Anglo-Saxons in their strategic appropriation of part of the Middle East by means of killing and destruction.

But there is one difference to make between the two (and you will have to pardon me for bringing this to light). God is not a hypocrite. God makes it clear that one man has to go down for the rest of human souls to get off the devil’s hook. And He does not regret or pretend to regret His ruthless decision to deliver His chosen sacrifice to brutality as long as He gets the results that He desires. This is how sovereign and truthful God is.

The Anglo-Saxons, on the other hand, will kill and destroy their chosen sacrifices to get the results that they desire – the acquisition of two brand new colonies in the heart of the Middles East to be turned into client states, not to mention gas and oil, and reconstruction business opportunities, and many other strategic reasons for them to need military settlements in the region such as ensuring the protection of the Jews as well as getting a much closer range view on Iran and Syria and many other non-compliant states around.

But what is happening here – and this is the trick – is that once they get the result that they desire through killings and destructions, they then begin to moan over their own killings and destructions, to give you the impression that they did not mean to kill and destroy. They would even, at times, stage strong parliamentary and congressional opposition against their own actions; there would even be times when they would bluntly organise stern marches and demonstrations against themselves, or even set up commissions of inquiry on a few selected blunders, all of which is intended to give you the impression that something has not gone to plan. As a result, you end up, under the pressure of these tricks, convinced that something is absolutely wrong. Yet, it is only a trick, a very serious trick – to create misimpressions.

If you are one of those who wish to believe that the continual blunders in the Middle East, and more particularly in Iraq, should be seen as a sign of failure, then you may need to be taught that this is, indeed, what the trick is all about. To keep the mess going on to facilitate the smuggling of resources and secure multi-billion dollar/pound contracts for security companies, not to mention many other types of services of first necessity to be provided on a regular basis in a chaotic situation leading to humanitarian crises, such as medicines, food, water, electricity and so on. Is this not a good enough reason to keep the mess on, although some corporations and associations of individuals are set up to keep moaning over the whole thing for the game to keep playing its tune?

Of course, you don’t stop a lucrative mess, do you? – No. So you need to keep the place messy for a while. But you need to be able to use your intelligence to shift responsibility from your own reasons for keeping the place messy to someone else’s actions. You need to be able to tell the world that “the place is messy because there are some evil monsters hiding in caves who want to do harm to innocent people. So, the place needs a good clean-up so that it can be safe and prosperous after the monsters have been exterminated. Therefore, since most die-hard monsters are always difficult to exterminate, the clean-up is going to have to take some time before the place is completely clear!”

In fact, we are dealing with a pretence clean-up that is set up to take exactly as much time as is needed for the desired results to be driven in full. In this situation, withdrawal plans are made on the basis of the estimation of the amount of time left for the enterprise to derive the predicted gains in full. And, believe me: once the predicted gains are derived in full, all remaining monsters will be left alive, and no one will talk about them anymore as constituting an obstacle for the prosperity of the place. And that is most often the right time to fake peace process encounters, as if the monsters were suddenly hit by God, to make peace. Yet, this is because, once the desired results are driven in full, the monsters are no longer needed by the propaganda strategy that invented them in the first place. That’s a great game, indeed.

Those who are not interested in paying some attention to what is going on in the world today are free to believe in chanceful timing in precisely this kind of situations. At the end of the day, this is what the game is all about – to manipulate perception; to make use of mediagenic sensationalism; to make it possible for people to convene that it is true, indeed, that these people are monsters; but above all, that “there is no much that can be done to improve the condition of the poor innocent people of the Middle East until the monsters are fully exterminated. There is very little wonder that Alexis Tocqueville has had to refer to this game as the thing that made it possible for the Anglo-Saxons “to exterminate the Indian race without violating a single great principle of morality in the eyes of the world.”

How did they do that? – Very easy! – They did it through the use of such upliftingly vilifying rhetoric against the human integrity of the Indians to such an extent that the entire world ended up convinced that the Indians were so vile that they did, indeed, deserved to be exterminated.

We are surely going to need another four-hundred years before we realise that today’s Middle Eastern monsters; the ones that deserve to be exterminated without one single great principle of morality being violated in the eyes of today’s world are, too, but innocent humans struggling to survive in their own lands, as were the Indians four-hundred years ago. But the game has to keep playing its tune, just for now!

This is the game that has characterised the main principle behind Western manoeuvres over the under-civilised world; the world of those whom the West needs to brutalise for gain and dominance; a game that consists in creating misimpressions, so well crystallised in the propagation of this new type of intelligence that recommends that you say what you don’t think and do what you don’t say; as expressed, for instance, in the pretentious advocacy for what is known in the Anglo-Saxon world as “equal opportunities”; that noble enunciation – “equal opportunities” – but under which you are, quite bizarrely, still required to tick a box for your blood. Things that are “equal” do not fall into different boxes, do they?

In fact, what we are confronting in the face of this game is the question of the place and value of the principle of “universality” and even considerably more so in terms of “universal equality” between humans. When the civilised people of the West say “equal something” as referring to inter-human relations, what do they mean? Do they mean that they may exist equally, but not considered equally? Or do they mean that they may be considered equally, but not judged equally? Or do they mean that they may be judged equally, but not retributed equally? […?] Because, at the end of the day, equality must end somewhere, at some point, since they are eventually dropped into different boxes.

Is this Western principle of equality between humans only a matter of selecting a few faces from all races to be utilised in organised Western media games where they are set up to interact together in a way to force themselves to try to bombard the world with the dogmatic – but most certainly fake – idea that they are all equal? Do we really need to take all these troubles to try and prove that we are equal? Who told us that in order for us to respect our fellow humans we need the precondition that we be equal first? Equal in matters of what? By means of what type of metrics do we establish equality between humans? Because, here is the question: if some humans have the power to crash into others, conquer and enslave them, destroy their inheritances, and rule over them along which exercise they brutalise them and rape their lands in total impunity, how do we prove the principle of equality between humans? Do we even need humans to be equal for them to be humans?

You may now be thinking: “what a crazy idea to trash human equally legislations and codes of practice!” But, this is not my point. My point is that between what you are told and what is verifiably true on the question of who is good and who is evil on God’s earth; or on the question of who deserves life and who deserves extermination; or on the question of who has the right to do what and who has not, or on the question of who is equal to whom and who is not, the primordial principle, before all considerations, is such that the human being is not something that needs equality conventions to be human. It does not even need to be human in the first place. All it needs is to be able to compete; because it is by the force of its ability to compete with other entities of its own genus that it truly is what it fundamentally is.

On this note, this book is, first, a vital socio-political exercise in modern history to request the liberalisation of means of competition for all humans; because humanity is not a doctrinal temple where to preach morals and goodness.

Neither is it a dogmatic theatre where to confront creeds and ideologies. Nor is it a constraining harem where to summon inhibitions. Humanity is a place where intelligent beings coexist and evolve. They coexist by the force of some fundamental mechanisms that establish their inherent nature, irrespective of morals and gospels – mechanisms that govern their ability to produce offspring and fight for its survival; mechanisms that dictate their feeling of family bond; mechanisms that control their relations with others etc. etc. And they evolve by the force of some other fundamental mechanisms that are set off by their inner faculties, irrespective of ideologies and regulations – mechanisms that guide their sense of perception and judgement; mechanisms that fuel their aspiration for an always perfectible perfection; but, above all, mechanisms that command their societal instinction. Because this is, indeed, what humanity is – an aggregation of societal clusters, each one of which is constituted by affined parts that are produced and assimilated to unique patterns of interconnection and operation; but most importantly, guided by a unique mode of vision and expression; a mode of vision and expression that remains fundamentally open to the rest of the extant world for exchange and mutual enrichment; yet, free to recoil from it when matters of self-preservation become paramount.

This intuition is a gift that we have all procured from creation and evolution; a gift that is meant to be respected for humanity to be humanity. Respect for one’s own way of existence, and respect for one’s neighbours’ ways of existence. But, above all, respect for everyone’s ability to compete by his own way of existence as well as the different valuable means of competition that proceed from these different ways of existence.

What is wrong with Western intelligence in the face of this principle is its fraudulent subtleties; its ability to fake its moves. Some time ago, when we used to go for a conquest, we used to call it ‘conquest’. And the world watching us knew what to expect from us. Today, when we set out for a conquest, we rather call it ‘liberation.’ And from the confusion between what we do and what we say, and the incurring brouhaha of supputations and speculations that creep up at the pace of our blundering gallops towards human annihilation, the world ends up with no clear idea of what to expect from us. Is this what defines Western intelligence – duplicity?

I was, yet, to presume that the improvements that we have made in our knowledge and understanding of the nature of the human being over the past thousand years should not make it possible anymore for any human community to cherish the belief that another community may need crashing into; otherwise this amounts to denying conscience and existence to others. And, although some of us may keep arguing that the intention of those who have often crashed into others – personified in imperialism and colonialism – has never been to deny them conscience and existence, but rather to improve them, the question is: to improve them in matters of what?

Some used to propound that they needed to be taught about speech. Yet, we now know that there is not one single human community born and raised mute.

Others have expounded that they needed to be taught about God. Yet, we now know that there is not one single human community that does not have its own theogonic system of belief.

Many others have vaunted that they needed to be taught about how to treat their females. Yet, we now know that there is not one single human community on earth that does not know how to treat its females.

Some others have responded by saying that they needed to be taught about freedom. Yet, we now know that there is not one single human community on earth only constituted of prisoners.

It has also been voiced that they need to be taught about good governance. Yet, we now know that there is not one single human community on earth that does not have a sound way of running itself.

At times, the emphasis has been put on the need to teach them about technology. Yet, we now know that there is not one single human community that does not have an identifiable form of technological development.

In other words, we have improved a lot in our knowledge and understanding of all this. But, above all, we have achieved an even much sharper improvement in our awareness of the fact that, whatever the motivations for crashing into others might be, most communities that undergo this type of intervention end up disoriented, corrupt, self-destructive, and unproductive to their own wellbeing and, therefore, to the wellbeing of the human enterprise as a whole, since we are all constituents of the human enterprise, however much would some of us want to exclude others from it. Tony Blair’s “scar on human conscience” has no other reason, but for this.

There is, thus, a pressing need for us to acknowledge our duty to stop crashing into others and start observing some respect for the principles of human coexistence – to make it possible for each human collectivity to be left to enjoy its own Eden in its own tastes and mode of existence, to explore its own genius for its own improvement in its own mode of vision and expression, to advance at its own pace without having to be bombarded with fake crusades and poisonous liberations.

We need to understand that it is not necessary for some of us to feel irritated when they see others muddling in repugnant rusticity due to their very high level of civilisational retardation. We should not worry about changing others more than the Father in Heaven is Himself worried about their change; because change is like death. It always comes in the end. And when change comes, as it always comes, in order for it to be true, it must come from inside; not from outside. It must proceed from an internal willingness for improvement, rather than from an external whim for alteration. And when it comes from inside, as it has to come from inside, if this should entail exploring and emulating better functioning external models, it must be the burden of those willing to change to emulate the models that fit them, but should not be incumbent upon those eager to impose change. And, if all those who are not yet willing to change should be excluded from the so-called “international community” for failing to fulfil the conditions required by such a structure, I suggest that they be left alone. And if no one should do business with them for this reason, so be it! But let no one disturb them either, until they change, by themselves.

The European Union itself has done it by leaving many nations that are yet on the European continent out of the club for failing to meet the conditions required; and those that have been taken in have been taken in one by one, or wave by wave, on individual merits. Why should the United Nations not proceed alike? Is this Western mentality of multiple standards manoeuvres and fake moves completely irrational?

On this point, this book is, secondly, a compelling anthropo-political exercise in human history to spell out the real challenges that await each individual human community; but above all, to show that there is not one single human community on earth that be with no values; and therefore that all humans have the ability and the right to rediscover their true intrinsic values by which they can change by themselves, rather than giving in to the imperialistic fake moves the intention behind which has always been to corrupt other people’s values; to turn other human communities into mere sets of servants and clients.

To achieve this, what we are going to do is to strip up the fake heraldic moves that the European conquerors have employed to shape out and settle in a perpetual state of ignorance, corruption, self-destruction, and political chaos all over the under-civilised world.

Now – and this is the point – when we remember that the Black African world has been the main target of European assaults over the past five-hundred years, we should have a pretty clear idea of how big a role Western fakery may have played in the detrimental plight of the people of Black Africa in today’s world; which has, by ricochet, extended to the plight of all people of Black African stock all over the world, and who constitute a considerable lump of what we now refer to as “Black people”.

Therefore, the exercise that we are assigned to carry out in this book is to look into the philosophical, scientific and political manoeuvres that the Western world has employed to shape out and settle in a state of total decadence in the lives and minds of today’s Black people, as now fully manifest in Black people’s inability to make sense of the principles of human development, as well as the existential inflictions that have resulted from this state of things and that have turned Black people’s lives into an infernal spectacle of daily torture and distress; which has caused the question as to what is wrong with Black people to be raised in the first place.

But our exercise in this book is also, and most importantly, to give clear indications of the only effective wayout that we can and must follow; because, we simply have to get out!

This is why the primary objective of this book is not only to prove what is wrong with what we are doing, but also to show what is right with what we should be doing instead.

So, what is wrong with Black people?

Once again, we remind that the answers to the profoundest angles of this question are to be found in “What is Wrong with Black People?” (ISBN 978-1-84799-323-6); the only book that, in our knowledge, can help us understand what is actually going on in the world today; a book in which the most unsuspected – yet, the most damning – causes of the suffering of the people of Africa as well as the struggles of their brothers and cousins of the West are not only laid open with courage, but also resolved with vision, for a greater understanding of the true needs and aspirations of Africans in today’s world.

About the Author

Joe Mintsa was born in the present Gabon, Central Africa, on May 1st 1974. After completing his studies of philology and American history at the University of Libreville in 1998, he immediately migrated to England for further studies – a sojourn that then turned into a painful journey of reflection on the moral and political crises of his world. After the publication of The Sum of all Doubts (2004) – an essentially aphoristic but extremely sagacious work of fiction on religion and politics –, the release in Paris of his French title: Les Mythes du Recaptif (2005), and that of Third Mind (2006), What is Wrong with Black People? (2007) is now the book that features his outmost incisive delivery on the subject of the distressing struggles of the most deprived human species of the world, and more particularly African species. Joe Mintsa is a philologist, historian and an accomplished freelance investigator in the field of Political Anthropology. He currently lives in Brighton, England, (UK).

Tags: amazing, Anti Aging Products, body, culture, grace, philosophy, philosophy amazing grace, philosophy amazing grace gift set, philosophy amazing grace lotion, philosophy amazing grace perfume, philosophy amazing grace reviews

Tags: amazing, body, culture, grace, philosophy, philosophy amazing grace, philosophy amazing grace gift set, philosophy amazing grace lotion, philosophy amazing grace perfume, philosophy amazing grace reviews