NEWSLETTER NO. 50 OF 16 FEBRUARY 2008

1. NEWS AND CURRENT AFFAIRS
1.1 Taj Mahal
Mr Godbole's book - Taj Mahal: Simple Analysis of a Great Deception was first published in 1986.
His booklet Why Rewrite Indian History? was first published in 1993.
2nd editions of both books were declared published on 9 September 2007.
On the day of publication one person purchased 100 copies of each from Dr Bedekar

2nd editions of both books are now available in Pune, Bedford (England) and Chicago (USA).

1.2 Taj Mahal
1.2.1CD on Taj Mahal
Godbole has now produced a CD with 6 PowerPoint presentations.
1st is on historical arguments (125 slides)
2nd is called Unseen Taj Mahal (91 slides)
3rd is called How the Taj legend grew (240 slides)
Taj Chronology 1/2/3 (information in tabular form)

One copy of CD has been sent to Shree Dhruv of California, USA. He showed the Presentations at a public function in August to an audience of 30. He had planned to hold another one on 26 January 2008 to an audience of 700.

Another copy of CD was sent to Shree Waghmare of New York

Third copy of CD has been sent to Shree Nitin Pawaskar in Pune. He has all the necessary attachment and equipments. He saw all the PowerPoint presentations and was very pleased. He will offer his services to any one who wants to make a show.

1.2.2 Taj Mahal Article by Godbole
Shree Godbole had prepared a 4 page article on Taj Mahal in both Marathi and English. Our friend Dr Vaidya of Grantham kindly made some copies for distribution at Ganapati festivities at Birmingham and Milton Keynes in 2007. If you did not receive a copy of the article please contact Godbole

1.2.3 Taj Mahal - book by Begley and Desai
Dr Bedekar obtained Xerox copies of some pages with following information -
* Cenotaphs in upper and lower chambers. Interesting to note that the authors describe the tombs in the lower chamber (crypt) as cenotaphs (empty tombs).
* Site plan showing Burhanpur and Zainabad. They are on the opposite sides of river Tapi. Mumtaz died in Burhanpur but buried at Zainabad, across the river.
* Front page of De Laet Joannes's book in Latin, published in Holland in 1631.
This lists the palaces on the bank of river Jumna.

1.2.4 Agra - Historical and Descriptive, by Latif
Dr Bedekar obtained a Xerox copy of page 103 for us.

1.3 Website
All of Godbole's research is now on the following web-site www.satyashodh.com.
We have now added summaries of ALL newsletters.

1.4 US Torture flights
On 19th October 2007. Godbole was listening to BBC Radio 4 news at 07:00 hrs. It was reported that one Mr Rao of Canada came to New York as a visitor but was kidnapped by CIA. He was flown to some unknown country, tortured for 10 months then released. One US Senator justified such actions because it saved attacks on America.
Unfortunately this was not repeated later, nor did the BBC retract the story.

1.5 BBC and 60 years of Indian Independence
At last the BBC touched on the subject of horrors that followed partition of India in 1947. They announced that some 13 million people were uprooted and between half to one million people died as a result of partition.
BBC - 3 Counties Radio interviewed Shree Godbole. It was broadcast on 14 August 2007. He made the following points -
> Karachi was a majority Hindu City. After partition all the Hindus fled overnight and came to Bombay by ship. But no Muslim was sent to Pakistan from Bombay, no Muslim was harmed or their property looted. They stayed safely in Bombay. Sindhi refugees literally landed on our doorstep in Pune. They came as destitute. Their stories of harassment and expulsion were horrific, though Congress Government would not allow those to be printed in papers.

> India was supposed to be divided into Pakistan (for Muslims) and India (for Hindus). And yet Nehru declared India as secular. His attitude was, "Pakistan may hound Hindus (including Sikhs) out of their country. We would not raise a finger in protest. But Muslims must remain safely in India."

> Despite the horrors of partition, celebrations were taking places in the Indian capital, New Delhi. There were those who suggested that in view of much bloodbath, there should be no jubilation. They were branded as traitors. Congress Party papers said, "See these people do not want us to celebrate our independence from the British."

Some other reminiscences
Even after declaration of Partition, Hindus thought, "well we lived here under the Mughals and the British, so we would be alright under Jinnah." Hindus learn nothing from history.

We saw a Sikh deploring Muslims departing from his neighbourhood but we did not see a Muslim saying the same about Hindus (including Sikhs) who were forced out of their homes.

One Hindu man and his father stayed in Lahore till late. Luckily they managed to reach Lahore airport and had enough money for their flight. They landed Delhi airport with just their shirts on. And still instead of cursing Muslims, he had the stupidity to say that all the upheaval happened because Hindus could not reach a compromise with Muslims.

One of the Hindu listeners commented that Gandhi wanted Jinnah to be the first Prime Minister of India, but Nehru would not agree to it. So, partition took place.
This is utter nonsense. After all these years we have not understood Jinnah. After he was hounded out of Congress by followers of Gandhi in the early 1920s Jinnah decided to seek revenge. He presented himself as Muslim equivalent of Gandhi. How would he accept the offer of becoming Prime Minister? Just as Gandhi would dictate which members of Congress Party should serve on Viceroy's Council, Jinnah too would decide which Muslim would serve in similar capacity.

Sacrifices of Hindu women.
Many Hindu (including Sikhs) women preferred to die at the hands of their male relations rather than suffer the indignity of being raped by Muslims. It was disgusting that one Muslim women compared those killings to the horrific practice of 'honour killing' among Muslims today. Those Muslim girls who defied 'forced marriages' are regularly killed by their relatives even in England. It is for such reasons that we need a group of dedicated Hindus who keep an eye on mass-media in Britain.

1.6 Manmohan Singh's Bio-Data
We Hindus are gullible as ever. In September 2007 Bio-data of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's was being proudly circulated on E Mail. They highlighted his B.A (Hons), M.A, Ph. D etc Godbole received two such Mails. But when Godbole asked the question - "what good has this man done to the Hindus?" Everyone kept quiet.

1.7 Ramasetu controversy.
On 11 October 2007 Godbole came across an E Mail on aryayouthgroup@yahoogroup.com from one Ashwini Kumar. It read - "In the Ramayana we learn that Lanka was 100 yoganas from the mainland. Since a yojana is about 8 miles that would mean that it was about 800 miles from the mainland much further than current Sri Lanka (Ceylon.) Would appreciate any comments from you or any other members. "
Dhanyavaad
Ashwini

Godbole replied
Dear Ashwiniji,
Where did you find the information that Yojana is 8 miles?

Measures such as Yojana had different meanings in different provinces and times. In our school days we were told that Bengali Mun is different to Maharashtrian Mun (Mun is weight of grain like wheat)

Even the word Shekada (hundred) had different meanings. Oh yes, we had Kaccha Shekada and pucca Shekada.

In the 17th century 1 Dutch mile was equal to 3 ½ English miles.
The list is endless.
Are you trying to use your limited knowledge to deny the existence of Ram Setu?

V S Godbole
England

Ashwini Kumar < ashwini_kumarr@yahoo.ca replied on 14 October 2007>
Namaste Shri Godbole
I am glad you know that my knowledge is limited.
However I did not deny the existence of Ram Setu but trying to get some clarifications. Maybe in England they interpret things differently.
Anyway 2 Sanskrit scholars who have studied the Ramayana have come to the same conclusion that present day Sri Lanka (formerly) Ceylon is not the Lanka of the Ramayana.
Maybe you are also a Sanskrit scholar and have studied the Sanskrit texts and have come to a different interpretation.
Ashwini
--------------
Godbole replied -
Dear Shree Ashwini Kumar,
(1) You say that you are seeking clarification, but you don't say where you found the equation 1 yojana = 8 miles?
My question is simple. What is your answer?

(2) Again you say "2 Sanskrit scholars who have studied the Ramayana have come to the same conclusion that present day Sri Lanka (formerly) Ceylon is not the Lanka of the Ramayana."

But who are these Sanskrit Scholars? Why do you wish to hide their names?

Dr P V Vartak, a Surgeon of Pune had written a wonderful book called Vastava Ramayana. That was some 30 years ago. He has dispelled many misunderstandings. Unfortunately it was in Marathi and therefore the contents are largely unknown.

Do tell us who your 2 Sanskrit scholars and we will take up the matter further.

V S Godbole

Ashwini Kumar replied-
Namaste Godbole Ji
I was hoping you would explain your understanding of 100 yojanas but I guess it was wishful thinking on my part since you do not know. You choose instead to explain Mun, Shekada and Dutch Mile which has no relevance to yojanas.

Anyway you can contact Shyamasundara Dasa at email
jyotisa@shyamasundaradasa.com for more info on his studies on the Ramayana.

Ashwini

In the end Godbole replied-

Dear Ashwiniji,
(1) I have no interest in the value of Yojana as I have many other interests. I quoted Mun, Shekada and Mile as an illustration that the same word had different meanings in different times.

(2) You still have not answered my question. Where did you find 1Yojana = 8 miles?
Why are you avoiding the basic question?

In school days we had learned a Sanskrit verse -

yojananam sahastram tu shaneir gatchhet pipilika
agachhan vainateyo pi padam ekam na gatchhati

An ant, by moving at its slow pace will travel 1,000 yojanas, but an Eagle, if he does not fly will not go even a foot. Are you suggesting that an ant will travel 8,000 miles?

(3) Again you have not given the names of scholars who say that Shree Lanka in Ramayana is NOT the same as present day Ceylon (Shree Lanka).

If you are not prepared to answer two simple questions, I suggest you drop this exchange as nothing will come out of it.

V S Godbole
-----------------------------------

1.8 Events in Burma
In September / October 2007 we saw ruthless suppression by Military of Buddhist Monks demonstrating for democracy in Burma. There were demonstrations in London in protest. We have two questions -
(a) Why were Muslim organisations participating in the demonstrations? They do not want democracy, insisting the governments should rule by the Koran. They have been demanding that there should be Shariah Law in Britain (See Daily Mail of 15 August 2006). Muslims do not want democracy in Saudi Arabia.

(b) Where were the grand-fathers of present day Buddhist Monks when Hindus were kicked out of Burma (most of them being Shettys from Madras) 50 years ago? We do not recollect a single voice of dissent.
We should not get carried away by emotions.

1.9 Discontent in Pakistan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hindu Sitah" <hsitah9@yahoo.com>
To: <Unitedhindufront@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 7:27 PM
Subject: Baloch Nationalist to organise "WORLD BALOCH CONFERENCE"

http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2007/08/baloch-nationalist-to-organise-world.html

According to latest Press release by Dr.Wahid Baloch, President of 'Baloch Society of North America' discussions are underway to organise a conference in Europe to unite all Baloch Diaspora on a single platform to carry out the Baloch struggle more effectively on an international level. BSO-NA formed in 2005 by Dr.Wahid Baloch organised many protest marches by joining hands with Sindhi groups in US is on forefront in North America to highlight Pakistani oppression in Balochistan Province . He is considered to be close to many Baloch leaders, particularly Khan of Kalat who is currently in UK for presenting his case before International Court of Justice. The same Press release states that Khan of Kalat will be visiting North America and once Baloch Diaspora is united, its chapters and offices would be opened in all major cities in Europe, North America, and Asia and in the Gulf States."

PRESS RELEASE : http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2007/08/bso-na-president-to-go-on-hunger-strike.html

---------------
One Dr S Sharma reacted -

What about Hindus?
Hindus must unite to liberate Hindusthan and Hindus from the foreign rulers. Hindus are under foreign rule. One white European woman SONIA MAINO GANDHI is ruling over them. Slaves are preparing for false independence day on 15 Aug India has been under foreign rule since 712 A.D. until 15.8.1947 but again gone under foreign rule this must be realised by the patriots.

dr.s.sharma

---------------
Shree Godbole responded -

Dear Dr Sharma,
(1) We need to learn from our enemies. We should be able to use news such as this for our propaganda.

(2) Your statement that we were ruled by foreigners from 712 to 1947 shows dismal ignorance, which must be removed before we can fight our enemies.
Please read Veer Savarkar's book Six Glorious Epochs of Indian History
Good luck
V S Godbole
England

2. AROUND LONDON TOUR OF PLACES ASSOCIATED WITH INDIAN FREEDOM FIGHTERS
2.1 Godbole arranged three tours.
* First tour was on 19 November 2007. Dr Agarkar of Kalyan had led a group of 10 teachers from Hindusthan. Two Marathi friends of Godbole and Sau Bedekar (Thane) also joined in. Nathwani of BBC Three Counties Radio attended and recorded salient points, which were later broadcasted on Radio. It was raining for first half of the tour.

** On 30 December 2007 Godbole arranged another tour. Aditya Deshpande is studying for M Engg in Sussex University. His father came to England as a visitor. Three members of Chitale family of Ealing (London) also joined in.

*** On 19 January 2008 one more tour was arranged for Milind Jalwadi, Vijay Laychan, his wife and five year old daughter. Once again it was raining for first half of the tour.

2.2 CD of the Tour
Godbole has modified the CD of the tour (PowerPoint presentation).
Following shots are added -
> Receipt for the sum of £2,000 donation to Labour Party made by Lokamanya Tilak.
>> Photo of Tilak (possibly in a studio) when staying in 10 Howley Place.
>> Group Photo of Tilak, N C Kelkar and British M. Ps and other sympathisers
The CD has 102 slides.

3. History today

3.1 Web-site on Savarkar
On 17 June 2007 an I T Engineer Rahul Deshmukh participated in Godbole's Special Tour of London. He informed that his friend Ajit Deshpande from Pune was involved in preparing a web-site on Savarkar. In June/July Godbole saw the first page (introduction) of the web-site and made several comments. Target release of the site is 26 February 2008.
Later on Hetal Rach contacted saying that he was responsible for up-dating the site.
Godbole then pointed out the misconceptions and suggested improvements. All these have been taken into account.

Dr Shreerang Godbole of Pune sent some passages and FAQs (frequently asked questions) for comments. This was promptly done by Godbole (England)

The same team of I T Engineers has created a web-site - on Golwalkar Guruji (www.golwalkarguruji.org)

3.2 Jana Gana Mana
(a) In 1919 Ravindranath Tagore himself had written the meaning of all the verses in his own handwriting. Where can we find it?
The history of the song is narrated by Rabindra Kumar Dasgupta in his book
'Our National Anthem' published in 1993 by Manjula Bose,
Tagore Research Institute,
97C / S.P.Mukherji Road,
Kalighat Park,
Calcutta - 700026.
See page 53.

In fact translations of all the five verses in French made by H. P. Morris and included in A. Bake's 'Twenty Six Songs of Rabindranath Tagore' (Paris, 1935), in German, by Helmut Von Glasenapp and included in 'Die National hymnen dey erde' (Munich, 1958), in Italian by Rabiouddin Ahmed and included in 'Centenario Di Tagore' (Rome, 1962) have been reproduced in Dasgupta's book.

We are grateful to Dr P C Deshmukh of Chennai for providing the above information.

(b) However the same old malicious E Mail is still in circulation (first seen in the year 2000). On 29th November 2007 one such E Mail was received by Godbole through our friend from Birmingham, Dhirajbhai Shah. Godbole promptly contacted the person and later sent him meaning of the song in Tagore's own handwriting and requested him to circulate to all his friends. He merely acknowledged receipt. When is came to the malicious interpretation of Jana Gana Mana, he wanted the whole world to know, but when its true meaning was revealed he had no enthusiasm to circulate that also!!

4. BEHAVIOUR OF CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS TODAY

4.1The Muslims

4.1.1 The games Muslims play

From: rakhal saha
To: Unitedhindufront@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 10:49 PM
Subject: {UnitedHinduFront} Re: Some Thoughts on Hindu Media

TheReligionofPeace.com Presents:

THE GAMES MUSLIMS PLAY

Given Islam's violent history and the unfavourable contrast of its oppressive practices against 21st century values, Muslims are hard-pressed to repackage their faith in the modern age. Some of its leading apologists have come to rely on tricks involving semantics and half-truths that are, in turn, repeated by novices and even those outside the faith.
This is a document (that we hope to improve on and expand over time) that exposes some of these games and helps truth-seekers find their way through the maze of disingenuous (often blatantly false) claims about Islam and its history.

"If Islam were a violent religion, then all Muslims would be violent."
"Other religions kill, too."
Muhammad preached 'no compulsion in religion' (Qur'an: 2:256)
The Crusades
"Muhammad never killed anyone."
Islam teaches 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' (Qur'an 5:32)
"Muslims only kill in self-defence."
The million dollar wager that "Holy War" isn't in the Qur'an.
"Verses of violence are taken out of context."
"Islam must be true, because it is the world's fastest growing religion."

"If Islam were a violent religion, then all Muslims would be violent."

The Muslim Game:
Most Muslims live peacefully, without harming others, so how can Islam be a violent religion? If Islam were the religion of terrorists, then why aren't most Muslims terrorists?

The Truth:
Simply put, because it's wrong to kill people, regardless of what Islam may or may not teach.
All religions align in some form or fashion with intuitive utilitarian principles. Many Muslims in the West often hold an interpretation of Islam that is much closer to Judeo-Christianity than to the actual way of Muhammad, since that is how their religion is presented to them. They only know the biographical details of their prophet that are in line with moral restraint, and not the ones that speak of hedonism, deception, power and violence.

Decent Muslims are that way because they are more loyal to the moral law written in their hearts rather than to the details of Muhammad's religion. They filter out evidence to the contrary - when they may encounter it - and truly believe that their religion is inclusive of the many freedoms and values that are cherished in the West (perhaps never questioning why they are not found in Muslim lands)
Although it is a broad religion, it is no coincidence that the purists in Islam - those most prone to taking the words of Muhammad literally - are almost always the more dangerous. They may be called 'extremists' or 'fundamentalists,' but, at the end of the day, they are always the more dedicated to the Qur'an and following the path of Jihad as mandated by Muhammad.

Of course, the same question can easily be turned around. If Islam is a religion of peace, then why is it the only religion that consistently produces religiously-motivated terrorist attacks? Why are thousands of people able to cut off an innocent person's head or fly a plane into a building while screaming praises to Allah? Where's the outrage among other Muslims when this happens… and why do they get more worked up over cartoons?

"Other religions kill, too."

The Muslim Game:
Bringing other religions down to the level of Islam is one of the most popular strategies of Muslim apologists when confronted with the spectacle of Islamic violence Remember Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber? Why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?

The Truth:
Because they don't.
Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, Timothy McVeigh was not a religious man. At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for God.

The so-called "members of other faiths" alluded to by Muslims are nearly always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit religion as Muslim terrorists do, and this is what makes it a very different matter.

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.

Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There were five deadly attacks over a 35 year period in the U.S. Seven people died. This is an average of one death every five years.

By contrast, Islamic terrorists have staged over seven thousand deadly attacks in just the five years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds five million over this same period.

In the last six years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god.
Muslims may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their "perfect" one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.

Muhammad preached "No compulsion in religion."

(Qur'an, Verse 2:256)

The Muslim Game:
Muslims quote verse 2:256 from the Qur'an to prove what a tolerant religion Islam is. The verse reads in part, "Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clearly from error…"

The Truth:
The Muslim who offers this verse may or may not understand that it is from one of the earliest Suras (or chapters) from the Medinan period. It was "revealed" at a time when the Muslims had just arrived in Medina after being chased out of Mecca. They needed to stay in the good graces of the stronger tribes around them, many of which were Jewish. It was around this time, for example, that Muhammad decided to have his followers change the direction of their prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem.
But Muslims today pray toward Mecca. The reason for this is that Muhammad issued a later command that abrogated (or nullified) the first. In fact, abrogation is a very important principle to keep in mind when interpreting the Qur'an - and verse 2:256 in particular - because later verses (in chronological terms) are said to abrogate any earlier one with which they contradict.

Muhammad's message was far closer to peace and tolerance during his early years at Mecca, when he didn't have an army. This changed dramatically after he attained the power to conquer, which he eventually used with impunity to bring other tribes into the Muslim fold. Contrast verse 2:256 with Suras 9 and 5, which were the last "revealed," and it is easy to see why Islam has been anything but a religion of peace from the time of Muhammad to the present day.

There is some evidence that verse 2:256 may not have been intended for Muslims at all, but is instead meant to be a message to other religions concerning their treatment of Muslims. Verse 193 of the same Sura instructs Muslims to "fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah." This reinforces the narcissistic nature of Islam, which places Muslims above non-Muslims, and applies very different standards to both groups.

Though many Muslims today reject the practice of outright forcing others into changing their religion, forced conversion has been a part of Islamic history since Muhammad first picked up a sword. As he is recorded in many places as saying,
"I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah..."

Interestingly, even the Muslims who quote 2:256 usually believe in Islamic teachings that sound very much like religious compulsion. These would be the laws punishing apostasy by death, and the institutionalized discrimination against religious minorities under Islamic rule that is sometimes referred to as "dhimmiitude."
Dhimmitude prohibits non-Muslims from sharing their faith and even includes the extortion of money from them in the form of a tax called the jizya. Those who refuse to pay this arbitrary amount are put to death. If this isn't compulsion, then what is?

The Crusades

The Muslim Game:

Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim, when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and kill "millions."

The Truth:
Every part of this myth is a lie. Even by the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historic treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.

Here are some quick facts…

The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad's death. As early as 652, Muhammad's followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted well over two centuries and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

In theory, the Crusades were provoked by the harassment of Christian pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land, in which many were kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam or even killed. (Compare this to Islam's justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad's time).

The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They never attacked Saudi Arabia or sacked Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople.

The period of Crusader "occupation" (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries. The Muslim occupation is in its 1,372nd year.

The period of Crusader "aggression" compresses to about 20 years of actual military campaign, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the punctuation of fourteen centuries of relentless Jihad that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.

The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.
What other religion calls sin and excess, Islam calls the will of Allah.

"Muhammad never killed anyone."

The Muslim Game:
In order to give others the impression that Muhammad was a man of peace, Muslims sometimes claim that he never killed anyone. By this, they mean that he never slew anyone with his own hand (except in battle… which they may or may not remember to mention).

The Truth:
By this logic, Hitler never killed anyone either.
Obviously, if you order the execution of prisoners or the murder of critics by those who are under your command, then you are at least as guilty as those who carry out your orders. In Muhammad's case, the number of people that he had murdered were literally too many for historians to fully know.

There were the men taken prisoner at Badr (including one who cried out for his children at the point of execution), a mother of five (stabbed to death for questioning Muhammad's claim to be a prophet), dozens of Jewish citizens, including poets and merchants who were accused of mocking Islam, numerous adulterers, at least one slave girl, 800 Qurayza men and boys taken captive and beheaded on Muhammad's order, and an unfortunate individual who was tortured to death so that the prophet of Islam could discover his hidden treasure and then "marry" his freshly-widowed wife.
Indirectly, Muhammad is also responsible for the millions upon millions of people who have been slaughtered down through the centuries by those carrying on his legacy of Jihad. Not only did he kill, he is truly one of the bloodiest figures in history.

"Just like the Bible, the Qur'an also says 'Thou Shalt Not Kill."

(Qur'an, Verse 5:32)

The Muslim Game:
Many Westerners prefer to believe that all religion is either equally bad or equally good, and eagerly devour anything that seems to support this preconception. The myth usually works to Islam's advantage as well, since it either raises it to the level of others, or brings the others down to it. To compete with Western religion, Muslims vigorously employ verse 5:32, which is the closest thing they have to the Old Testament command of 'Thou shalt not kill."

It reads, in part:
"…if any one slew a person… it would be as if he slew a whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people…". (as quoted by the Fiqh Council of North America in their ultimately meaningless "Fatwa against Terrorism")
The Truth:
Oh goodness… if only the Qur'an stopped right there! What would the world be like without large numbers of Muslims eager to commit mass murder in the name of their religion across the globe each day? Think of the lives, money and heartache that would be spared if Muhammad had commanded Muslims to cherish human life in the Judeo-Christian tradition

Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. This fragment of verse 5:32 is what Muslim apologists want non-Muslims to believe is in the Qur'an, rather than the dozens of other open-ended passages that command warfare, beheadings and torture. But even what they usually quote from 5:32 isn't quite how it appears. Remember all those ellipses? There's something being left out.
Here's the full text of the verse:

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."

First, notice the gaping loophole. Killing is allowed in cases of murder or "for spreading mischief in the land." Murder is pretty straightforward, but "spreading mischief?" If anything begged for a careful and precise explanation, this phrase certainly would. But generations of Muslims are left to apply their own interpretation of what "mischief" means. (Needless to say, the standards vary)

Secondly, note the broader context of this verse. It turns out that this isn't a command to Muslims after all. It's a recounting of a rule that was handed down to the Jews. It isn't an admonition against killing. It's an indictment against Jews for violating God's law. "Any one" doesn't mean "anyone," but rather "any one" of the Jews.

Rather than encouraging tolerance, Sura 5 as a whole is actually an incitement of hatred with a hint of violence. Jews and Christians are explicitly cursed as 'wicked' people with 'diseased hearts' and as hateful 'blasphemers,' respectively. Muhammad goes on to coyly remind his people that Allah loves those who "fight" in his service (and it's fairly obvious who the enemy is).

Muslims also conveniently leave out the fact that the verse which follows 5:32 actually mandates killing in the case of the aforementioned "mischief." It even suggests crucifixion and "the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides."
With this being the best that Islam has to offer, it's not hard to guess why the religion contributes over a thousand deadly terrorist attacks each year.

"Muslims only kill in self-defence."

The Muslim Game:
Muslims often claim that their religion only orders them to kill in self-defence (i.e. when their own lives are in danger).

The Truth:
In fact, self-defence is just one of several conditions under which Muslims are permitted to take the lives of others. The myth of killing only in self-defence is easily disproved from the accounts of Muhammad's own life as recorded in Islam's sacred texts (with which Muslim terrorists are only too familiar).

Muhammad's career of killing began with raids on merchant caravans travelling between Syria and Mecca. His men would usually sneak up on unsuspecting drivers and kill those who defended their goods. There was no self-defence involved here at all. This was old-school armed robbery and murder - sanctioned by Allah (according to Muhammad, who also demanded a fifth of the loot).

The very first battle that Muhammad fought was at Badr, when a Meccan army of 300 was sent out to protect the caravans from Muslim raids. The Meccans did not threaten Muhammad, and (turning this Muslim myth on its ear) only fought in self-defence after they were attacked by the Muslims. Following the battle, Muhammad established the practice of executing surrendered captives - something that would be repeated on many other occasions.

The significance of this episode can hardly be overstated, because it lies at the very beginning of the long chain of Muslim violence that eventually passed right through the heart of America on September 11th. The Muslims were not being threatened by those whom they attacked, and certainly not by those whom they had captured. They staged aggressive raids to eventually provoke war, just as al-Qaeda attempts to do in our time.

Muslims try to justify this early violence by claiming that Muhammad and his followers "suffered persecution" at the hands of the Meccans in an earlier episode, in which Muhammad was evicted from the city of Mecca and had to seek refuge at Medina. But even the worst of this persecution did not rise to the level of killing. The only Muslim to have died in Mecca was the elderly mother of a Muslim, and she was said to have been overcome by stress.

Even Muhammad's own men evidently questioned whether they should be pursuing and killing people who did not pose a threat to them, since it seemed to contradict earlier, more passive teachings. To convince them, Muhammad passed along a timely revelation from Allah stating that "the persecution of Muslims is worse than slaughter [of non-Muslims]" (Sura 2:191). This verse established the tacit principle that the authority of Muslims is of higher value even than the very lives of others. There is no larger context of morality against which acts are judged. The only thing that matters is how an event impacts or benefits Muslims.

Under Muhammad, slaves and poets were executed, captives were beheaded, and adulterers were put into the ground and stoned. None of these were done during the heat of battle or necessitated by self-defence. To this day, Islamic law mandates death for certain crimes such as blasphemy and apostasy.
Following his death, Muhammad's companions stormed the Christian world - taking the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe. They attacked and conquered to the East as well, including Iran, Afghanistan and well into the Indian sub-continent. Few, if any, of these campaigns involved the pretence of self-defence. They were about Jihad.

"The words, 'Holy War', aren't in the Qur'an."

The Muslim Game:
In early 2005, a well-known Muslim apologist named, Jamal Badawi, offered $1 million to anyone who could prove that the Qur'an contained the words, "Holy War." Whether he actually had the money to put up is somewhat in question, but his intention was to make people believe that Jihad is not advocated in the Qur'an and that the terrorists are somehow tragically mistaken when they wage their campaigns of holy war in the cause of Islam.

So successful is this myth, that it has been repeated on popular television shows, such as "Criminal Minds." Many now believe that not only is holy warfare not advocated by the Qur'an, but that the word, "Jihad" must not appear in it either, since Jihad has come to mean "Holy War" (most especially by those who kill in the name of Allah).

The Truth:
In fact, not only is the word "Jihad" mentioned in several places within the Quran, such as the infamous Sura 9 ("Verse of the Sword"), there are over 150 calls to holy war scattered throughout the entire text.
So what's the catch?

Well, when knowledgeable infidels such as Robert Spencer immediately responded to the challenge and went to collect their prize, Mr. Badawi was forced to reveal the fine print on his offer. You see, he wasn't talking about the concept of holy war. He only meant the exact Arabic phrase, "Holy War."

And what about "Jihad?" Well, this doesn't count, according to Mr. Badawi, because technically it can be used in a context that doesn't mean 'holy war' (even if that is not how it was interpreted in Muhammad's time, nor in ours). "Jihad" is like the word "fight," which can be used in a benign sense (as in, "I am fighting a craving to call Mr. Badawi a disingenuous hack").

If "Jihad" is holy without war, then "Qital" must be war without the holy. It is an Arabic term that literally means to wage military combat. But, like Jihad, it is most certainly used within the context of holy war, such as in Sura 2: "Fight against them until idolatry is no more and religion is only for Allah." Mr. Badawi is even on record as admitting that Qital can be a form of Jihad… but even this doesn't qualify according to the niceties of his offer.

So, although the Qur'an tells believers to "slay the infidels wherever ye find them," and "smite their necks and fingertips," showing "ruthlessness to unbelievers," and 150 other violent admonitions to fight explicitly in the cause of Allah… the Arabic words "holy" and "war" don't literally appear side-by-side. (Neither do the German words, "concentration" and "camp," appear consecutively in Nazi documents, by the way).

My, what a hollow victory this is. One has to wonder whether Mr. Badawi sincerely believes that he has a point or if he recognizes this for the shameful word game that it is.

At the very least, people should know that "Jihad" is used within the context of religious warfare time and time again throughout the Qur'an and Hadith, and that, regardless of the exact terminology, Islam's most sacred texts clearly advocate the sort of holy war that propels modern-day terrorism.

"Verses of violence are taken out of context."

The Muslim Game:
Verses like, "Slay the infidels wherever ye find them," were issued during times of war, according to the apologists. They accuse critics who use Qur'anic verses to discredit Islam of engaging in "cherry-picking" (pulling verses out of context to support a position, and ignoring others that may mitigate it).

The Muslims who rely on this argument often leave the impression that the Qur'an is full of verses of peace, tolerance and universal brotherhood, with only a small handful that say otherwise. Their gullible audience may also assume that the context of each violent verse is surrounded by obvious constraints in the surrounding text which bind it to a particular place and time (as is the case with many Old Testament passages).

The Truth:
The truth, unfortunately, is just the opposite. This is why new Muslims and non-Muslims alike, who begin studying the Qur'an and Hadith, are often confronted with an array of disclaimers and warnings by well-meaning Muslims who caution that it takes "years of study" to fully understand the meaning of certain passages Neophytes are encouraged to seek the counselling of a Muslim scholar or cleric to "help them along" with interpreting what they read.

It is not the verses of violence that are rare; however, it is the ones of peace and tolerance. Neither is the "historical context" of these verses of violence at all obvious from the surrounding text (in most cases).

In the Qur'an, ideas and topics often seem to come from nowhere, emerging almost at random in a jumbled mess that bears no consistent or coherent stream of thought. But, with external references to the Hadith and early biographies of Muhammad's life, it is usually possible to determine when a Qur'anic verse was "handed down from Allah," and what it may have meant to the Muslims at the time. This is what apologists opportunistically refer to as "historical context." They contend that such verses are merely a part of history and not intended as imperatives to present-day Muslims.

But "historical context" cuts both ways. If any verse is a product of history, then they all are. Indeed, there is not a verse in the Qur'an that was not given at a particular time to address a particular situation in Muhammad's life, whether he wanted to conquer the tribe next door and needed a "revelation" from Allah spurring his people to war, or if needed the same type of "revelation" to satisfy his lust for more women (free of complaint from his other wives).

Here is the irony of the "cherry-picking" argument: Those who use "historical context" against their detractors nearly always engage in cherry-picking of their own by choosing which verses they apply "historical context" to and which they prefer to hold above such tactics of mitigation.

Islamic purists do not engage in such games. Not only do they know that the verses of Jihad are more numerous and authoritative (abrogating the earlier ones), they also hold the entire Qur'an to be the eternal and literal word of Allah… and this is what often makes them so dangerous.

"Islam is the world's fastest growing religion"

The Muslim Game:
How can Islam be a bad religion if it is growing so fast? Doesn't this mean that it is actually a truthful religion, since so many are accepting it?

The Truth:
In the first place, the truth of an idea or doctrine is never established by mere belief. Up until the last hundred years or so, the vast majority of people on our planet did not even believe that they were on a planet. Nor did they believe that the earth was spinning at a thousand miles an hour or hurtling around the sun at 67,000 miles an hour. Does this mean that the earth wasn't doing these things up until people believed that it was?

Secondly, Islam is not "growing faster" than other religions because "people are accepting it," but rather because the birth-rate among Muslims is significantly higher than it is among Christians and others, particularly in the West. Kids can be raised to believe in just about anything, so this hardly constitutes any sort of accomplishment.
Of the so-called "converts" from other religions, only a miniscule number were active believers. Nearly all are really just people who have no faith to convert from - regardless of their nominal designation. In the West and non-Muslim Third World, where all religions are allowed to compete equally, such people (who experience a spiritual awakening) are much more likely to turn to Christianity than to Islam.

Finally, the real reason that Islam is making headway in other faiths, while losing few of its own, is actually something that Muslims should feel a sense of embarrassment over, rather than pride. In truth, it speaks more to the insecurity that Muslims have in their own religion, and the banal immaturity that Islam has, compared with other faiths.

Let's say that you are playing chess with a 6-year-old boy. Instead of following the same set of rules, however, the child is allowed to make up rules that are preferential to him. One of the rules he decides on is that you aren't allowed to make any moves in his half of the board, but he is allowed to make moves in yours. Another might be that it is impossible for any of his pieces to be taken.

Now, if the child is winning the game - which is assured by the conditions that he has imposed - is it really something in which he can take true pride?
The rules that Muslims impose on the "conversion game" are almost exactly like this chess analogy. Other religions are not allowed to operate in Islam's own territory (i.e. preaching their faith and evangelizing) as Muslims are in others. Neither is conversion away from Islam allowed - on penalty of death.

Watching Muslims gloat over being the "fastest growing religion" is no different than watching a child delude themselves into thinking that they are smarter and better for "beating" a much wiser adult in a game played under manufactured conditions that render the artificial "victory" entirely meaningless.

Islam has been playing by its own rules since its inception. It is unlikely that Muslims will soon develop the confidence in their own religion (or the necessary social maturity) to lift the shameful restrictions to which it owes its success and risk competition with other faiths on a level playing field.

As was first mentioned, the truth of a belief or creed is never established by how many followers it has. But when a religion has to be supported by double standards and death threats, there is all the more reason to doubt its veracity.
(Note: Our article does not take issue with the claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion, not because we necessarily believe it, but because others have done a better job of refuting it. See Islam is not the Fastest Growing Religion in the World for an example.)

Our comment - at long last we are realising the game being played by Muslims and how to expose faults in their arguments. It is a good sign of awakening.

-----------------------------------------
4.1.2 Muslim Dalits
----- Original Message -----
From: jindia
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:22 AM
Subject: {UnitedHinduFront} Muslim Dalits a downtrodden lot

Muslim Dalits a downtrodden lot
Nalin Verma

http://www.bihartimes.com/book_review/book_review5.html

Ali Anwar's book, 'Masawat ki Jung' has sent a sever down the spines of Muslim elites as it dwells at length on the plight of dalit Muslims derided and treated as pariahs by the upper caste brethren and ulemas. This goes against tenets of Islam which don't sanction inequality on the basis of caste and birth.

"Aagaya ain ladai mein waqte-namaz Qiblaru hoke zamin-bos hui qaum-e-hejaz Ek hi saf mein khade ho gaye Mahmood-o-Ayaz Na koi banda raha aur na koi banda-nawaz
(In the midst of raging battle if the time came to pray, Hejazis turned to Mecca, kissed the earth and ceased from the fray. Sultan and slave in single file stood side by side. Then no servant was nor master, nothing did them divide)"

This famous couplet of Alamma Iqbal highlights the virtue of an egalitarian society that Islam professes. The religion propounded by Prophet Mohammad does not sanction inequality on the basis of caste and birth. That's why the king and the slave stand shoulder to shoulder in prayer as Iqbal mentions in his verse.
But the book, "Masawat ki Jung (crusade for equality)" authored by Ali Anwar, journalist and activist, and published by the Vani Prakashan, New Delhi, vividly depicts the caste inequality and hatred in the Muslim society and the plight of the dalit Muslims. Former Prime Minister V. P. Singh recently released the book at the book fair in Patna.

The book has sent shiver down the spine of the Muslim elite. In Anwar's work focuses the movement that the dalit Muslims of Bihar have launched against the "exploitative" upper castes and ulemmas in their own community, under the banner of the Pasmanda Muslim Mahaz.

The book written in the Hindustani language illustrates in detail how the small number of upper caste Muslims who constitute only 15 per cent of the total Muslim population in India have been enjoying control over the religious, political and social institutions of the country for centuries.
The author has identified the dalit castes in his community and has described their pitiable condition on the basis of his field survey and spending time with time. The Muslim dalits include Jolaha, Nutt, Bakkho, Bhatiyara, Kunjra, Dhunia, Kalal, Dafali, Halakhor, Dhobi, Lalbegi, Gorkan, Meershikar, Cheek, Rangrez and Darji.
The book emphasizes how these castes have been socially and economically "abused" by the upper caste Muslims for centuries. "Not to speak of others, even the great social reformer like Sayed Ahmad Khan abused Jolahas describing them as badjat (bad caste)", the book says.

The jolahas are hard working people who earn their livelihood by weaving cloths. "But it is an irony that the people who are relatively more hard-working are frowned upon in the Muslim society. The way Ahirs are ridiculed in the Hindu society, the Jolahas are abused and described as fools in the Muslim society."
The book quotes numerous popular idioms which the "high born" Muslims use to despise the dalits in their community. Among them is "Khet khaye gadaha, maar khaye jolaha (Jolaha should be beaten up if the donkey grazes the harvest)." Another is: "Dom ghar khaibo, dhob ghar khaibo na (Eat at Dom's house but never eat at a Dhobi's house). Dhobi is a washer man community.

The book says that the condition of dalit Muslims is "worse than dalit Hindus". "It's a big farce that there is no untouchability in Muslim society. The disease of untouchability is very much prevalent in Muslim society. In fact, neither the Muslims' ruling elite nor the religious leaders have so far made any meaningful efforts to remove the disease of inequality that has made the dalit Muslims to suffer for centuries." The author says that the Muslim political and religious leaders have rather tried to conceal the casteism, untouchability and inequality in the community to serve their vested interests.

Interestingly, the book disputes the general opinion of historians and social scientists that the Muslim society adopted the vices of social inequality and casteism from the Hindu society. "The general belief that Muslim society has absorbed the caste based disparities from the Hindu society is not wholly true."

The book says that the disease of social inequality was prevalent even in the Arab society during the pre-Islam and post-Islam days. To drive his point home the author asks: "If there was no inequality in Arab(ia)-where Islam was born-how does the Arabic literatures contain the words, ashraf, azlaf and arzal? These three Arabic words are derived from their Arabic roots, sharf, zalf and razl which mean gentle, lowly and pariah respectively."
The book does not wholly deny the theory that the Hindus who were converted to Islam carried the vestiges of their caste-based culture with them in the Muslim society. "Who denies the impact of Hinduism over Islam or vice versa…..Synthesis and compromises happen when the two cultures and civilizations meet and decide to co-exist." But if the Muslim society, the book argues, imposes the onus of the vice inequality and casteism wholly on Hindu society it is absolutely wrong. "It's a design to hide one's own vice."

The author strongly advocates reservation in jobs for the dalit Muslims on the pattern of the one provided to the Hindu dalits who include Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. He describes the failure of the Muslim leaders to ask for reservation in Government jobs for the dalits in their community at the time of the formation of the constitution as a "design" to conceal the social inequality. More than 50 years down the line, the "unholy design to conceal the weakness of the society and maintain the hegemony of a selected class of the community over the rest has festered into deep wounds causing untold sufferings to the dalit Muslims".
The benefit of reservation in the jobs has enabled a fair number of SCs and STs become IAS and IPS officers and get services at various levels in the central and state governments. "But one can not find a single Jolaha, Dafali, Bhatiyara, Cheek or any dalit Muslim getting the job of even a clerk in the Government's office or teacher in the schools", the book claims.

The book says that the dalit and backward Muslims who constitute more than 75 per cent of the total Muslim population in the country are now awakened to the "reality" that the Muslim political and religious leadership "dominated by the upper castes" will not raise their (dalit Muslim's) cause. But in a bid to guard their "vested interests, the likes of Sayed Shahabuddin and several ulemmas are now clamouring for the reservation for all the poor Muslims in the Government job". "It's yet another design to perpetuate the hegemony of Sheikhs, Pathans and Malliks-the high caste Muslims-who have been ruling the mosques, Muslims' religious and charity related bodies and the politics."

The book also holds the Muslim ulemmas responsible for the plight of the dalit Muslims. "Why these ulemmas don't wage a crusade against the casteism and inequality which are against the basic tenets of Islam", the author asks, adding: " these ulemmas mainly belonging to upper castes dominate the rich religious and charity related bodies." "And they are as much attracted towards power and pelf as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad sponsored sadhus are."

Religious and charitable organisations of the Muslims, according to the book, used to be supported by the subscriptions from the people in the past. "But now these organisations are run on petro-dollars and the ulemmas exercising control over them have their eyes on money coming from the Arab and other Muslim countries." "So", according to the book, "these ulemmas are more interested in maintaining their credibility with the Arab countries rather than dealing with the day to day life, struggle and problems of the Muslim masses at large in their own country."
The book warns: "The foreign money can add colours and decorations in our mosques but it has all the potential to deviate our neo-rich ulemmas from the path of truth and religiosity." "Besides, the foreign money can add to several other vices."

To prove that how the religious and charitable organisations of the Muslims ignore the cause of their poor and socially backward brethren, the book cites the example of the headquarters of the Imarat-e-Shariah (Bihar and Orissa) located in the Phulwari Sharief area of Patna. Close to the Imarat-e-Shariah office there is a huge settlement of halalkhors (Muslim dalits). "Cholera broke out in the halakhors locality a few years ago killing six poor people. Not to speak of providing any material assistance, the Imarat-e-Shariah's office bearers did not even prefer to meet the affected families and inquire about their welfare", the book says.
The book intersperse with numerous popular anecdotes, idioms and tales, dwells at length on the travails and exploitation of the dalit Muslims and how they are treated as "pariah" by the upper caste Muslims and ulemmas calling the shots.

To prove that how the vested interests have caused immense harm to the Muslim society, which has now deviated from the path of masawat (equality), the author once again quotes Alamma Iqbal:
"Waize-qaum ki woh pukhta-khayali na rahi
Bark tabai na rahi, shola-maqali na rahi
Rah gai rashme-azan, ruhe-Belali na rahi
Falsafa rah gaya, talqeene gazali na rahi. (There is no substance in what the mentors preach. No lightning flashes enlighten their minds. There's no fire in their speech. Only the ritual the call to prayer; the spirit of Bilal has fled. There is only a philosophy left. Ghazali's discourse is no longer present)."

4.2 The Christians

From: Avinash Sharma
To: Unitedhindufront@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 9:52 PM
Subject: {UnitedHinduFront} \'US denies visas to Hindu priests\'

Namaskar,

Hindu temples and religious groups in the US are reeling from visa denials resulting in shortage of temple priests and stalled temple construction projects, a Hindu group has said in an affidavit seeking changes to US immigration rules.

In a submission to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a legal team for the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) said Hindu priests, temple artisans and traditional temple architects are increasingly being denied the R-1 religious worker visa because of US regulations weighed in favour of Judeo-Christian terminology.

The brief maintains that defining eligibility for R-1 status using terms such as liturgical workers, catechists, cantors, missionaries, and ritual slaughter supervisors... may potentially serve to discriminate against those organisations that differ from the practice, structure and function of the Judeo-Christian guidelines upon which the regulations are based.

From what defines a Hindu religious occupation, to whether a temple shilpi (Hindu temple stone sculptor) belongs to a particular denomination, the current terminology proposed by the USCIS is absolutely foreign to the Hindu tradition'' said Suhag Shukla, the foundations legal counsel.
As religious worker visas become more difficult to obtain for Hindus, Hindu Americans must insist that their voice is heard in this process no less than the fundamental right to a free exercise of religion is at stake.
Read more at -

http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/article/anti-hindus-misc/general/us-denies-visas-to-hindu-priests.html

5. Obituary
We are very sorry to note that Prof P N Oak died at Pune on 5 December 2007. He was 91 and attended Godbole's presentation on Taj Mahal in 2006. He changed lives of some because of his courageous stand on Taj Mahal since 1964. It is a tragedy that many such persons could not work with him in later years.