Jezia And Its Full Implications

[Guest guest]

Jezia And Its Full Implications

 

Christopher Columbus had set out to discover India but

had failed; he discovered what is known as America

today. India's Nehru too had set out to 'discover

India' in his own fashion, by writing a book. He had

failed too. Any intelligent reader can see that the

spirit and message of India had hopelessly escaped

Nehru! Nehru's other book, Glimpses of World History

too contain a great number of half-baked misleading

information. Naturally, the job of discovering the

true India is bound to be too much for an 'accidental

Hindu' who was a Hindu only by virtue of his birth! He

was a lot more comfortable among alien Mohammedan and

Western surroundings.

On page 214 of his Glimpses of World History Nehru

tells us: "...Meanwhile the people of the country, the

Hindus, were being slowly converted to Islam. The

process was not rapid. Some changed their religion

because Islam appealed to them, some did so because of

fear, some because it is natural to be on the winning

side. But the principal reason for the change was

economic. People who were not Muslims had to pay a

special tax, a poll tax - the jeziya - as it was

called. This was a great burden on the poor. Many

would change their religion just to escape it. Among

the higher classes desire to gain court favor and high

office, was a powerful motive. Alauddin's great

general, Malik Kafur, who conquered the south, was a

convert from Hinduism." (However, Nehru did not

divulge that some crooks too embraced Islam to save

their neck such as the Kashmiri Brahmin grandfather of

Mohammed Iqbal, the so called father of Pakistan idea.

This man had stolen some money and got caughtalmost

like India's recent prime minister P.V.N. Rao. The

Mohammedan governor told the man that either he

accepts Islam or be hanged. The man accepted Islam and

to avoid scorn and disgrace from fellow Hindus of his

village migrated to Sialkot. Eventually, the grandson

Iqbal was born and the rest is history.)

Here the Pandit tells us that the financial burden was

the main reason for poor Hindus to accept Islam. He

does not, however, wittingly or unwittingly, breathe a

word about the full text of the jeziya, an integral

part of the shariah. It is the shariah that was very

much in the news at the time of the Shah Bano case and

the connived change brought about in the Indian

Constitution by Rajiv Roberto Gandhi, the Cambridge

drop out. The Pandit does not tell his readers that

there were twenty clauses in that poll tax, which were

extremely objectionable and oppressive.

The full text of the jeziya is not so well known for

obvious reasons. The Mohammedans do not want to talk

about it for fear of exposing the diabolical nature of

Islam while the secular Nehru Gandhi government do not

want the Hindus to know how much they had suffered

under the Mohammedans during hundreds of years in

their own country. Any act of appeasement of the

Mohammedans would thus appear to be unbearable and

thus inadmissible to the Hindus today.

 

Clauses of the jeziya.

 

1. The Hindu must not build new temples:

This was a nefarious ploy to destroy all that the

Hindu cherished. His temple was the hub of his social

and religious life. It is here that the Hindu, right

from his childhood till the ripe old age, sought

social, spiritual and moral guidance. From naam-karan

to Anna-praashan to Vidyaarambha to Vivaah, the temple

was the place. And the followers of the creed of camel

drivers forbade building of the temples! That the

spirit of the jeziya is very much alive, even today,

among Indian Mohammedans, came out in the open when

they spoke out volubly against the re-building of the

great Temple of Somnath! If the Somnath Temple had

been located on Pakistani territory, like Nankana

Sahib Temple of Talwandi, rest assured that the

re-building of the Somnath Temple would not have been

possible. That is for sure! If the Mohammedans had

their way, that disgraced temple and all that it

represents, could not have been re-established in its

full dignity in the land where the Hindus predominate!

 

2. They must not repair their old temples that had

been destroyed by the Mohammedans:

The idea was that once a Hindu temple is destroyed,

destroyed it remained under the rule of Islam.

Aurangzeb alone, in his life time, had destroyed more

than 10,000 Hindu temples in India, according to Sir

Jadu Nath Sarkar. One has to glean through the pages

of his renowned work History of Aurangzeb to discover

what kind of treatment our ancestors received under

the Arabic creed of Islam. The Pandit keeps mum on the

subject and thus we have to find out the truth

ourselves; suppression of the truth has always been

Nehru's forte from the very beginning, never mind the

old Gandhi's satyameva jayate (or truth will prevail)

cliché. The suppression of the Henderson Report, the

Thakkar Report or the C.A.G. Report are only

repetitions of the same principle of fooling the

public. Only recently some 3,000 Hindu temples were

demolished in Islamic Bangladesh. The first thing

India's secular prime minister Chandra-sekhar did

after his election, was to go over to Dhaka in order

to give away a cool 1 crore of Indian rupees to the

roly poly Khaleda Zia who has been sending her

compatriots to West Bengal and Assam to bring about a

demographic change in eastern India. This is treason!

 

3. Hindus must not prevent Mohammedan travelers from

staying in their temples:

The question naturally arises why should a Mohammedan,

traveler or otherwise, want to stay in a Hindu temple,

the abode of what they call kufr? And who are these

travelers? Where do they come from? Any Mohammedan can

thus claim to be a traveler so that he can get inside

the temple, find out the vulnerable points like spies

would and then direct assault on it later! In any

event, Hindu temples had never been designed to serve

as fortresses; they were meant for worship and

activities related to the Hindus' religion and social

functions. Why would these followers of an alien

creed, so different from the Hindus', want to spend

time inside Hindu temples, live, eat and drink there

for days and perhaps weeks? What can be the big idea

other than insulting the Hindus and their practices.

And these are beef-eaters!

 

4. Hindus must entertain for three days any Mohammedan

who wants to stay in their homes and for a longer

period if the Mohammedan falls ill:

This is a very insulting clause. Not only do they want

to stay in Hindu temples, they want to stay in Hindu

homes as well! And on top of that, the Hindus have to

entertain them, not one but for three days. And then,

if the Mohammedans fall ill, due to over-eating or

drinking, the Hindu host has to look after them for a

longer unspecified period, feed and fatten them like

pigs just as the Indira Khan (aka Gandhi) government

did after having captured the fornication-prone 93,000

soldiers of Islamic Pakistan in the seventies! And why

should a Mohammedan like to stay in a Hindu home

unless it was for laying his hands on their women? It

certainly was NOT for learning the kafirs' way of life

or their codes of conduct, social and religious

customs! The later clauses of the jeziya confirm that

suspicion, as we will see. This clause, like the

others, was cleverly designed to insult the Hindus. It

is for this reason only, the wily half-Islamized

Pandit did not mention these clauses in his big book

of lies!

 

5. Hindus must not harbor any hostility toward

Mohammedans and will not give aid and comfort to

hostile elements:

This clause tells us in short that the Mohammedans

were free to do anything they wanted with the Hindus'

life, limb, property and honor but the Hindus could

never even bear ill will toward the devils! And our

ancestors had to put up with this kind of nonsense for

centuries by virtue of Islam's naked brute force!

 

6. Hindus must not prevent anyone of them from getting

converted to Islam:

It is clear to anyone with the slightest common sense

that this clause was meant to augment the number of

Mohammedans, by hook or by crook. Not only they were

increasing Moham-medan population by polygamous

practices, they forced or enticed Hindus to embrace

Islam at the same time! The attitude has not changed a

bit even today! The speeches of the Bukharis make it

quite clear! Not only the Hindus were called upon NOT

to prevent conversion of their own folks into the

alien creed of Islam, the Hindus must not convert any

Mohammedan into the Hindu faith either! A funny

religion of equality and brotherliness, indeed! No

doubt, the Islamized Pandit born at Mir Ganj of the

City of Allah, or Allahabad, did not utter a word on

this aspect of the jeziya in his book!

 

7. Hindus must show respect to every Mohammedan:

It liteally means that any Mohammedan, no metter

however dirty or lecherous, must be shown respect by

every Hindu, even noble Hindus. It is this injunction

of the jeziya that motivated Mohammed Ali to blurt out

the obscene remark about even a fornication-prone,

inebriated Mohammedan being a better person, in the

eyes of Allah, than Mahatma Gandhi! This is the code

that is followed in all Islamic countries where the

shariah prevails!

 

8. Hindus must allow Mohammedans to parti- cipate in

Hindus' private meetings:

It only means that there was no privacy for the

Hindus, either individually or collective-ly. And such

was the barbaric law that our ancestors had to put up

with, under the Islamic sword! It is atrocious to

think that the land's prime minister, Nehru, 'the

Hindu by accident', tried to hide the fact from his

own countrymen by deleting such clauses from his book

dealing with the jeziya?

 

9. Hindus must not dress like Mohammedans:

This clause, as is quite clear, was made to keep the

Mohammedans separated from the Hindus. Under no

circumstances, should a Hindu be permitted to go

unidentified; he should be always clearly visible and

his identity evident. It also implies that a

Mohammedan must dress up as a Mohammedan so that he

could not be confused as a Hindu. This, of course,

could result in unexpected developments as had

happened in the US not so long ago. The Iranians under

the mad Ayatollah were doing all kinds of things with

the kidnapped US hostages. The matter eventually got

out of hand and even the president of the United

States dubbed the Iranians as barbarians. Youngmen in

this country, were then on the look out for bearded

men, which at the time, was assumed to be a distinct

indication that the wearer of the beard was a

Mohammedan. They were beaten up and behold, the

Mohammedans, all of them, summarily shaved off their

carefully grown beards. Indian Sikhs, unfortunately

got beaten up too in many cases as many uninformed

Americans mistook them as Mohammedans. It is only

later, much later, the American population was

informed of the persecutions the Sikhs had to undergo

under the Mohammedan rule in India. It was only then

that such attacks on the Sikhs subsided.

 

10. Hindus must not name themselves or their children

with Mohammedan names:

The idea here too, was to avoid all possibilities of

getting mixed up with Hindus;

in no circumstance such mix up was allowed to take

place. Never mind the Dilip Kumars, Sharmila Tagores

and so on who are Mohammedans but use Hindu names to

fool the Hindus today. In private life, the same

people change their names, almost like chameleons, to

Mohammed Yusuf Khan or Ayesha Sultana! But under

Islamic rule, it was strictly forbidden to have any

kind of mix up with the Hindus, either in name or in

dress.

 

11. Hindus must not ride horses with saddle and

bridle:

The idea was to control the speed at which a Hindu

could move. A Hindu could, according to this clause,

ride a horse WITHOUT saddle and bridle; but that makes

riding rather difficult. He could ride a donkey or a

mule, or even walk but he could NOT ride a horse like

the Mohammedans did. And they will tell you that there

is no discrimination in Islam!

 

12. Hindus must not possess arms:

This clause does not need any further clarification.

It means that a Hindu must never be permitted to be in

a position to strike back. This is a clause all

occupying forces impose upon subjugated natives and

the Mohammedans did the same. But that did not prevent

our secular morons from claiming that the Mohammedans

are natives of India too. They forget to observe that

the moment a Hindu was converted to Islam, he was

treated differently from other Hindus. On Nehru's own

admission, some even rose to be generals of the

Mohammedan army, like Malik Kafur, who won the south

for the Mohammedans, a task that the Mohammedans were

incapable of doing them-selves. And is this not a

powerful motiva-tion, other than the hackneyed poll

tax the Pandit talks about?

 

13. Hindus must not wear signet rings or seals on

their fingers:

Signet rings and seals on fingers were means to send

approvals, permissions etc. and were indicative of

political and administrative power. Thus, they were

denied to the Hindus.

 

14. Hindus must not sell drinks openly:

Islam forbids, at least, theoretically, consumption of

alcohol, never mind men like the Aga Khan and the

Nizam's family members; the Moghul king Jehangir and

Syud Hussain, who had eloped with Vijay Lakshmi

Pandit. There is a huge Islamic literature on

drinking. The idea was not to stop drinking but only

to keep up appearances that drinking was NOT taking

place anywhere in the land. All kinds of crimes and

unsocial activities, from bribery to kidnapping of

Hindu women took place but behind the scenes and under

cover. The philosophy of the veil was fully in effect.

 

15. Hindus must wear a distinctive dress which shows

their inferior status and separates them from

Mohammedans:

Here too the idea was the same. Under no circumstances

will a Hindu be mistaken for a Mohammedan. While in

the previous clauses the Hindu was asked NOT to dress

like Mohammedans or to name themselves with Moslem

names, in this clause, the matter is made more

precise. It is not enough that the Hindu dress

differ-ently from the Mohammedans for that way a Hindu

could dress himself up much better too than these

offspring of camel drivers. Ergo, the Hindu has now to

dress in a fashion that indicates his inferior status

as well! It is said that Hitler's half-baked

propaganda minister, Paul Joseph Goebbels was some

sort of an Islamicist; he had borrowed the idea from

Persian texts on the jeziya and adopted the Nazi code

by which Jews, all Jews, had to wear the yellow 'Star

of David' symbol on their chests. There too, the Jews,

no matter how wealthy, had to dress up in rags and

dirty clothes. In fact, any decently dressed up Jew

would be taunted and persecuted in the streets of

German occupied lands under Hitler as it was easy to

identify a Jew by his 'Star of David' symbol. The

Hindus under Islamic imperialism fared the same fate

only a lot earlier, much before Hitler appeared on the

scene and for a much longer period than the Jews

suffered. We had worse devils like Aurangzeb and

Abdullah and traitors like Malik Kafur to boot.

 

16. Hindus must not propagate their customs and usages

among the Mohammedans:

In other words, the Hindus must not in any way be in a

position to influence the Moham medans. What did then

motivate the Mohammedan 'traveler' to stay in Hindu

temples? And what motivated Mohammedans, any

Mohammedan, to stay in Hindu homes for three days and

be enter tained there? And some times even more than

three days if they fell ill or faked illness in a

Hindu home in order to be 'entertained' for a longer

and unlimited time period! If one does not want

anything to do with Hindu customs and usages, then why

should one go through the punishment of subjugating

oneself to such 'unhealthy' episodes of passing days

and nights in Hindu homes and Hindu temples where kufr

abounds?

 

17. Hindus must not build their homes in the

neighborhood of Mohammedans:

One wonders why do the Mohammedans find fault with the

'apartheid' policy of South Africa! Obviously the

Mohammedans did not want to see the faces of the

Hindus, like Aurangzeb used to do, only live like

parasites on Hindu labor and Hindu land and property.

It is this philosophy that pushes Mohammedans to drive

out Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and all other

non-Moslems, Parsis included, from lands occupied by

them. This is currently happening in Bangladesh,

Kashmir, Ladakh, Pakistan. It had happened all over

Islamic lands in the Middle East when they drove out

the Jews and the Christians. Then, one may ask, what

is the problem with Bulgaria or Serbia which are doing

the same with the residue of Turkish imperialism left

in those Slavic countries? This clause proves without

a shadow of doubt that Islam preaches 'apartheid' and

will go on practicing it, wherever Mohammedans

pre-dominate.

 

18. Hindus shall not bring their dead near the

graveyards of the Mohammedans:

This clause goes to prove that Islam's intolerance

transcends death. Even the dead Hindu must go by its

rules formulated for the living! No doubt, when the

Palestinians had the opportunity, the first thing they

did was to dig up Jewish cemetaries and desecrate

them.

 

19. Hindus must not observe their religious practices

publicly or mourn their dead loudly:

This explains clearly why in Bangladesh today, like in

Pakistan already, a Hindu cannot offer his 'puja'

publicly. Islamic Bangladesh has passed laws

prohibiting Hindus to publicly perform 'puja'. They

have been instructed, on the other hand to worship in

the privacy of their individual homes in such a

fashion that the sound of bells and conchs may not be

heard from the outside. Similarly, the Christian

residents of Saudi Arabia are forbidden to display

their Christmas trees on the occasion of Christmas.

What kind of tolerance is this? And why our ignorant

monks of the Rama Krishna Order compare our Sanatana

Dharma with Islam and by doing so insult our forbears?

 

20. Hindus must not buy Mohammedan slaves:

This clause specifies clearly that Hindus must not buy

Moslem slaves. It also proves that all Moslems are not

equal; there are slaves among Moslems too. The same is

true in today's Islamic world. The top Moslem is the

Arab Moslem. Other Moslems, such as Bangladeshi Moslem

or Pakistani Moslem are just low level Moslems serving

the top Moslems, the Arabs. Islam, according to Moslem

scholar Anwar Shaikh of Cardiff, Wales maintains that

Islam was invented by the Prophet as a perfect tool to

colonize all non-Arab Moslems; that the (at least once

in a life time) Haj was invented to bring in money

from abroad, from non-Arab Moslem lands, to fill the

coffers of the Arabs. The raw slavery, for which Islam

has been notorious, used to be practiced even a few

years ago. Not too far from their holiest shrine at

Kaaba, the Moahmmedans used to sell women slaves to

the highest bidder. It is only due to strict

compulsions imposed by the western countries that the

practice has been discontinued, perhaps temporarily,

as events in the Sudan indicate.

*

The above is then, in short, the essence of the

jeziya. Coming back to the poll tax, it must be said

that the tax is the payment made by the infidel for

the benefit of living in the Islamic country, although

as a third-class citizen. It was first imposed by

Prophet Mohammed who bade his followers, "fight those

who do not profess the true faith, till they pay the

jeziya with the hand of humility (The Koran IX/29).

The books on Islamic Canon Law lay down that the tax

has to be paid by the 'zimmi' (usually Christians and

Jews) or 'kafir' allowed to live in the Islamic land,

personally. If the 'zimmi' sends the money by an

agent, the payment will be refused. The 'zimmi' must

come on foot and make the payment standing, while the

Mohammedan receiver should be seated and after placing

his hand above that of the 'zimmi' should take the

money and cry out, "Oh, 'zimmi' pay the commutation

money."-