Posts Tagged ‘Islam’



It is a matter of surprise that the Nehruvian Congress has become successful to instigate a big lot of Muslims, even on the matters not related with Hindu-Muslim relations, that the court case of “Triple Talaq” has been generated by Hindus.


In a book stall of Islam, there was a display board, which was indicating the Issue of “Triple Talaq” is being misunderstood, and Muslims are not favoring the existing provision of Triple Talaq. We are ready to discuss. Please come and discuss with us. So far the display is concern, it is fine, that Muslims are ready to protect the human rights of Muslim women.

Just as a curiosity I asked whether the existing method of giving Talaq to a Muslim woman  by a Muslim man, simply by spelling out “Talaq Talaq Talaq”, has been supported by Koran or not? It was a simple question, which could have been replied under “Yes” or “No”.

But instead of this, the Muslim young man tried to explain at length. He said, it the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of our own Muslims of what really has been provided in Quran. Then he explained that there is provision of one month gap, between each word “Talaq”. We are ready to provide justice to our women. Why the Government should interfere?

The Muslim further added, “Look … we have our own marriage ritual. When the Government does not interfere in marriage ritual, why should it interfere in our system of “Talaq”? What is more important? “Marriage” or “Talaq”? Marriage is more important in the life than the “Talaq”. When the Government does not interfere in an important matter of “marriage” then why is it interfering in the less important matter of “Talaq”. Talaq is a personal matter. Two partners of the life, are not ready to live together. One person wants to be separated, how can we force him to live together? In Quran, there is a procedure as to how to deal with this matter of talaq. It asks the husband to say Talaq once. Then a time period is given for one month, during which the wife has to stay in the same house, so that both can rethink on the idea of separation. They have scope to improve their performance. Once again a time of one month is given after the spell out of second “Talaq”. Then ultimately the third time “Talaq” is spelled out. What is wrong in it?

Off course the Muslim was silent on the procedure which is being applied in practice with the Muslim woman. I had no interest to pose to put cross questions.


The Muslim continued. He said when the Government does not interfere into the injustice made to Hindu Dalits, Hindu women, why should it interfere into Muslims? Look … I can show you Manu-Smriti. How much injustice made to Dalits and women?

I tried to clarify, that Manu-Smriti is not a recognized book in Hindu religion. Recognized book is Veda and Bhagvat Geeta. Since the language of Veda is difficult to interpret, there is a simpler book named Bhagvat Geeta. However if there is a contradiction between Veda and Bhagvat Geeta, then what Veda has said, has to be accepted. Besides this Shankaracharya has said, that what Veda said, that contradicts to our experience then what experience tells us, is to be accepted. E.g. If Veda says Fire is cool and our experience says Fire is Hot, then Fire is Hot is to be accepted.

The Muslim was not interested in this matter, he said, “Look at Jasodaben …?”

I said “Jasodaben? Which Jasodaben.” I could not link Jasodaben to this topic


The Muslim said; “oh! You do not know Jasodaben? Jasodaben is the wife of our Narendra Modi. Had this Jasodaben been a Muslim, she could have already re-married to another person if Narendra Modi would have given her divorce.”

I said “Jasodaben and Narendra Modi had mutually agreed to remain separate. Narendra Modi had taken clearance from Jasodaben, to live their own lives in their own way. If Jasodaben asked divorce, it would have been given by Narendra Modi. What is wrong if two persons get separated with mutual understanding? Look at the episode of Buddha. Buddha had not even taken the permission from his wife and he had left her even without any intimation.

The Muslim fellow was suddenly stopped the discussion and said “oh it is my time for Namaza” I am going. He went away.

What the Muslim fellow reflected to me an impression which was quite uncalled. He linked Hindu religion in the matter of “Triple Talaq”.



The responsible person and party for generating this atmosphere and mind set of minorities, is Nehru and his party.


Nehru though presenting himself as a logical person, he himself was lacking in logical interpretation. He wanted India to be a secular country. But what was his definition of “Secular”?

In accordance to his belief and action, the definition of “Secular” means “let the religious minorities live their lives in their own way. The Government and the Constitution will not interfere in their traditions, rituals and lives. Even if any interpretation needed, the interpretation on any religious tradition, rituals and rights will be accepted as has been interpreted by their religious priests. If the interpretation contradicts the human rights provided under the Indian Constitution, the constitutional provisions would be modify to respect the religion of the minority community.

According to the Nehru and his fellow men, the feeling of religious minority community should not be hurt in the name of the constitution of India. It is the liberty of the religious community to have the feeling that “their religion is First” and their religion is above the Indian constitution. Nehruvian Congress leaders and their cultural allies still carry the same interpretation what Nehru had made. Shah Bano case is the good example to read the mindset of these pseudo secular gangs.


Nehru was skillful in playing political Dramas. He could do all his adventures during the struggle of independence, as he had a lot money, the money his father earned as a lawyer. This made him very much popular among second level leaders of Congress, because Nehru’s house was the rest house for them as and when they come to Allahabad. Nehru’s dramas made him popular in lower level lots. All these could happen in the pre-independence period. This effect continued for few years after independence too.


The meaning of democracy is “The truth is honored irrespective of which level it comes from”.

The Democracy is the place “where all are equal before law”

Is it necessary to have the act in regards to a religion for its code of conduct, on the plea to show the respect to that religion?

There is no need to have any Code pertaining to a religion. i.e. To have a Hindu Code, Muslim Code, Christian Code … all is humbug on the plea that Indian Constitution has respect towards other religions and thereby our constitution has the provisions to approve the religious code.


What does a code incorporate?

Marriage, Divorce and Succession.

Do we need such code?

Government must say;   we are least concern with the system, ritual and celebration that you adopt in regards to your marriage. We want you to follow the following procedure.


Both of you should submit an affidavit that (1) Our status is unmarried (2) We want to marry each other (3) Our permanent addresses are as under with photo(4) We herewith  pay Rs xxxx/- to publish notice for inviting any objection from public on our proposed marriage. (5) We will sign the document of the marriage in this office on this Date.

The office of the Department of Family Welfare or the Family Court, would publish a notice with details of Name, parents’ full name, Surname, photos of the coupe of the proposed marriage, addresses etc… in the three prominent local news papers.

The Government is least concern with the ritual, celebration or system what adopted or even not adopted by the couple.


Similarly in case of a divorce, the couple would submit an application jointly or separately that they have agreed to be separated under the mutually agreed conditions. The couple would submit a proposed mutually agreed Draft of Agreement. In case of any absence of mutually agreed conditions, the case would be heard (which even now prevails) as usual and judgement would be given to provide justice to each one of the couple.


In the matter of succession, one man can marry one girl only. The government cannot permit more than one wife at a time. A person must apply for a divorce to the existing partner before getting married to another.

As for the property, the wife has right to 1/3 share of the property of her husband or vice versa if the property is an earned property. If the property is an inherited property, the wife will have the 1/3 of the share of her husband’s share.  Off course 1/3 share is shown here as an example. It may be decided by the Court depending upon the liability.

Law of succession must be same for all the religion and communities. At present the law of succession is different for different communities. It is prone to become a fraud unless the matter is brought before the court of law.

No person can enjoy a right to his own benefit, harming others for no fault of others. A person includes a group, a community based on geography, language, region, religion or organization as the case may be.



Was Nehru incompetent to understand Human Rights and respect towards religion? Nehru was not only incompetent, he was not capable to understand what is meant by justice. He was simply pampering minority to get spoiled.

We do not need several Acts like “Right to Information”, “Right to freedom to express”, “Consumers Right”, “Right to service”, “Right to organize”, “Right to elect”, “Right to call back (though this right is inbuilt in right to elect, but the EC does not entertain this right on the plea of absence of procedure. This looks funny) etc. … provided the Court is capable to interpret all the expressed rights in the light of the human rights.

In short the Muslims need not abuse Hindu religion in the matter of Teen TALAQ, simply because the present BJP lead government does not follow the line of action of previous Nehruvian Congress lead Government.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: Nehruvian Congress, Muslim, Triple Talaq, women, Jasodaben, Naendra Modi, Islam, Dalit, Manu Smriti, Veda, Bhagvat Geeta, Shankaracharya, Drama, pre-independence, struggle for independence,  Religious minority, minority Community, Intelligence, Competence, incapable, democracy, human rights, EC, Constitution of India, truth is honored

Read Full Post »

Fake Disputes on declaration of Geeta as National book. Is it sustainable? (Part – 1)


Why India should not have a National book?

If India has, National Bird, National symbol, National animal and also National flag, then there is no reason to prevent the government from selecting and declaring a national book.

Yes. We cannot prevent the Government.

Now suppose, the Government declares a book as the national book to which one group does not agree then what should the government do!!


Discussion is the process recognized in democracy.

What matter can be discussed in democracy?

If two parties, do not agree to a matter, then the disputes should be decided.

Here the two parties are: One Party is the Government. The other part is the group made of who does not like to declare Bhagvad Geeta as the National Book.

What are the disputes between two parts?

The other part appears to be not interested in logical discussion. But suppose it wants a logical discussion then it can raised following points:

(1) The other part says that Geeta is a religious book.

(2) In democracy all the religions are equal before the Government.

(3) Declaring a book belonged to a religion would give a message that government has declared a religion superior to other religion by way of recognizing its book as the National Book.

(4) For a democratic government, all the religions are equal, thereby government should not hurt the feeling of other’s faith.

The pro-declaration part and the Government says Geeta is a well-recognized and accepted book for improvement of mind-set. Dealing with a mind is a subject of philosophy provided it is with logical technics.

What comes in a way is the word “Religion”.

What is the definition of a religion?

Is it the definition of a religion as under?:

(1) Faith in a specified God by a book recognized by a promoter of that faith?

(2) Faith in the so-made authentication of the Event and Events and eventual characters made by the promoter of that faith?

(3) Faith in the rituals, line of actions, interactions, rules of law etc… directed by the promoter of that faith in the book/s?

(4) Faith in any such thing related with that book/s by the promoter of the faith as mandatory?


Judaism is a religion. It has a book Torah. The God Jehovah had directed human kind to follow the guide lines given in Torah.

Christians says no. The Torat is not OK totally. God had sent his Son to provide better guide line to mankind. It is the bible which is OK.

Muslims say no. Neither The Torat and nor the Bible is OK in toto. Because there are lots of interpolations and versions. Nothing is authentic and thereby they are not acceptable. God cannot have sons and daughters etc… God had sent a prophet. Directives had been given to that prophet through an angel. Koran Contains those directives in pure form. That is why Koran is the final and ultimate.

What is about Hindu?

As for the meaning of the word “Religion”, the meaning cannot be applies to the Hinduism. Our concepts are different. We have not that type of religion. Ours is the Dharma that is knowledge, selection of duties and liberty to select the ways to have pleasure of individuals and the society. We call this combination as “Sanatan Dharma”. The main principle us “Truth, Non-violence and happiness to all”.

The directives as defined/described as mandatory in the specified book/s, of the specified religion, are being applied in non-Hindu religions to be a part of that religion,

As for “Santana” no such provisions or reasons or directives are applicable. It is not falling under the definition and directives prescribed for traditionally called Jew, Christian, Muslims and other religion with similar binding characteristic.

Recall the supremacy of the Church on Science.

Nothing should recognized that goes against the events and characters narrated, that contradicts what is mentioned in the Bible. Galileo was punished for that. Later it was decided that religion and science are separate subjects. Religion is based on faith. Science is based on logic. A religious group cannot permit deviation from the beliefs as directed in a book. But as for the science, the deviation from the beliefs will be permitted.

Newton had written on Mass, Space and Time in “Philosophy of Nature”. Einstein and others contradicted in course of time. Einstein wrote on Mass, Space and Time in “The Universe”. There was no problem. While dealing with ordinary machines we follow Newton. While dealing with very high speed machines we follow Einstein.


Sanatana does not cover physical Universe only. It covers Universe, Mind, Soul and to some extent social behavior too. It is more or less applied technics to step up mind of individuals and the society/societies. Everything is related with the mind only.

Since by the definition, “Santana” differs, the word “Religion” cannot be applied to “Santana”. “Sanatana” is a way of life to have pleasure, harmony and peace in the society and to step up the individuals and the societies.

“Sanatana” is a philosophy of mankind as to how to deal with our mind to step it up and how to look at the universe.

Plato was a philosopher. He wrote a book “Theory of Forms”. This was a philosophical approach.

Now suppose the government of Greece declares this book as the National Book, would the Christians oppose this?

No. Because Plato was not a head of any religion. Now suppose a group immerged and said we have a Plato-Religion. It is a different matter that wether we may follow his principles or not. Don’t ask us about it. But we and declare that we have faith in Plato’s book. We have formed a herd named PLATO. Plato was son of God or a prophet sent by the God, or whatsoever we may call him or not, we and you should not mind. But we belong to Platonisms. That is all.

Would it be proper to derecognize the Plato’s book “Theory of Forms” from the category of Philosophy?


Krishna was knowledgeable, thinker, yogi and philosopher. He narrated Geeta. Incidentally he narrated Geeta before Arjuna, before the war Maha Bharata started. This lecture on philosophy on how to deal with the mind was given by Krishna. It is a different matter whether it was an interpolation or not. But one cannot negate its category.

What is the fault of “Geeta” if the discoverer and orator Krishna, is termed as an incarnation of Sun (Vishnu)? Even today there are more than 1000 persons recognized as God. Will you de-recognize their rights of citizenship?

No. You will not. Because they are human being too. similar is the case with Krishna and his Geeta.

Geeta is a book on philosophy. One cannot de-recognized it from its category.

Let us look at the origin of Geeta.


What is eternal?

Who is eternal?

How was the universe created?

What are the ways to acquire the pleasure?

How to step up mind?

How is the cosmos?

The language of Vedas is in old Sanskrit. The text of Vedas have multiple meanings. They have literal meaning, indirect meaning and hidden meaning. Those who have any doubt on this point, they may read Aurobindo Ghose on Vedas.

There are Upanishadas. All these are difficult for common mass to understand. It is just like to study in college after completing qualifying final year of school.


Upanishadas are Cows (philosophy of survival). Krishna milked them. He prepared curd and butter milk and then stirred it. The butter got floated on the surface. Krishna took it out and he presented it before Arjun (Bharata).

Is there anything wrong with Geeta so far as philosophy is concern?

No. There is nothing wrong, nothing misguiding, nothing discriminating mankind or harming mankind.

Yes. There are some people who have misinterpreted Geeta willfully to satisfy their ego and selfish means associated with their hypocrisy and vote bank politics.

Let us see some of the misconceptions.

(Continued … )

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: Geeta, Philosophy, science, mind, cosmos, soul, Newton, Einstein, Plato, Church, Jewism, Christianity, Islam, prophet, son, Sun, religion, faith, logic, incarnation, God, Krishna, Veda, Butter

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: