non muslims & khilafah

The position of non-Muslims living under Islamic rule (dhimmi) is a widely misunderstood topic. Those wishing to attack Islam and its systems portray Islam’s treatment of the dhimmi as worse than its treatment of animals. Historical incidents where dhimmi suffered persecution at particular times are generalised and quoted out of context in order to back up their claims.

Joseph Farah, founder of the WorldNetDaily news site states:

Under Islamic Shari’ah law, non-believers – Christians and Jews anyway – are permitted to live as long as they support Islam through their Dhimmi taxes and are willing to accept what amounts to a third- or fourth-class servile existence, always subject to pogroms, false accusations and ill treatment. Dhimmis always live in fear.1


Melanie Philips, prominent UK based Zionist author and commentator states:

‘Dhimmi’ is the status of infidels under Islam who are permitted to live in Muslim jurisdictions but only with restrictions as second-class citizens.2

To answer this accusation that dhimmi are second-class citizens who will have a miserable existence living in a future Khilafah we need to look at Islam’s view on citizenship and how it applies to non-Muslims.

Citizenship in Islam

Citizenship in Islam is based on someone permanently living within the lands of the Khilafah regardless of their ethnicity or creed. It is not a requirement for someone to become Muslim and adopt the values of Islam in order to become a citizen of the state. Muslims living outside the Islamic State do not enjoy the rights of citizenship, whereas a non-Muslim living permanently within the Islamic State (dar ul-Islam) does. This is derived from the following hadith.

The Prophet (saw) said: ‘Call them to Islam, and if they agree accept from them and refrain from fighting against them, then call them to move from their land to the land of the Muhajireen (the emigrants), and tell them if they do so, then they will have the rights which the Muhajireen enjoy and they will have duties like the duties upon the Muhajireen.’3 

This hadith means if they do not move to the land of the Muhajireen they would not enjoy what the Muhajireen enjoy, i.e. the rights of those who are living in the land of Islam. So this Hadith clearly shows the difference between those who move to the land of the Muhajireen and those who do not move to the land of the Muhajireen. Dar ul-Muhajireen was the land of Islam (Dar ul-Islam) at the time of the Prophet (saw), and all other lands were Dar ul-Kufr.4

The Islamic state is forbidden from discriminating between citizens on the basis of race, creed, colour or anything else. In origin all the rules of Islam apply equally to Muslims and non-Muslims. The Islamic scholars have agreed, especially the scholars of Usul (foundations), that the divine rules are addressed to every sane person able to understand the speech, whether he is Muslim or not, male or female.5

However, there are exceptions to this. If the Shari’ah rule is dependent on belief in Islam such as praying salah or giving the zakat tax then it applies only to Muslims. These exceptions are not discriminatory rules as some have claimed, but take in to account the beliefs and values of the citizen so as not to cause oppression to them. They in no way detract from being equal citizens. 

Categories of non-Muslims in the Khilafah

There are four main categories of non-Muslims in the Khilafah. These are:

1. Mu’ahid
2. Must’amin
3. Ambassadors, diplomats, consuls and envoys
4. Dhimmi

The Mu’ahid is a citizen of a foreign state with which the Khilafah has a treaty. The citizens of this state (mu’ahideen) can enter the Khilafah without a passport or visa if this is reciprocated to the citizens of the Khilafah.6

The Must’amin is a citizen of a foreign state with which the Khilafah has no treaty. These states are the imperialistic states such as Britain, America, Russia and France. The citizens of these states can enter the Khilafah but only with a passport and valid visa. Once they have received a valid visa and enter the state they are termed Must’amin.7

If the Mu’ahid or Must’amin stays for more than one year within the Khilafah then their stay is considered permanent and they are required to pay the jizya (head tax) and will become dhimmi.8

When discussing the rights and responsibilities of the dhimmi in this article these for the most part apply equally to both the Mu’ahid and the Must’amin. The exceptions are in the specific terms of the treaties and visa applications adopted by the Khaleefah.

The Ambassadors, diplomats, consuls and envoys from the foreign states have diplomatic immunity and the rules of Islam do not apply on them.9

The Dhimmi

Dhimmi are those citizens of the Khilafah that hold different beliefs and values to the ideology of the state i.e. Islam. The word dhimmi is derived from the Arabic word dhimmah, which means pledge or covenant (‘ahd).10

The state makes a pledge to treat the dhimmi in accordance with the specific terms of the peace treaty made with them (if applicable) and not to interfere in their beliefs, worships and those actions that contradict Islam but were permitted to the dhimmi by the Messenger of Allah (saw) such as drinking alcohol. In all other areas they are viewed and treated in the same way as Muslims unless belief in Islam is a condition for the action.

There are many ahadith ordering good treatment of the dhimmi and not abusing them or treating them as second-class citizens.

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who harms a person under covenant, or charged him more than he can, I will argue against him on the Day of Judgement.”11

The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah.”12

The classical scholars of Islam also detailed the rights of the Muslims towards the dhimmi. The famous Maliki jurist, Shaha al-Deen al-Qarafi states:

The covenant of protection imposes upon us certain obligations toward the ahl al-dhimmah. They are our neighbours, under our shelter and protection upon the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (saw), and the religion of Islam. Whoever violates these obligations against any one of them by so much as an abusive word, by slandering his reputation, or by doing him some injury or assisting in it, has breached the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger (saw), and the religion of Islam.13

Judiciary

One of the accusations against Islam’s treatment of dhimmi is that a dhimmi is not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim and his oath is not acceptable in an Islamic court. 

Bat Ye’or states:

Every legal case involving a Muslim and a dhimmi was judged according to Koranic law. Although the very idea of justice implies equality between parties, a dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence against a Muslim. Since his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court his Muslim opponent could not easily be condemned. In order to defend himself, the dhimmi was obliged to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense.14

The rule of law applies to everyone within the Khilafah and there are no exceptions. It is obligatory for the Islamic State to judge in cases concerning the dhimmi with justice and no discrimination against them is allowed. 

Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an: 

And if you judge, judge with justice between them.
Verily, Allah loves those who act justly.15

The most famous example of this justice is in the legal trial of a Jew who stole the coat of armour of Imam Ali (ra) as he was travelling to a battle. The judge Shurayh made no exception for Ali (ra) even though he was the Khaleefah, a Muslim and also off to fight in a battle so was in desperate need of his armour. Shurayh ruled in favour of the Jew and accepted his testimony in court. Full details of the trial can be read here.

The dhimmi is allowed to be a witness in an Islamic court against a Muslim and their evidence is acceptable. The conditions of being a witness apply equally to Muslims and dhimmi. The conditions of a witness are: sane, mature and ‘adl (trustworthy). 

It may be claimed that the condition of ‘Adl applies only to Muslims who refrain from committing the kabeera (major) sins. This is incorrect. ‘Adl in this context means someone who abstains from that which the people consider a violation of uprightness, whether he was a Muslim or non-Muslim. This is because ‘adaala (trustworthiness) was stipulated in the testimony of the Muslim as well as in the testimony of the non-Muslim, by using the same word without distinguishing one from the other. 

Allah (swt) says in the Holy Qur’an:

O you who believe! Let there be witnesses between you when death draws to one of you, at the time of bequest, two witnesses, ‘adl (trustworthy) from among you, or two others from other than you.16

He (swt) meant non-Muslims by saying other than you. He said ‘two ‘adl witnesses from Muslims or two ‘adl from other than Muslims.’ So how can the ‘adaala be defined as not committing a kabeera (major) sin and insistence on committing a sagheera (small) sin regarding a non-Muslim? Also how can we reject as a witness the one who disobeyed his parents once, but accept as witness the spy, just because spying is not from kabeera sins? Therefore, the valid meaning of ‘adl is the one that abstained from that which the people consider violation to the uprightness.17
Criminal Punishments

Another accusation is that Muslims are given a lesser punishment for crimes against dhimmi. In the case of murder it is alleged that a Muslim is not killed for the murder of a dhimmi whereas a dhimmi is killed for the murder of a Muslim. Bat Ye’or states:

The punishment that a guilty Muslim received for a crime would be greatly reduced if the victim were a dhimmi.18 

Again this is a false accusation. Punishments for crimes are applied equally to both Muslims and dhimmi with no distinction. The only distinction is that dhimmi will not be punished for those actions which are permitted for them such as drinking alcohol, whereas a Muslim would be. 

The Prophet (saw) said, “The diyyah (blood money) of the Jews and Christians is like the Muslim’s diyyah.”19

It is narrated in a hadith “that the Messenger of Allah (saw) killed a Muslim for a mu’ahid and said, ‘I am the most noble of those who fulfil their dhimmah’.”20 

This hadith clearly indicates that if a Muslim kills a mu’ahid he is punished with death.21 This equally applies to the killing of a dhimmi as discussed earlier. 

Economy

The dhimmi enjoy the same economic benefits as Muslims. They can be employees, establish companies, be partners with Muslims and buy and sell goods. Their wealth is protected and if they are poor and unable to find work they are entitled to state benefits from the Khilafah’s Treasury (Bait ul-Mal). 

Historically, many dhimmi prospered within the lands of the Khilafah. 

Cecil Roth mentions that the treatment of the Jews at the hands of the Ottoman State attracted Jews from all over Western Europe. The land of Islam became the land of opportunity. Jewish physicians from the school of Salanca were employed in the service of the Sultan and the Viziers (ministers). In many places glass making and metalworking were Jewish monopolies, and with their knowledge of foreign languages, they were the greatest competitors of the Venetian traders.22

The poor dhimmi will receive state benefits if they are in need.

‘Umar ibn al-Khattab once passed by an old dhimmi begging at doors, and said: “We have not done justice to you if we have taken jizya from you in the prime of your youth and neglected you in your old age.” He then ordered from the treasury what was suitable for him.23

With regards taxation the shari’ah has put the condition of belief on some of the taxes, which means they are applied differently between the Muslims and dhimmi. Muslims for example are ordered to pay the Zakat but dhimmi are exempt, whereas dhimmi are ordered to pay the jizya (head tax) but Muslims are exempt.

Jizya

The most misunderstood Islamic taxation is the jizya. Some historians paint a picture that the jizya tax was so high that dhimmi were forced to convert to Islam to avoid it. Others bring out arbitrary jizya rates such as 50%.24

The obligation of the jizya is derived from the following verse of the Qur’an.

Allah (swt) says:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden that which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued (saghiroon).25

The ‘subdued’ (sighar) mentioned in this verse means the dhimmi must submit to the rules of Islam. It does not mean physical humiliation.26

The jizya tax is applied to all mature, male dhimmi who have the means to pay it. Women and children are exempt as are the poor who have no livelihood.27 

The jizya is applied according to the prosperity of the dhimmi. In the time of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) he established three different bands of jizya depending on the prosperity of the person. The jizya rates for different provinces (wiliyat) of the Khilafah in the time of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) are shown.

AMERICA & ISRAEL ! PARTNERS IN INTERNATIONAL CRIME

US think-tank admits Iran is not a threat to either US or Israeli security, devises narrative to sell unnecessary war to public.

by Tony Cartalucci

The corporate media has recently portrayed a narrative where we see the West apparently warning Israel against a unilateral attack on Iran. It appears that Israel is intent on “going it alone” despite the wishes of its “more rational” Western sponsors. Recently, the wall street journal reported in their article, “U S., israel pull closer to iran,” that, “Israeli officials, meanwhile, said that President Barack Obama’s public and private acknowledgment of the Jewish state’s sovereign right to defend itself was a crucial gain as the two countries seek to deter Tehran,” in regards to Iran’s alleged nuclear program.

To the average reader, it would seem that both the US and Israel agree that Iran is an imminent threat against which Israel and the united states simply have differing views on how to counter. In reality, this is a premeditated, deceitful act, already clearly articulated since 2009 in a signed document, on how both nations plan on duping the world into accepting an unnecessary war.

The document, “which path to persia?” published by the corporate-funded Brookings Institute, and signed by Kenneth Pollack, Daniel Byman, Martin Indyk, Suzanne Maloney, Michael O’Hanlon, and Bruce Riedel, who often make their way onto corporate-media networks as “experts,” clearly states that Iran is neither reckless nor likely to deploy nuclear weapons in any way but as a deterrence to Western-led military intervention. The fear is not of waking up one day to a nuclear holocoust with Israel “wiped off the map,” but rather waking up one day and realizing the US and Israel no longer hold uncontested hegemony across the Middle East.

On page 24 of the Brookings Institute report, it is stated, “most of Iran’s foreign policy decisionmaking since the fall of the Shah could probably be characterized as “aggressive but not reckless,”" before adding the baseless caveat, “but Washington cannot categorically rule out the possibility that there are truly insane or ideologically possessed Iranian leaders who would attempt far worse if they were ever in a position to do so.” Such a comment could be just as easily said about US leadership, where Defense Secretary donald rumsfeld and Congressman Steve Buyer of Indiana at one point suggested the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan against cave-dwelling militants using 30 year-old Soviet weapons.

Image: Screenshot taken from Defense.gov where it is admitted that a US Senator proposed using nuclear weapons against Afghanistan with then Defense Secretary donald rumsfeld keeping such options “on the table.” While the threat of Iran using nuclear weapons has constituted exclusively of accusations by the West directed at the Islamic Republic, threats of the US using such weapons come directly from America’s leadership itself. (click image to enlarge)

Other US think-tanks, including the rand corporation , in assessing the threat of a nuclear Iran, noted that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of “terrorists.” The fact that Iran’s extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to the conclusion that Iran poses a risk only to US-Israeli hegemony, not their national security.

The Brookings report would then go on to admit it was the intention of US-Israeli policy toward Iran to provoke a war they knew Iran would neither want, nor benefit from. The goal was to create such a provocation without the world recognizing it was indeed the West triggering hostilities:

“…it would be far more preferable if the united states could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.) ”

-Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, pages 84-85.

 The same report would go on to say:

“In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.”

-Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, page 52

 Clearly those in the West intent on striking Iran realize both the difficulty of obtaining a plausible justification, and the utter lack of support they have globally to carry out an attack even if they manage to find a suitable pretext. Brookings would continue throughout their report enumerating methods of provoking Iran, including conspiring to fund opposition groups to overthrow the Iranian government, crippling Iran’s economy, and funding US State Department-listed terrorist organizations to carry deadly attacks within Iran itself. Despite these overt acts of war, and even considering an option to unilaterally conduct limited airstrikes against Iranian targets, Brookings noted there was still the strong possibility Iran would not allow itself to be sufficiently provoked:

“It would not be inevitable that Iran would lash out violently in response to an American air campaign, but no American president should blithely assume that it would not.”

The report continues:“However, because many Iranian leaders would likely be looking to emerge from the fighting in as advantageous a strategic position as possible, and because they would likely calculate that playing the victim would be their best route to that goal, they might well refrain from such retaliatory missile attacks.”

-Brookings Institution’s 2009 “Which Path to Persia?” report, page 95.

Finally, the Brookings report clearly states another option in dealing with Iran is to have Israel carry out what appears to be a “unilateral attack,” but would require sufficient preparations by both nations to make it appear as if there were some sort of political bifurcation between Tel Aviv and the West in the lead up to such an operation:

“An Israeli air campaign against Iran would have a number of very important differences from an American campaign. First, the israelli air force (IAF) has the problem of overflight transit from Israel to Iran. Israel has no aircraft carriers, so its planes must take off from Israeli air bases. It also does not possess long-range bombers like the B-1 or B-2, or huge fleets of refueling tankers, all of which means that unlike the United States, Israel cannot avoid flying through someone’s air space. The most direct route from Israel to Iran’s Natanz facility is roughly 1,750 kilometers across Jordan and Iraq. As the occupying power in Iraq, the United States is responsible for defending Iraqi airspace. ” Which Path to Persia?-page 105 (.pdf)

“From the American perspective, this negates the whole point of the option—distancing the United States from culpability—and it could jeopardize American efforts in Iraq, thus making it a possible nonstarter for Washington. Finally, Israeli violation of Jordanian airspace would likely create political problems for King Abdullah of Jordan, one of America’s (and Israel’s) closest Arab friends in the region. Thus it is exceedingly unlikely that the United States would allow Israel to overfly Iraq, and because of the problems it would create for Washington and Amman, it is unlikely that Israel would try to fly over Jordan.” Which Path to Perisa?-page 106 (.pdf)

“An israeli attack on Iran would directly affect key American strategic interests. If Israel were to overfly iraq, both the Iranians and the vast majority of people around the world would see the strike as abetted, if not authorized, by the United States. Even if Israel were to use another route, many Iranians would still see the attack as American supported or even American orchestrated. After all, the aircraft in any strike would be American produced, supplied, and funded F-15s and F-16s, and much of the ordnance would be American made. In fact, $3 billion dollars in U.S. assistance annually sustains the IDF’s conventional superiority in the region.” Which Path to Persia-page 106 (.pdf)

The US withdrawal from Iraq is being done in tandem with nato operations to destabalize syria and in turn disrupt Hezbollah’s capacity to retaliate against Israel in the event of a strike on Iran – a concern also duly noted within the Brookings report.

“…the Israelis may want to hold off until they have a peace deal with Syria in hand (assuming that Jerusalem believes that one is within reach), which would help them mitigate blowback from Hizballah and potentially Hamas. Consequently, they might want Washington to push hard in mediating between Jerusalem and Damascus.” -page 109 (.pdf)

It is quite clear that eliminating Syria entirely as an obstacle has been instead attempted, and with nato standing by and a continuous influx of foreign fighters being armed and sent across the border to mire Syrian forces in asymmetrical warfare, any coordinated retaliation against Israel by Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah has been at the very least blunted significantly.

John McCain, who chairs the US State Department-funded International Republican Institute, credited by the New York Times for fueling the “Arab Spring” unrest to begin with, is now calling for US airstrikes on Syria to speed this process up before Russia’s viladimir putin begins an expected process of rolling back Wall Street-London gains over the past year.

The recent charade played out by both Israel and the United States in regards with “what to do about Iran,” is merely premeditated playacting, carrying out the directives clearly laid out in the Brookings Institute report, which have been systematically carried out, verbatim, even as it was being published in 2009. There is no real bifurcation between the West and Israel, only an attempt to compartmentalize responsibility for an unwarranted, unjustified, and ultimately unpopular, criminal act of war that may end with millions maimed, killed, or otherwise affected.

We are witnessing an open conspiracy to commit vast crimes against humanity playing out before our eyes, and it is our daily capitulation, our daily sponsorship of the corporations and financier interests driving this abhorrent agenda that allows it to continue on in earnest. Simply “protesting” a war long since decided will not be enough. We must also strike at the very source of power behind Wall Street and London, and it can be done with an act as simple as exposing and boycotting the corporations and financier interests which constitute this murderous global menace.

treaty between the ottoman sultan & the christians of bosnia

The Ahdnama is an agreement written by Sultan Muhammed al-Fatih (ra) who is famous for conquering Constantinople and fulfilling the prophecy of the Prophet Muhammed (saw) that Muslims would one day conquer the city.

Sultan Muhammed al-Fatih's great-great grandfather was Sultan Murad I (ra) who began the conquests to open up the Balkans to Islam. He is famous for defeating the Serbs at Kosovo field in 1389 and establishing the authority of Islam over Kosovo. Allah (swt) blessed Sultan Murad I with martydom (shahadah) in this battle.

Sultan Muhammed's father Murad II fought the second battle of Kosovo and began the conquests to open Bosnia to Islam. Following in the footsteps of his father and great-great grandfather, Sultan Muhammed completed their good work and opened up the entire region to Islam.

Islam, the final message for mankind established clear and detailed rules relating to therights of christians & jews living under the Islamic State. The Ahdnama agreement is a clear and definitive historical record of the rights Islam gave to Christians living under its rule. The original Ahdnama agreement is still kept to this day in the Franciscan Monastery in the vicinity of Fojnica, Bosnia-Hercegovina.

Compare the just treatment the Islamic State gave to Christians in Bosnia in 1463 to 39 years later in Spain when the Christian inquisition gave the Muslims an ultimatum of convert or leave. In reality this became convert or die.

The translation of the Ahdnama agreement is below. Sultan Muhammed is translated as Sultan Mehmet.

AHDNAMA OF THE FATIH SULTAN MEHMET

MEHMET THE SON OF MURAT KHAN, ALWAYS VICTORIOUS!

THE COMMAND OF THE HONORABLE, SUBLIME SULTAN'S SIGN AND SHINING SEAL OF THE CONQUEROR OF THE WORLD IS AS FOLLOWS:

I, THE SULTAN MEHMET - KHAN INFORM ALL THE WORLD THAT THE ONES WHO POSSESS THIS IMPERIAL EDICT, THE BOSNIAN FRANCISCANS, HAVE GOT INTO MY GOOD GRACES, SO I COMMAND:

LET NOBODY BOTHER OR DISTURB THOSE WHO ARE MENTIONED, NOT THEIR CHURCHES. LET THEM DWELL IN PEACE IN MY EMPIRE. AND LET THOSE WHO HAVE BECOME REFUGEES BE AND SAFE. LET THEM RETURN AND LET THEM SETTLE DOWN THEIR MONASTERIES WITHOUT FEAR IN ALL THE COUNTRIES OF MY EMPIRE.

NEITHER MY ROYAL HIGHNESS, NOR MY VIZIERS OR EMPLOYEES, NOR MY SERVANTS, NOR ANY OF THE CITIZENS OF MY EMPIRE SHALL INSULT OR DISTURB THEM. LET NOBODY ATTACK INSULT OR ENDANGER NEITHER THEIR LIFE OR THEIR PROPERTY OR THE PROPERTY OF THEIR CHURCH. EVEN IF THEY BRING SOMEBODY FROM ABROAD INTO MY COUNTRY, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO SO.

AS, THUS, I HAVE GRACIOUSLY ISSUED THIS IMPERIAL EDICT, HEREBY TAKE MY GREAT OATH.

IN THE NAME OF THE CREATOR OF THE EARTH AND HEAVEN, THE ONE WHO FEEDS ALL CREATURES, AND IN THE NAME OF THE SEVEN MUSTAFAS AND OUR GREAT MESSENGER, AND IN THE NAME OF THE SWORD I PUT, NOBODY SHALL DO CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN, AS LONG AS THEY ARE OBEDIENT AND FAITHFUL TO MY COMMAND.

MAY 28th 1463

pakistani parliment unanimously declares U.S must stop violations of sovereignty

In a joint sitting of the Pakistani parliament on Thursday, the recommendations on the Parliamentary Committee on national security (PCNS) regarding new rules of engagement with the united states were unanimously adopted.However, they still left some of the issues surrounding the critical North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) supply lines into afghanistan (which, since they have been closed, have caused the price of gasoline to skyrocket up to $400 per gallon) unanswered.

The PCNS’s revised recommendations were presented to the joint session by the committee’s chairman, Senator Mian Raza Rabbani.

He emphasized that the united states should show due respect to Pakistan in honoring their national sovereignty and said that the relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. should be one based on a mutual respect for independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The recommendations included 14 points which suggest that the American presence in Pakistan be reviewed and re-examined.

This could very well mean an immediate end to any and all drone strikes in Pakistan, not to mention an end to violations of Pakistani national sovereignty.

This would include an end to all infiltrations, even if it is supposedly done in hot pursuit of insurgents.

Furthermore, it was stated that Pakistani territory and airspace shall not be used in the transportations of munitions to the NATO and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops in afghanistan.

Yet the report was lacking in explicit recommendations on NATO supplies, which according to Pakistan’sDaily Times is likely due to pressure from opposition parties.

The recommendations from the PCNS also stated that the pakistani nuclear program, including its assets, safety and security cannot be compromised – something which I believe is a response to theantagonistic approach the West has taken to Iran’s program (which mirrors the Israeli position).

They pointed to the nuclear agreement between the United States and India, which they say has altered the strategic balance in the region. They recommended that Pakistan seek out a similar deal from the U.S. and others.

They also addressed the unprovoked NATO assault on Pakistani border posts in November of last year, calling it a breach of international law and blatant violation of Pakistani sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The joint session said that Pakistan should seek out an unconditional apology from the United States for the incident, but given the fact that the U.S. has already said that they will not charge anyone for the 24 murders, I doubt that the government will go beyond expressing “regret” which means little, if anything at all.

Also quite noteworthy is the fact that the session concluded that, “no verbal agreement regarding national security shall be entered into by the government, its ministries, divisions, departments, attached departments, autonomous bodies or other organizations with any foreign government or authority, and all such agreements or understandings shall cease to have effect forthwith,” according to the Daily Times.

Any future agreements dealing with national security will have to be approved by both the cabinet and the PCNS.

In a clear jab at the United States, they also stated that no private security contractors or intelligence operatives will be allowed into Pakistan at all.

Furthermore, they explicitly stated that Pakistani territory will not be used for the establishment of any foreign bases.

They also called on the international community to recognize the unimaginable losses Pakistan has sustained, both human and economic, since the fraudulent war on terror was declared.

secrets of the zionist elite

Now for the first time in history thirty members of various secret societies have come forth to reveal the closely guarded secrets of the super wealthy. Some of these members have risen to the top levels of their respective societies which include the following:

1. The Brotherhood
2. The bilderberg group
3. The Council on Foreign Relations
4. The freemasons
5. Yale University’s Skull and Bones
6. The Illuminati
7. The trilatral commision
8. And several other elite international societies
9. If you are not familiar with these organizations that is okay. Just know that between them they own and control majority of the earth’s wealth and political systems. If you are already familiar with them, then you are ahead of the curve. However, before I go deeper into this information and how to gain access to the incredible secrets that these individuals have made known for the first time in history, some important points must be made:
   1) There is a small percentage of the human population who believe they are genetically superior to everyone.They always had and will continue to have one main objective:
   To have and keep total control over the masses
   Do you feel like you are being controlled? Most people do and it is by no accident or acts of randomness that you feel that way. Rather it is by a well thought out, well coordinated plan by a small percentage of the human population who believe they are genetically superior and more deserving than everyone else.
   I am not saying that all of these people are evil with a hidden agenda of taking over the world and making us their slaves, nor I am talking about conspiracy theories here. At one point in time there were logical strong arguments that could be made against such theories. Now that information has been revealed either by existing or past members of these secret societies, it is no longer a theory.
   It’s fact:
   Around 1% of the human populuation truly believe it is their exclusive birth right to have control of and even more importantly to stay in control of everything on the entire planet.
   They accomplish this by the use of any means necessary to control a country’s money and hence its political system.
   This is not a freak of nature or some failed presidential policy or even a glitch in some financial market as we are led to believe. This is the result of a well thought out plan created many years ago and it has been advancing ever since without a hitch.
   Consider this quote made by the founder of the rothschild Family banking dynasty, Mayer Amschel rothschild (1744-1812):
10. Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws”
11. The debate whether or not he really made that statement is irrelevant. I leave that for the conspiracy and non-conspiracy theorists. The point I want to make is regardless of whether you believe it was said or not, it should come of no suprise or coincidence knowing that is exactly what he did with the help of his five sons starting out with taking over the Central bank of england.
    Today it is estimated that the Rothschild Family controls half of the earth’s wealth. That’s a single family alone controlling more than half of the world’s economy. Their worth has been estimated to be in the trillions of dollars. That’s trillions not billions. The thought of that is just mind blowing! Isn’t it?
    There is no way to actually verify their wealth though because they are not required to disclose their finances to anyone. Interesting, it appears they care not who is making the laws. A very nice position to be in , isn’t it?
    2) The Unites States federal reserve system is not owned or controlled by the US government nor by the will of the people
    If it is not owned and controlled by the US government then who really does own it seems to be the question of the day. The answer is still being talked about and debated by conspiracy theorists, non-conspiracy theorists, academicians, non-academicians, or even the janitor at work. The debate over who actually owns it can go on forever but one fact remains and let’s not lose for the forest for the trees with it:
    Even though it was established by the US federal reserve Act on December 23, 1913:
    It is not owned nor controlled by the US Government and certainly not by the will of the people!
    So then if it is not owned or controlled by the US Government, then someone has to own and control it. Makes sense doesn’t it? Then who else is left? The only ones left that can own it is the private sector. Who else? Aliens?
    Whether it is the super wealthy or the big bankers is irrelevant on the surface. What is relevant is that the US Monetary System is under the control of private interest and with that being said, a strong argument can be made that with control over a nation’s money, I suppose then it doesn’t matter who is making her laws. Quite interesting indeed, wouldn’t you agree? Do you think that may be what’s behind the next point?
12. The Rich Are Getting Richer And The Poor Are Getting Poorer
    Over the course of the last couple of decades, one could not help but hear an economic report stating on how the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. That statement seems to have become a modern day cliche. One cannot help hearing it repeated over and over again especially during election time. Don’t take my word for it.
    Here is some interesting data to consider courtesy of G. William Domoff, Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. His research findings can be found at:
    who rules america
    The Wealth Distribution

    In the united states, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%.

    So in summary what the above information means, that as of 2007, 20% of the people in the US controlled 85% of all the privately held wealth. That left only 15% for the remaining 80%.
    Further more, back in 1983 the top 20% owned 91.3% of financial wealth opposed to 8.7% for the remaining 80%. That number grew in 2007 for the top 20% to 93% and decreased for the remaining 80% to 7.0%.
    So there you have it. The data speaks for itself. The rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. Need I say more? It basically comes down to 80% of the people controlling only 15% of the privately held wealth. Given this information, I have some questions I would like to ask you:
13. Is there any wonder why stress levels and stress related illnesses are at an all time high?
14. Is there any wonder as to why you are working longer and harder for less?
15. Why it requires more than one earner per household to maintain just a status quo standard of living?
16. Why most people cannot afford to lose their low paying JOB (Just Over Broke)?
17. Do you feel that you have no choice in the matter? (Don’t worry, that’s part of their plan and is exactly what they want you to believe)
18. Who have you been listening to regarding information on what it takes to succeed in life? Your unemployed neighbor? Your know it all relative who is 90 days from bankruptcy?
19. Would you rather listen to people who already have what you want and are willing to share their methods on how they got it?
20. So why did I feel the need to make these points and ask these questions? Because if you are anything like me, you have worked your brains out for a very long time and all it comes down to is like running the game of life on a treadmill.
    You know the feeling. It’s like running and running and never really getting anywhere. Investing plenty into education and self development material only to get marginal if any results at all.
    Don’t get me wrong. I am not complaining. I am grateful for what I do have in my life but for some strong reason I always felt deep down inside that there was something still missing. Something deep in my heart telling me that there is plenty more to it then what I am being told.

the role of media regarding WOMEN

Media is streamed through a specific and unique lens depending on the views it holds regarding society and life. Media in all of its forms - print or broadcast all strive to promote a certain perspective to the masses. This is most evident in media geared towards females of all ages. We all feel the tangible effects of the media on both genders. However, we are yet to feel the direct effects of Islamic media. There are several stark differences between Islamic media and western media.

The detrimental effects of the media have a ripple effect on society. Western media has distorted the image and role of the female to extreme unrealistic standards and impressions. Affecting both man and woman in this warped concoction of acting and looking like a so-called woman. She is to be a sexual object that takes great advantage of her femininity and sensuality to further her social and financial status. This is all done without anyone, whether it be industry or any activist rights campaign, condemning or reprimanding her or the people who exploit her. This is the very thing that destroys her as a human being. It is surely a double-edged sword or a double jeopardy of sorts. A woman, often times a very young woman, is encouraged to display her body in all of its beauty yet is stunned when she is attacked by the very people who she tries to lure.

Another problem is self-inflicted through a slow and direct stream of poison being injected into young naïve females of the ideal female persona. This false portrayal of the young attractive woman has been the source of widespread epidemic of eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia being linked to low self-esteem, causing a warped sense of false beauty including long term effects on her health. The numbers are phenomenal resulting in hundreds of support groups and health campaigns against these disorders all the while billboards and magazines are still flashing erotic images. They only address the symptoms and not the root of the disease. Women are hopelessly chasing after unattainable ideals while jeopardizing their mental, emotional, and physical health, thus, resulting in failed relationships with their partners and families.

There is an easy solution but many will quickly reject it as this type of media is a multi-billion dollar industry which capitalizes on the human desires.

The solution lies within the system. Islam holds a very direct and clear perception of a woman not as an object but as a dignified human being. Islam plays a vital role in lifting one's character emphasizing the best Islamic values while upholding the highest code of ethics and discipline. It is indeed an unfortunate absence in today's society, one that is sorely needed to free ourselves from the constant stream of poisons. Islamic media would greatly differ as a result of this viewpoint and concepts.

Islamic media would encourage good and noble deeds and reject the vices of society like violence towards women in its many forms. It would educate and inform the general public in their actions, elevate their thoughts, purify their emotions leading a correct positive viewpoint. This will lead to a great revival steering society towards greatness, enveloping non-Muslims as well. Obscene and derogatory material will be forbidden in all types of media. There will be no freedom of expression as this destroys society as a whole including its individuals. Men will be reminded of how to properly view women in public and how to treat them as honorable respectable people. Most certainly, men's minds and concepts will be re-trained on how to treat and speak to their counter-parts, thus influencing how the masses view and process the image of a woman. Islamic media will promote a positive welfare environment eradicating feelings of racism, discrimination, and nationalism, that leads towards a spiral of decline something we as Muslims feel and realize the catastrophic results today.

It will inspire young females to be great role models as mothers, wives, and dawah carriers, therefore building self-esteem and confidence, something that is desperately needed to wash away all the corrupt ideas thus promoting a healthy self-image of themselves. Taking the sahabiyaat and the Prophet's wives (ra) as their role-models, will allow them to be a successful and beneficial part of society's fabric. The great number of social problems will diminish to a bare minimum InshAllah.

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لِأَزْوَاجِكَ إِنْ كُنْتُنَّ تُرِدْنَ الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنْيَا وَزِينَتَهَا فَتَعَالَيْنَ أُمَتِّعْكُنَّ وَأُسَرِّحْكُنَّ سَرَاحًا جَمِيلًا

وَإِنْ كُنْتُنَّ تُرِدْنَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَالدَّارَ الْآخِرَةَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ أَعَدَّ لِلْمُحْسِنَاتِ مِنْكُنَّ أَجْرًا عَظِيمًا

O Prophet, tell your wives: ‘If you desire the life of the dunya and its finery, come and I will give you all you need and release you with kindness. But if you desire Allah and His Messenger and the abode of the akhira, Allah has prepared an immense reward for those among you who are good-doers.' [Al-Ahzab, 33:28-29]

MANAL BADAR(PALESTINE)

human rights violations by the hindu banya

A letter highlighting communal violence in India has been sent to me by one of my respectable reader from Sikh community. The same is being published here for joining the voice of poor victims of state terrorism in India. UNO, international community and civil societies of the world should come out and condemn Indian state terrorism against minorities.

Room: XXII

Place: Palace des Nations

Date: 15th March, 2012

Time: 16:00 – 18:00

Chairman: Dr Charles Graves

SPEAKERS: Professor Athawala Indira Wishwarao, University of Poona, PUNE, Mr Dino Dean Gracious (Christian Indigenous Community), Professor Dilip Kumar Behera (Dalit Community), and Dr Awatar Singh Sekhon, The Sikh Educational Trust and Editor in Chief, International Journal of Sikh Affairs ISSN 1481-5435

CONTINUING CHRONIC PROBLEMS OF THE SIKH NATION: The Sikh nation, PUNJAB, The Sikh Raj, had been the First Sovereign and Secular nation of South Asia of a monarch Ranjit Singh, 1799 to 14th March 1849. On this fateful day of 14th March 1849, the forces of the british empire defeated the Sikh nation. On 29th March 1849 the british empire’s viceroy Lord Dalhousie made a radio announcement from Rawalpindi (now the twin city of Rawalpindi and Islamabad, Islamic Republic of Pakistan) that the Sikh Raj, PUNJAB of monarch Ranjit Singh is “annexed” but not amalgamated to the British Empire, for administration purposes only. The Sikh Nation remained “annexed” until the agent of the British India Empire, the successor of the British East India Company, handed over the political reign of the British India to unelected Brahmins-Hindu leaders of their Indian colony. The Sikhs have been continuing their “Struggle To Regain the Lost Sovereignty of the Sikh Nation, for their Independence and Political Power, by peaceful means as taught to them by the teachings of their Sikh Guru Sahibaans, Guru Baba Nanak Sahib to Sahib Guru Gobind Singh ji and The Sikh Traditions, along with the Sikh War Code (Professor Gurtej Singh 2012, J Sikh Affairs 22, 1- , ISSN 1481-5435), ever since the day they lost their sovereignty to the British Empire.

On 15th August, 1947, within two hours of getting the reign of their free India, the Brahmins-Hindus leadership, they ‘robbed’ the Sikh Nation, PUNJAB of Sikhs, which never became known until a next few weeks. Exactly, 7-wwek following the independence of India, the Brahmins-Hindus, who had been ‘subservient’ to the Afghans, Mughals, Sikhs, British, Portuguese, etc, for more than 3,500 years, a trio of CL Trivedi, JL Nehru and VB Patel, circulated their circular to the Deputy Commissioners of Punjab, that the “Sikhs are a lawless community, dangerous to the law-abiding Brahmins-Hindus.” The first victim of their circular had been Sirdar Kapur Singh, a University of Cambridge student, ICS (Indian Civil Service), MP, MLA and the National Professor of Sikhism. The person who not only ‘rejected’ the Indian Constitution of 1950, on 6th September, 1966, in the Lok Sabha alias the parliament of the Brahmins-Hindus of India, but called the document ‘curate’s, stink heavily and unfit for the human consumption, because it is devoid of nutritious values. This had been the fourth time when the Sikhs’ elected representatives ‘rejected’ a document, prepared to rule the Brahmins-Hindus country, but not the non-Brahmins, including the Sikhs of Punjab of 15th August 1947. Since 1950, the Sikhs have been ruled heavy handedly and without any constitutional power. The very document of 1950, which is known as the Indian Constitution 1950, swallowed the Sikh Religion, the 5th largest religion of the world and culture as well, called the Sikhs as ‘long-haired Hindus’, the Hindus who had been subservient before they received the reign on the platter to rule India. What a deceit, betrayal, broken political promises of the Brahmins-Hindus of India. The deceitful Brahmins-Hindus who have been trying to destroy the Sikhs and the Sikh religion for over five and one-half centuries, unsuccessfully.

The question arises why these Brahmins-Hindus have been doing so? Simple answers to this question is their own criminal activity to make the Sikhs criminals and declaring through their circular the ‘Sikhs are a lawless community, 

and dangerous to the law-abiding Hindus’ (on 10th October, 1947)

Why did the Brahmins-Hindus of 15th August 1947, made the Sikhs ‘criminals’ and declare ‘a lawless community, to the law-abiding Hindus-Brahmins’? A very good question to drive the Sikhs out of the political arena, to take them the courts of law and swallow them, their Holy Scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh Code of Conduct, to compel them to commit suicide, to destroy their all means of agricultural professions, etc.

As Criminals are dealt in the Court(s) of law, the Brahmins-Hindus rulers of India of 15th August 1947 made the Sikhs criminals and let them harass them as long as they are exhausted and meet their own death. The politicians, Brahmins-Hindus, do not have to meet the Sikhs, to resolve the Sikh Nation’s chronic problems, to tell the sufferers (Sikhs) how could, we the masters and politicians of free India, we meet you, face to face, as you are criminals and we are the ruling politicians of India. You, the Sikhs, are not our political foe but are criminals; as such, go to our courts and get judgment of your concerns, provided the Hon justices would like to consider your concerns. Yes, for us politicians, you (the Sikhs) are criminals and ‘…dangers people to law-abiding Brahmins-Hindus, the i. e., high caste, caste people and us.

We have been smarter than you, the Sikh, we the Brahmins-Hindus, have politicized the country’s judicial system, the justices of Supreme and High courts and lower courts have to serve the (corrupt, immoral, unethical, criminal, etc.) politicians. Our courts cannot go against us as far as the Criminal Sikhs, Muslims, Christians and other minorities are concerned. It does not matter if a lost person in wilderness; for example, Honorable Justice A Qadri of the Gujarat State High Court said in 2002, during the Genocide of Muslims of Gujarat, that “Article 14A of the Indian Constitution was rendered ineffective.” Yes, we the spineless and morally corrupt politicians of India know it very well how to make the Home, Defense, Information, Foreign ministries and their personnel corrupt. They have to serve us, the Brahmins-Hindus politicians. If an honest person like Mr Justice A Qadri makes some odd observation and/or comments, which cares in the Brahmins-Hindus-turbaned Brahmins Congress or the saffaronized right wing political parties.

Next to criminalization and a lawless community dangerous to the law-abiding Hindus-Brahmins is in order to ‘exterminate the Sikhs of the Sikh Nation, ‘robbed’ Punjab of 15th August, 1947, no constitution rights to the Sikhs, had been to wage an ‘undeclared’ war on the Sikh Nation in the form of a brutal military “Operation Bluestar” of June, 1984. Further to ‘extermination’ of Sikhs, the Darbar Sahib Complex, Amritsar, including the Supreme Seat of Sikh Polity, The Akal Takht Sahib, all religious and political institutions (Gurdwaras or the Houses of God) were bombed or destroyed, to (i) destroy the Sikh culture, (ii) Sikhs’ Punjabi language (Script Gurmukhi) and (iii) the Sikh literature. More than 170,000 innocent Sikhs (infants, children, females, males, elderly, etc.) were butcher between 1st and 7th June, 1984. Since this ‘undeclared’ war, a total of over 100,000 innocent Sikhs have been slaughtered, in order to complete the wishes of the Brahmins-Hindus and their bootlickers turbaned Brahmins, like Prakash Sinh Badal, Chief Minister, the occupied Sikh Nation by the Brahmins-Hindus alleged Indian democracy alias autocracy. It should be noted that the Brahmins have had never been the followers of democracy. So much so, MK Gandhi had advised the British Empire’s one of the prime ministers to follow adolf hitler of the Nazi Germany in the times of the WW II. The occupied Sikh Nation had been a Concentration Camp in the days of the ‘undeclared war in post-”Operation Bluestar” era in 1984.

Sardar Jaswant Singh Khalra: A human rights activist of the Akali Dal-Badal Private Limited, Incorporation was deliberately killed by Punjab police, because he had submitted a list of 50,000 Sikhs cremated at several places following compilation of the list to Punjab High Court. Police official, supposed to have committed suicide after torturing and killing Mr Khalra had warned that if he submits the list to the High Court, he would not hesitate to one more number (50,000 plus 1) to the list of Mr Khalra.

The gross violations of human rights, persecution, torture, staged encounter killings of Sikh youth, cultural, educational, social and political genocides have been the common practices of the New Delhi administration (NDA) and the administration of Punjab State. Police, armed and investigational personnel employed have been virtually ‘devoid’ of human rights.

Fate of the Sikh Prisoners: More than 10,000 Sikh prisoners have been languishing in the high security jails in Punjab and outside, i. e., jails in other states. Children born to imprisoned couples have been named as Jail Singh or Jail Kaur, respectively.

Some prominent figures who became victims in post-”Operation Bluestar” era of June, 1984 have been Sardar Simranjit Singh Mann, a former M P, Bhai Daljit Singh Bittu, his associates, Bhai Balwant Singh Rajoana, Bhai Dilavar Singh Babbar, Bhai Dilavar Singh Hawara, Bhai Parmjit Singh Bheora, Bhai Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, to say the least. Bhai Balwant Singh Rajoana’s date to send him to gallows is set for 31st March 2012. He did not ask for any mercy plea and forbid his family or any other Sikh to do so on his behalf. He told the court bluntly that he would love to go to gallows for the Sikh cause, i.e., the Sovereignty of the Sikh Nation, Punjab of 15th August 1947. He told the court that he does not need any attorney to plead his case, as he himself knows what he is up to. He would like to break the chains of the ‘Brahmins-Hindus’ slavery. Sovereignty of the Sikh Nation is his birthright. He is looking forward to go to gallows as an initiated Sikh. He did asked the Head of The Akal Takht Sahib to initiate him. His request has been granted in the jail where he is kept. He refused bluntly to meet with a delegation of Sant Samaj, on the grounds that the members of this delegation are aligned with the administration of a turbaned Brahmin of the Sikh Nation, Prakash Sinh Badal. He further made it clear that nothing will deter him to go gallows. Another Sikh, Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar has already been on the death row for the last couple of years, for the crime he did not commit.. Although a mercy plea has been entered to the Supreme Court of India and the President of India as well. Both have rejected his pleas. It should be mentioned that the High Court of Punjab’s bench found him ‘not guilty’ (a bench decision, 2 out of 3), but the Supreme Court’s verdict was to reinstate his capital punishment. This makes it crystal clear that there are two different laws. One is for the Sikhs and Muslims and other for the Brahmins-Hindus. A Sikh or Muslim can never be pardoned, as is the case of Afzal Guru of the IDA:JK (Internationally Disputed Areas of Jammu Kashmir, under the Indian occupation since 28th August, 1947) his behalf by his family, certain Sikh organizations and the Sikh Diaspora. Beside harassment by the state- or BJP-sponsored parties members, the Sikh prisoners have been ill treated, every time during their court appearances. By and large, the courts advance their appearances further by setting some future date for hearing, so that they could be kept in jails and harassed until the judgments are delivered.

On the other hand, one Kishori Lal killed over 20 Sikhs in the Genocide of Sikhs in November, 1984. He was found guilty and sent for life imprisonment. About two weeks ago, he was released from an Amritsar jail on the ground of good behaviour. Does this not evidence that a Hindu can be given parol and pardon, but a Sikh, Muslim, Christian or non-Brahmin-Hindu cannot be pardon even though he is not guilty (please see Devinder Singh Bhullar’s case who is on the death row).

Punjab River Waters and the By-products: It sad and highly disappointing that the Sikhs have no control over the Sikh Nation’s river waters, electricity produced from hydro dams. Punjab’s farmers are suffering from the water for their agricultural crops and electricity is denied to them, as it is taken to other provinces and the NDA. There has been no compensation to Punjab for their river waters and the electricity.

It is amply clear unless it is proven otherwise that the ‘Brahmins-Hindus alleged Indian administration is all out to strangulate the Sikhs of the ‘robbed’ Punjab of 15th August 1947.

It should be noted that since an ‘undeclared’ war on the Sikhs in June 1984, the Punjab river waters are heavily polluted with ‘uranium’, river waters are unfit for human consumption and its usage is not good for the irrigation of the agricultural crops. Uranium pollution has been causing cancer and cancer-like ailments in all over PUNJAB, especially in the Malwa belt. The author is of the strong opinion that deliberated usage of armed armament by the ‘Brahmins-Hindus Indian armed personnel used highly toxic substances in Punjab, the Sikh Nation, to pollute Punjab’s environment and river waters, to kill the citizens of the ‘robbed’ Punjab of 15th August, 1947. It is a part of punishment by the Brahmins-Hindus to the Sikhs, who ‘rejected’ the Indian Constitution 1950, in 1948, 26th November, 1949, 1950 and 6th September, 1966, in its draft and final forms, in Lok Sabha alias Indian Parliament, by the Sikhs’ elected representatives, Sardar Hukam Singh, Sardar Bhupinder Singh Maan and Sirdar Kapoor Singh, ICS, MP, MLA, National Professor of Sikhism. They all were the Sikhs’ members of parliament.

Hond-Chillar Genocide of Sikhs of 1984: The Sikhs of village Hond-Chillar of Rewari, Haryana were burnt alive and their remains had been found in 2011, more than 26-year post-”Operation Bluestar” of June 1984 and the Genocide of Sikhs of November 1984.

A Sikh gentleman completed the story and disseminated worldwide, using Internet services. He was arrested by the police and kept in jail for six months until a court found him ‘not guilty’. He has been released about 2-3 weeks ago. Consequently, he lost his employment while in jail. His parents’ home was broken in, his father’s cycle was stolen, utensils of his household were taken away, without any crime (www.facebook.com/several groups).

Suicide of Sikh Farmers: The Sikh farmers are heavily taxed, made poor and driven to commit suicide, for not paying tax funds. Since an ‘undeclared’ war of June 1984, committing suicide by more than 275,000 farmers considered as the greatest tragedy in Punjab. The community that was boasted as the ‘bread basket’ of the ‘Brahmins-Hindus’ democracy or democracy!

ZAHEER UL HASSAN.