The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

S. Gurmukh Singh asking the Muslim trader to not to mistreat the highly laden ox. A dispute occured and the magistrate ordered the ox to be slaughtered in front of Gurmukh Singh.

The open permission for killing in the Punjab accorded to Muslims by the British rulers was assented bitterly by all sections of the non-Muslim population. Muslims, on the other hand became over-zealous everywhere and deliberately injured the religious sentiments of their Hindu and Sikh neighbours.

An incident of a minor nature, in which a Namdhari had requested a vegetable seller to come down from the back of an ox, resulted in altercations between Gurmukh Singh Namdhari and a Muslim at Malerkotla. The matter went to the court and the Muslim judge instead of pacifying the excited feelings ordered that the ox be butchered before the eyes of Gurmukh Singh. Orders were instantly carried out. Next day Gurmukh Singh went to Bhaini Sahib to attend a gathering, and narrated what had taken place before his eyes.

On 13th January 1871, a batch of about 2O0 Namdharies under the leadership of Sardars Hira Singh and Lehna Singh started for Kotla to avenge the wrong done to one of their fellow religionists by the fanatic Muslim judge. On the way, there was a free fight with the men of the Sikh Feudal Chief of Malaudh in which. 2 Namdharies and two men of the Sardar group were killed. On the morning of 15th there was a riot between the Namdharies and the officials of the Malerkotla State. Eight Kotla men were killed and several wounded. On the side of the Namdharies, 7 died on the spot, and 2 wounded were captured, besides, 29 severely wounded who had left the city. One of the two wounded died later on

The Namdharies left the city and reaching the police post Sherpur in the Patiala State voluntarily surrendered themselves to the police officials. In the meantime, Mr. Cowan, the Deputy Commissioner of Ludhiana district, had reached Malerkotla. The ruler of the state was a minor and Mr. Cowan was working as superintendent of the Council of administration. He ordered that the Namdharies should be brought before him. On the 17th January, 49 of them were blown away with guns and the fiftieth cut to pieces with swords without trial. On the 18th, the remaining sixteen were also done to death in the same ghastly manner by an order of Mr. Forsythe the Commis-sioner of Ambala Division.

A Kuka Waryam Singh was rather short in height, and was related to the Maharaja of Patiala. A member of the firing squad was interested in saving his life. So he alleged that this man could not be blown, as his height was lower than the cannon aim. Waryam Singh ran at once to the neighbouring ploughed field and brought some stones with him. He stood on these stones and challenged the gunman to fire as his height now posed no problem to the cannon aim.

The last person to be executed was a boy of thirteen years by the name of Bishan Singh. Mr. Cowan's wife felt pity for the boy and asked her husband to release him. Cowan went to the boy, bent down to him and said: "Disown the fool Ram Singh and you will be pardoned." The boy got enraged on hearing his Guru being abused. He jumped up, caught hold of the beard of Cowan and did not let it go till both his hands were severed. His body was cut to pieces and he became a martyr.

 "Kuka-Massacre al Maler-Kotla." "These reminiscences of 1872 would be incomplete without some reference to what I can only describe as the Massacre at Maler Kotla. .. For my part, I can recall nothing during my service in India, more revolt-ing and shocking than these executions, and there were many who thought, as I did, still think, that the final orders of the Government of India were lamentably inadequate. (Indian and Home memories by Sir Henery Cotton.P.110-113)

Views: 293

Replies to This Discussion

Wow.  It wasn't that long ago either.

This is just one in many instances where the English elite have sided with the moslems, so it comes as no big surprise that we see the elite folding to the fascists in the present day.

 We see many today in the CJ who quote Churchill, but they overlook that Churchill locked up Ghandi, thus enabling Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League.

The elite do not care who they rule over. Provided they and their progeny are in charge, it is of no concern to them.  We only have to look at the utter contempt and disdain that students/graduates of British universities have for those "beneath them" to realise how much contempt the elite have for everyone beneath them.

I think what happened with the Raj, is that the Victorian sensibility was disgusted by all the nakedness/fornication/pleasure exhibited in the statuary of hindu "religious sites".  The victorian British found the relative primness and prudishness of muslims far more compatible to their own mentality.  Muslims exploited this (such as the construction of islam as "the religion of peace" in the 1920s, when muslims had been assassinating British rulers in India just 60 years earlier).

One thing we must never forget, is the blind-spot in European history concerning the transformative influence of islam on christianity and european culture.  That Victorian prudishness could well have been an echo of the impact of islam through the ages.  For example, before islam started the onslaught on Europe, the catholic church was apparently marrying same-sex couples. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Christianity-Social-Tolerance-Homosexuality...

Gandhi was a traitor. He was just like Burnham's "managerial class". Gandhi did not object to imperialism; he objected to the British having an empire.  He came to London in 1918 (I think) with an otherwise all-muslim delegation, to push for Britain to allow the Caliphate to be maintained after WW1.



shiva said:

This is just one in many instances where the English elite have sided with the moslems, so it comes as no big surprise that we see the elite folding to the fascists in the present day.

 We see many today in the CJ who quote Churchill, but they overlook that Churchill locked up Ghandi, thus enabling Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League.

I think what happened with the Raj, is that the Victorian sensibility was disgusted by all the nakedness/fornication/pleasure exhibited in the statuary of hindu "religious sites".  The victorian British found the relative primness and prudishness of muslims far more compatible to their own mentality.

Its an interesting theory, but perhaps we should wait for more evidence.  Other people have told me that beneath the veneer that Queen Victoria tried to perpetuate, British society was a seething mass of sensuality.  I don't know what the truth is, except that the latter was certainly true in Kenya before it gained independence.

Joe - agree with your comments on the British establishment, the importation of muslims etc from the 1950's onwards, aside from using them to undercut British workers, also had a distinct air of snobbery and contempt for the working class to it (and still does whether the snobbery is in left wing or right wing guise). The proles were/are there just to put up and shut up.

'before islam started the onslaught on Europe, the catholic church was apparently marrying same-sex couples...'

Joe, i have not read the book you refer to, but i read the reviews and none of them say this.  the Christian church had about 800 years to develop its position and understanding of same sex attracted people.  if anything, could the influence have been the other way around?  Also, Mohammed was keen to associate his new religion with the Jewish people.  And the Jewish position was also fairly clear about this issue and had even longer time to arrive at and develop its understanding.

I bought a copy of that book a few weeks ago, but it has not arrived yet.  The summary I'm giving is how I remember the book being discussed when it was first published 30 years ago.

Perhaps I am confusing which of Boswell's books contain that thesis. He also wrote this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Marriage-Likeness-Same-sex-Pre-modern/d...

It seems not unreasonable to me that since even Jews in Palestine had been "hellenized" around the time of Jesus (they were doing naked sports like in the Olympics, they stopped circumcising boys), that such hellenization continued into the early christian church.  "The vice of the Greeks" would thus likely be tolerated/incorporated in pre-islamic Mediterranean christianity.

I'm sticking to my guns: islam is a counter-reformation against the modernisations of the Biblical religions which occurred in both judaism and christianity.  That is how muslims themselves see it (no doubt islam also incorporated elements of Arabic paganism, and even elements of other Middle Eastern religions).

It's perfectly clear that to the extent that there is homosexual behaviour between men in muslim countries, it is entirely disavowed and denigrated and dangerous.  Boswell's thesis is that there was tolerance (and maybe more than tolerance) towards homosexuals in the early christian church. At some point, european christianity became intolerant of homosexuality. Christianity became de-hellenized. I don't know of any evidence that islam was ever significantly moderated by its encounters with other cultures.  Clearly judaism was, and that transformation is the kind of thing Mohammed despised.

I'm not really interested in looking at european history through conventional, accepted views.  European history and thought seems to have a total blindness when it comes to acknowledging the ways in which it must have been transformed by the 100s of years of sustained (and successful) islamic military assaults on the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, Anatolia, the Balkans, Italy, etc.

Look to conventional academic thought on these matters, and you will find barely a mention of how christian Europe responded to the unrelenting wave of assaults by islam.  I had thought this was going to be due the academics in the past 40 years re-writing the accepted view.  But I recently bought a 1000 pg book on medieval Europe written in 1937, and though it has a chapter devoted to the rise of islam, the rest of the book barely mentions the 542 wars to which Bill Warner refers.  

How can a 1000 page book on medieval Europe ignore those things?  Christian Spain/Portugal was mostly islamic for 700 years of the 1500 year period of that book, and it devotes 30pp to the rise of islam. Then apart from the Crusades, does not mention any interaction between muslims and christians in the last 350 years of the period it covers.

If the Crusades had not happened, I think that such huge tomes would not even refer to any of the 542 assaults that muslims made against christian Europe.  That is how huge the blind-spot is.  


Kinana said:

'before islam started the onslaught on Europe, the catholic church was apparently marrying same-sex couples...'

Joe, i have not read the book you refer to, but i read the reviews and none of them say this.  the Christian church had about 800 years to develop its position and understanding of same sex attracted people.  if anything, could the influence have been the other way around?  Also, Mohammed was keen to associate his new religion with the Jewish people.  And the Jewish position was also fairly clear about this issue and had even longer time to arrive at and develop its understanding.

It's not my theory.  It is something I read in some of the books on how the British interacted with hindus and muslims during the Raj.  If you want I'll dig through my notes and find where I read it.  I've also seen documentaries on TV where the narrators have said the same thing.  

The imagery on those hindu temples is still shocking to a debauched 21st century homo like me.  It doesn't take much imagination to consider how the Victorian British would have been appalled by the idea that things like that were "holy".  Them preferring the comparative austerity of mosques is entirely understandable.  Even now there are significant numbers of British people who think muslims have a point: covering women from head to toe seems acceptable to them if it stamps out prostitution.

"British society was a seething mass of sensuality."  If you read the studies of the Victorian London working class, by people like Mayhew, it's clear they were mostly irreligious, often debauched.  It was the middle-class who attempted to impose religiosity on the urban working-class.  It was the middle-class who went off to run India.


Alan Lake said:

I think what happened with the Raj, is that the Victorian sensibility was disgusted by all the nakedness/fornication/pleasure exhibited in the statuary of hindu "religious sites".  The victorian British found the relative primness and prudishness of muslims far more compatible to their own mentality.

Its an interesting theory, but perhaps we should wait for more evidence.  Other people have told me that beneath the veneer that Queen Victoria tried to perpetuate, British society was a seething mass of sensuality.  I don't know what the truth is, except that the latter was certainly true in Kenya before it gained independence.

Fair enough!

RSS

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom of Movement
The government can import new voters - except where that changes the political demographics (i.e. electoral fraud by means of immigration)
4. SP Freedom from Over-spending
People should not be charged for government systems which they reject, and which give them no benefit. For example, the government cannot pass a debt burden across generations (25 years).
An additional Freedom from Religion is be deducible by equal application of law: "Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight - except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2017   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service