A video has gone viral on the internet, showing some girls in a mosque in Pakistan being trained to behead people. According to reports, the footage is from the Lal Masjid in Islamabad, Pakistan, where teen girls are being taught to behead those who disrespect the Islamic prophet. In the video, an instructor is seen showing young burqa-clad girls how to grip and use a sword to behead people.
The girls are being taught in a large assembly that anyone who ‘insults’ the Prophet will face just one punishment: decapitation. Pink hijab-clad girls can be heard shouting slogans and praising the act of murder.
Upon searching, it was found that the video was first uploaded and went viral on social media in December 2021. The video was shared on Twitter by Pakistani Journalist Gul Bukhari. Sharing the video, she wrote, “Students of Red Mosque Islamabad practising how to behead a person accused of blasphemy. Pakistan’s “kamyab jawan” (successful youth) project proceeding rather well.”
Students of Red Mosque Islamabad practising how to behead a person accused of blasphemy. Pakistan’s “kamyab jawan” (successful youth) project proceeding rather well. pic.twitter.com/fgZXXgL9bO
It is worth noting that Islam considers blasphemy against the Prophet to be a severe crime, and the Quran condemns it in 11 places: 2:88, 4:15, 5:17, 5:64, 5:68, 5:73, 6:19, 9:74, 11:19, 14:28, 39:8. During the conquest of Makkah, the Islamic Prophet declared wide amnesty to everybody except those who committed blasphemous deeds or made disrespectful remarks.
According to the classic Hadith volumes Nasai and Sunan Abu Daud, a slave Jew woman was slain by her master for her persistent blasphemy against the Prophet, and when the issue was brought to the Prophet’s attention, he proclaimed no punishment to the master.
According to Mufti Obaidullah Qasmi of Deoband, Islamic legal scriptures have also decreed the death penalty for blasphemy, which is greed by all Islamic scholars of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah.
While the world debates tolerance, free expression, and liberal viewpoints, fundamental Islamists have gone in the opposite way, with a spike in violence against suspected blasphemy, which includes insults to Islam and the Islamic Prophet.
In fact, there is an existing trend of making catchy songs with incendiary lyrics, explaining how it is glorious to kill for the cause of Islam. OpIndia had analysed some such songs, widely popular among the Islamic masses, in a detailed report here. The songs and the videos made on them have millions of views on YouTube.
Following the death of his mother Queen Elizabeth II on Thursday (September 8), the former Prince of Wales ascended to the British throne.
King Charles III, now 73, has been the longest-serving heir apparent to become the British monarch. The official proclamation, as the new King, by the Accession Council is scheduled to take place on Saturday (September 10) at St James’s Palace in London.
Britain’s new monarch will be known as King Charles III.
The former Prince of Wales has been quite unpopular among the British public, with almost half of them wanting him to step aside and make way for Prince William. Here is a list of few controversies that King Charles III courted over the years.
Cashgate
In June this year, The Sunday Times reported that King Charles III accepted 3 million euros from Qatari Prime Minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, as donations to his charitable fund between 2011 and 2015.
In one instance, the new British monarch reportedly accepted a suitcase full of cash, totalling 1 million euros. Later, it also came to light that he accepted money(about $1.2 million) from two half-brothers of the slain terrorist Osama bin Laden.
Although the payments were legal, the King was criticised for being indifferent to Qatar’s grave violation of human rights. His office, Clarence House, defended the decision and claimed that the monarch did not personally solicit the funds.
Screengrab of the news report by The Sunday Times
“Charitable donations received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim were passed immediately to one of the Prince’s charities who carried out the appropriate governance and have assured us that all the correct processes were followed,” it said in a statement.
King Charles III’s charity told The Sunday Times that cash payment was the choice of the donor and that the funds were accepted by the trustees after ‘due diligence.’ Prince of Wales’s Charitable Fund’s (PWCF) Chairman, Sir Ian Cheshire, emphasised, “Any attempt to characterise it otherwise is false.”
Infidelity
During the infamous “Panorama” interview, telecast in 1995 and watched by more than 20 million viewers in Britain, Princess Diana had revealed personal details about her marriage to the erstwhile Prince of Wales.
It was the first time Diana had commented publicly about her doomed marriage. Diana had said, “There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded” – a reference to Charles rekindling his relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles, now his wife.
It had become a talking point across the world. Diana and King Charles III formally divorced in 1996. She died at the age of 36 in a high-speed car crash while being chased by the media in Paris. The fallout with Diana and the subsequent revelation about his infidelity had dented the public image of the British Monarchy.
Attempts to influence the British government
King Charles III, who has now ascended to the throne, had earlier been accused of interfering in the affairs of the British government. It must be mentioned that the monarchy in Britain is constitutional and that the royal family is expected to not influence political opinion in the country.
In 2015, it came to light that King Charles III personally lobbied with senior British politicians on an array of issues, ranging from the purchase of helicopters during the Iraq War to illegal fishing of Patagonian toothfish.
A total of 27 memos were released, which showed that the erstwhile Prince of Wales had access to confidential papers pertaining to the British government, which were not seen even by some elected Ministers. The private letters were called black spider memos due to the distinct handwriting of the new Monarch.
Promotion of Pseudo-Science
King Charles III also came under fire for advocating homoeopathy, which is considered an alternate form of medicine and pseudo-science. He has been accused of lobbying for National Health Service (NHS) funding for homoeopathy, an initiative that had drawn the ire of modern medical practitioners.
Ahh it occurs to me that not everyone knows what an absolute piece of shit Prince Charles has historically been regarding NHS funding for the dangerous, proven-ineffective bullshit that is homeopathy. Google ‘black spider memos’ and let that inform your politics better.
In a Twitter thread in 2020, writer Tracy King claimed, “Every penny spent on alt med is a penny not spent on actual medicine. Fortunately for us, he failed, although he will try again when he’s king.”
She further added, “He and the government also tried VERY hard to suppress evidence of his interference in the NHS. He’s welcome to sit in isolation with his homoeopathy and keep the hell away from our NHS.”
He and the governement also tried VERY hard to suppress evidence of his interference in the NHS. He’s welcome to sit in isolation with his homeopathy and keep the hell away from our NHS.
“He has tried to use his unearned power to defund lifesaving medicine and research in favour of his pet alt med. That is extremely serious and essential political perspective regardless of your personal feelings about monarchy,” she had alleged.
So yes. It sticks in the craw. He has tried to use his unearned power to defund lifesaving medicine and research in favour of his pet alt med. That is extremely serious and essential political perspective regardless of your personal feelings about monarchy.
When the Paradise Papers (a follow-up of the Panama papers) were released in 2017 by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the name of King Charles III cropped up among those who stashed their wealth in safe tax havens.
He was accused of benefitting from his advocacy against climate change. Media reports suggested that King Charles III was engaged in a conflict of interest and bought shares worth $113,500 in ‘Sustainable Forestry Management’, a Bermuda-based company.
Prince Charles is embroiled in controversy after the Paradise Papers showed his Duchy of Cornwall estate invested in an offshore tax haven.
The Monarchy’s Office however refuted allegations about the ‘secret investment’ in the offshore company, which lobbied with global politicians to allow the trading of carbon credits from rainforests.
Amidst his climate change advocacy, King Charles III’s almost tripled its investments in Sustainable Forestry Management in 1 year.
The ‘Golden’ Handshake
In April 2005, the former Prince of Wales committed a diplomatic gaffe and shook hands with the Zimbabwean President and dictator, Rober Mugabe. The incident took place during the funeral of Pope John Paul II and a day before his marriage to Camilla.
At that point in time, Mugabe was banned by the European Union (EU) for rigging parliamentary polls. He was on a travel ban but he defied all rules to attend the Pope’s funeral in the Vatican. King Charles III’s gesture was dubbed as ‘stupid’ and ‘not very sensible.’
King Charles III with the dictator Robert Mugabe
“The Prince of Wales was caught by surprise and wasn’t in a position to avoid shaking Mr Mugabe’s hand,” the former Prince of Wales’ spokesperson had defended. Clarence House also claimed that he supported Zimbabwe Defence and Aid Fund, which worked against Mugabe’s regime.
King Charles III’s life has been mired in controversies. Only time will tell what impact his ascent to the throne will have on British politics, especially at a time when the public charm of the monarchy is fading and voices are raising to abolish it.
Netflix has been threatened with legal action by a group of 6 Gulf Arab states if it continues to stream content that contradicts Islam, according to Saudi official media. While the statement did not mention the specific shows that were anti-Islamic in nature, there are speculations that this statement was referring to the depiction of LGBT content in various shows.
The Saudi media regulator and the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), based in Riyadh, released a joint statement that did not specify which of the shows are in violation of ‘Islamic values’, instead it referred to content in general that “contradicts Islamic and societal principles.” While the consortium did not specify the content, the platform was asked to remove content aimed at minors and several shows ‘promoting’ homosexuality by the Saudi state media regulator.
The action follows a debate in the Gulf on social media and television concerning content for youngsters that was claimed to promote homosexuality. “The required legal steps will be taken if infringing content is continued to be broadcast,” the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council said in a statement on Tuesday.
Netflix was described as the “official sponsor of homosexuality” by a “behavioural consultant” on Saudi state television. The assertion was shown with a blurred-out clip of two female Jurassic World: Camp Cretaceous characters kissing. Saudi television has also hinted at a permanent ban on Netflix.
The identical scene in the program sparked outrage in Hungary, which just passed legislation prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality.
The controversy around the ‘Lightyear’
Muslim-majority countries moved earlier this year to prohibit the release of the Pixar prequel Lightyear, which contained a lesbian subplot. Bahrain, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the UAE had also banned the Toy Story spin-off. In this example, the scene depicted Alisha, a lesbian space ranger, kissing her lover as she returned home from a mission
Countries that have censored LGBT+ content
After Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness, Eternals, and West Side Story were all banned in Saudi Arabia owing to LGBT+ content, it was alleged that Disney did not even submit Lightyear to censors.
Meanwhile, the Malaysian censorship agency LFP, which also banned Lightyear, previously prevented the distribution of the Elton John biography Rocketman and Fantastic Beasts: Secrets of Dumbledore due to LGBT storylines.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan intervened over ‘satanic’ costumes on the popular entertainment show ‘The Masked Singer,’ and Netflix was forced to terminate its Turkish original ‘If Only’ in 2020 due to pressure from the Turkish government to remove a gay character.
Following the death of British Queen Elizabeth II on September 8 at the age of 96, various statements emerged, reinvigorating a long-debated claim that the monarch had ancestral links to Prophet Muhammad, the founding leader of Islam. After tracing her family tree back 43 generations, historians think the Queen is a descendant of Islam’s founder, as per some reports.
According to the claim, the British monarch is a great descendant of Prophet Muhammad. Her ancestors have been traced back for centuries, and there are doubts concerning Elizabeth’s probable ancestry from a Muslim princess named Zaida, as well as Zaida’s own origins and offspring.
The claim publicly appeared in 2018 when a Moroccan newspaper claimed to have traced the ancestry of Queen Elizabeth back to the Prophet. A March 2018 report in the Moroccan daily Al-Ousboue reiterated assertions made by Harold B Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke’s Peerage Partnership, claiming the queen is the Prophet’s 43rd direct descendant through Muhammad’s daughter Fatimah.
According to their study, Elizabeth II’s ancestors trace back to the 14th century Earl of Cambridge, via mediaeval Muslim Spain, and to Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter. Although some historians doubt the allegation, genealogy records from early-medieval Spain support it, and it has also been validated by Ali Gomaa, Egypt’s former grand mufti.
In 1986, Burke’s publishing director, Harold B Brooks-Baker, wrote to then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, requesting enhanced protection for the royal family after this. “The royal family’s direct descent from the prophet Mohammed cannot be relied upon to protect the royal family forever from Moslem terrorists,” Baker wrote to the then British Prime Minister.
He said, “It is little known by the British people that the blood of Mohammed flows in the veins of the queen. Recognizing the relationship would be a surprise to many. However, this is a fact that all Moslem religious leaders are proud of.”
Elizabeth’s lineage with Muhammad was first formally mentioned in Burke’s Peerage research. It was said that the Queen is descended from Zaida, a Muslim princess who escaped Seville in the eleventh century and later became a Christian. Zaida was the fourth wife of King Al-Mu’tamid ibn Abbad of Seville. He had a son named Sancho via her; in the eleventh century, a descendant of Sancho wed the Earl of Cambridge.
Image: Dailymail UK
Also, according to the Moroccan newspaper article authored by Abdel-Hamid Al-Awni, Abu al-Qasim Muhammad ibn Abbad, the king of Seville in the 11th century, was a direct descendant of the Prophet through Fatimah. In 1023, Al-Qasim established his own dynasty, the Abbasids, and became king of Seville in al-Andalus. Zaida was one of his daughters.
The Muslim princess escaped to the court of Monarch Alfonso VI, the Spanish king of Leon, Castille, and Galicia, during an invasion of the Abbasid empire by the Almoravids. She adopted the Roman Catholic faith, changed her name to Isabella, and gave birth to Sancho, a boy who was the ancestor of Richard of Conisbrough, the third earl of Cambridge, whose descendant later was Edward IV, King of England, and the bloodline then runs through James V, the King of Scotts, and Mary, the Queen of Scotts whose son James later became the King of England. Sancho was the grandson of Alfonso VI of Castille.
It is notable here that though not officially confirmed, the claim, as per many reports, is not a random hoax, and can be regarded as ‘plausible’. Most of Europe’s royal families are related to each other and at one time, the Spanish royals were had marital and blood relations with Islamic royals, mostly as the Islamic caliphate of Umayyads had ruled over many parts of Spain.
A day after the Nepal Police started an investigation into the rape complaint filed against Nepali national Cricket team Captain Sandeep Lamichhane, the cricketer took to social media to call all the allegations against him baseless. He also said that he would return to his country and take a leave from the ongoing Caribbean Premier League (CPL).
CPL is an annual Twenty20 cricket tournament underway in the Caribbean. “I am innocent. I’ve decided to take a leave from CPL and go back to my country within a few days. I am ready to face all these baseless allegations. Hope the law acts equal to everyone”, he said in a Facebook post on September 8.
“I am innocent. I’ve decided to take a leave from CPL and go back to my country within a few days. I am ready to face all these baseless allegations,” says Nepali national Cricket team Captain Sandeep Lamichhane on a rape complaint against him https://t.co/RoEKqbceEXpic.twitter.com/fLByBxHU1d
This also comes a day after the Cricket Association of Nepal (CAN) suspended Lamichhane for being accused in the rape case filed by a 17-year-old girl. The girl in the complaint mentioned that the cricketer had raped her in a hotel room in Kathmandu. She said that Lamichhane took the girl to various places in Kathmandu and Bhaktapur on August 21 and raped her on the same day at the hotel.
Based on the complaint which has been filed at the Police Circle Gaushala, the Kathmandu Court has issued an arrest warrant against the cricketer. The Police said that they are investigating the matter and are attaining all the relevant evidence in the case including the CCTV footage of the hotel.
Lamichhane is at present playing in the Caribbean Premier League in West Indies with the Jamaica Tallawahs squad. However, his first international break came in 2018 when he became the first Nepalese cricketer to play in the Indian Premier League (IPL) for the Delhi Capitals franchise. The Cricketer however on Friday declared that he would leave the CPL and return to his country.
England’s queen Elizabeth II breathed her last yesterday September 8. As soon as the news of the British monarch’s passing was shared, condolence messages poured in from all over the world. PM Narendra Modi shared 2 images in his condolence tweet, recalling the past instances of meeting the British queen.
I had memorable meetings with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II during my UK visits in 2015 and 2018. I will never forget her warmth and kindness. During one of the meetings she showed me the handkerchief Mahatma Gandhi gifted her on her wedding. I will always cherish that gesture. pic.twitter.com/3aACbxhLgC
In his tweet, PM Modi wrote, “I had memorable meetings with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II during my UK visits in 2015 and 2018. I will never forget her warmth and kindness. During one of the meetings, she showed me the handkerchief Mahatma Gandhi gifted her on her wedding. I will always cherish that gesture.”
The Daily Telegraph’s coverage of Elizabeth’s wedding
MK Gandhi’s ‘gift’ and why was it considered ‘inappropriate’
In an article published in The Telegraph, Pamela Hicks, the daughter of Lord Mountbatten, the last governor-general of India, had mentioned the ‘gift’ sent by MK Gandhi for Elizabeth’s wedding. She had written that her parents had met MK Gandhi before departing for London to attend the wedding, and MK Gandhi told them that he wishes to send something for the young Elizabeth, the British Princess at that time. However, Gandhi told that all his possessions are away at that moment and he does not know what to send.
It is notable here that Pamela Hicks was one of the 7 bridesmaids for the princess and a cousin of the groom, Prince Philip.
At this, Lord Mountbatten suggested to Gandhi that a piece of cloth from the yarn he has spun with his own hands would be as precious as the crown jewels. So Gandhi had sent a piece of cloth with the Mountbattens.
Queen Mary was confused and thought it was a ‘loincloth’ of Gandhi
When Elizabeth’s mother Queen Mary saw the piece of cloth sent by Gandhi, she was confused about what it was. In Pamela Hicks’ words, she thought it to be a loincloth of Gandhi, and stated that it was the most ‘indelicate’ gift. The piece of cloth was never used by the royal couple because they never understood its purpose, as per Pamela Hicks.
Elizabeth and Philip’s wedding
Princess Elizabeth married Prince Philip on November 20, 1947, soon after India’s independence. The royal couple had received over 2500 gifts from all over the world, as per a report in the Free Press Journal. The gifts also included a vacuum cleaner, and a potato peeler, sent by unknown people. The New York Institute of Dress Designers had sent 25 dresses for the princess. 20 dresses were given away to other girls who were getting married on the same date.
In 2007, when Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip celebrated the diamond jubilee of their wedding day, the wedding gifts were displayed by the National Archive in London. The gifts from India included an ivory table by the Maharaja of Patiala and a piece of cloth sent by Gandhi. It was described as a hand-spun shawl and reportedly contained the motif ‘Jai Hind’ on it.
The Bombay High Court on Thursday urged the Maharashtra government’s forest department to ensure that no Ganpati idols are immersed in water bodies within Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) during Ganesh Chaturthi. A bench of Justices PB Varale and SM Modak also allowed forest officers the authority to take appropriate action against anyone who violates the State’s orders regarding idol immersion.
The bench ruled, “The State Government’s Forest Department shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any activities in the area of the SGNP for Ganpati idol immersion, and if any such attempt is made by violating provisions of law or defying circulars issued by the State Government or Forest Department, the Forest authorities are free to take appropriate action against the violators, If the Forest Department requests the aid of extra police officers or the deployment of police officers, the superior authority of the police authority must assess the request and make an appropriate decision.”
The Bench ordered an urgent hearing in a public interest lawsuit seeking orders prohibiting people from immersing Ganesh idols in water bodies within the SGNP.
The petitioner addressed the Court after reading news items concerning banners placed by past corporators stating that permission for immersions in the national park’s water body had been granted and that immersions may now take place.
They said that simply reading this news report would give the general man the impression that the forest authorities had granted permission to submerge idols in water bodies inside SGNP.
During the hearing, the bench stated that the news report and the banner cited in it appeared to indicate that permission was granted.
“If you claim there is no permission and someone else says it, then you make a declaration that there is no permission.” According to the news story, there is approval. What is a normal person meant to know? “That is clear evidence that authorization for idol immersions in national parks was requested and granted,” Justice Varale joked.
However, state lawyer Purnima Kantharia stated that the forest department’s authorities are watchful enough to avoid any action that harms the ecosystem and wildlife.
The Court also read the State government’s communications granting authorization to the forest department to build an artificial pond near the national park’s entrance gate and to take follow guidelines issued by the Maharashtra government.
Given the communications, the Court saw no need to hear the petition filed on the basis of fear of news publications.
The Bench, however, underlined that because of the banner, there may be a huge flow of activities for idol immersion, and the state was permitted to deploy more police force to prevent wildlife damage. “If any attempt is made to mislead the people at large by making certain false assertions, the state government shall also take adequate actions to avoid such mischief by resorting to legal remedies,” the Bench noted.
For the petitioners, advocates Shriniwas Patwardhan, SR Nargolkar, Ketan Joshi, Arjun Kadam, and Sudumn Nargolkar appeared.
There were 5,000 Hindus in Kohat and 12,000 Muslims on September 8, 1924. On September 11, 3,200 Hindus fled. The devastating anti-Hindu riots wiped out almost the entire Hindu population from the area in just two days. This is the story of the Kohat Riots that were deemed as a ‘successful attempt to completely exterminate and erase the Hindu and Sikh communities in the region’. Kohat town of North-West Frontier Province (now known as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) is located in present-day Pakistan. Notably, many prominent personalities blamed Hindus for igniting communal tension in the area. Patrick McGinn’s 1986 paper titled “Communalism and the North-West Frontier Province: the Kohat Riots, 9-10 September” provided a detailed account of the riots.
The stories narrate how the radical mob of Islamists unleashed their wrath on the Hindu colonies in Kohat. A pre-meditated attack on the Hindus resulted in the exodus of almost the entire population of Hindus from the region. There was no support from the then-British government. It is believed that the British government was dependent on the majority Muslim population in the region to maintain its stronghold. So much so, the Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Head Constable of Police were Muslims named S Ahmad Khan and Abbas Ali Shah.
On the fateful days of September 9th and 10th of, 1924, radical Islamist mobs unleashed mayhem in Hindu mohallas (neighbourhoods) in Kohat town of North-West Frontier Province (now known as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) in present-day Pakistan. The carnage was pre-meditated and resulted in the exodus of the entire Hindu population from the area. Since the British depended on the majority Muslim community to maintain their stronghold in the area, they turned a blind eye to the treatment meted out to the Hindus.
The trust that Britishers had in Muslims was evident in a letter that Lord Reading wrote to the British Secretary of State on July 23, 1924. He wrote, “The Gandhi movement could never have gained its strength but for the Treaty of Sevres which made the Mohamedans so fanatic that they joined up with the Hindus for the time being…the difficulty at present is to keep the Mohamedan and Hindu from each other’s throats, a task which I believe can only be performed by the British.”
He added, “From purely Indian considerations, I have no hesitation in saying that the peace [with Turkey] will assure us of the support of all but the extremists among the 60 or 70 million Mohamedans in India and will help materially to strengthen the British position in India.”
It is notable, that a treaty between the Allied powers (that won World War I) and the representatives of the government of Ottoman Turkey was signed in August 1920 and is known as the Treaty of Sevres. Under this treaty, the Ottoman Empire was abolished and Turkey was obliged to let go of its rights over Arab Asia and North Africa.
The Khilafat Movement – Seed of the Kohat riots
The actual idea behind the Khilafat Movement or the Caliphate movement was to revolt against the British the Indian Muslims. The Indian Muslim leaders wanted to restore the Caliph of the Ottoman Caliphate in Turkey, and it was supported by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. At that time, Gandhi himself was leading a non-cooperation movement in the country.
The support to the Khilafat movement was given in the backdrop of the idea that independence from the colonial rule of the British in India would be achieved via ‘Hindu-Muslim unity’. To date, the Islamists of the Khilafat movement are touted as freedom fighters, furthering the delusion that some leaders of the time had. The truth, however, is far from it. The Khilafat movement was about Indian Muslims fighting for the Islamic Caliphate in Turkey. The reason they were against the British was not that they wanted freedom for India, but because they were against the treatment the British gave to the Ottoman Empire and the Turkey Caliph. It was a purely Islamist movement, led by Islamists, for the cause of the Ummah.
In 1920, there was a policy change in Turkey due to the Treaty of Sevres. The Khilafat movement was poised to trickle away, however, it would not do so before claiming the lives of thousands of Hindus who bore the wrath of radical Islamists.
As per the census of 1921, the total population of Hindus and Sikhs was 5,000, and Muslims were 12,000. According to the records, in Kohat, Muslims paid only Rs 9,998 as tax, whereas Hindus paid Rs 37,322, which was almost four times the tax paid by Muslims. The records suggest there were some conversions as well where Hindus embraced Islam. Around 150 conversions were recorded every year from 1919 to 1924. At that time, Hindu organizations like Arya Samaj and Sanatan Dharma Sabha were strengthening their roots. Though the two organizations had different views, ideologies and outlooks, when it came to establishing the religious identity, they came together and supported the local Hindu community.
Every incident used to fan communal friction
The communal friction in the area was the result of several reasons. Every time an incident involving both communities happened in the region, it was used to further fan the friction between the communities. There was a Sikh named Sardar Makan Singh. His son eloped with a Muslim girl, which was not acceptable to the communities. The marriage of the couple belonging to different communities gave ground to the Islamic clerics to give highly inflammatory statements.
The ‘blasphemous’ literature that fuelled the friction
In May 1924, a wave of shock hit the Hindu community when they came across a highly objectionable and blasphemous poem published in a Muslim-centric newspaper named Lahaul. The poem read, “We shall have to burn the Gita of Kirars. We shall break the flute of Krishna. O Muslims! You will have to take up the sword and destroy the existence of Kirars and burn their goddesses.”
Source: Communalism and the North-West Frontier Province: the Kohat Riots, 9-10 September 1924
The genocidal poem called for the burning of Shrimad Bhagwad Gita, the destruction of the idols and the burning of the goddesses. It called the Muslims to take up weapons and destroy everything that was proof of the existence of the Hindu community that they called ‘Kirars’. It was more than enough to irk the Hindu community to take a notable step. Though the entire Hindu community was hurt by the poem, the members of Sanatan Dharma Sabha were, in particular, displeased by the Islamist poem.
Jiwan Das, who was the local secretary of the organization, decided that it was time to retaliate and published a pamphlet by the name of ‘Krishan Sandesh’ or ‘The Message of Krishna’. There were poems in the pamphlet that were written to reinstate the religious identity of the Hindus.
A poem by an author from Jammu was published in the pamphlet that mocked the Muslims. The poem read, “We have kept quiet so long, we shall have to speak out, O Mulla! You must gather up your prayer carpet and take it to Arabia. We shall build a temple to Vishnu in place of the Ka’ba, And destroy the existence of the Nimaziz.” On the day of Janmashthami, 1,000 copies of the pamphlets were distributed.
Source: Communalism and the North-West Frontier Province: the Kohat Riots, 9-10 September 1924
In retaliation to the poem, the Muslim clerics gave provocative speeches and called for action against Das. On September 3, 1924, a large group of Muslims under the leadership of Maulvi Ahmed Gul and Qazi Miraj Din met ACP S Ahmad Khan and demanded action against Das. They were assured by the ACP that Das would be prosecuted under IPC 505, 153A. Furthermore, directions were given to collect and burn the pamphlets.
The orders to burn the pamphlets further irked the Hindu community that was, till then, sided with the “fact” that the poem was offensive and blamed Sanatan Dharma Sabha for the same. As the pamphlets had a portrait of Bhagwan Krishna on the cover, they opposed the burning of the pamphlets. They also asked for a pardon for Das.
On September 8, Das was granted bail, but he was directed to leave the district. This was a great opportunity for the Ulemas to instigate the Muslims. They provoked the Muslims by saying that Das was acquitted in the case and concealed the information that he was only out on bail. It was more than enough to strengthen the ground for the call of action against the Hindus.
The ‘oath of talaq’
The preachings from the mosque led to the conspiracy to instigate the Muslim community. It was said, “Alas! Oh impotent Mussulmans! You have spoiled your cause by accepting bribes from the Hindus. You should die! You should have some sense of shame.”
Maulvi Ahmed Gul warned the Police to take immediate action against Das, or the Muslim community would take action as per Sharia Law. He gave the administration time till 8 AM on September 9. Shahin Shah and Mian Fazul Shah, along with other clerics, supported his call.
In the ‘oath of talaq’ taken at Haji Bahadur mosque, the Muslim community said they would divorce their wives if they failed to defend their religion.
The situation hours before the riots was tense
On the night of September 8, Muslims were parading the area with weapons. On the morning on September 9, a large group of 1,000 to 1,500 Muslims went and met Deputy Commissioner Reilly and forced him to fulfil their demands. It went on for a few hours, and by noon, half of the agitated mob had left the spot and soon appeared outside the Hindu colony. Since the Hindus learned about the provocative speeches and ‘oath of talaq’, they had anticipated there would be bloodshed. Information was passed on to the Deputy Commission, SP, via telegrams, but no one came to help them. Earlier, letters were also sent to the Chief Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner on September 6 informing them about the tense situation but no action was taken by the Police.
The riots of September 9-10, 1924
There were large mobs of Muslims comprising mainly young boys. They stormed into Hindu colonies and started pelting stones. Equipped with sticks, their presence in large numbers was enough to instigate fear among the Hindus. Before they could react, the house of Sardar Makan Singh, whose son had eloped with a Muslim girl, was burnt to ashes.
The Hindus retaliated and fired shots at them. One of the Muslims died, and several others were reported injured. The death of one of the mobsters agitated the mob further, and the fanatics went on a rampage to kill the Hindus. They did not leave any property that was owned by the members of the Hindu community. Let it be shops, temples or houses, everything was vandalized, looted and set on fire.
The rioters continued the destruction till 7 PM, after which the law enforcement agencies became active and dispersed the mob. For a short span, the situation was under control, as per the Police. However, they were not prepared for the second round of the violent mob that went on rioting the next day. Patrick McGinn mentioned that there was evidence that the Police also looted the shops with the rioters but the government categorically denied the involvement of its officers in the looting.
On September 10 at around 11 AM, a large mob of 4,000 Muslims gathered from Kohat and nearby tribal areas outside the Hindu colonies. What happened next is considered to be one of the deadliest episodes of violence in pre-Independent India.
As a result of the attack, 3,000 Hindus fled the Kohat town and took shelter in a temple nearby. However, they had to move from the temple once the rioters reached close by. The houses were looted and torched. A few Hindus had decided to stay back, only to meet a deadly fate. They were mercilessly slaughtered by the Muslim mob. The fire that gutted the houses and properties of Hindus reportedly continued to burn for over seven days.
Following the exodus, the Hindus took refuge in Rawalpindi, Punjab. The official statistics suggest 12 Hindus died and 13 went missing who were thought to be killed. 86 Hindus were reportedly injured, totalling the casualties at 155. Coming to Muslims, only one-third of casualties were reported on their side. Most of them were killed in self-defence. By the end of the Kohat Riots, almost the entire Hindu population from the area was wiped out. It was a significant demographic change in favour of Muslims.
Interestingly, the tribes from nearby areas that joined Muslims in the riot also looted and damaged some of the houses that belonged to Muslims. McGinn wrote, “Some Muslim property was destroyed in the course of the day as the tribesmen appeared to make no distinction between Hindu and Muslim property.”
Hindus did not return to the region out of fear of riots till January 1925, after a settlement was brought to the table between the Hindu and Muslim leaders by NWFP Chief Commissioner HN Bolton. However, there was a catch. Leaving the blasphemy case against Das, all the cases against the rioters were dropped as part of the settlement. No monetary compensation was provided to the Hindus. They were, however, offered loans worth Rs 5 lakh for the damages. However, the situation did not improve between the two communities.
Source: Communalism and the North-West Frontier Province: the Kohat Riots, 9-10 September 1924
In his book ‘Pakistan or The Partition of India’, Dr BR Ambedkar wrote, “Even after the settlement had been reached and evacuees had returned to Kohat there was no peace.”
Madan Mohan Malaviya blamed Government for anti-Hindu stand
In December 1924, Madan Mohan Malaviya sent to the Viceroy the resolution that was passed on November 30, 1924, at the Sanatan Dharma Sabha Conference which was attended by 1,200 delegates from the Panjab, Baluchistan, Sindh and the NWFP. At that time, Malaviya was a Congress politician, member of Sanatan Dharma Sabha and member of the Legislative Assembly.
In the resolution it was said, “Grief and resentment at the outrages committed against Kohat Hindus; that the authorities knew that there was a danger of violence but did nothing and failed to prevent and curtail the disturbances; that the government showed a lack of sympathy with the Hindus, who fired in self-defence, and although more Hindus than Muslims were killed, more Hindus were arrested; and that there should be a public enquiry set up consisting of individuals from all religious groups.” McGinn noted that Malaviya was the “most outspoken of the Hindu politicians in the Legislative Assembly in his criticism of the government’s handling of the situation.”
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi condemned the government for the lack of support
Though Gandhi had bowed down to the Viceroy’s refusal to grant him permission to visit Kohat, he condemned the local authorities of Kohat for the “betrayal, callous indifference, incompetence and weakness” they had shown in managing the situation. He said, “It was ’criminal’ for them to have disregarded the warnings that their lives and property were in danger given by the Hindus on 6 September and repeated on the ninth. It was ’inhuman’ not to have provided the refugees with food after their removal and to have left them to their own resources after removal to Rawalpindi.” Contrary to what Gandhi said, the government argued that it was the influence of the national politicians that stopped Kohat Hindus from returning that hindered the resettlement process.
Gandhi used the Khilafat movement to satisfy his own need to show there was “Hindu Muslim Unity”. However, the underlying religious antagonism mushroomed across the country following the fall of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey which resulted in fading away of the Khilafat Movement for some time. To “correct” the discourse, Gandhi fasted for 21 days to “restore” communal harmony.
How Hindus were blamed for the Kohat Riots
Though Hindus were wiped out from the region following the Kohat riots, several prominent personalities blamed Hindus for the riots. In 2012, a book by Arun Shourie was published with the title “The World of Fatwas Or The Sharia in Action” that contained several quotes related to the riots.
Maulana Mohammed Ali, who was part of the inquiry committee that investigated the reason behind the Kohat Riots, was quoted in the book saying, “The sufferings of the Hindus of Kohat are not unprovoked, but that, on the contrary, the facts brought to light make it clear that gross provocation was offered to the religious sentiments of the Mussalmans, and the Hindus were the first to resort to violence; and further that, though their sufferings were very great, and they are deserving of the sympathy of all Mussalmans, it was not they alone that suffered…” Maulana Mohammed Ali gave the statement in December 1924 at the sessions in Bombay of the Muslim League.
He further said, “The relations between the two communities were strained throughout 1923-24. But in no locality did this tension produce such tragic consequences as in the city of Kohat. The immediate cause of the trouble was the publication and circulation of a pamphlet containing a virulently anti-Islamic poem. Terrible riots broke out on the 9th and 10th of September 1924, the total casualties being about 155 killed and wounded… As a result of this reign of terror the whole Hindu population evacuated the city of Kohat…”
Dr BR Ambedkar, in his book [PDF] ‘Pakistan or The Partition of India (1946)’ [P164] wrote, “The immediate cause of the trouble was the publication and circulation of a pamphlet containing a virulently anti-Islamic poem. Terrible riots broke out on the 9th and 10th of September 1924, the total casualties being about 155 killed and wounded. House property to the estimated value of Rs. 9 lakhs was destroyed, and a large quantity of goods were looted. As a result of this reign of terror the whole Hindu population evacuated the city of Kohat.” Though Ambedkar called it one of “the most terrible outbreak of the year being the one that took place at Kohat which was accompanied by murder, arson and loot” in terms of Hindu-Muslim conflicts, he did not mention the anti-Hindu poem published by the Muslim publication.
United Kingdom’s Queen Elizabeth II has died at the age of 96 after a prolonged illness. Queen Elizabeth breathed her last at the Balmoral Castle in Scotland. The monarch was facing health problems since October 2021 that left her with difficulties walking and standing.
Her doctors grew concerned about her health on Thursday 8th September 2022, when she canceled her scheduled meeting with her Privy Council. The Queen’s reign started on 6 February 1952 and she ruled for longer than any other Monarch in British history.
In an official statement, the Royal Family’s website said, “The Queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon.” With the death of the Queen, Prince Charles has become the King, and Camilla has become the Queen Consort. The same official statement announcing the queen’s death said, “The King and The Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening and will return to London tomorrow.”
Screenshot of Royal Family website
In a statement issued after the death, King Charles said, “The death of my beloved Mother, Her Majesty The Queen, is a moment of the greatest sadness for me and all members of my family. “We mourn profoundly the passing of a cherished Sovereign and a much-loved Mother. I know her loss will be deeply felt throughout the country, the Realms and the Commonwealth, and by countless people around the world.”
He further added, “During this period of mourning and change, my family and I will be comforted and sustained by our knowledge of the respect and deep affection in which The Queen was so widely held.”
Although he has become the king automatically according to the provisions of Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701, there must be a formal proclamation of him as the new monarch at an Accession Council in St James’s Palace in London as soon as possible. 73-year-old Charles III becomes the king after being the longest-serving heir apparent of the nation.
Elizabeth was born on 21 April 1926 at 17 Bruton Street in Mayfair, London. She was the first child of The Duke and Duchess of York – who later became King George VI – and Queen Elizabeth. Her grandfather King George V died in 1936. His eldest son came to the throne as King Edward VIII, but, before the end of the year, King Edward VIII abdicated the throne. Upon his abdication, Princess Elizabeth’s father acceded to the throne as King George VI.
Elizabeth married The Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip in a ceremony at Westminster Abbey on 20 November 1947. The early years of their marriage saw them living a relatively normal life as a naval officer and wife. Prince Charles, now The Prince of Wales, heir apparent to the throne, was the firstborn child of the couple, born in 1948.
On 6 February 1952, King George VI died following a prolonged illness. Princess Elizabeth immediately acceded to the throne, becoming Queen Elizabeth II. Her Coronation took place in Westminster Abbey on 2 June 1953. On 9th September 2015, the Queen became Britain’s longest reigning monarch.
Queen Elizabeth’s husband, Prince Philip, died last year at the age of 99.
A 24-year-old youth named Shahrukh has been arrested by police in Rudrapur of Udham Singh Nagar district in Uttarakhand for harassing and threatening a girl. The accused had threatened to burn the girl to death like the recent case from Jharkhand if she refused to marry him.
Shahrukh had visited the victim’s house a year ago to install CCTV cameras at the premises. At that time he hid his real identity and introduced himself as Rajkumar. Shahrukh befriended the girl using this fake identity and even started coming to her house regularly. He even proposed marriage but at that time, the girl came to know about his real identity and refused to marry him.
The girl also found out that he has ruined the lives of many women after trapping them like this. Following this, she stopped talking to Shahrukh.
Once the girl stopped talking to him, Shahrukh started threatening her and even tried to blackmail her. For the last 2 months, he was harassing the girl and even threatened to burn her after pouring petrol on her, like the girl from Jharkhand. On September 7, Shahrukh called the girl and threatened to kill her if she didn’t come to meet him. When the girl came to meet him, he molested her and tried to force her to accompany him.
The girl raised an alarm after this and passersby gathered, helping the girl to escape. After this, the girl filed a police complaint against Shahrukh. Based on her complaint, the police registered an FIR under sections 153A, 323, 354, 354A, 354 D, 417, 420, 504, 506, and 386, and arrested the accused.