Call For Worldwide ‘Ghar Wapsi’

Only a global Ghar Wapsi programme can solve the the problem of Islamic terrorism worldwide.

One kind of terrorism is affecting the whole world. There is no singular phenomenon other than Islamism that motivates terrorists from Asia to Europe to Africa. Now even the US, protected geographically on either side of its landmass by the massive Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, making logistics a challenge for militants, is not safe, as the Orlando shooting showed.

Further in the US, a man from Tucson plotted a terrorist attack on a motor vehicle office in metro Phoenix. He has also confessed to hatching a plot to target Jews in particular.

Then there was Nice in France, where a Tunisian Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel ran a truck over hapless pedestrians, killing more than 80 people. Not just the Israeli forces, but even civilian Jews face constant attacks from Palestinian terrorists. In Africa, girls are abducted wantonly by Boko Haram. Even as this article is being drafted, terrorists must be striking some target or plotting to target one somewhere in the world.

This manifestation of Islamism that we see is a combination of two things: (a) an action to establish a world that will have only one religion, namely Islam and (b) a reaction to a perpetual grievance of the community that Muslims have been short-changed wherever they have gone.

While the first is a recent phenomenon exemplified by the Islamic State and Boko Haram, the second appears in the form of a simmering discontent among the so-called moderates. This perennial and incorrigible feeling that non-Muslims have no constructive work to do and, therefore or otherwise, they conspire against Muslims all the time is a breeding ground for extremism that finally makes some of them here and some there take to arms.

We Indians may recall the case of Afzal Guru, for instance. Some Hindu columnists and television panellists reposed faith in the judiciary of the country that gave him capital punishment for conspiring to attack the Parliament House. Some others said he should be given the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, not one Muslim journalist wrote in any newspaper, website or blog — or said on TV — that the trial through appellate jurisdiction had been fair. So, where was the variety in Muslim opinion? Who out of them is a moderate?

Yes, we are also troubled by Maoism and some persistent and sporadic instances of insurgency in the Northeast. Internationally, for the sake of a research, one may dig out a White supremacist outfit called Aryan Nations outlawed by Australia or a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia banned by the United States, but that would be obfuscation.

Muslims alone have this international brotherhood concept

A terrorist of a certain religion is not necessarily a religious terrorist. None of the other terror outfits one can name is fighting for the establishment of a kingdom of their religion the way thousands of Muslims are fighting for the Caliphate. None of the other terror outfits is pooling in men and women of different nationalities together in the name of religion.

A Catholic interest group Aid to the Church in Need, for example, said in a report last year that Christianity was under serious threat in the Middle East and Africa. Did any Christian in faraway Mexico or Philippines get so agitated by the proposition that he packed his bags and set sail for the affected regions to exact revenge on Muslims? But tell an Afghan, a Moroccan, an Algerian and, of course, a Pakistani Muslim that India has “wrongfully” occupied “Muslim” Kashmir, and they will all gang up and infiltrate the Indian territory with the objective of bombing it all over the place.

Identifying non-Pakistani gunmen fighting alongside Kashmiri Muslims and Pakistani infiltrators was commonplace during the worst phase of Kashmiri insurgency. And now the fanatics from different parts of the globe are headed towards Iraq and Syria to realise their dream of a world where Islam will be the only religion. Those who want to go but can’t are planning strikes sitting in their respective countries.

Forget foreigners, your Muslim barber or cobbler who cannot locate Israel on the world map is disturbed by the “plight” of Palestinians!

History of world’s tolerance towards Islam

While the clergy and the orthodoxy of Judaism and Christianity have been intolerant as the succeeding religion emerged, the class of intellectuals — both Jew and Christian — have been more accommodating in their views of the founder of Islam. Of course, Muslims regard Moses and Jesus as preceding prophets, but Jews disregard Jesus and Mohammed whereas Christians disregard Mohammed. But isn’t this natural? Islam believes that God revealed his messages to the humankind in instalments per se, beginning with Adam through Abraham, Moses, Jesus and hundreds of other prophets before “He” revealed Himself fully and finally to Mohammed. Now, how can a believer accept the assertion that God kept his prophet partially in the dark and reserved some truths for a subsequent prophet? No wonder, every Middle Eastern religion looks down upon its successor while acknowledging that their religion had had predecessors.

The world of academics has, however, reacted with patience and circumspection to the scourge of international Islamic brotherhood since the time it began writing Prophet Mohammed’s history even as Islam’s ruthless expansion drive had begun towards pagan and Hindu East and Jew and Christian West.

But we will begin by exploring a phase that came even before. Jews, Christians as well as Muslims believe in the legends about the family of Abraham (Hazrat Ibrahim in Islam). They all regard him highly. But why do they fight one another?

There is supposed to have been a feud in the family that separated Abraham’s sons Isaac (Ishaq in Islam) and Ishmael (Ismail in Islam). A rationalist would be driven to his wit’s end to figure out how these brothers — born some millennia before any of Judaism, Christianity and Islam was conceived by anybody, presuming they were real characters from history — could be the progenitors of Judaism and Islam. Ergo, this legend or mythology is unable to answer the question. So, we move to believable, documented history.

The first of Prophet Mohammed’s biographers were those whose accounts of his life and preaching are considered ahadith (singular: hadith), namely Mohammed al Bukhari, Muslim ibn al Hajjaj, Muhammad ibn Isa at Tirmidhi, Abd ar-Rahman al Nasai, Abu Dawood, Ibn Majah, Malik bin Anas and al-Daraqutni — more or less in a decreasing order of authenticity. Between the 7th and 16th century, the world saw 68 Muslim biographers of Islam beginning with Sahl ibn Abī Ḥathma.

Groomed in Christian mores, the initial pack of Byzantine historians reacted negatively to the life, times and ideology of the Prophet as published in the hagiographic sira literature, which was natural. They called him a “false prophet” or “schismatic” [Doctrina Jacobi Nuper Baptizati and Dante’s Divine Comedy, Inferno, Canto 28]. Generations of Muslim historians then emerged saying that the “peace be upon him” (sall-Allahu alaihi wasallam in Arabic) guy was grossly misunderstood.

Till day, Christian, atheist and agnostic writers of Europe refer to ibn Ishaq, who attributed spirituality to Mohammed’s claims such as the travel with angel Gabriel from Mecca to the mosque known as al Aqsa, as a “historian”. So generous are they towards the Islamic faith that they call subsequent story-tellers like al Tabari and ibn Kathir, who held that ibn Ishaq’s narration was literal rather than allegorical, “historians” too!

The tolerance witnessed a hiatus during the Crusades between 11th and 15th centuries. Even in those 400 years, the objective of Christian literature was not anti-Islam always. Some of those wars were fought for territorial occupancy or dominance; at times, Christians fought Christians or sought to wage wars to deflect attention from their own conflicts, or to unite Roman Catholics against a common enemy. And then, they had some positive impacts like reopening of the Mediterranean route for commerce.

Among intellectuals, even when the Crusades were waged, with Christian-Muslim bonhomie touching its lowest ebb, there was an Italian Brunetto Latini of the 13th century who saw in Mohammed a monk and cardinal [Li livres dou tresor].

What is curious, when you ask an average Muslim to justify Mohammed’s 13 wives — the last two might have been his concubines — he might well come up with the theory that too many women were widowed in the Crusades and then they needed some guardianship for social security. Imagine, a man marrying 11 or 13 times, eight centuries after he is dead! But no, the educated clerics will tell you that those were battles with Jewish tribes in and around Mecca that left many women without fathers and husbands, creating a gender demographic with a heavy female skew in Arabia, which necessitated polygamy.

This explanation has loopholes, too. How come Jews, who lost more men in the war with Mohammed’s army than Mohammed did, did not turn polygamous? Why should warring be the modus operandi to establish which method of worshipping God is right? By what divine decree were women widowed in families that were formerly Jews ordained as Muslim property after every battle that the Muslims won? But the world accepted the Muslim theory. Tolerance!

The 16th century saw a tempered rationalisation of everything Mohammed did once again. The European historians also accepted not only the logic that Mohammed and his men married widows to offer the disinherited women a semblance of social security; they also justified these men’s act of marrying minor girls to make peace with tribes with which they would have otherwise fought bitter battles. Ah, a woman as a bargaining chip! To hell with feminism!

These accommodating historians were mostly French: Guillaume Postel, Henri de Boulainvilliers and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz was German and Thomas Carlyle was Scottish.

No less than conqueror Napoleon Bonaparte found in the Prophet a great legislator.

In the 19th century, Germans Gustav Weil and Theodor Nöldeke, Scottish William Muir and Austrian Aloys Sprenger gave balanced accounts of Mohammed’s life, time and philosophy.

The present

In contemporary history, Adolf Hitler was an admirer of Prophet Mohammed while he loathed his own religion Christianity for being “meek”, “flabby” and too “dogmatic” to face the onslaught of scientific knowledge. To quote him verbatim, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion (Islam) too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”


Then the German said, “The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science… The instructions of a hygienic nature that most religions gave, contributed to the foundation of organized communities. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret — all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Moslem was promised a paradise peopled with sensual girls, where wine flowed in streams — a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing hallelujahs! …Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline!”

No less than the then President of the United States, George Bush Jr, had said, standing on ground zero after 9/11, that American Muslims salute the American flag with no less pride than their counterparts in other religions.

The legacy of tolerance lives. Mortals lesser than historians, we the commentariat in media, have tried it whenever a bunch of Islamists went on a killing spree. Along the lines of Islamic reformist Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, we presumed that Muslims might turn reasonable people if they abandoned the questionable ahadith — or at least make sure the hadith is genuine — and regressive shari’ah, and stick to the Qur’an. We, the rationalists, wouldn’t mind the story that the message of God descended straight from heaven; let Muslims subscribe to the whole of it.

I do not claim that Christians have been tolerant towards Islam throughout history. I mean that historians, who happened to be Christians who grew up on Christian values, too have not been uncharitable towards Prophet Mohammed. Like Christian historians of the Crusades and post-Crusades era, today’s media commentators have been lenient towards Islamic excesses. But neither historians of yesteryears nor journalists of today have been able to pacify Islamists, who continue to believe that the whole world is antagonistic towards their community.

Sankrant Sanu had taken exception to Swarajya’s line in the article about the Peshawar attack on school children. He wrote, “The ‘use just the Quran’ idea is a fantasy. Not one of the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence subscribe to it and many contemporary Islamic practices come from the Hadith not the Quran. You are asking Muslims to throw away their entire 1400 years of scholarship on which many current countries in the world base their laws. Wishful thinking that anything remotely close to that will happen.”

But my logic is this: If you are supposed to negotiate terms with a party to a dispute and, right in the beginning, you reject them lock, stock and barrel, where is the room left for further negotiations? Muslims will simply refuse to talk to someone holding such a rigid position.

As for theological positions, the group that adheres exclusively to the Qur’an are referred to as Ahl al Qur’an (people of the Qur’an) in Arabic and Qur’anists in English. One may refer to Yvonne Y Haddad and Jane I Smith’s The Oxford Handbook of American Islam, Richard Stephen Voss’s Identifying Assumptions in the Hadith/Sunnah Debate, and Aisha Y Musa’s The Qur’anists for relevant details. They are beyond the Indian subcontinent and their postulates apply to Muslims in general across the world.

Among eminent Islamic theologians, the name of Ibrahim an-Nazzam can be mentioned as a pioneer in Qur’anism. His student al Jahiz furthered the credo of rejecting the ahadith. In Egypt, Muhammad Tawfiq Sidqi extended the logic of Salafism to reject taqlid, which is the Arabic term for following an Islamic scholar to interpret the shari’ah.

In political Islam, Ahl-e-Qur’an surfaced as a reaction to Ahl-e-Hadith in 19th century south Asia.

But non-Muslims’ experiment with accommodation of Islamic sensitivities (by accepting a part of it and disposing of the rest) is not working. More than a century of the legacy of Sir Syed — who had famously averred that Muslims must improve their economic lot before indulging in politics (read “freedom struggle”), something that BR Ambedkar later prescribed for Dalits — has hardly changed the Muslim attitude. Outside a motley group of Indian Muslim scholars who admire the founder of the Aligarh Muslim University, Sir Syed is reviled in the Islamic community. Move from India to Pakistan, and the disapproval for what the 19th century personality of history stood for turns to hate.

Few Muslims are buying the proposed solution of sticking to the Qur’an and discarding the ahadith and shari’ah. Worse, like demagogues of other religions who quote verses from the Qur’an selectively without context, Muslim extremists themselves do the same to justify their terrorism. They do not ascertain the authenticity of a hadith either, much as the entire bodywork of ahadith has an error margin of ± 3,500. That is, as many sayings that are attributed to Mohammed may not have been said by him at all! Or, he said something, and something else was reported by the sahabas (companions of the Prophet) in as many cases. Or, the report of one sahaba did not concur with that of another in 3,500 cases.

And then there are grandma stories that are attributed to the Prophet. If a granny cannot discipline an unruly child in a Muslim family, she invents a dictum and claims that Mohammed saahab, sall-Allahu alaihi wasallam, had said such a thing about children!

In Islamic theology it is advised that one must not quote a verse of the Qur’an without the preceding and succeeding verses and that one must always tell the listener in what context it was said. The Muslims whom commentators euphemistically refer to as “gunmen” couldn’t care less. They kill and leave pamphlets on the spot that contain a random Qur’anic verse or two without context. For an example, refer to the three verses in the image below. The ahadith and shari’ah are hardly needed to perpetrate violence.


Qur’an/ al Baqarah/ 2:191-193: This first teaching was applicable to the situation where Mohammed’s men were surrounded by Jewish and pagan tribes in a war-like situation near Mecca, but now not just anti-Muslims but also Muslims who kill do not care for the context. The second verse seems to say that the targeted individual may be spared if he embraces Islam. The last one clearly implies that a Muslim killing a non-Muslim for belonging to a different faith is no sin!

The solution

These killers are “condemned” by moderate Muslims, of course. The extremists don’t give a tuppence. If the former call the latter “un-Islamic”, the latter have the same opinion about the former. “Who is a true Muslim?” has turned a funny question. The pedantic approach is not helping the victims of bullets and bombs in any event.

The approach of covering up Muslim atrocities has not mellowed the extremists down. The proposed compromise that they stick to Qur’an but leave aside the ahadith and shari’ah has not been accepted.

Now, can there be a social solution? As and when nefarious elements grow in or sneak into a ghetto or a village, the chieftain must inform the police. The local Imam is mostly the first authority to know something is brewing in the neighbourhood. Indeed, the Muslim community practices khap panchayat-like ostracism at will. Why don’t they use the weapon against terrorists? Excommunicate the terrorists’ family. Gradually, they will earn the faith of the administration.

But there has been no sign of a will to take this necessary step on the part of the community’s elders. If they were willing, this is not a suggestion that needs to be given. Any average citizen who cares for the country informs the police when he suspects something wrong is transpiring around him, but a Muslim doesn’t.

Therefore, we are left with just one solution, however outrageous it may sound. The way some Hindu outfits made headlines in the recent past for carrying out a campaign to convert India’s Muslims back to the Hindu fold, the Jews and Christians in the West must appeal to Muslims in their countries to return to the faith the ancestors of the latter had left — or were forced to leave — centuries ago to embrace Islam.

It does not matter that, theologically, Islam explains the Middle Eastern concept of God much better than Judaism and Christianity. Equally, it does not matter that the Old Testament has repugnant — sometimes unqualified — exhortations for violence. Let’s deal with one menace at a time.

Muslims as citizens of various countries must mull over the immense benefits of abandoning their religion. If you are in a secular or non-Islamic state, the police, your neighbours and your colleagues will stop looking at you with suspicion. You won’t be asked to step aside for an extra round of frisking or strip search at airports. The traffic police wouldn’t ask for all the documents of your car during a routine check. Landlords will readily offer you houses on rent. Overall, you will be treated like just another human being.

This is not to suggest that non-Muslims love to persecute Muslims; the latter’s behavioural pattern observed across the world — and the unwillingness of the community to hand over suspects to the state law enforcement authority — is responsible for this environment of distrust.

If you are in an Islamic state, the nonsensical conflicts between Shi’ahs, Sunnis and other Muslim sects, which the rest of the world can make no sense of, will stop forthwith.

Think! Choose between what your book deems the best and only god and what normal people across the world believe is the best life possible. A life where you are innocent until proven guilty!

Disclaimer: The facts and opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. IndiaFacts does not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in this article.'
The author is National Affairs Editor, Swarajya. He has served The Statesman, The Pioneer and Money Life in the past. He was a banker and then a teacher before he switched to journalism.
  • Shubhangi Raykar

    Hindus were stupid in the past and did not take the ones converted back into their fold. Raja Shivaji was an exception. If Hindus had done that many Goan Christians would have reconverted and Many Muslims in Kashmir also would have reconverted.

  • Ramusha

    The solution suggested by Shri Surjith Dasgupta is quite valid and some kind of movement/reaction is taking place in the Arab world, specially in Egypt. A video is circulating in the social media purported to be a programme of an Arab channel where an Arab is very strongly and emotionally reacting to the book “The people vs Mhammad” by J K Sheindlin. He almost breaks down and condemns, criticises and totally disowns the delusional beliefs held by him so far, There is also an Egyptian intellectual who has called for throwing off the Arab Yoke on the Egyptians and return to their glorious past. That video is also available on U tube (MEMRI TV). Very positive developments indeed. Unfortunately I am not able to give the link, those who can pl post it. In the case of India, this process is very necessary but who soever attempts it will have to pay heavy price as ‘politically correct’ brigade will come down very heavily on such person/organization. Yet, it is need of the hour and its time has come.

  • Zohrab
  • Zohrab

    Pls click the link below for another view point of the story and I would appreciate Mr. Surajit’s comments to it..

  • naive thinker

    Wonderful article, but just 1 question.
    If they reject the idea of ‘stick to Quran, leave Hadith and Sharia aside’ , how can u wish they ll abandone their religion? Founding fathers of the US said, ‘church &state must be separated ‘
    I think Muslims should follow that first. The Islamic nations should keep religion out of politics. That ll be the start. Followed by setting up proper schools for poor and not madrasa.

  • Rama

    Wishful thinking on the part of the author. Islam will not reform. Neither the Muslims all over the world will do a Ghar wapsi. I am waiting for the clash of the civilizations , between Islam and Christianity. Hindus can wait on the side line and watch the fun.

    • Prithvi Singh

      Clash is already happening in west asia. But both collaborate to harvest the souls of naive tribals by conversion so that their numbers could be increased and finally win political power which is based on one person one vote and first past the post. Once they acquire political power then BOOM!!! All laws will be contaminated by sharia and Hindus will again be slave. Bloody ignorant divided hindus!

      • Shubhangi Raykar

        Uniform civil code is another solution and all of us should insist on that. If BJP gets 3/4 majority that would be possible.

  • Prithvi Singh

    O ignorant Hindus!!! Read below how your ancient civilization is being beaten black and blue and subtly raped in the intellectual brothel from all sides while you remain asleep in the degrading spell of materialism and consumerism.

    Few days back I purchased IGNOU Booklet on Ethics. Most of the chapters are authored by Christian Professors. Even the chapter on Contemporary Indian Ethics is also authored by a Christian professor who as a tribute has included a chapter on Ethics of Amrtya Sen ( Yes, the same Amrtya of Nalanda University fraud fame reported in newspapers and blogs).
    All the references are from western authors who also include Wendy Doniger ( Yes same Wendy who paint Hindus and their civilization as sexual perversion)

    Whole education system has been hijacked by Chrislamist Mafia having Doctorate degrees to make naïve Hindus feel the authenticity of the source!! Ofcourse one would say, come on man!!! It is written by a PhD.
    Congratulations you “savage” “uncivilized” hindus for allowing your own culture being raped. Keep it up!!! And yea don’t forget to wear a western dress or TShirt with the flag of England on it!!! Don’t forget to cheer the Queen of England too!!!! Keep it up!!!

    • prashants5 .

      These are called Colonized and Moronized Hindus who are Macaulay’s obedient disciples.

    • Piyush

      Wendy donigner is a jew, and they hindus as much as muslims. Don’t believe their deceptive faces that they put out to you, they play big psychological games.

  • Shrinivas Tilak, PhD

    This article provides a thoughtful account of the legacy of tolerance extended by followers of non-Islamic religions toward Islam in the past and the present. The author insightfully explains (1) why covering up Muslim atrocities against non-Muslims in the name of Islam has not worked in the past and (2) how and why non-Muslims’ attempts to accommodate Muslim sensitivities (by accepting a part of Islam and disposing of the rest) in today’s world, too, are not working.

    Mr Dasgupta concludes that ‘we are left with just one solution, however outrageous it may sound’–initiate campaigns to convert world’s Muslims back to their respective original religions—for instance, India’s Muslims back to the Hindu fold, the Jews and Christians in the West can appeal to Muslims in their respective countries to return to the faith the ancestors of the latter had left — or were forced to leave —centuries ago to embrace Islam.

    In the context of India, the author suggests ‘ghar wapsi’ as an effective instrument of persuading converted non-Hindus back into the Hindu fold. I think it is necessary to demonstrate that the concept of ‘ghar wapsi’ is not a modern invention. Indeed, there may be evidence that Hindus converted to other religions in the past expressed a yearning to return to the Hindu fold as per a 400 years old inscription from Kashmir.

    One of the chapters of ‘R.S.S: A Vision in Action’ compiled and edited by H. V. Sheshadri (Banglore: Jagarana Prakashana, 1988: 78) describes the various initiatives and activities undertaken by the Sangh volunteers to improve conditions of life in India. In a section “Meeting the Threat of Conversion” one comes across the following curious passage:
    “In Jammu, an equally revealing experience awaited the Sangh workers. The elderly Muslims showed them a four centuries-old Tamrapatra (copper scroll) issued by their forefathers to their future progeny, saying, “We have been converted to Islam under circumstances beyond our control. When, at some future date, there will again be a Hindu rule, we command you to return to the Hindu fold.”

    Unfortunately, Mr Sheshadri did not give any reference. Since he passed away in 2005, we cannot contact him now. Is there any way to verify the claim made in the above this very intriguing passage? What is the language of inscription? Does the word `Hindu’ occur as such in the original message? I wish the volunteers had made effort to properly document and record relevant information about the `copper scroll.’

    I wonder if it is possible to find out who these volunteers were and learn from them more about the tamrapatra: who has it, where is it, etc. This will be a very important discovery for history of Hinduism. We need to make every effort to find this important evidence.

    The report of an existing tamrapatra from Kashmir detailing forced conversions (if true and verifiable) demonstrates the urgent need to undertake more actively archaeological expeditions and research to uncover relevant data that is waiting to be discovered. This will throw additional light on conversions to Islam in India (both voluntary and forced). It will also reveal more about the state of mind of those who were being converted. Many seem to have retained a hope of returning to their old faith (perhaps vicariously) through their descendants.

    It may indeed be possible that there may exist other messages left on copper plates like the one above from those who were converted against their will. I wonder if Indologists have come across any similar ‘legacy’ left to succeeding generations.
    Apparently, those who were forcibly converted held a hope to return to the Hindu fold. Does it mean they were aware of such a practice existed among Hindus? Because there are various stories as to how a king of Kashmir who was converted to Islam wanted to return to the Hinduism but Brahmins refused to take him back.

    There is ample evidence suggesting that Hinduism has the will, capacity, and resources to welcome home those who were converted or alienated from its fold. One famous example is that of Vidyaranya who accepted Harihara and Bukka back into the Hindu dharma. Later, they went on establish the Hindu Vijayanagara dynasty.

    Swami Ramananda, a contemporary of Vidyaranya, was active in the North with a similar objective. According to Amita Shah (author of a book “Kashi Martand,” a biography of Swami Ramananda in Hindi) Ramananda had met Vidyaranya when he visited in Shringeri as part of his pilgrimage India. In 1489 Raja Gajsinh of Ayodhya met Ramananda in Kashi (Varanasi) and pleased with Ramananda to take him back into the Hindu dharma. Earlier, in 1418 one Junakhan had deposed Raja Virsinh of Ayodhya (uncle of Gajsinh) and forcibly converted twenty thousand Hindus. But within twenty years Gajsinh had managed to get back control over Ayodhya. Now he wanted Swami Ramananda to welcome them back in Dharma. Swami Ramananda agreed and as reported in “Kashi Martand” they were all welcomed back with a ritual bath in the Sharayu River in Ayodhya. Indeed, many centuries prior to Vidyaranya and Swami Ramananda, Sage Devala of Sindh, had composed a smriti (later named after him as Devala Smriti) detailing rituals of taking back Hindus converted to Islam almost immediately after the first wave of mass conversions in Sindh in the eighth century.

    There is a similar account (in the form of a prophecy) from Indonesia where Hindus were being converted to Islam about five hundred years ago. Sabdapalon was a priest and adviser to Brawijaya V, the last ruler of the Hindu empire Majapahit in Java. He is said to have cursed his king upon the conversion of the latter to Islam in 1478. Sabdapalon then promised to return, after five hundred years to restore Hindu-Javanese religion and civilization (see

    • Shubhangi Raykar

      My father used to say that his father- my grandfather used to tell him that many Muslims in Kashmir went to the king, probably King Harisingh’s father that they wanted to reconvert to Hinduism. The raja went to the Kashi Brahmins and they said that there was no provision for reconversion in Hinduism. My grandfather used to feel very worked up as per my father. He used to say that Shivaji had reconverted his brother in law Bajaji Nimbalkar who had been forced to Islam, back in Hinduism and also Netaji Palkar , his sardar who was converted and named Kuli Khan was reconverted. We can follow Shivaji’s example.Again any Hindu marrying a partner from another religion should insist on conversion to Hinduism before marriage. That would be true love jihad. Hindus should be proud and positive about their religion.

      • Shrinivas Tilak, PhD

        (1) The incident of the Raja of Kashmir that you mention suggests that the Brahmins of Kashi were ignorant of the existence of provisions for taking back Hindus converted to other faiths. In fact, a smriti attributed to an ancient sage Devala exists (Deval smriti), which has been edited by Prof M. L. Wadekar of Baroda University in two volumes (Delhi: Koshal Book Depot, 1997). Prakarana two of the third adhyaya of Devala smriti provides detailed instructions on how to take back into the Hindu fold men and women who were forcibly converted to Islam. Devala explains different procedures of ‘purification’ for those who had become ‘mlecchas’ in the past (from one day to up to twenty years). The Devala smriti opens with an account of how sages approached sage Devala who was meditating on the banks of the Sindhu river and inquired about penances for the purification of those who were kidnapped by mlecchas. Modern scholars locate this text around eighth century.

        (2) Reconversions of Netaji Palkar and Bajaji Nimbalkar back into the Hindu fold under the aegis of Shivaji are well known and documented. Shivaji, in fact gave in marriage one of his daughters to Bajaji after his return to Dharma.

        • Shubhangi Raykar

          Incidentally, the incident of the Kashi Brahmins took place in 1905 , just a year after my father was born.He used to tell us what he had heard from his father who died in 1938. These are some of the stories of his childhood he used to tell us.

        • Shubhangi Raykar

          That happened in 1905 as my father told us.We should publicise Deval Smriti. SR

    • Gopalindians

      Proof source verified : Link [The Undying Innate Memories] the Jammu story.

  • Tiruvalluvar

    So silly that they will ‘think’ and do a ghar wapsi. Of course one must credit Surajit for some potent wishful imagination that will never materialize. But definitely no harm in trying, as the world is looking for some solutuons.

    • Shubhangi Raykar

      Why negativism? It will materialize if lots of Hindus insist on this. and go back to their glorious tradition

  • Bihari

    We also need a blue print for a general conversion process. What will be involved in the conversion process and caste must not be involved at all in this whole thing. This can also be an opportunity to defeat casteism.

    • Joginder

      Today many educated Muslims want to reject Islam but are afraid that once their intention becomes public other Muslims will butcher them. Hence what the Muslims need is a way by which they can renounce Islam without attracting the attention of their fellow religionists and live a civilized and spiritually content life. This can be done by following Sanatana Dharma as interpreted by Swami Vivekananda. Hindus have a moral obligation to spread this message. Here is a template for Ghar Wapasi.

      • Shubhangi Raykar

        The procedure of religious ritual called shuddhikaran- purificatory rite should be printed in news papers magazines in Sanskrit and Roman scripts.Actually just fasting for a day and declaring that he/she has embraced Hinduism in front of five people who will have two from the person’s original religion and 3 from among Hindus should be enough.

    • Shubhangi Raykar

      Very true

  • Godless Heathen

    I stopped reading once you said the Orlando shooting was Islamic terrorism. It wasn’t. It was a Haye crime on the LGBT community, by an American who hated them because he hated his own homosexuality.

    In a 911 call, the shooter pledged to several terrorist groups, not knowing that some of them hate each other to the core. It was a bad attempt to mask his homosexuality by distraction of terrorism

    • Bihari

      LOL !! here comes an apologist. Another will come and say the Nice attacks had to do with Bastille. Another will say the 9/11 was a conspiracy. My goodness … how much can these guys lie ?? No wonder liberal ideas have become a joke.

      • Godless Heathen

        Nice attack had everything to do with Islamic extremism and so did 9/11

        Also, I’m not a Liberal, I like my guns, I like speaking my mind without all the political correctness. I feel if what I say offends someone, good, fucking deal with it. The truth can hurt, and I’m not out to hurt, but I’m, certainly not worried about your feelings either

        • Yes, the LGBT ‘community’ was targeted. But why? For the perpetrator of the crime, Omar Mateen, the reason was that Islam forbids homosexuality.

          • Shubhangi Raykar

            I am confused. The practice of keeping gulams -pubescent doe eyed boys with curly locks was prevalent among the Mughal rulers. Sodomy was accepted among the Muslims- Aristocratic Muslims used to have concubines and castrating conquered young lads and turn them into concubines was not uncommon.Read Bhairappa’s ‘Parv’, a well researched novel o this.

          • Godless Heathen

            he wasn’t religious and neither was his parent. he was born in America and grew up with American values. it’s more likely he was a closet gay man who hated himself. it’s also reported that he did ‘roids’ so there is the element of roid rage mixed with his self hatred for being a secret gay

    • Politeindian

      Only Allah is capable of a lie this big.

      • Godless Heathen

        Allah, God, same deity, different book

      • Godless Heathen

        Allah is just the Arabic word for god. it’s not a different god than what the Hebrews or Christians worship, just a different style of interpretation

  • Bihari

    This is the need of the hour. If you want to contribute to society in a positive way ghar wapsi is a must.

    • Godless Heathen

      Indoctrination of any religion is wrong, forcefully or not. The world needs to move away from bronze age beliefs and superstitions, and focus on how we can all live together peacefully. As long as there are people who believe in a god(s), we will always have people who fight over which version is true and which is no, basically a pissing contest with ‘who’s god has the biggest dick’

      The world isn’t the way it is today because of lack of Theistic belief, it is this way because of Theistic belief

      • Bihari

        LOL !!! I knew you were nothing but an apologist for Islam. Above you argued how Orlando killer had nothing to do with Islam and here you are opposing Hinduism. It doesn’t take a genius at this point to know who you are really protecting.

        • Godless Heathen

          I certainly am not an apologist of any religion. the belief in some magical sky daddy is a fairy tale and does nothing but hold society back.

          Society can only go forward as fast as our slowest people

          Obviously you’re not MENSA material, All I said was Islam was not the motivation of the Orlando shootings… Homophobia was

          • Bihari

            hahaha. A fool is judging me. How cute.

            You are nothing but a fraud. Knowing very well that the Orlando shooter was motivated by the unequivocal stand against homosexuality by sharia and also the prescribed punishment. You are trying so hard to hide this, but attacking Hinduism and the secularism enshrined within Hinduism. There is just one word for you – FRAUD.

          • Godless Heathen

            well a fact that he was born a US citizen, and that his parents were not very religious. he abused his wife and had often hung out at the pulse night club and several gay dating sites. he was ashamed of his homosexuality and hated himself for it and that was his motivation for the attacks

          • JustSaying

            Again a magical sky daddy is an Abrahamic concept.

          • Godless Heathen

            it’s still slightly better than an elephant man

          • JustSaying

            You might like to think so.

      • Tiruvalluvar

        The concept of true or false gods and religions is a trait of Abrahamic religions, not the religions from Indian subcontinent.

        • Godless Heathen

          that may be true in writing because of their polytheistic views, however, in modern times, India has been known for it nonacceptance towards other religions even though they are a secular country

          Freedom of religion in India is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 15 and Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Modern India came into existence in 1947 and the Indian constitution’s preamble was amended in 1976 to state that India is a secular state.[2]
          Every citizen of India has a right to practice and promote their
          religion peacefully. However, there have been a number of incidents of
          religious intolerance that resulted in riots and violence, notably, the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots in Delhi, 2002 Anti-Muslim riots and the 2008 Anti-Christian riots. The perpetrators of the violence are rarely brought to justice despite widespread condemnation

          India Also have been know for their ‘honor killing’ where a family member is murdered for marring outside of their religion or caste

          With attitudes about other religions other than the majority, it’s safe to say that fear plays a part in indoctrination. And since a family will raise their children up in their religion, that too is indoctrination

          • JustSaying

            You like your guns, you are not Indian and obviously you know nothing about India. Yet your assuredness in talking about India and its event is quite amusing. I guess you gleaned these nuggets of information from the ever reliable Wikipedia ?
            Only 1984 riots were anti-some one riots. They had political reasons and happened mostly in Delhi. Religion had nothing to do with those riots. It is very difficult for a mind raised in Abrahamic environment to understand these things.
            The other riots were just riots not anti-some one.

          • Godless Heathen

            again, Religion retards society period. and society can only move forward as fast as our slowest members ie Theist

          • JustSaying

            The response is not related at all to the comment you are responding to. Now you are lashing out . That is what intolerant people do including atheists and theists . Intolerance flies in the face of logic and reasoning. Being an atheist is no guarantee you might have either of the two.

          • Godless Heathen

            yes, I am intolerant to religion trying to force it’s way into my life ether personally or in government. if people want to believe in fairy tales good on them, if I don’t, nobody has the right to push laws and legislation and bring it to my child’s school where I expect her to get a fact based education

          • prashants5 .

            Please take your “Western Universalism” to somewhere else. Please clean your backyard first that is filled with Filthy Racial Criminality before you point about our Caste System. And Polytheistic views are not in our Civilization’s dictionary. Please don’t impose all this here, please keep it to yourself. We don’t have any issue with your religion or country or backyard. That’s your problem and business.

            We don’t need advices from “Fatherless Society such as as West” ( read “Fatherless America” ) to talk about our Family and Family values. The divorce rate in America and most of the western morally broken society is more than 55%. So you better take care of your own marriage traditions. That’s why the society of West particularly America has been known as “Bastardized Society”.

          • Godless Heathen

            Funny thing is, I don’t have a religion, I prefer logic and reason. Also, I’m not an American, nor do I live in America. I’m also not a Racist as I am also racially discriminated against being aboriginal.

            The reason your divorce rate is so low, is out of fear and lack of women’s rights to think for themselves.. Also, I don’t believe in Marriage… why would I have a marriage that invites fantasy and myth into my relationship with my life long partner… keeping it real thanks

        • Godless Heathen

          doesn’t matter if it’s poly or mono theism, when you have children, you bring them, up in your faith. that’s indoctrination. the style of religion is irrelevant

    • Shubhangi Raykar

      propagation of Sanatan Dharma without feeling guilty or ashamed.

  • Ananth Sethuraman

    Nothing to be embarrassed about ghar wapsi. Hindus have not had a fair opportunity to present their own traditions.