A Future for Britain Free from Islamization: An Interview with British Freedom Party Chairman, Paul Weston

by Jerry Gordon 

The United Kingdom, or as Daily Mail pundit, Melanie Phillips calls it, Londonistan, has been mired in massive demographic change and concomitant Islamization brought on by its recent "open door" immigration policy. This was graphically evident in the July 7, 2005 London underground and bus system attack by four British Muslim suicide bombers who took the lives of more than 52 innocent victims and injured over 700. It was also reflected in the condoning of the more than 85 Shariah courts by the UK legal system and controversial Church of England head, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. Deeply disturbing has been the de facto creation of what former Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali called "no-go areas" where native Britons are not welcome, especially if they happen to be homosexual or Jewish.  

The current government coalition, led by Conservative PM David Cameron, officially admitted the failure of the long history of Labour and Conservative governments’ multi-cultural policies. In February 2011, Cameron criticized30 years of failed multi-cultural policies that may have partially given rise to Muslim extremism. These policies have fostered massive immigration of Muslims who have rejected traditional British values of tolerance and fair dealing while placing an intolerable burden on the national health and welfare systems. During the past decade this has led to protests by groups such as the English Defense League, and most disquieting, the rise of racist, antisemitic leadership of the British National Party (BNP), founded in 1982 from what remained of the ‘whites only’ National Front.

The BNP leader Nick Griffin castigated Islam’s rise in the UK, as a “wicked, vicious faith.” He had previously engaged in anti-gay vitriol and Holocaust denial, alienating voters who rejected the Party’s leaders and their extremist views. He was convicted in 1997 for distributing antisemitic literature calling the Holocaust, “the hoax of the 20^th Century.” Griffin was exonerated in 2006 from charges brought by the General Teaching Council for alleged religious intolerance stemming from his anti-Islamic views. 

Recent polls in the UK expressed the hope that a more centrist party would emerge espousing traditional British values, while recognizing the threat of Islamization. These hopes were based partly on fears that current demographic trends if left unchecked might ultimately lead by mid-century to native Britons being eclipsed by third world, mainly Muslim immigrants, whose rising influence might foster ruling political coalitions in the Westminster Parliament reflecting what many British consider their intolerant demands. 

A glimmer of that hope for mainstream Britons was realized in the fall of 2010, when several leaders of the BNP, Peter Mullins, Peter Staffords and Simon Bennet, broke ranks and resigned along with many party members. On October 18, 2010 these former BNP leaders registered the British Freedom Party. 

The British Freedom Party mission is: to defend and restore thefreedoms, traditions, unity , identity, democracy and independence of the British people, to establish full sovereignty over all our national affairs by restoring the supremacy of the British Parliament, to withdraw from the European Union, to promote democratic British nationalist principles, to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural interests of the British people and to preserve and promote the ancestral rights and liberties of the British people as defined in the British Constitution.

Prominent among the social and economic issues in the 20 point platform program of the British Freedom Party are:

·              Introduce a US style First Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech.

·              Leave the profoundly undemocratic European Union.

·              Abolish the Human Rights Act, which benefits only foreign criminals/terrorists.

·              Halt any further immigration for a period of five years.

·              Deport foreign criminals, seditious dual nationality Islamists and illegal immigrants.

·              Abolish all multicultural and equality quangos (quasi- nongovernmental organizations financed by the government yet acting independently of the government).

·              Halt and turn back all aspects of the Islamization of Britain, including Shariah finance.

·              Drastically reduce crime – criminals should fear the consequences of their behavior.

·              Repair the damage wreaked by the progressive educational establishment.

Paul Weston is the current chairman of the British Freedom Party. He identified himself as a "classical liberal" in an increasingly illiberal country. He resides in central London where he runs a property development/investment company. Weston stood for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the 2010 general election for the constituency of Cities of London& Westminster. He left the UKIP in 2011 due to the party’s failure to confront Islam. Weston assumed the chair of the British Freedom Party in Nov 2011 after ensuring that any founding officers with previous BNP connections stood down.

Weston has conferred with many leading members of the trans-Atlantic counter- jihad network at the Brussels Counter Jihad Europa Conference  in October 2007. He discussed their importance to Britain and the West on the Gates of Vienna website. He maintains friendships and a common ideological agenda with Freedom Party leaders on the Continent. He is a self- described fan of the Hon. Geert Wilders of the PVV, The Freedom Party in The Netherlands. Weston spoke at the Amsterdam Free Speech Rally in October 2010 on behalf of the International Free Press Society.

In February 2012 Weston crossed the Atlantic and gave several acclaimed  presentations in Nashville, New York and Toronto. (See Weston’s speech before a private audience in Nashville in the current NER edition).  He was also recognized at a session of the Tennessee State legislature. 

Watch this YouTube video of an interview with Weston by Michael Coren of Sun TV in Toronto during his recent visit there.

Weston has set the British Freedom Party on a course for fielding a party list of candidates in local council elections in 2012 to gain recognition for future general elections. While the Party’s expectations remain low about the outcome of these elections, the reception it has received has generally been favorable.

We had the good fortune to interview Weston prior to his leaving Toronto on the final leg of his return to the UK.

Jerry Gordon:  Paul Weston, thank you for consenting to this timely interview.

Paul Weston:  Thank you for affording me this opportunity.

Gordon:  What are the origins of the British Freedom Party?

Weston:  It was set up in 2010 as an offshoot from the British National Party. It was an offshoot because the four founders were expelled from the party because they rejected the whites’ only policy of the British National Party. They believed that culture, not color, was the important thing in Britain especially multi-cultural Britain. We can have one culture and it's not important about what color or race you come from. So they set this up having been expelled and we have rolled on from there. (Editor’s note: All original British Freedom Party founders from the British National Party stood down when Weston became Chairman.)

Gordon:  What is the current relationship with the English Defense League and its leader Tommy Robinson?

Weston:  We have been in talks with Tommy for a number of months now and we support the English Defense League in principle. We are not going to have some sort of signed alliance with them. However, in principle we support them because the working class in Britain has been completely betrayed by the Labour party. It's the working class of course who are protesting the loudest. Although the Labour party claims to act in the best interest of the working class in Britain, they certainly don't. We decided that if we were going to become political we would certainly support an unwritten alliance with the English Defense League.

Gordon:  What is the present status of the British Freedom Party with regard to party registration, organization and preparations for fielding a slate of candidates in the 2012 local elections?

Weston:  We are fully registered with the electoral commission. In terms of organization, clearly we are a very new party. Nevertheless, we already have some 20 regional officers working, and they are preparing a slate of candidates for the 2012 elections. These are the local council elections you are talking about, not the general election. We are going to stand for election. How many, we are not quite sure yet. We are going to get as many as we possibly can and hopefully gain some recognition. You know, we are not really expecting to do terribly well, because no one knows who we are yet, but this will be good for us in terms of getting our name out. Good for us in terms of making sure our policies are actually recognized by the electorate.

Gordon:  You characterize the British Freedom Party as being centrist and affirming traditional British values. What do you mean by that and could you give us some examples?

Weston:  We are determined not to be labeled far-right because there is nothing far-right about us at all. I believe we are centrists. I mean, for example, we want to introduce a U.S. style First Amendment guaranteeing free speech. There is nothing right-wing about that. It's a very central policy. We want to leave the undemocratic European Union which I think is a semi-totalitarian organization. We can't vote the commissioners out. We certainly didn't vote them in, so there is nothing far-right about that. In terms of affirming traditional British values we promote morality, marriage, the family and the community. All good healthy things, which is why I reject the far-right label. These are traditional British values and traditional British norms. As far as I am concerned we are centrists, and we refuse to be labeled far-right by the far-left that now control much of the media in Britain.

Gordon:  What are some of the more significant points in the British Freedom Party platform?

Weston:  It comes down to multi-culturalism and mass-immigration, which I think are the more significant ones. We are a tiny little island. Less than one percent of the world land mass, less than one percent of the world population. We have effectively opened the doors to billions of people who are poor. They come from the third world, and we have a very generous welfare state. If you do those things, if you open the doors to all of these people from around the world, you are going to be swamped. We say no more mass immigration. This is one of our central points.

Gordon:  Do you think the platform of the British Freedom Party will attract voters in the UK?

Weston:  They had a survey late last year which was aimed more at the British National Party than anything else, because we didn't exist then. They asked the question: If you had a political party that rejected multi- culturalism, that wanted to put an end to mass immigration and promote British values, would you vote for it? The majority of people said "yes", they would. They were then asked the following question: Why given some of the policies of the British National Party, would you not vote for the British National Party? They said the British National Party has a leader who is a Holocaust denier, and that it has a history of genuine racial bigotry. They would love to see a party that emulated some of the British National Party policies, but not these absolutely terrible, racist, antisemitic views that the British National Party leadership holds. Among the rank and file British National Party people there are some very nice people. However, the leadership is absolutely rotten and corrupt to the core and as I say, antisemitic and genuinely racist.

Gordon:  The UK has an unwritten constitution. How can you implement a U.S. style First Amendment with what we value here, freedom of worship and guarantees of free speech?

Weston:  You know, we don't have a written constitution, but we do have legislation. It is quite simple just to introduce and pass legislation saying that you will not be censored for speaking the truth, no matter that the truth might offend other people. If you do say these things, you will not be tried under hate crime laws, you won't go to prison. Nick Griffin of the British National Party was tried for saying that Islam was a wicked faith. He predicted the bombings which actually occurred in 2005, the London transport suicide bombings. He predicted that the bombers would come from an area within 20 miles of where he was making his speech, and sure enough, they did. Nevertheless, he was still tried for inciting racial hatred. When they couldn't get him on that charge, because the defense was Islam is not a race, it's a religion, they introduced a new law about inciting religious hatred and they tried him again. These are not the marks of a free and democratic country. Roger Scruton, the philosopher, said some time ago that “when words no longer have the desired affect, then words will be replaced by deeds.” Freedom of speech is an outlet; it is a pressure relief valve that allows us to state our views, and to do so in a calm, rational and non-violent manner. If they clamp down on this, and they push us under the normal levels of discourse, then you are going to get huge amounts of pressure building. It is absolutely imperative that we introduce legislation that guarantees our free speech.

Gordon:  The British Freedom Party believes that there are troubling demographic and economic trends in the UK. What are they?

Weston:  This all comes from the last Labour government, that essentially just opened the doors completely, and the resulting demographics are one of these touchy subjects. EvenThe Guardian newspaper is now admitting that by 2060 the traditional native British are going to be an ethnic minority in their own country. They talk about this across all age groups. The majority of the native British are aged over 50 and the vast majority of the new immigrants are aged under 50. Below the age of 40 we may become an ethnic minority by 2030. To me, this is population replacement and in non-polite terms it is a bloodless genocide. It is ethnic cleansing. A deliberate dilution of the native population by political means. 

Gordon:  What motivated the UK Labour and Conservative parties to open up immigration leading to the influx of Muslims?

Weston:  The Labour party really did it for two reasons. The hard-left favorably viewed completely opposite cultures such as Islam. They thought they could use these people as political pawns to further their longed for desire for a Communist revolution. That was the hard-left position. The softer left thought, well this is good, because 90% of immigrants vote for Labour. If we manage to get enough of them in we'll never be out of power because they are always going to vote for us. The Conservative party was going to reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands. However, last year 500,000 people came into the country and the Conservative party refused to talk about it. They know it is not a vote winner with the immigrants. There are so many immigrants it is important that you appeal to them, and they refused to talk about it. They even manipulated the figures when they said there were 250,000 net immigrants last year. When they say net immigration, what that means is 250,000 presumably native Brits left the country fed up with multi-cultural Britain. Perhaps, a quarter of a million native Brits leave, 500,000 third world people come into the country and the Conservative party say net immigration therefore is only 250,000.

Gordon:  Has the influx and growth of Muslims in the UK contributed to both domestic and international Islamic terrorism?

Weston:  Yes, of course, it has. I don’t think first generation Muslims that started coming into Britain in the 1960's, were coming here with the view of taking over the country and imposing the doctrine of Islam and Shariah law on us. However, the second and third generations have been indoctrinated in the mosques and in the madrassas by Saudi Arabians, the most hard-line Wahhabist, Islamic funded imams. Saudi Arabia has funded radicalism with huge reserves of petro dollars. I think the CIA came out a few years ago and said that ninety-billion dollars had been poured into Europe and the West to promote fundamentalist Islamic ideology, with a view to eventually enforcing their global Caliphate. The second and third generation Muslims have been radicalized, and yes they are a tremendous threat. We see our security services saying they are thwarting four, five, six terrorist attacks a month on the mainland. In America, an ex-CIA officer, Bruce Riedel, came out and said that the greatest threat to a mainland America terrorist attack came from Britain under the Visa Waiver Program. Pakistani Muslims can travel without any prior vetting to America and this is now seen as a threat. Britain now poses the greatest threat of terrorist attacks to mainland America than any other country in the world - and they're British. It's quite astonishing. The answer to your question is "yes" domestic and international Islamic terrorism has been driven purely by the influx and growth of Muslims in the UK.

Gordon:  How would the British Freedom Party change the UK immigration system to reduce the rate of Muslim growth in the population?

Weston:  We want to stop mass immigration completely. We are going to say if you are an American, or a Canadian, or an Australian, then you are welcome to come into the country. You are welcome to come in and marry and you can become a British citizen. However, if you are coming from hard-line Islamic countries like Pakistan or Afghanistan, then you are not coming in anymore. It is going to sound terribly unfair. Why are we stopping only you? Well, we are stopping you, because you pose a long term threat to us.

Gordon:  How has the UK Welfare System been abused by Muslim immigrants?

Weston:  This is a huge issue with the working class in Britain. Can you imagine that your parents and your grandparents fought and died for your country? You have hit hard times personally, you have two children and you lose your job, there is supposedly a safety net that says that you will be housed and fed by the state. The state in Britain now sets a priority on the number of children you have. If you are a Muslim family with eight children you will go straight to the top of the housing list and you will be housed in a palatial sized building to accommodate your eight children, all of which is paid for by the state. Even worse than this, is that polygamy is illegal in Britain. However, it is not illegal if you married your third or your fourth wife, or indeed your first and second wife in an Islamic country and then brought them over. Thus one Muslim male can have four wives and 16 to 20 children, and live in four different houses, all costing thousands of pounds a month. It is simply unsustainable. I believe these statistics are correct when they say that 50% of Muslim males do not work and are claiming welfare, 75% of Muslim females are claiming welfare. (Editors note: Figures are correct, sourced from Equalities Commission.) You have to bear in mind that we are already a bankrupt country. We are over a trillion pounds in debt. In 2008 the government statistics office said that the Welfare Bill was 170 billion pounds and the PAYE (tax deducted at source from employees) for that year was 150 billion pounds. There are obviously more stealth taxes that come into play, but the amount of money raised in taxes in that year did not even cover the welfare payments let alone our armed forces, education and the hospitals. It's totally unsustainable.

Gordon:  There are more than 85 Shariah courts in the UK. Why did the UK legal system recognize Shariah and how could that be reversed?

Weston:  The UK legal system did recognize Shariah, and yet again it was the Socialists and the British Labour Party that recognized it. We simply have to stop it. We have equality before the law in our country. Everybody is equal before British law. We are not going to have Shariah law courts operating in the UK. It is that usual thing of going down the slippery slope. They say today that they are only going to be legislating, if that's the right word, for applying Shariah on divorce, marriage and financial settlements. However, that is only the beginning. What are they going to do in ten years time? How long is it going to be before we start seeing the more violent elements of Shariah law entering into our liberal democracy of Britain? How can it be reversed? We simply say equality before the law. That is it. The Shariah courts are closed out. This is Britain. It is not Saudi Arabia. It's not Pakistan. You are in our country and you adhere to our laws which incidentally are the best, most humane laws. You know British common law is famous for it is the most decent moral system of law recognized in the world today. If you don't like it then go somewhere else.

Gordon:  Why did the Church of England support Shariah?

Weston:  I don't know if you are aware of Baroness Cox, who sits in the House of Lords. She initially fought against Communism and is a very brave woman. She is now fighting against Shariah. My mother met her some years ago. She was telling my mother that when she (Cox) was a university lecturer, the lecturers coming into the universities back in the 60s and 70s were hard-line committed Communists. She said exactly the same thing was happening in the Church of England. Now we have Archbishop Rowan Williams, who not only supports Shariah, but also supports a Socialist state. He is not actually a Communist Party member, but he supports that sort of thing. The Church of England, like pretty much every single institution in Britain has been infiltrated by the hard-left. The left supports Shariah because Shariah operates against the interests of traditional Britain.

Gordon:  The former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, had warned about so called "no-go areas" where Muslims exert self rule under Shariah. Why has the national government in the UK tolerated it and how would the British Freedom Party change that?

Weston:  The Labour government of course not only tolerated it, they promoted it. The Conservative government we have today also tolerates no-go areas. When Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali came out and said this, he was immediately issued with death threats. He was told that having warned about no go areas, if he ever went into one, they would try to kill him. How would the British Freedom Party change that? What you have to do is get the police out of their police cars and back on the street. To make sure that everybody in this country obeys the laws of the land. Simple as that.

Gordon:  Muslim immigrants in the UK have been active in the international Class A drug trade. How would the British Freedom Party bring this illegal drug trade and money laundering by Muslim immigrants to a halt?

Weston:  Interesting that you say Muslim immigrants, because the worst of the drug problem is heroin. Heroin kills an awful lot of people, and I believe this is driven principally by Turkish gangs in Britain. How do we stop it? It's incredibly difficult. I think we have to make a two tier system. If you are caught dealing marijuana and cocaine, I think you deserve a lengthy prison sentence. If you are dealing in heroin, we believe that you should go to prison for life.

Gordon:  UK prisons have become a fertile ground for conversion of inmates to Islam. What would the British Freedom Party recommend to curtail that?

Weston:  I think you should lose all your rights the moment you go to prison. If you happen to be a Muslim, then I'm afraid to say that when you go to prison you will not find separate prayer rooms. We are a Christian country. We will have a prayer room. If you don't want to use our prayer room then you are not going to have your own. The idea that we allow hard-line imams in all of our prisons is unfortunate. Muslims are very much over represented in British prisons, and we have got to stop imams visiting prisons. You know, you can have a priest, you can have a Christian padre, but we are not going to allow any more imams proselytizing in British prisons.

Gordon:  To what do you attribute the rise of antisemitism in the UK and how would the British Freedom Party combat it?

Weston:  We have 250,000 Jews in Britain. I mean it's a very small proportion of the population. When you read the newspapers every week, you never see stories about violent Jewish gangs dealing in drugs, or Jewish gangs stabbing Pakistani gangs. You know, the Jews in Britain have integrated utterly. They were very poor, and they've risen mostly to the middle class now. They get on with their lives. They get on with their jobs. They pay their taxes and they're wonderful people. There have always been antisemites in any country. How do we combat it? I don't believe that the native British are antisemitic in the slightest. If they are, then there are not very many of them. The rise of antisemitism in the UK comes from Islam. We now have Shariah enforced no-go zones in various parts of the country, and they actually say "no Jews allowed." No homosexuals, no alcohol, no Jews. “Judenrein” I believe is the expression, meaning free of Jews. What do we do about it? We prosecute imams in the mosques who are calling for the murder of Jews. We close down the mosques that are doing this. We should go all out to make sure that if these Muslims want to live in our country, they accept the Jews in exactly the same way that the native British have accepted Jews.

Gordon:  The British Freedom Party has adopted an anti-EU position, akin to that of the UK Independent Party. What are the British Freedom Party's reasons for holding that position and how do they differ from the UK Independent Party platform?

Weston:  In terms of the anti-EU position, we don't differ from the UKIP at all. The only difference between UKIP and ourselves is that we are taking it to the next level and confronting Islam and mass immigration. The European Union is a totalitarian organization. If you look at Italy now, their elected politicians have been replaced by European Union apparatchiks who have never been voted into a position of power, and here they are now running the country. I didn't vote for Mr. Juan Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission who is an ex-Maoist Communist from Portugal. He is apparently unashamed, despite Mao's great leap forward that took tens of millions of lives. Mr. Barroso is the most powerful man in Europe. I didn't vote for him and I can't vote him out. They are incrementally taking every single piece of power and sovereignty from my country. Vladimir Bukovsky describes the EU as being equivalent to the Supreme Soviet and the Politburo. The people who are doing this are, in the main, Socialist and Communist sympathizers, so we have to get out of it. It's not free. The British Freedom Party believes in freedom and democracy. We do not see that with the European Union, so we want out.

Gordon:  What relations do you have with leaders in the various European Freedom Parties?

Weston:  Over the last two or three years I have met with all of them. Geert Wilders of The Netherlands, Rene Stadtkewitz of Germany, Heinz Christian Strache of Austria and Filip Dewinter of Belgium - at various conferences around Europe. We get on well. We share the same views. We share the same aspirations. It is an alliance of ideology. I hope that between all of us in Europe, we are going to be able to do something about it.

Gordon:  What is your assessment of the Honorable Geert Wilders and why the Freedom Party, the PVV in the Netherlands, has garnered such popular support?

Weston:  I'm a huge admirer of Geert Wilders. Holland, I don't think, is as far gone as Britain, but Holland has huge problems. We saw Pim Fortuyn speak out about this and get murdered, and Theo Van Gogh speak out about it and get murdered. They have huge problems, and the people in Holland recognize that someone like Wilders is able to articulate the worries, the concerns of the Dutch, in a civilized manner, and this is why he has such large support. He is essentially a liberal until it comes to Islam. You can't be a liberal that supports Islam because Islam is itself illiberal. Wilders is appealing to the basic decency of the Dutch people and the inherent liberalism that we've always associated with Holland. He is pointing out that their liberal society is threatened by a totalitarian illiberal ideology called Islam, and the people have reacted to this, hence his amazing popular support in Holland.

Gordon:  You spoke recently in the U.S. and Canada. What venues did you speak at, and what was the reception like for the British Freedom Party?

Weston:  We spoke in Nashville at the Tennessee State Legislature. It went down very well. I was astonished by the reception that we received. We were introduced the following day at the Senate, and it was an astonishing and humbling experience. I'm not up to speed on American state politics, but I assume they are basically comparable to our local governments', our councils in England. We started our visit in the House with the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem, and an invocation by a priest. When these Americans stood there, they put their hands on their hearts, they took the pledge and their backs stiffened, I thought, you know, what I would give to have British people behaving like this. They received us with great warmth and said they agreed completely with what we were doing. It was an absolutely inspiring and humbling reception.

Gordon:  What future would you see for the UK if the British Freedom Party becomes part of a ruling coalition in the Westminster Parliament?

Weston:  First and foremost, I see a peaceful future. I have spoken about the illusion of permanency that Samuel Huntington wrote of in his Clash of Civilizations. Th e illusion that tomorrow will be the same as today, and next year will be the same, and the year after that will be the same. However, civilizations do collapse. The aggression, violence and desire for a global Caliphate that is being instilled in the minds of our growing Muslim community in England signals the likelihood of possible Civil War before 2050. For me the most important thing is that we do not get dragged into a horrific Civil War similar to that of Lebanon - the Civil War in Lebanon - and the breakup of Yugoslavia which of course fractured on racial, religious and tribal lines. I would also like to see our children educated properly as they used to be back in the 1950's and 1960's. I would like to see morality re-introduced, because what they (the left) did in Britain was undermine religion and come up with moral relativism, which said there is no such thing as morality. Now if you take away religion and its guiding moral principles, and you declare morality to be null and void as well, you end up with what we get in British towns and cities every Friday night. This out of control, decadent group of young people who have no conception of honor and decency, of patriotism, civility and appropriate behavior. It is quite awful. We are the worst country in Europe for this. It is like hell on a Friday and Saturday night. People are frightened to go into town centers. I see the basically good British people betrayed. Now the young have been betrayed. It is not their fault that they are like this. They have been essentially raised to be like this. I would like to completely reverse that. I would like to see morality reintroduced. Now, I'm not going to say I want to see Christianity rammed down everyone's throats. I just want to see the morality of Judeo-Christian values re-introduced and linked to the 10 Commandments. It is almost like wanting to take Britain back to the 1950's but without some of the more overt problems that we had back then, such as the anti-homosexual laws. We were not perfect in the 1950's, but dear Lord we were so much nicer people then than we are today. I would like to see us go back to the standards of the 1950's.

Gordon:  I want to thank you Paul Weston for this engrossing interview and the message of pushing back against Islamization in the UK.

Weston:  I know exactly what you mean. We can't do it just by ourselves. We need all the help we can get. We are up against possibly something that we can't beat. We're going to give it a damn good try and the more help we can have the better, so are grateful for what you are doing here.

Gordon:  Well, consider this as a multi cultural version of Dunkirk.

Weston:  Britain's finest hour.

Gordon:  Yes.

Weston:  Thank you so much for that.

(British Freedom Party Chairman, Paul Weston)

 

The Jihad against Bengali

By Janet Levy

Every February 21, a little-known observance occurs: International Mother Language Day.  Created in 2000 to promote and encourage the diversity of language, this benign and idealistic-sounding commemoration actually marks a bloody day in 1952 when an Islamic minority shot and killed university students protesting the imposition of an Islamic language, Urdu, on a Bengali-speaking majority in Pakistan.

The students who died that day understood that forced reconfiguration of a language can have cataclysmic and devastating effects on a society.  Community identification can be shifted, populations and their practices repressed, and the established rhythm of daily life disrupted.

In the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, Muslims have for centuries used Arabic languages as part of their jihad against Christians and Hindus.  A blatant example of this phenomenon occurred in 8^th century Coptic-speaking Egypt when Muslims conquered the Christian nation and designated Arabic as the sole administrative language.  Coptic, which had flourished as a literary and liturgical language, was purposely denigrated by the Muslim conquerors and eventually prohibited in favor of Arabic, the language of Mohammed.  Today, Copts continue to be besieged by the Muslim majority in Egypt, and only a few hundred people speak the Coptic language.

A similar struggle occurs with the Bengali language.  Although the student deaths of 1952 sparked a successful movement to create an independent Bangladesh, the majority Muslim population in that country persecutes Hindus and is Islamizing the Bengali language itself as a sort of linguistic Muslim jihad which has been going on for centuries.

History - Urdu vs. Bengali

Beginning almost 900 years ago, Urdu, a language associated with Muslims in India and Pakistan, was appropriated from Sanskrit-based Hindi over centuries of conquests by Persian, Arabic, and Turkic Muslims.  To create Urdu, the Muslim conquerors took Hindi and Islamicized it by injecting new words, changing existing words, and writing the language in Arabic script.  By de-Sanskritizing Hindi to develop Urdu, Muslim rulers de-Hinduized the language as a way of diminishing the infidel faith.  As Latin is to Christianity, Sanskrit defines Hinduism and is the language of Hindu clerics and scriptures.

In 1948, shortly after Pakistan gained independence from the British government, the newly installed Islamic government declared Urdu the official language of West and East Pakistan, now Bangladesh.  At the time, Sanskrit-based Bengali was the language of the vast majority of Bengalis, the inhabitants of East Pakistan, both Hindus and Muslims.

The Urdu language edict created great hardship for Hindus and Bengali-speaking Muslims who were not particularly proficient in Urdu.  Although Bengalis were a majority linguistic group, under the Urdu language requirement they faced discrimination and experienced alienation from mainstream Pakistani society.  Both Bengali Hindus and Muslims had difficulty finding employment and were discouraged from joining the Army, an important affiliation conferring social standing in Pakistan.

Bengali Language Movement

At the time when the Urdu language mandate was introduced, Muslims in Bangladesh were being pressured to become more Muslim in practice, to Islamicize the region, and to join Urdu Islamic political parties in Pakistan.  Bengali Muslims resisted, as they had a cultural affinity to Bengali and felt they were not getting their fair share of power in Pakistani politics relative to their numbers.  Out of the six major linguistic groups -- Bengali, Urdu, Sindi, Punjabi, Pastho, and Baloch -- Bengali was the largest in Pakistan.  Bengali Muslims came from a distinctly different cultural background from the Muslims in West Pakistan and had little in common with the other groups except Islam.  To thwart Bengali domination, the other linguistic groups banded together to reduce the influence of the Muslims of East Pakistan, thus isolating the Bengali Muslims. 

After the declaration of Urdu as the official language, extensive protests erupted amongst the Bengali-speaking majority of East Pakistan, both Hindu and Muslim.  Due to the rising tensions and demonstrations against the new law, the government outlawed all public meetings and rallies. 

On February 21, 1952, students protested the language edict and called for a general strike.  Amidst peaceful protests, the police fired on protesters and killed several students.  In 1956 following numerous protests over the years, the government relented and granted official status to the Bengali language.

The Bengali Language Movement strengthened the national identity of Bengalis living in Pakistan and eventually led to Bangladesh's war for independence from Pakistan in 1971.  Suffering greatly from Muslim persecution, at least 20 million Hindus fled to India from East Pakistan from 1947-1971.  About one million Hindus were killed.  In the fight for independence in 1971, Muslims killed an additional 2.5 million Hindus.  Also during the conflict, the Pakistan Army bulldozed one of the most famous Hindu temples in the Indian subcontinent, believed to be over 1,000 years old.

In 1971, Hindus were declared enemies of the state of Pakistan and the government instituted the Enemy Property Act.  False allegations were made by the Muslim government that Hindus were spies for India, and their property was confiscated.  Following the independence of Bangladesh, the newly installed Muslim government retained the Pakistani law, merely changing its name to the Vested Property Act.  Approximately 75% of Hindu land in the area has been confiscated over time.

The Jihad against Bengali

Today, Hindus in Bangladesh and throughout the Indian subcontinent are reluctant to make demands in a majority Muslim country.  They typically remain silent about grievances, as they have little hope of equitable resolutions under Muslim control.  Their activities are limited, and they regularly face discrimination.  They are accountable to their Muslim masters, have fewer rights, and their movements are restricted.  It is not uncommon for a Muslim to stop and question a Hindu in transit, inquire of his travel plans, and demand to see his documents as well as the money he is carrying, which can be extorted with impunity.

Yet, ironically, the Bengali Language Movement is commemorated each year in Bangladesh on February 21 primarily by Bengali Muslims, who hold rallies across the country.   This same Muslim majority which allows the oppression of Hindus in Bangladesh is also Islamizing the Bengali language.  They have de-Hinduized certain words in their ongoing attempt to eradicate infidel Hindu culture.  For example, the Bengali word for "deity" has been replaced by a word that means "Allah" in Farsi, and the word for "water" has been substituted with an Urdu word.  An indigenous flowering tree named "Krishnachura," referring to a flower worn in the headdress of the Hindu deity, has been renamed by Muslims to "Mohammed Chura."

For Bengali Hindus, the battle to preserve their language and culture appears to have been a pyrrhic victory, and a temporary one at that.  With constant attacks on their businesses, homes, and temples sanctioned by the Vested Property Act, their numbers have diminished from one-third of the population at the time of partition to fewer than 10% today.  Ultimately, their language has become less representative of their culture and religious beliefs, they cower to the demands of the Muslim majority, and they continue to face grave threats to their survival.  The Bengali jihad may ultimately reduce the Hindus to the fate of the Copts, and the celebration of Mother Language Day may actually finally honor a language far removed from its Hindu and Sanskrit roots and now, instead, symbolic of Muslim expansionism.

India’s dubious Secularists

by S. Gurumurthy

Maqbool Fida Husain and Salman Rushdie are a telling comparison and contrast to capture the true character of secular India. Both are Muslims by birth. Both were born in colonial India’s Bombay Presidency. Husain, some 32 years when Rushdie was a child, died last year. Husain was an artist. Rushdie is a writer. Both had become famous, globally — Husain through his paintings and Rushdie through his writings. Husain lived all his life in India before he exiled and became a Qatari in 2006. But Rushdie lives in the UK as a British citizen. While Rushdie excited the highly sensitive Muslims to turn against him, Husain managed to irritate the not-so-sensitive Hindus. Take Husain first.

This is how Husain annoyed the soft Hindus. He used his fertile imagination and painting skills to undress all well-dressed Hindu gods, goddesses, depict them naked and used his popularity to market them. He drew a naked Goddess Lakshmi sitting on Lord Ganesha’s head. He painted Durga in sexual union with a tiger. He portrayed a naked Goddess Saraswati holding a veena. He painted a naked Parvati with her son Ganesha. He depicted a naked Hanuman, seeing a naked Sita sitting on the thigh of naked Ravana. He painted a naked Bharatmata twice — once in the shape of India with names of the states of India on her naked body, alongside a naked sadhu in the Bay of Bengal. But his art on Muslims was a telling contrast. He drew a fully clad Muslim king alongside a naked Brahmin. He completely covered, even with purdah, the Muslim women he drew, which of course included his mother and daughter. He fully attired the Muslim poets he painted.

Some Hindus, who saw his perverted art demeaning the Hindu divinities, began protesting at his exhibitions and filing criminal cases. Seeing mounting protests and cases, Husain moved out of India. The government of India, judiciary, political parties and, of course, the media, all rushed to defend Husain’s right to freedom — his right to offend Hindus and demean their gods. There were protests against Husain. But no one issued an order to kill him. No one was injured, no one was hurt and none was killed. Yet, the protests were labelled by ‘seculars’ as ‘saffron terror’.

Now come to Rushdie, a contrast. His life is living hell since he wrote his controversial book The Satanic Verses. Though living, he has, by now, died a million times since February 4, 1989 when Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fiat (fatwa) to Muslims to kill him. But, why should Khomeini order the killing of a fellow Muslim? With almost a generation gone since 1988 when Rushdie wrote the infamous book, it is time to recall some history. Rushdie’s book was about a disputed tradition in Islam. According to it, Mohammed (depicted in Rushdie’s book as Mahound) had first added three verses (Sura) in the Quran, accepting three goddesses that used to be worshipped in Mecca as divine beings, but later revoked the verses saying that Devil (Satan) had tempted him to utter the verses to appease the Meccans — so the title ‘Satanic Verses’ for the disputed verses. The Rushdie book set off violent reaction from Muslims.

Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh blew himself up in a central London hotel while making a bomb intended to kill Rushdie in 1989. Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of Rushdie’s book was stabbed to death in July 1991. Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, was stabbed and seriously injured in the same month. And Aziz Nesin, the Turkish language translator, was the target in the events that led to massacre of 37 people in July 1993. William Nygaard, a Norway publisher, was almost killed in Oslo in October 1993. In Belgium, two Muslim leaders who had opposed Khomeini’s ‘Kill Rushdie’ fiat, were killed. Two bookstores in California, and five in England, were fire-bombed. Twelve people died during rioting in Mumbai. This list does not exhaust the violence.

Starting from then and till now, Rushdie has been hitting headlines for the wrong reasons. Now again Rushdie is in the news. Rushdie had been invited to the Jaipur Literature Festival 2012, Asia’s largest, a week back. Muslims threatened agitations and Rushdie’s presence would have meant violence. So the Indian Intelligence Bureau invented an input saying that four hired assassins were roaming around to kill Rushdie. This was proved fake, calculated to prevent Rushdie from coming to India. The four participants who had read out from The Satanic Verses at the meet ran away from India to escape arrest. William Dalrymple, the festival director, got death threats. Finally, Rushdie’s video address to the Jaipur festival was dropped as, according to organisers, it risked the lives of the participants from the Muslim protesters outside.

The contrast is self-evident. Rushdie, who just wrote about a disputed tradition in Islam, was hounded for decades and is on a death threat even now, and people who had nothing to do with either the book or Rushdie have been butchered. Even today the fear of slaughter in his name haunts the world, as the Jaipur meet shows. But, all that Husain, who, in the name of freedom hurt the Hindus — “considered as the gentlest and most civilised on the earth” according to Mahatma Gandhi — faced were normal protests. The protests by Hindus against Husain were ant-bite compared to the scale of violence against Rushdie’s book, even though the hurt to the Hindu sentiments by the perverted paintings of Husain were explicit and undeniably monumental. But what is distressingly shameful is the politics of contrast. See how the secular media, parties, leaders and state glorified Husain’s right to abuse Hindu gods and goddesses to wound Hindus and how the same secular actors repeatedly decried Rushdie’s similar right to hurt Muslims. Now something even more shameful. The ‘seculars’, including the media, had ceaselessly condemned the normal protests against shows displaying Husain’s painting and pontificated to Hindus about the need for tolerance. But they wouldn’t utter a word against the violence by Muslims nor ask them to be tolerant. The reason is obvious. They are dishonest.

Muslims rightly felt offended by Rushdie’s reckless literary work. And Hindus were justly hurt by Husain’s perverted art. Muslims, highly excitable, however reacted violently. Instead of holding both Rushdie and Husain wrong, the seculars faulted Rushdie and praised Husain. Why? Because, being insensitive to Hindus and pretending to be sensitive to Muslims is enough to make one secular. QED: Such secularism is perversion — and a dangerous one.

Foiled Bangladesh Coup: Many Targets To A Single Goal – Analysis

Bhaskar Roy

Neither the investigations of nor the debates on the December, 2011 foiled coup by a group of religiously misdirected middle level army officers are over. Nor should they be. Reverting to complacency in either case can result in unmitigated disaster for the country in not too distant a future.

Although the founding father of Pakistan Mohammad Ali Jinnah had the vision of a liberal, democratic, secular and Islamic Pakistan, it never happened. Mr. Jinnah’s vision had inherent contradictions as seen from the view point of the growing Wahabi Islam promoted by an oil rich Saudi Arabia. Gradually, religion was used in Pakistan as an instrument of politics.

 In East Pakistan (Bangladesh since 1971), Islam as practiced was more liberal than that in the western wing. It had historical roots. In several sections of life, Islam and Hinduism, in their basic philosophy had many commonalities. For example, in the Mafrati (Muslim) and Baul (Hindu) devotional songs, the worship of Satya Pir and Satya Narayan or in Lalan fakir’s soul rending songs which transcended religious barriers. But over the decades since 1947, many of these societal values receded in Bangladesh.

Jinnah wanted cordial relations with India. It was a very conscious decision. India was a much larger country. He had full knowledge of India, having been a leading independence leader. And he possessed no religious bigotry. But things changed rapidly.

East Pakistan and West Pakistan started with cultural and linguistic incompatibility. Punjabi arrogance and domination did not sit well with the Bengalis of East Pakistan. And when West Pakistan did away with the fiery Bengali leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s claim to Prime Ministership of Pakistan, it pioneered the Bengalis’ fight for freedom. Bangladesh won its independence in 1971 with some assistance from India. But it was basically a movement started, owned and delivered by the people of Bangladesh.

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the first Prime Minister of Bangladesh introduced a secular constitution in 1973. He created a special relationship with India. But little did he know that people close to him were plotting against him. They resented his pro-India tilt and his secular philosophy. These were time servers with Sk. Mujib, and they turned Bangladesh step by step into a country that the Sheikh did not believe in.

There have been comments in the Bangladesh media in connection with the recent coup attempt that this was an act by a few middle level officers driven by their faith, and that top level officers were not involved. Hence, it is not a matter of great concern.

This view may be simplistic and dangerous, glossing over a threat that is yet to be investigated fully. It was a group of young army officers, no one senior that a Lt. Colonel that assassinated Prime Minister Sk. Mujibur Rahman and his extended family in the early hours of August 15, 1975. Most senior army officers were not involved. In fact, the army Chief, Lt. Gen. Khaled Musharraf was also killed subsequently.

As the developments continued, it was evident that senior political leaders were involved. Top Awami League leader Khondokar Mustaq, became President in a hastily formed government. A series of killings continued, both judicial and extra-judicial. Zia-ur-Rehman, who as a major fought in the liberation war, swiftly moved up the ranks through these machinations, became army chief and the President of Bangladesh. He rehabilitated the Jamaat-e-Islami as a political party. The JEI was banned by Sk. Mujibur Rahman because of their collaboration with the Pakistani army in 1971, for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The clock was turned back 360 degrees. Pakistan became the No.1 friend – India the No.1 enemy. And the religious extremists owing full allegiance to Pakistan, returned to the political centre stage. During the BNP-JEI rule (2001-2006), it was evident to everyone that the government went out of the way to execute an acrimonious relationship with India. It was the worst period in India-Bangladesh relations. Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh took a very sagacious position. This policy was – be good to Bangladesh and hope they will reciprocate. India’s positivity went to the extent of not retaliating to the abduction and brutal killing of BSF officers by the BDR personnel. India refused to bite the bait.

Two trends of discussions noticed among BNP and JEI leaders and officials were important in the 2001–2006 period. One was to establish a federal relationship with Pakistan. Under this premise, the BNP-JEI government opened up its territory for the ISI to launch terrorist operations in India. The ISI reared and sponsored Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and its ally the HUJI (BD), were the main instruments for this strategy.

At that time, the JEI had claimed that by 2011-12, they hoped to win majority in the parliament and establish Sharia law. To succeed, they not only spread their indoctrination work far and wide, but also began to penetrate the armed forces. JEI Amir Matiur Rahman Nizami is on record having said that 30 percent of the forces were JEI member or supporters.

The second trend was that both the JEI and the BNP concentrated on making the armed forces political. This was basically concentrated on new entrants from soldiers to officers level. Assessment of influence of political parties in the armed forces was JEI 30%, BNP 30%, Awami League 15-20%, others non-political. The only saving grace was the presence of middle to senior levels who were mainly apolitical, but maintained a low profile.

The set-back for the BNP and JEI came with the exposure of their links with and support to terrorist organizations. The country was shaken when the Jamatul Mujahidin Bangladesh (JMB) detonated synchronized explosions in August 2005 in 63 out of 64 districts in the country. From there on, the BNP-JEI’s down hill journey started. This government was close to being declared a sponsor of terrorism. The BNP was proved to be the most corrupt government ever in Bangladesh. There was no way that the BNP-JEI combine could win the December 2008 elections. The backlash from the people was too strong.

Returning to the recent coup attempt, the Hizbut Tehrir (HUT) propaganda literature emphasizes the following (i) Khilafat rule in Bangladesh (ii) anti-India propaganda calling for restoration of Islamic rule in the India (iii) to protect Muslims, urging army personnel to topple sheikh Hasina’s government which they perceive to be backed by India and the US, (iv) overseas connections. India comes out as the most prominent target. The targets are almost exactly that of the ISI in Bangladesh and India.

Most intriguing and important is the disclosure by Bangladeshi investigators that like minded terrorist organizations are co-operating with HUT to carry forward terrorist activities, and HUJI was named as one of as the partners. Has HUT, which was banned in Bangladesh only in 2009, made some readjustment in their operations doctrine in Bangladesh?

Compared to other terrorist organizations fighting for Islamic rule and cleansing western and Zionist influence and ideas in Muslim countries, HUT can be considered quite unique. Founded in 1953 in a Palestinian village in Jerusalem by Islamic scholar Taquiddin al-Nabahani, it has spread legally to many countries in the west especially the UK, US and Germany among others. It is also active in several Arab and Central Asian countries and came to Bangladesh in 2000.

HUT’s open stance avows non-violence. But at the same time it does not rule out violence in the long run as central to its goal of Caliphate (Khilafat). It sees the Hamas movement against Israel as basically misconceived, because a poorly armed movement cannot match the might of Israel. HUT would rather wait for a strong Caliphate to defeat Israel.

HUT’s philosophy may sound somewhat simple, but it is realistic. Their political advancement is based on creating a mass opinion among Muslims as a first step. The next or even concurrent step is to penetrate officers in the armed forces, political and social leaders, educated youth and professionals. The final step is to move to establish the Caliphate. With indoctrination of these sections of society who hold power and have influence over the people, success is inevitable. This strategy can be best described as a “creeping coup”.

What intrigues this observer is that while the HUT generally maintains a distance from Islamic terrorist tanzims who immediately attract the wrath of the powers that be, why are they associating with terrorist group like the HUJI, and others in Bangladesh?

The HUT strategy in Bangladesh, as reported in the local media and from briefing given to the media by the security organizations, does not reflect its established principles.

So what is it? Do the HUT’s main leaders find that Bangladesh is ripe to transit to a Caliphate? Or, are there powers inside and outside the country who have convinced them in this direction?

It may be remembered that the HUT leaders in Bangladesh are not Arabs of the Middle East, but Bangladeshis with their native characteristics and idiosyncrasies. The issue is India, Indian influence in Bangladesh, and those in Bangladesh who favour good relations with India, and secularism. It boils down to the premise laid down earlier in this article.

It is reasonable to ask how seriously is this threat being taken in Bangladesh? At a seminar addressed by army Chief, Lt. Gen. Mainul Islam in Dhaka on January 23 on the issue, it was regrettable that there was no representation from the Navy and the Air Force. Are they certain that these two arms of the Bangladeshi armed forces have not been infiltrated? Or, is no importance being given to the development?

The aim is to create chaos in the country in one way or another. Prime Minister Sk. Hasina and her government stand in the way primarily. Next, India is a sensitive issue, and can be used to provoke some people. Putting the two together can divert the people’s focus from main issues and in course, derail the war crimes trial. Importantly, after the coup attempt, internet postings have come up to foil the 1971 war crimes trials. Because, if the trials were to conclude, the top level of JEI and some from the BNP would be eliminated. Pakistan, especially the ISI, would lose their Trojan Horses in Bangladesh. It would be a major defeat for them after 1971.

Certainly, Bangladesh has suffered a series of coups and attempted coups, and still survived to pursue its original goals. The new threat is very different. It aims primarily at a genetic change among the people of Bangladesh. This is neither stated lightly, nor should it be taken lightly. The future of Bangladesh is at stake.

Courtesy: SAAG (South Asia Analysis Group) 

Practice Yoga, become a better Hindu

Yoga can wreck your body and make you fat -- at least according to New York Times science writer William Broad. Between Maureen Dowd's column back in October, "How Garbo Learned to Stand on Her Head," on Broad's upcoming book, "The Science of Yoga: The Myths and the Rewards," and Broad's own piece last week, "How Yoga Can Wreck Your Body," Broad has taken up prime journalistic real estate to grind his axe with yoga. His conclusions about yoga, however, are premised on anecdotes about asana, not yoga, and the only thing really getting fat is the gap between the popular understanding of yoga and what yoga really is.

Yoga is a combination of both physical and spiritual exercises, the key word being "combination" with an emphasis on the spiritual. Yoga is the practice of preparing oneself to yoke, unite or experience the Divine within (i.e. the individual self with the Cosmic Self). Yoga is about attaining moksha, or liberation, from worldly suffering and the cycle of birth and rebirth. Yoga is a holistic and spiritual system of living that is essential to the understanding and practice of Hinduism. What yoga is not is asana alone.

There are eight limbs of yoga:

Yama (restraints)

Niyama (observances)

Asana (posture)

Pranayama (mastery of breath)

Pratyahara (withdrawal)

Dharana (concentration)

Dhyana (meditation)

Samadhi (higher levels of meditation)

Thousands of years of sage experience have revealed that there is a rhyme and reason to the limbs and the order in which aspiring yogis are to incorporate them into their lives. But before even stepping onto the mat, it is abundantly clear that the contortion circus many yoga magazines and classes appear to be, as well as the instances from which Broad draws his conclusions, are in direct opposition to key principles of the first two limbs of yoga -- the yama of ahimsa, meaning the practice of non-hurting, including oneself, and the niyama of brahmacharya, or the exercise of moderation and self-control (not just sexual).

Analyzing yoga as only exercise and then labeling it as hazardous to one's health is a false equation because yoga doesn't equal asana. And therein lies the crux of the problem of not only Broad's theses, but the secular and physical fixation in which the West -- and sometimes the East in mimicking the West -- has cloaked this ancient spiritual tradition. As a result, we are now bombarded with Naked Yoga, Hip Hop Yoga, Hot Yoga, Antigravity Yoga, Christian Yoga ... the list is long and just as ludicrous. The truth is that none of these are yoga simply because they incorporate some form of asana and say they are. What's the saying? "You can put lipstick on a pig..."

Almost three years ago, the Hindu American Foundation launched its Take Back Yoga Project (TBY). The initial aim was simple: to bring about acknowledgement of yoga's Hindu roots by highlighting not only the delinking of yoga from its spiritual framework by the yoga industry, but also the erroneous idea that yoga is primarily a physical practice based on asana. But as more than 20 million Americans dabble in "yoga" and the $6 billion yoga industry continues to bloat, the importance and scope of TBY has evolved from one of identity to that of filling in the public knowledge gap.

Just as equating yoga with only asana is a half-truth (more like a 1/8th-truth), so too is ignoring the spiritual, metaphysical Truths upon which yoga rests. Ever been to a studio which displays an Aum(Om) on its walls or a class which begins with the chanting of it? Aum, according to the Vedas (Hinduism's most sacred texts), is the primordial sound that resonated at the creation of our Universe and continues to resonate in each of us and all of existence. Ever close a session with hands at your heart and the utterance of "Namaste -- the Divine/Light in me bows to the Divine/Light in you"? Namaste encompasses the essential teachings of Hinduism that God is both immanent and transcendent and we all are inherently Divine. How about a class focused on sun salutations or Surya namaskar? Prostration to the sun was central to ancient Hindu worship and continues to be relevant. Chakras out of sync? Chakras are first mentioned in the Vedas and detailed throughout the Upanishads.

It is also problematic to approach the path of raja yoga, of which hatha and kriya yoga are a part, as a stand-alone practice. The full benefits of yoga cannot be experienced without also treading the sister paths of jnana yoga (path of knowledge), bhakti yoga (path of devotion to God) and karma yoga (path of selfess action) or the sister tradition of Ayurveda.

TBY's quest to educate the public requires being truthful about all of the aspects of yoga, even if it means that many people might steer clear of yoga or miss out on its universal physical, mental and spiritual benefits because it is rooted in "religion." But as HAF states in the position paper that formed the basis of TBY, "Hinduism, as a non-proselytizing religion, never compels practitioners of yoga to profess allegiance to the faith or convert. Yoga is a means of spiritual attainment for any and all seekers."

Ironically, while much of the yoga industry and mainstream media perpetuate the yoga is asana formula with an occasional nod to pranayama, the leadership of a number of the world's religions, such as the Vatican, warn their flock that yoga may lead one into exploring and experiencing Hindu belief and practice. I have to say, I concur. True yoga will not wreck your body or make you fat, but it may just open your heart, increase your capacity to see and be divine, and lead you towards a more pluralistic, Hindu view of life.