Talk:Assault on T. J. Joseph

Scope different
The Scope of this article is to examine in detail the background, execution and investigation of the hand chopping incident in Kerala. It is different from the existing article on T J Joseph. Later on that article can be linked to thisRick jens (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This title is not correct (especially grammar wise). Often when a crime is committed against a person (see WP:VICTIM and WP:N/CA}), there is not a need to have the article about the crime at a different place than that of the victim/perpetrator. The reality is that this title is not encyclopedic, and will not be searched for, and I fail to see how this is of a different scope (see the current article on Joseph). I have restored the speedy deletion tag with the hangon template. Please do not remove it. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I request you to do a google search on the following titles--

1-Professor hand chopped off Kerala--About 52,300 results (0.22 seconds)-- 2-Professor attacked in Kerala-About 41,200 results (0.20 seconds) -- These are just some of the combination of search results. As i mentioned the scope of this article is on the background, execution and investigation of the hand chopping incident in Kerala. I have redirected the T J Joseph article to this one.If the title need to be changed lets discuss about that. ThanksRick jens (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears that this article needs to be merged with T J Joseph; I don't see him as notable for anything but the attack. However, this text should be preserved, so I've removed the speedy deletion tag. The secondary question is whether Joseph is notable even in light of the attack; if not, then the article should be about the attack and be titled Attack on T J Joseph, Amputation of T J Joseph, Attack on a professor in Kerala, or the like. (Although, IMO, the third one is awfully weakly titled.) —C.Fred (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I've been bold and merged the two pages to Attack on T. J. Joseph. If consensus says another title for the article is okay, we can retitle. Note that any/all of the above can be used as redirects to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining/doing everything that I should have done yesterday. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

More appropriate title
As the originial author of the article entitled "T J Joseph", I consider the best title with the present content is something without the name of the person involved. Rather, as suggested, Attack on a professor in Kerala or something similar such as Handchopping incident in kerala appears to be more encyclopediac.--Peopledowhattheyoughttodo (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree with C.Fred. T J Joseph is not a notable person. He is one of the hundreds of Malayalam professors. It is the incident which makes him notable. He has been framed by some fundamentalist organizations who wanted to showcase their strength. Given that i would also recommend renaming the article to the incident like- Sharia law in Kerala, Sharia law implementation on Professor etc..

Rick jens (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've tried to find other similar attack articles to see how they're named. Most such incident articles are named after the victim, e.g., Disappearance of Brittanee Drexel. I think "Sharia law in Kerala" is too broad a topic, unless the scope expands to cover other similar incidents. Attack on a professor in Kerala is not an unreasonable title; I'm adding it as a redirect right now. —C.Fred (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent POV
The article has been written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. All significant views that have been published by reliable sources in the local media has also been added.

The Editer who added POV didnot mention the reasons in the talk page. I have removed the POV. I have made some changes based on the edits he has done. Please discuss Rick jens (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Rick, the article still looks sensationalist. I suggest the following:

--Sodabottle (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove block quotes for the sajan k george and Hindu editorial quotations. Ordinary quotes are enough.
 * Either add a reliable source or remove the uncited sentence.  It is reported to be the first brutal Taliban style attack executed at the instance of an alleged Sharia court- Darul Huda in India.
 * the last few sentences of the background section are unsourced
 * change the header "Execution-Hand chopping" to "Attack". (There was no execution and the attack was far larger than chopping off joseph's hand)
 * replace "the professor" with "Joseph" throughout. The first mention makes it clear Joseph is a professor. After that last names should be used everywhere.
 * Change the language from a current affairs narration to a past tense style. for eg "inspector has received death threats" to "the inspector received death threats"
 * Remove commentary everywhere .eg. if someone condemns this as a "barbaric act", then mention it in quotes. phrases like "raised its voice in unison" should be replaced by "unianimously condemned"
 * Have done a few of these. Yet a lot of uncited claims remain. The pov template must remain.  Arjun  codename024 17:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have changed the edit by Arjun ''' codename024  where he removed the Christian Minority institution affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University. His comment was " that point has nothing to do with attack. keep ur agenda in the bag) "

Do you know what is in my bag ? Follow the basic etiquettes while editing in Wikipedia.

It’s a Christian minority institute and that does has a point as the scope of the article are the events spread around few months happened after an alleged blasphemy.

Can you menion the other uncited claims which made you to add the POV ? The editers can look at it and improve the article.

Rick jens (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Sodabottle(talk)- Arjun has already made some of the changes you suggested.


 * The issue of sensationalism is due to the barbaric act. As editers i dont know if we can help with that. I have not tried to make it sound sensational.
 *  It is reported to be the first brutal Taliban style attack executed at the instance of an alleged Sharia court- Darul Huda in India- Let me see if i can pull the link from archives of local daily. Similar statements came in Mathrubhumi, Kerala Kaumadi and Mangalam dailies.


 * * Mangalam has recently reported that again. http://mangalam.com/index.php?page=detail&nid=321855&lang=malayalam. Some one can look at archive for Mathrubhumi and Kerala Kaumadi and other reports. I have added this citation. Rick jens (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * replace "the professor" with "Joseph" throughout- I don’t agree to this. Given the context of the incident, in my opinion it is better to use Professor. See the discussion on appropriate title.Rick jens (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope other editers would also join in improving this article.Rick jens (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The book Thirakkadhayude reethishasthram'(തിരക്കഥയുടെ രീതിശാസ്ത്രം) not written by P.T. Kunjumuhammed. It was authored by P.M. Binukumar. Here is the link from Bhasha institute website's catalog page 19--Vicharam (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed vandals and non-English references
This is an initiative to clean the articles. In order to wikify and to make the articles neutral, few edits are being done. Also, as a general Wiki etiquette, the non-english references are being removed. -- Indiashines (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the original version after the repeated vandalism and removal of sections on the Muslim radical organizations by some editors such as Indiashines in the pretext of clean up.

Also removed the neutrality checkRick jens (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added a speedy deletion on this article after "taliban style" for nonsense, and one more thing is that the honorable home minister kodiary balakrishnan said that there is no such courts named Darul Huda exists in parallel.
 * That's not a reason for speedy deletion - please have a read of WP:CSD and learn what it's for before you try tagging articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What a wonderful editing by some of the members of Muslim radical outfits in India. They are the terroor and yet sounds like they are the victims.Rick jens (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
State Intelligence Bureau reports termed it the first brutal "Taliban style" attack allegedly executed at the instance of Darul Huda, a Sharia court said to be operational in the model of Islamic courts,[6][dead link] but this was denied by the State government which confirmed there was no information about the existence of such courts but Dar-ul-Qada,[7] an initiative of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) existed to handle civil disputes related to family and property and no proof existed that they worked on the lines of the "Taliban-model."


 * What is the source of this ? According to the Minister Dar-ul-Qada was organised and operated by Muslim radicals like Popular Front of India. Rick jens (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rick, you can see numbers 7,8,9 next to these lines and clicking on them will lead you to the links in the newspapers cited. Do not remove properly cited facts unless there's a consensus on this page. NMKuttiady (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is blatant misrepresentation. Arabnews can not be considered as reliable source. Many of your edits are misrepresentations from media reports. - Rick jens (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Arab News wasn't the only source cited, neither did I quote anything from it that the other sources did not mention. And BTW ArabNews is certainly a reliable source. Its one of the largest newspapers in the Middle East with a 35 yr history with a readership across Europe and America including many ambassadors and diplomats from US/Europe/Turkey and elsewhere. If you want details, look here NMKuttiady (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * According to Asianet,- http://www.asianetindia.com/news/govt-parallel-courts-kodiyeri-2_177066.html - Taliban Model Court ‘Darul Khada’ was inaugurated last year in Malappuram district by All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) Secretary Maulana Wali Rahman- Rick jens (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The report clearly says Kodiyeri said it had come to government’s notice that certain committees headed by religious authorities by the name ‘Dar-ul Khada’ were functioning to resolve civil disputes of Muslim community but no complaint had been received that they were passing “Taliban model orders”.NMKuttiady (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to KeralaKaumadi, -- http://www.kaumudi.com/news/072810/kerala.stm#5 The PFI claims that a committee, headed by an Imam Council, to resolve personal disputes of the community was functioning with the recognition of the Muslim Personal Law Board, he said.- Rick jens (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The same link says no complaint had been received that they were passing "Taliban model orders" This is exactly what I added in my edit. NMKuttiady (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Hindu- http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/kerala/article536784.ece keeping close tabs on the activities of organisations such as the Popular Front of India that were reported to have organised parallel courts called ‘Dar ul Khada' in different parts of the State.- Rick jens (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The heading of the article itself is No report yet on ‘Taliban-model' courts: Kodiyeri - again the very same thing that I included in my edit.NMKuttiady (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Deccan Hearald, The PFI claims that a committee, headed by an Imam Council, to resolve personal disputes of the community was functioning with the recognition of the Muslim Personal Law Board, he said.- Rick jens (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a reprint of the same PTI press release used above in the Kaumudi article.NMKuttiady (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Indian Express- http://expressbuzz.com/states/kerala/religious-courts-exist-in-keral-admits-kodiyeri/193435.html Kodiyeri said that as per information, the Popular Front of India (PFI) had 20 feeder organisations. The PFI claimed that a committee under Imams Council, one of its feeder organisations, was functioning to resolve personal disputes of the community with the recognition of the Muslim Personal Law Board. Kodiyeri said that parallel courts could not be allowed in Democracy. He said that ‘Darul Huda’ was inaugurated last year in Malappuram district by All- India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) Secretary Maulana Wali Rahman.- Rick jens (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The same link also says The Home Minister said that, however, there was no proof that these courts worked on the lines of the Taliban-model.He said that as per information, the cases which came up before these religious courts were mostly of family disputes, border disputes, property disputes and cases relating to a particular community. which is exactly what I've written.NMKuttiady (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Summary- The court is run by a feeder organisation of Popular Front of India. Rick jens (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it is run by PFI or not, the issue is if they are linked to the subject of this article. From the minister's statement, no proof has been found so far linking the court and this issue and I don't think it needs a mention in the lead. I still didn't remove it so that other editors can add to it and come to a consensus later. Unfortunately, you've resorted to highly personal attacks which is unacceptable here. NMKuttiady (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess you are not responding to my allegations on your editing. My statement is that you have twisted the sources in your editing. It aint any personal attack. You have not responded, on the contrary you have been trying to remove the subject itself. This is not an issue which was reported in one or two dailies. It was reported in almost all the major dailies. A court which is run by a feeder organization of Popular Front of India has been whitewashed in the Wikipedia article. I have added another section and invited credible editors  to take a look at this part.Rick jens (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in responding to the personal attacks. This is not the place for it and it doesn't do anyone any good. If you feel I've twisted anything, please produce that here. Your words like Taliban mulla editors, illiterates,petro-funded wahabis etc are personal attacks which are not acceptable to Wikipedia etiquettes. I responded to each and every point of yours related to the subject and you've not provided answers for many of them. If you're not interested in reaching a consensus, we should move on to resort to some form of dispute resolution.
 * Each one has his or her own personal views and stances. The point is to stick to the sources and avoid personal opinions. I personally have no second opinion on the fact that this was a brutal criminal act. But that has no relevance here. Some of your edits look like they were just done blindly.
 * 1) How does |this one improve the article in any way? You simply removed the details of the incident.
 * 2) Why was the phrase in an examination question paper set by him dropped from the lead? Is that a disputed fact?
 * 3) When quoting the State IB, mentioning it makes it clearer than simply "It is reported". Thats why I added it.
 * 4) You removed the dead link tag from the mangalam link, despite it being a dead link. Any reason?
 * 6) About the university authorization of the text book, your cited link doesn't mention that. It only mentions that it was published by the particular government institute. Without any new references, you just added it again. You also removed without providing a reason, the name of the author of the book and the english translation of the name.
 * 7) About the protests in the Background section, the cited source does not include any organization name other than the Campus Front, which was retained in the article. The rest were not in the article cited. You restored them, without any references?
 * 8) Again, The IUML and Congress rallies and District Collector's all party meeting decisions,the professor's absconding, his subsequent arrest and bail were all added based on the Indian Express sources for each one of them. These are all relevant incidents that preceded the main topic. Why were they removed? Just blank statements of propaganda and misrepresentation are not enough.
 * 9) The statement that no action was taken against PT Kunju Muhammed is a blank personal opinion without any sources cited. Why was that restored?
 * 10) As for the "publicity stunt" allegation, you haven't replied to my earlier points. The relatives, witnesses and the news sources thought it relevant to include. But you felt otherwise. Isn't that your POV pushed here? If someone in the media has opined so, you can append it here that "so and so said this was a publicity stunt". Your statements are not supported by references, while the lines you deleted were sourced properly.
 * 11) The professor's current medical status is an important fact to include here and again it was backed by proper sources. Why did u find it unnecessary?
 * 12) The professor's apology was the main reason for the University decision. The attack was one of the other considerations. You dropped the main reason, and added the secondary reasons. Read the report from The Hindu cited there - A meeting of the Syndicate decided to revoke the suspension as he apologised to the university and the public for his error in asking a few questions which hurt religious sentiments.The Syndicate had considered the cruel attack on the teacher and his financial condition, a press note said.
 * This is not a discussion to judge the incident in any way. Its just that the contents of the article should be in a NPOV manner and properly backed by suitable references.NMKuttiady (talk) 08:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you haven't responded for the last five days despite being active, I've started applying the edits on to the article.NMKuttiady (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Taliban Courts run by Popular Front of India
I invite editors to evaluate the discussion. No offence, it would be very nice if the opinions are from credible editors. Not by some one employed by Popular Front of India or Jamaat-e-Islami Hind to fork their propaganda in Wikipedia. I am adding some more media reports about the Taliban courts operated by Popular Front of India

1. From India’s premier news agency- Press Trust of India- :: - Kerala Government today announced a probe into the activities of religious committees run by radical outfit, PFI, whose activists allegedly chopped off the hand of a college lecturer recently.Appropriate legal action would be taken if the Popular Front of India's committees were found to be violating the law, Home Minister Kodiyeri Balakrishnan told the assembly.Balakrishnan said it had come to government's notice that certain committees headed by religious authorities by the name 'Dar-ul Khada' were functioning to resolve civil disputes of Muslim community but no complaint had been received that they were passing "Taliban model orders".

As per information, PFI, whose activists are accused of attacking lecturer T J Joseph for preparing a question paper with alleged derogatory reference to Prophet Mohammed, had 20 "feeder organisations", he said. 2. According to Hindustan Times- :: '''The Kerala government has instituted a probe into the "Taliban-model" Islamist courts that run as a parallel judicial system in the state. The decision follows an attack on a Malayalam lecturer in which his right hand was chopped off — allegedly on the orders of such a court — because he allegedly framed a blasphemous question for a local college exam. '''Several people arrested for the July 4 attack on the lecturer are members of the radical Muslim outfit People's Front of India (PFI). Home Minister Kodiyeri Balakrishnan said the government was aware that panels headed by religious authorities were operating as parallel courts. "Committees like Dar-ul-khuda (God's Court) are quite active in certain parts of the state, but no complaints have been received that they were passing Taliban-model orders," he said. The government will not allow a parallel judicial system." The Taliban is the hardline Islamist group that ruled in Afghanistan a decade ago and is still fighting for establishing its rule in that country. CM V S Achuthanandan had recently said the PFI was planning to 'Islamise' the state. At least six such groups reportedly operate as counselling centres in the state's Malabar region, once considered the base of the banned SIMI.They regularly change names to evade monitoring. Some have benevolent-sounding names such as Karuna Foundation (meaning Compassion Foundation) or Samskara Vedi (an organisation that imparts morals and values).The police said they had found several incriminating documents from the office of Karuna Foundation recently

3. According to Economic Times- :: Kerala is looking into the veracity of media reports suggesting that Taliban style courts are functioning in the state, Home Minister Kodiyeri Balakrishnan told the state assembly on Tuesday. He said this in response to a submission raised by Congress legislator Aryadan Mohammed. '''Mohammed said the first such report of a Taliban style court appeared in Veekshenam daily this month and was followed by a series of reports in Mathrubhoomi daily. "The Popular Front of India (PFI) is primarily responsible for such Taliban model courts which I believe are functioning across the state. I will not go back on my fight against such forces, neither will my party. Organisations such as PFI, NDF (National Development Front), PDP (Peoples Democratic Party) and Jamat-e-Islami are all one and the same," said Mohammed. '''Replying to this, Balakrishnan said it was reported that these so called courts handle family issues, boundary disputes and also issues concerning faith. "But the government is yet to receive any complaint about such things. Whatever happens, we will not allow any such thing to happen. It has come to light that under the PFI, there are about 20 feeder organisations functioning and the government is looking into the functioning of the Imam Council also," said Balakrishnan which is said to have 4.According to IBNLive- :: Kerala Government to probe functioning religious courts Thiruvananthapuram, Jul 27 (PTI) '''Kerala Government today announced a probe into the activities of religious committees run by radical outfit, PFI, whose activists allegedly chopped off the hand of a college lecturer recently. Appropriate legal action would be taken if the Popular Front of India's committees were found to be violating the law, Home Minister Kodiyeri Balakrishnan told the assembly.''' Balakrishnan said it had come to government's notice that certain committees headed by religious authorities by the name 'Dar-ul Khada' were functioning to resolve civil disputes of Muslim community but no complaint had been received that they were passing "Taliban model orders". As per information, PFI, whose activists are accused of attacking lecturer T J Joseph for preparing a question paper with alleged derogatory reference to Prophet Mohammed, had 20 "feeder organisations", he said. The PFI claims that a committee, headed by an Imam Council, to resolve personal disputes of the community was functioning with the recognition of the Muslim Personal Law Board, he said. The Minister was replying to a submission of Aryadan Muhammed (Cong) who sought a ban on the operation of "Taliban model parallel courts" in the state. Advocating strong action against PFI, Muhammed said the government should take serious note of media reports about the functioning of such courts in the state. Muhammed said PFI, National Development Front and PDP of Abdul Naser Madhani belonged to same category of outfits and should be opposed. Madhani was an accused in the 1997 Coimbatore serial bomb blasts case that claimed 58 lives but was acquitted later. He also under the scanner of Karnataka police for suspected involvement in the July 2008 Bangalore serial blasts. Chief Minister V S Achuthanandan had said last week that PFI was aiming at "Islamisation of Kerala" and stood by his remarks in the assembly yesterday.

5. According to Central Chronicle- :: '''Stating that the government will not allow parallel courts like the 'Darul Khada', a Taliban Model Court, to function in the state, Kerala Home Minister Kodiyeri Balakrishnan today informed the State Assembly that the government was looking into reports if such parallel courts were functioning in the state. ' Replying to a submission, he said the functioning of such courts had not come to the notice of the government till now.Parallel courts and police could not be allowed in democracy,'' he said.Mr Balakrishnan said there were reports that certain committees under some religious organisations were dealing with personal grievances of the believers. It had also been reported that Taliban Model Court 'Darul Khada' was inaugurated last year in Malapuram district by All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) Secretary Maulana Wali Rahman, he said.Mr Balakrishnan said the Popular Front of India had claimed that such courts were under the Imam council, which was under the AIMPLB. The government was seriously looking into all the reports, he added.

Summary- 1)	It is under investigation 2)	There has been no denial of any link with the existing Taliban courts and hand chopping incident. On the contrary – the issue came in to light due to the hand chopping incident and according to the Kerala Minister it is under investigation. 3)	That the hand chopping incident was an execution of an order of a Taliban court in Kerala was reported by most Malayalam dailies. Hence the decision came in Kerala Legislative assembly where the Minister remarked that the court run by a feeder organisation of Popular Front of India is under investigation. 4)	Such an important revelation which came in almost all the major dailies should be included in the Wikipedia article. Rick jens (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is under investigation and since it was reported in the media, it was included in the article. It was not removed.Only, the other aspect of it, the denial from the Home ministry of "Taliban-model" orders leading to the issue that is the subject of the article was appended to it. Its not a matter of personal opinions. Its just that we properly add information which are included in the sources cited. Just FYI, neither me nor anyone I know of here get paid for this from anyone. Each one may have his/her personal opinions, stances and sentiments. But as long as we proceed AGF things can be put here in a good way. You've accused me of twisting things many times, but if there's anything I've added here thats not in the sources I cited, please mention that here. If you have any dispute on the sources I quoted, add them here. Don't just put blank accusations repeatedly. NMKuttiady (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability of incidents and Organizational names

 * Hi Rick, Please refrain from personal abuse towards others NMKuttiady (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There have been Taliban Mulla style edits to misrepresent the article. The entire article was redrafted to suit the propaganda launched by the Jamaat e Islami Hind newspaper Madhyamam Daily by the editors including Nmkuttiady. Though various links are provided, the matter has been twisted to suit what was printed in the radicals daily Madhyamam Daily Rick jens (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Taliban Mulla style is not a suitable language here. I've only added facts strictly from the mentioned sources. Please stick to the facts and issues and correct the article if they are wrong. NMKuttiady (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The introduction has been changed by these editors as follows, The 2010 hand chopping incident in Kerala occurred on 4 July 2010 at Muvattupuzha in the Kottayam district of Kerala, India.[3] T. J. Joseph, a professor of Malayalam at Newman College, Thodupuzha, a Christian minority institution affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University [4] had his hand cut off at the wrist for committing blasphemy in an examination question paper set by him. All those arrested so far by the police in the ongoing investigation are activists of the Popular Front of India.[5] State Intelligence Bureau reports termed it the first brutal "Taliban style" attack allegedly executed at the instance of Darul Huda, a Sharia court said to be operational in the model of Islamic courts,[6][dead link] but this was denied by the State government which confirmed there was no information about the existence of such courts but Dar-ul-Qada,[7] an initiative of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) existed to handle civil disputes related to family and property and no proof existed that they worked on the lines of the "Taliban-model."

---had his hand cut off at the wrist for committing blasphemy in an examination question paper set by him

--- Are these Taliban Mulla editors sharia court decides this ? See the word for committing. Is that according to the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and Popular Front of India '''all madman under the son named Muhammad are Prophet Muhammad ? '''. The petro dinar funded wahabis need some literature sense. To feed the illiterate who read the outfits daily and periodicals the entire matter has been twisted during the controversy and was printed in the radical outfits propaganda literature. Some of the editors including the named editor- Nmkuttiady, twisted the content from these periodicals in the Wikipedia article. Such actions are nothing but vandalism and gross misrepresentations. Rick jens (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Had you being a little calmer and more careful, the stream of hatred and abuse above could have been avoided. You can see here that It was some anonymous user, not me. I haven't twisted anything in the sources. Words like petro funded Wahabis are certainly unacceptable here. NMKuttiady (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

--- Darul Huda is not an initiative of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). India doesnot have sharia law. According to the cited reports, these courts are operated by a feeder organisation of Popular Front of India and it is clearly mentioned by detailed reports on the response of Kerala Minister. It has been twisted in article. --- The Background and the Attack has been re written as per the materials published by Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and Popular Front of India. Both of them are alleged terror networks under investigation.Rick jens (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the facts and sources and dispute on errors/corrections on the subject of the article, rather than come up with broad statements of accusations. I haven't cited any materials by any organization here, only generally acceptable media sources.NMKuttiady (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

--- I have also removed the statements added by this editor in the name of radical muslim organisations in Kerala. Most of them like Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind doesnot have mass base and it is nothing but publicity stunt to include remarks about these terror networks in their sister organisations hand chopping activity. --- I have also removed publicity stunt activities of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, Popular Front of India, Solidarity and Campus Front and their feeder organisations. --- The article is about 2010 hand chopping incident in Kerala not about the pubclicty stunt by Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, Popular Front of India, Solidarity and Campus Front and their feeder organisations. Please start a new article titled " Publicity stunt by Muslim radicals in Kerala" if the scope of such an article is with in the goals and objective of Wikipedia Rick jens (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The newspapers and the witnesses including the sister of the attacked who narrated the incidents mentioned the names in the sources I cited and its therefore relevant to the article. Its the same matter for the organization names. There were a few others also, but I included the ones with entries here in the wiki. Your removal of the names is based on your personal opinion which shouldn't be reflected here while contributing to Wikipedia. If you read in any reliable news source commenting on the incident as a publicity stunt, you can append it next to their statement in the article like "but so and so analyst dismissed it as a publicity stunt" with proper acceptable references. That way we have all the views included here. If its just your personal opinion, it should not be forced on the article.NMKuttiady (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

full protection. High level of IP vandalism. The Vandalising editors are not responding to the civic requests on their edits. The entire article was misrepresented and changed to the published propaganda materails from some radical organisations. It needs to be full protected to prevent propaganda and vandalism.Rick jens (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Full of POVs and Vandals
This document is having a total inbalance in its content. The references are provided not either English or they are mentioned incorrect information. I am pointing out few POVs propaganda information in the first paragraph only. Some expert in this subject need to look into this article and need to re-write the article and As media and goverment declared, there is no evidence of having a court called "Darul-Huda". Koumudi and Mangalam brought this "Exclusive News". But the reality, koumudi says: "Home Minister Balakrishnan said it had come to government's notice that certain committees headed by religious authorities by the name 'Dar-ul Khada' were functioning to resolve civil disputes of Muslim community but no complaint had been received that they were passing "Taliban model orders". This reference is twisted and the author put his POV and author has put his propaganda materials in it. It is noted that user:Rick jens putting a lot of his POVs in this article as his only edit is related to this incident and its lelated allegation. see :. It is suspected that he is a sock puppet of somebody already banned from wikipedia. This need to be also checked -- Indiashines (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh boy ! you need some help. Why don’t you please read the above sections in the discussion page about Taliban courts operated by Popular Front of India - Talk:2010_hand_chopping_incident_in_Kerala. Do you mean that I have published my propaganda in all these newspapers ?
 * Your complaint is about the begining paragraph. Why POV and Expert request? I am changing it to Expert request. Also I guess involvement of an expert is needed, not the forkers delegated by Popular Front of India and  Jamaat-e-Islami Hind to twist Wikipedia articles . My dear friend, I have heard that  Popular Front of India and  Jamaat-e-Islami Hind has their employees and agents to fork the Wikipedia articles.
 * See the edit history of articles relating to these two radical groups- Popular Front of India and  Jamaat-e-Islami Hind. Within seconds edits would be changed to propaganda materials published by both these organizations.
 * Your statements are fun – 1- As media and goverment declared, there is no evidence of having a court called "Darul-Huda".—Please read newspapers other than radical dailies Madhyamam Daily and Thejus. For your benefit I have included links.Talk:2010_hand_chopping_incident_in_Kerala
 * 2- Koumudi and Mangalam brought this "Exclusive News". But the reality- No it came in Veekshanam and Mathrubhumi and almost all the major national dailies.
 * Not responding to your personal allegations as I have only interest in subject.Rick jens (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Rick jens, I didnt put any personal allegations against you. I just pointed out that, you are only editing this article. see :. If you are editing this article only, this means that you have some special interest in this subject only.
 * InTalk:2010_hand_chopping_incident_in_Kerala you have make several points on the same subject Government today announced a probe, Kerala government has instituted a probe, Kerala Government today announced a probe all same subject. Except the 5th one, in which they talk about Darul Khada. But in your edit, it is Darul Huda and many editors in this page has corrected it as Darul Khada. Why you are still bringing the wrong information back.


 * You are again proving yourself biased based on your POVs with news papers. For you some newspapers are radicals and others are not radical. All newspapers have their vision and their propoganda. You are also identified as as a POV pusher by wiki admin: -- Indiashines (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

POV and Media propaganda revealed
The Jeevan TV sub editor has written an article in OneIndia portal and he is now apologizing on the writing of article about Talibanism.. So the Talibanism need to be removed from the article. People like him has proved their, right wing approach and they try to make a lobby in  media promoting false propaganda to defeat the nation (and also the credibility of Wikipedia). -- Indiashines (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Translation of the exam question
There are photos of the dialogue in question, but no English translation. It would be nice for the reader to be able to form his own opinion on the offensiveness of the exam question. The photos are a bit pointless for most non-Indian/non-Malayalam-speaking readers. 77.7.80.135 (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This Article should remove ,this is against the policy of WikiPedia
This article is seems that its an incident not to a group/community rather than a PERSON. And this article is completely describing the investigation and allegations against those who behind this attack.SO this is completely against the Policy of Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article#Things_to_avoid ''Attacks on a person or organization Material that violates our biographies of living persons policy or is intended to threaten, defame, or harass its subject or another entity is not permitted. Unsourced negative information, especially in articles about living people, is quickly removed, and attack pages may be deleted immediately.'' If we feel to keep this type of article in wikipedia,people should start to edit a new article like "Leg Chopping incident in Kerala / Head Cut incident in Kerala". Because ,there is no importance in this incident in the world community like 9/11. This is a local incident in the corner of the world i.e. Kerala. Also this is not an extra ordinary incident in Kerala or the world,Hand chopping is the usual incident in Kerala because of politic and religion. So my Opinion it should be remove from the Wiki as soon as possible. --Achu 07:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazlu2010 (talk • contribs)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Assault on T.J. Joseph. GB fan 22:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

2010 assault in Kerala → 2010 Dismemberment of Professor in Kerala, or 2010 assault in Kerala → Assault on Professor T. J. Joseph [As per Ohc's suggestion - Aurorion (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC) ] – The current name makes little sense. "Assault" is too vague, there would have been thousands of assaults in Kerala in 2010. The title says nothing about the victim, or the specific incident. A better name is required. Please suggest any other suitable names. Thanks. Aurorion (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC) - Aurorion (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly a dismemberment, but there was an attack. The proposed title is perhaps too vague as to the victim. I'd prefer to see it moved to Assault on Professor T. J. Joseph.--  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 08:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, your suggestion makes more sense. Support Assault on Professor T. J. Joseph - Aurorion (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment as per Ohc Assault on Professor T. J. Joseph - as an aside can someone please recover info from Malayalam press - did he recover any use in his hand? It'd be nice to end article with some human interest. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support move to Assault on Professor T. J. Joseph. In fact when I saw this page on my watchlist I was wondering what the hell this title referred to.Pectoretalk 17:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Move to Mutilation of T. J. Joseph. More accurate and doesn't need his academic title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: "Mutilation" sounds a bit extreme to me, for the title. Moreover, "assault" seems to be more common than "mutilation" in reliable sources in describing the incident. So on second thought, I think "Assault" is fine provided the whole title is changed to something less ambiguous than the current version. I think "Professor" should be retained because most sources address the victim as Professor T. J. Joseph. In fact, the notability of the incident is in a large part because the victim was a professor, and the attack was a retaliation for something he did as part of his job. Hence, "Assault on Professor T. J. Joseph" sounds better to me. - Aurorion (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? I'd have said that having your hand cut off falls into the category of mutilation in anyone's book! That is certainly the term for it when used as a judicial punishment. Assault just means hitting someone (or even just threatening someone)! It doesn't even have to cause damage. Saying he was "assaulted" implies a minor fracas, not the loss of a body part. As for "professor", we never use academic honorifics in biographical article titles, so I don't really see why we need to use it here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we're all on the right track here, but Assault on T.J. Joseph is probably the best option. We avoid WP:HONORIFICs and titles. (I personally favor the nonspaced initials, but I won't quarrel that point.) --BDD (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose "dismemberment" or "mutilation" as excessively/needlessly graffic. Prefer Assault on T.J. Joseph.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not graphic, just accurate. Wikipedia does not seek to censor because readers might be offended. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but "dismemberment" or "mutilation" can be read as overstatement.  It is better to understate the severity.  We don't want to have sensationalism in titles, even if this one wouldn't be so far across the line.  "Assalt" is reasonable, and the article lede provides detail.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with BDD and SmokeyJoe here. Assault on T.J. Joseph avoids sensationalism in the article title and avoids personal titles.  Better by far to have an article title that could be construed as understating the event than one that could be construed as sensationalizing it. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 13:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Assault on T. J. Joseph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140221211758/http://judis.nic.in/kerala/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=169133 to http://judis.nic.in/kerala/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=169133

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Assault on T. J. Joseph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://english.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/mmonline.dll/portal/ep/contentView.do?contentId=7683075&tabId=1&programId=1080132912&channelId=-1073865030&BV_ID=%40%40%40
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716073428/http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english/news.php?id=94349 to http://www.mathrubhumi.com/english/news.php?id=94349
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906223740/http://www.asianetindia.com/news/expected-termination-prof-tj-joseph_188165.html to http://www.asianetindia.com/news/expected-termination-prof-tj-joseph_188165.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

English translation in table
Though the table has a transliteration of the Malayalam text, I feel an English translation would help readers understand the controversy. Is the translation in http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9eCyKbDgzwYJ:twocircles.net/2010aug09/plot_divide_kerala_communal_lines.html&strip=1#menu-menumain-2 correct and appropriate? 82.0.78.54 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)