Jug Suraiya - Misunderstander Of Democracy

Jug Suraiya is a veteran journalist and an Associate Editor at Times of India. What sets him apart from other writers is the generous does of humour that he sprinkles his articles with. It seems, though, that the only area where he becomes ordinary and pedestrian like many other writers is when he talks about Islamic rule and democracy. I find it pitiable that after all these years of journalistic pursuits JS appears to have understood neither Islam nor Democracy. That might sound like a harsh comment on JS but that is what he demonstrates in his article titled ‘Cry Freedom’ in the TOI.

It appears JS cannot make up is mind whether Islam is compatible with democracy or not. He also discovers that Islamism, like all other religious or fundamental ideologies, is undemocratic as democracy is generally understood. That is where the stupidity begins. First, let me make it absolutely clear: there is nothing like fundamental Islam and moderate Islam. There is Islam, period! Islam is not just a religion, it is also political guide and the Sharia is the justice system. Needless to mention, under the Islamic political system all non-muslims are secondary citizens or ‘Dhimmies’. Surprisingly, despite having a failed state like Pakistan, an Islamic republic, as a neighbour most of our intellectuals are unwilling to see the truth. And the truth is Islamic rule and democracy are NOT compatible.

Here’s how JS starts off: “But even as cheering crowds celebrate their liberation, how secure is their new-found freedom? What form of governance will replace dictatorship? Will the newly-planted seed of democracy flower or will it fall upon the barren soil of another form of repression?” If he were in a race, JS would be faulted for a wrong start. Freedom from a dictator is not the same as a desire for democracy as we understand it. What in the world makes such intellectuals believe there is a ‘newly-planted seed of democracy’? Any mullah in any corner of the world will tell you that they do not respect ‘man-made’ concepts like democracy. Therefore, an Islamic system which follows the word of God, is the only acceptable form of life and rule for Islamists.

“Contrary to the claims of Islamophobes, Islam and democracy are perfectly compatible. For example, India's large Muslim community participates in the dance of democracy with as much enthusiasm as do its co-citizens of other faiths. That said, Libya's interim leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil, while emphasising that his newly-liberated country will be a 'moderate' Muslim state..”. What a load of rubbish! Here’s a challenge to JS: Conduct a referendum among all muslims in India and find out if they want India to be a democracy as it is or to be an Islamic republic. He will find the real answer. He is also blind to the reality that where muslims are in majority, like in Kashmir, they already want an Islamic system. It is no secret that within their own community muslims in India, despite democracy, practice their own set of codes and laws. That includes polygamy and Talaaq as he indicates will be practiced in Libya. Dance of democracy? This is another idiotic phrase coined by TOI. It almost sounds like the dance of cannibals before they feast on their hunted. Democracy is not a dance, it’s a serious process! And once again the misleading quote is about “moderate muslim state”.

The first sign of being moderate is the willingness to reform based on current realities. I wonder when intellectuals like JS will wake up and realise there is nothing moderate about a religion and its laws that are not subject to reform. Would killing of apostates be abolished in Islam? Hmmm! Killing a non-muslim in an Islamic state is not the same as killing a muslim. Homosexuals are punishable with death. Is that moderate and will that be reformed?

India’s muslims participate in the so called dance of democracy because there is no other choice. There is no way the majority Hindu community and other communities would have it any other way. If democracy survives in India it is primarily because of Hindus and Hindu tolerance and not for any other reason, despite many threats it has faced.

“Islamism, like all other kinds of religious or ideological fundamentalism, is essentially undemocratic, as the term 'democracy' is generally understood. But what if an Islamist, or other fundamentalist, regime is democratically voted into power? Is that a travesty of democracy or a paradoxical affirmation?.....For instance, in Gujarat, chief minister Narendra Modi was voted back into office by popular mandate despite his alleged involvement in the post-Godhra riots, and the subsequent cover-up that his administration is said to have engineered. Modi's brand of pro-majority fundamentalism - which has earned the name of Moditva - claims legitimacy through the ballot box: electoral victory as the equivalent of a dip in the holy Ganga which washes away all supposed sins of omission and commission”. Ideologies that are undemocractic were basically created by ‘intolerant’ people. Christianity managed to reform itself to a very large extent. The freest civilisation of Hindus managed to reform many of their evil practices. Even the Supreme Court of India is on record stating only Hindu practices are reformed by the government. So, the stupid logic that the possibility of being elected can wash away sins coming from a veteran journalist is all the more baffling”.

Let’s do a count. In India many leaders have been unseated by law or public movements or even by journalists. JS discounts this important fact. No less than a dictator like Indira Gandhi was unseated by a court and then by the people. A.R. Antulay was unseated by scams exposed by Arun Shourie. Chimanbhai Patel (Gujarat CM) was unseated by the Navnirman movement in 1974. B.S Yedyurappa has been unseated by a Lokayukta and there are many more such instances. Who claims that electoral victories wash away sins? Most recently it was J. Jayalalitha and later it was Manmohan Singh who claimed that the sins of Cash4votes was washed by the electoral victory of 2009. Why bring Modi alone into the argument? Simple, for the liberatti it is fashionable to denounce his twin electoral victories as victory of a fundamentalist. The electorate is not as stupid as JS would like us to believe, else Indira wouldn’t have lost the 1977 elections. These were all peaceful movements unlike the ones of the Arab Spring which have seen violence as the tool for change. That’s the difference between democracies and fundamentalist populations.

“But democracy is more than just the winning of elections. Democracy is not majoritarianism, the rule of the majority at the expense of the minority. A true democracy guarantees minority rights, with the individual citizen being the ultimate minority. But what if that individual elects to surrender her democratic rights not to wear a burqa, to get a job, to give her daughter an education?” Absolutely! An individual can surrender his democratic rights, the right to wear burqa and the right to remain in a closet forever. Howard Hughes lived his last years as a total recluse in the US, he didn't bother anyone. But deny a daughter education? This is where JS fails miserably to recognise that the daughter is an ‘individual’ too and she cannot be forced to give up her democratic rights till she attains an age when she can make a considered and informed decision. A daughter is not cattle for her parents to impose their closet beliefs. That’s life, Mr. JS!

“What if an individual democratically chooses to embrace an undemocratic ideology or way of life? Is such an individual an affirmation of democracy or a denial of it? Does democracy include your right democratically to renounce your democratic rights?”  Sure, that individual that JS so reveres can do so as long as it does not impede or intrude others’ lives or their rights or beliefs. Yes, democracy includes your right to renounce your rights. Democracy is not an ideology that asks you to exercise your rights every step of the way BUT it does expect that you will fulfil your obligations to society because it is made up of many individuals.

Famous American satirist and comic Bill Maher in his mockumentary Religulous on relgions had this to say in the concluding part of the movie:

“The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having in key decisions made by religious people. By irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken…..Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith, and enable and elevate it are intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. Most people would think it's wonderful when someone says, "I'm willing, Lord! I'll do whatever you want me to do!" Except that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know, they just know what happens when you die, I promise you, you don't. How can I be so sure? Because I don't know, and you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong. This is why rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence, and sheer ignorance as religion is, you'd resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife……That's it. Grow up or die!”

There you are Mr.JS. In his movie, Maher discusses Christians, Jews, Muslims and even Mormons. Believe me, he has nothing to say about Hindus or Hinduism. Why? Because there is really nothing to say. So save the crap about muslims dancing in democracy in India. Given the opportunity that can change very quickly – ask an Owaisi or an Imam Bukhari. If democracy survives in India it is merely because it’s the Hindu way of life. JS is not just a misunderstander of Islam, he sounds like he’s also a misunderstander of Democracy!

Get Swamy

Seema Mustafa, in response to Subramanian Swamy’s article in DNA wrote: “The language that the politician who heads the one-man Janata Party has used is reprehensible to say the least and I am sure there are laws in this country that can be invoked to take him to task for inflaming passions through complete falsehoods.” There you are, a veiled invitation to trigger happy secularists to drag Swamy into FIRs and court cases over what he has written. Did she manage to have the desired effect? You bet!

Now, if the statement Mustafa made had come from some ‘secular’ politician it would have been understandable. Unfortunately, it comes from a journalist. Journalists are usually the ones to shout themselves hoarse over freedom of speech and ironically it is a journalist who tries to invoke the law to prosecute someone who has expressed his views. This is not just true for Seema Mustafa, this is true for all the so called secular media which doesn’t hesitate to drag The Gita into concocted controversy but doesn’t have the balls to ever even mention the Koran. If the secularists will somehow and someday learn honesty then the likes of Swamy wouldn’t need to write provocative articles. Swamy also exposes how thin and flimsy the tolerance of these secularists are. I had the privilege of going to school but had to learn in later life that the moghuls that our school textbooks glorified were actually villains and enemies of Hindus. You can now expect all the self-righteous nonsense to flow from the minorities commission and other groups to follow.

Here’s the first one from a petition by constituents of Harvard University:

“Swamy proposes a truly shocking set of "strategies" for "deter[ring] terrorism" in an op-ed appearing in the July 16th edition of the Daily News & Analysis, an Indian newspaper. These include "declar[ing] India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus"; "[r]emov[ing] the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple and the 300 masjids at other temple sites"; "[e]nact[ing] a national law prohibiting conversion from Hinduism to any other religion"; and "[p]ropagat[ing] the development of a Hindu mindset…..Writing in the wake of the July 13, 2011, bombings in Mumbai, Swamy has exploited this event not only to promote a vision of Indian society based on Hindu supremacy, but to disparage and cast suspicion on the entire Muslim community in India. "Muslims of India," he states, "are being programmed by a slow reactive process to become radical and thus slide into suicide against Hindus."

The muslims in modern day India are not responsible for any of the past. But those denying the past and wilfully ignoring the aspirations of some Islamic agenda are clearly living in denial. Some of these honourable men and women come from the stock of the JNU, the Congress and the Communist ideology which glorifies the Islamic atrocities as secular rule in India. It takes rare character and courage to be as outspoken and honest as Swamy is. Sure, tar him as a maverick, call him names as Seema Mustafa does, ignore his multi-religious family as the media does and peddle lies about the history of India as the JNU lot do and you have a concoction for a heady clash of religions sooner or later.

Rahul Kanwal of Headlines Today, a bright journalist who is a rising star had this to tweet:

Rahul Kanwal:

Strange Twitter logic. When we do story against Cong, we are hailed as patriots. When we expose BJP, we are called Cong agents & traitors.

August 3 – 22.30

Oh yeah? Who exactly called you agents and traitors? What Rahul forgets is that he tends to ridicule the BJP and Hindutva at every step of the way. Every political party has factions and each faction has their leader. That is why we have elections too. Is that logic lost on journalists? If Rahul Kanwal was sensible enough he would find an answer to his tweet in his own stupid tweet he made earlier:

Rahul Kanwal

How can hand picked nominee of tainted CM be expected to prosecute boss to whom he owes elevation & existence. #MoralHighGroundOnCorruption

August 3 – 16.26

There, that stone-throwing, calling someone a hand-picked nominee ignoring the fact that there was a secret ballot held to elect the leader of the Karnataka BJP is not the doing of the Twitterati but Kanwal’s own way of casting aspersions. The election by secret ballot of a CM is one of the finest things to have happened in Indian democracy and a practice that should become more frequent and common and yet media brokers like Kanwal ridicule that process and then wonder why the twitterati are against him or his channel. No, they aren’t against you but the severe bias with which you report events and colour news items.This same bias colours every aspect of the Hindu-Muslim reporting that the media indulges in. Hindus are fair game, muslims are victims. That's the media line.Those who die are the aggressors!

Forget temples that Swamy talks about, I am not even willing to accept all the crap about even the Taj Mahal. If you go through the writings and investigation by Stephen Knapp there are lies that have been peddled through the centuries. Would the secularists dare and be open to a detailed investigation of the Taj Mahal? When Swamy talks about temples being destroyed, let’s start with the Taj Mahal itself. The rest can wait. Knapp’s site has sufficient evidence and photographs to warrant a detailed investigation. You may want to go through his site and many others who claim it to be a Shiva temple.

One needs go through the roads less travelled across this country through Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and many other states to notice the many small Islamic townships that have come up. Many of them resplendent in their riches and well-built houses and shops. You have to wonder in amazement where all that money and wealth comes from to set up such mini Islamic colonies. The radicalisation of those willing muslims who may wish to overthrow democracy and our way of life is not unique to India. Take a look at this little poster and the related news item:

Daily Mail: "Islamic extremists have launched a poster campaign across the UK proclaiming areas where Sharia law enforcement zones have been set up. Communities have been bombarded with the posters, which read: ‘You are entering a Sharia-controlled zone – Islamic rules enforced.’

The bright yellow messages daubed on bus stops and street lamps have already been seen across certain boroughs in London and order that in the ‘zone’ there should be ‘no gambling’, ‘no music or concerts’, ‘no porn or prostitution’, ‘no drugs or smoking’ and ‘no alcohol’. Hate preacher Anjem Choudary has claimed responsibility for the scheme, saying he plans to flood specific Muslim and non-Muslim communities around the UK and ‘put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term". The media in UK suggests it’s the work of sick minds but those living there have already wound up their shops and many others have exited the area and moved to other places where they aren’t threatened by these Islamists.

I have read news reports which mention Hindu homes were marked with yellow paint for slaughter in the erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. Swamy sort of warns you not to wait for such a day to arrive in India. Subramanian Swamy, I think, only alludes to the fact that there might be many stray muslims and muslim organisations in India who wish to emulate or secretly dream the dream that Anjem Choudary has. Are all muslims involved in that dream? Certainly not, but there are no muslim voices against those who nurture that dream. Their voices only come up when provoked by writers like Seema Mustafa to invoke stupid laws which should not exist in the first place.

For those petitioners in the US who want Harvard University to get rid of Swamy I have to say that they must constitute the greatest gathering of useful idiots who neither know the law nor the idea of freedom. The US supreme court once dismissed even a suit by religious leader Jerry Falwell who was featured in a silly ad by Larry Flynt (Of Hustler magazine) which was outrageous and even allowed a Nazi march through a predominantly Jewish area in Chicago. That is the kind of freedom of speech that democracies need.

The stupid hate speech laws should be removed. You don’t need freedom to say nice things. Real freedom of thought cannot be stopped by laws. You can stop speech but you CANNOT stop thought. And I wish our politicians would wake up and alter such laws. Whether you agree with Swamy or not, give him the space to utter whatever he wants. Let’s not forget that joker from Samajwadi party who announced a prize for the head of the Danish cartoonist who made the Mohammad cartoons. That man still roams free despite encouraging murder in public. Swamy hasn’t incited or encouraged any violence whatsoever. Those who can’t stand his writings are free to write against him. If not, they can shut themselves in their bathrooms and weep.

The best part of the whole drama is that Subramanian Swamy loves a court battle. Anyone dragging him to court would only be stupid enough to oblige him and when they do, there will be more worms crawling out of the secular can. These fools should realise that the ‘Get Swamy’ campaign will not work.

Freedom Of Speech – Geert Wilders Not Guilty!

Before you read further I would recommend you read the following posts:

Freedom Of Expression: The Geert Wilders case & Why we can neverhave peace with Pakistan

Why Liberal’ Media Is Scared of The Religion Of Peace!

On June 23 Dutch politician Geert Wilders was pronounced not guilty on accusations of hate speeches and hate crimes against Islam and muslims. He  is a politician who spoke out openly against Islamisation of his country and appeasement of muslims. He was accused of "hate speech" crimes for comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf and Islam to Nazism. Mein Kampf is banned in Netherlands and therefore Wilders demanded that the Koran be banned too. The accusations also included the documentary he made, FITNA, which includes graphic images of Islamic terror juxtaposed with verses from the Koran. It is strange that those mullahs who made, and keep making, violence-inciting speeches against non-muslims, were never put on trial but Wilders, who protested, was put on trial.

No religion should be above questioning, debate and even ridicule. Some of it may hurt the sentiments of religious people. That does not mean issuing death threats or killing people. We have seen people being killed for even questioning blasphemy laws.Wilders was even prevented by the UK government in January 2010 from screening his documentary on an invitation by members of the House of Lords. This was later overturned by the courts. Such is the length to which appeasers will go.

The Dutch MP is surely not the first one to question Islam or the verses in the Koran. In 1985 Chandmal Chopra and others filed a case in the Calcutta High Court seeking a ban on the publishing and distribution of the Koran. This is commonly known as The Calcutta Quran Petition. The reasons cited by Chopra were similar to those of Geert Wilders – that the Koran contains hate and violence-inciting verses against members of other communities or non-believers. The Calcutta petition thoroughly exposes the ‘pseudo-secular’ credentials of the Congress, the Communists and the media. The Koran doesn’t need to be banned nor should those who question any religion or religious book be prosecuted. Freedom of thought, speech and expression is more important than any religion.

British PM, David Cameron, is on record for stating ‘multiculturalism’ has failed in the UK. So is German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The reasons are all too well known. The Dutch are known to be a very liberal and tolerant people. But when intolerance and violence visits you because you question faiths it is bound to start a movement against the intolerant. Theo Van Gogh, related to the famous artist Vincent Van Gogh, was brutally murdered on the streets of Amsterdam for making a documentary on the sufferings of muslim women. Our government and media who hyper ventilate on issues of women are too scared to even talk about this subject. The greatest response to the plight of muslim women was the Shah Bano verdict reversal by a constitutional amendment by the Congress. Another clip from Religulous further demonstrates the hypocrisy. (Caution: Some images are graphic)

That is a high price to pay for freedom of thought and speech. Salman Rushdie had an international ‘fatwa’ on his head. Closer home MF Hussain had seen violent protests, threats and court cases. I condemn Hussain’s painting of India as a nude woman with names of states written on the nude body. Hussain was also selective in his pornography and his paintings were not banned in India. If he managed to annoy some Hindus it is more because his own community is incapable of taking the slightest offence or questioning of their religion. But that is as far as I will go. I am even more opposed to a media and a government that is selective in its defence of freedom of speech. In India, freedom of speech in the media and government, where religion is concerned, almost means you can offend Hinduism as much as you want but other religions are untouchable. 

Sonia Gandhi’s NAC has currently proposed a draconian Communal Violence Bill. Well, anyone reading India’s long history may understand that religious violence was brought into this culture by Islam and Christianity and not by Hinduism. They were minorities then too. We cannot alter history but we can attempt to ensure it doesn’t repeat itself. In the meantime, let’s celebrate Geert Wilders’ victory. It’s a victory for all those who stand for democracy and freedom.

Life, Liberty & The Pursuit of Sharia

Yesterday (March 7) there were protests in New York over a controversial hearing to be conducted by American Congressman Peter King. The hearings are about the radicalisation of the muslim community in the US. While it may appear to be singling out the muslim community Peter King has stated that “if Al Qaeda were recruiting any other group -- be they Jews, Hindus or Irish Catholics -- he would have the "same hearings for those groups." The truth is that it’s mainly members of the muslim community that have been indulging in terrorist acts in the US, demanding extraordinary privileges and then there are some who have gone to the extreme of wanting Islamic law in the US. Some states like Oklahoma have even passed legislation to outlaw Sharia law and there are debates on whether such legislation is actually needed.

The protests in NY have been covered extensively by our online media. Yet, when it comes to the outrages by members of the muslim community our media slips those under the carpet. Our liberatti sheds tears for the likes of Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti but there were no serious protests or reports over a Bangalore newspaper being attacked for carrying an article by Taslima Nasreen or the Statesman’s editors being attacked and dragged to court for reprint of an article about Mohammad. Those who attacked Taslima at a Hyderabad meeting roam free. The new dean of Darul-Uloom, Ghulam Vastanvi was attacked by his own community for suggesting that muslims are also progressing in Gujarat. This was twisted to infer that he supported Narendra Modi, when in reality he had made no statement endorsing Modi.

The uprisings in some countries in the middle east and north Africa have had our media gloating over how the protestors have revolted against dictators in the desire for freedom, liberty and democracy. The uprisings are justified and dictators should be thrown out. But what’s going to replace them? Secular democracy? It would be a rare mullah or Imam in the Islamic community who hasn’t strongly endorsed Sharia as the replacement. Tunisia is almost on the way to Islamic Sharia rule. Time will tell what happens in Egypt, Libya and other nations. The Muslim Brotherhood makes no secret of desiring Sharia law.

Omar Ahmed, the founder of CAIR (Council on American-Islam relations) is reported to have made it clear: "If you choose to live here (in America) ... you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam...Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant...The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth”. Though he later denied making the statement, the reporter stood by the report. CAIR is also linked to Hamas, the notified terrorist group. ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) has also encouraged Islamic law. The very idea of overthrowing the constitution of the USA and replacing it with Sharia law is a favourite idea of many Imam’s and muslim leaders. This, coupled with the number of terrorist attacks carried out by Islamic groups, does seem to justify the hearings that Peter King has proposed to conduct on radicalisation of muslims in America.

The problem is many Imams and muslim leaders abuse the very freedoms that democracies allow them. Anjem Choudary, recently promised a march to the White House to demand overthrow of the US constitution and its replacement by Sharia law. (Later cancelled due to ‘overwhelming support’!) Now, Anjem Choudary is not even an American citizen. He is British, the judge of a Sharia Court in Britain and is a champion of the concept of an Islamic UK and USA. Yes, Britain has over 85 Sharia courts. Some of his previous organisations have been banned in the UK. And yet no serious Muslim leader questions this man. I seriously doubt any muslim leader or prominent citizen in India would protest the desire for Sharia law to replace our own Indian constitution. The Imam Bukhari of Delhi is on record stating ‘Islam will rule India again’. There can be no denying the freedom to express such views. But this is a clash of ideologies that will eventually lead to a serious war, civil or world. Events in the Mideast and Africa have the potential to generate permanent conflicts. The ones cheering the uprisings the most aren’t those who value democracy. They are the ones who see the opportunity for an Islamic Caliphate.

'The White Masjid' - sharia4usa.com

If some Hindu jerk were to strongly suggest that our constitution be replaced by the ‘Panchatantra’ I would be revolting at the idea and would be strongly protesting. Yes, I would have a good laugh too! Yet, the idea of Sharia law in major democracies through the overthrow of highly cherished and valued constitutions does not seem to evoke any strong protests from muslims. And I doubt if there is any muslim leader who does not desire Sharia law in India too. Time will tell if they speak up. The pic here from Sharia4USA.com says it all. The site desires a ‘White Masjid’!

That multiculturalism has failed has now been accepted by many European leaders. The problem lies mainly with the muslim community. Two things seem to dictate this problem. Terror and Money. The Libyan and Saudi funding of many prominent universities in the UK has had many heads rolling. (Libya and the LSE: Large Arab gifts to universities lead to 'hostile' teaching) It is a matter of speculation but one wonders how many media and other outfits in India are being similarly funded by Islamic money. If not money, the extremists will use terror tactics of the kind that killed Salman Taseer, Shahbaz Bhatti, Theo Van Gogh, and continue to threaten the lives of many others who question or criticise Islamic practices. While protesting the hearings of Peter King, muslims would do well to question why their community is under the spotlight. It is the consequence of their own community members’ doings and not of others. They are not the victims here.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the American ‘Declaration of Independence’ and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language. And these words represent the inalienable rights of humans (Wikipedia). But if Anjem Choudary and many like him have their way,  the constitution would have a new preamble : ‘Life, liberty and the pursuit of Sharia’. I don’t think I want that, do you?