Backdoor Sharia

Come election season and the skillfully engineered controversies surface; particularly where it concerns the minority community. It has come to such a pass that people largely do not think of Parsis, Jews, Sikhs or even Christians as minorities. Minority is now consistently understood to mean ‘muslims’. All fake arguments by politicians and media in defining minorities any other way can now be safely flushed down the drain. It practically means muslims! Period! This syndrome is not unique to India but a universal phenomenon wherever the muslim population has steadily increased over the years. Naturally, after the initial announcement of 4.5% quota to muslims in Central jobs, Salman Khurshid was emboldened to announce a 9% quota if Congress was voted to power in UP. Although not stated, it would be naïve to believe Khurshid’s statement doesn’t have the support of his party. Suddenly, in this climate of muslim appeasement comes a fatwa from Deoband. The mullahs want Salman Rushdie banned from entering India to attend a literary festival at Jaipur. A well-timed, well-engineered shot if you like.

So no political party wants to comment on this outrageous fatwa but instead Salman Khurshid and the Rajasthan CM, Ashok Gehlot, advise Salman Rushdie to stay from the event. Gehlot, whose cabinet included murder accused, went on to even state that Rushdie’s visit could create a law and order situation. And the media? Oh well, instead of condemning the fatwa and the govt’s inaction goes into another orgy of debates. Yes, sick and mindless debates on an issue that they should have been strongly protesting. This is neither about Satanic Verses nor about hurting religious sentiments. First and last this is an issue of a Person of Indian Origin (PIO) who was born in Bombay and has the legal right to visit India. This is an individual’s right guaranteed by our laws which our govt is obliged to protect. The govt is failing in that obligation and the media is party to the crime.

Typically, A. Owaisi, the MP from AP had to be on the TV debates. He who recommends all Indians convert to Islam stated: “we are not against criticism but will not tolerate blasphemy”. It would need Einstein to discover how criticism of the Quran will not be treated as blasphemy by a mullah in any country. Such is the nonsense peddled in the media in the garb of debate. And cleverly the queen of Telly trolls Barkha Dutt states in a tweet: “If this nonsense controversy keeps @SalmanRushdie away from Jaipur we should all be ashamed as Indians. The culture of intolerance abhorrent”. Oh really sweetheart?  Instead of directing any protest or anger at the mullahs of Deoband or other intolerant cowards in the Congress she wants ‘Indians’ to be ashamed. Think about it every time these ‘sickulars’ find their friends committing horrors they want ‘Indians’ to be ashamed. That is pretty much like Rahul Gandhi’s silly statement: “I am ashamed to be an Indian” (At Bhatta Parsaul). Of course, any issue concerning freedom of speech for the telly trolls would not be complete without raking up M.F.Hussain. The painter’s works were neither banned, nor was he forced into exile as the media constantly propagates. He was a fugitive of his own choice.

Contrast this with the United Kingdom where Rushdie lived when the fatwa on his life was issued after Satanic Verses was released. His adopted country went all out to protect him and provided him complete security from would be killers willing to act on the fatwa on his life. That was in the late 80’s. Things have changed since then in the UK too. Since then the UK has also fallen into the trap of appeasement through failed multiculturalism. Since then there are now over 85 Sharia courts in the UK. Since then, over 50 churches have been converted to mosques in the UK by real-estate purchases. Living conditions and habits of the other residents were forced to be changed due to such pandering to muslims. There are muslim ghettos where other residents do not venture often. As for home-grown Islamic terror in UK, that is another topic altogether.

Three years ago the UK denied entry to Dutch MP Geert Wilders to screen his movie FITNA in the UK. Fitna is a short documentary on the Quran made by Wilders quoting verses he claims spread hatred and violence and for which the Quran should be banned in the Netherlands. He advocated that if Mein Kampf by Hitler is banned then the Quran should be banned as well. Now, Wilders wasn’t invited to UK for a private literary festival. He was invited by members of the House of Lords to screen his documentary in the upper house of the British parliament. Yet he was denied entry and later allowed only after a court allowed him to proceed. All signs of an increasingly Sharia-compliant democratic Britain. Imagine, this is the UK with a much more liberal freedom of speech and expression which has plumbed to such depths in appeasement of muslims. That’s a far cry from the days when Rushdie’s freedom was so strongly protected by the UK.  Geert Wilders was also prosecuted in his home-country of Netherlands for hate-speech and spreading hatred against muslims but later acquitted. Ring a bell? Well, closer home there is an attempt to prosecute Dr. Subramanian Swamy for a strong article against Islamic terrorism. Swamy’s courses that he taught at Harvard were also cancelled owing to petitions by vested interests. Oh, should I say Sharia-compliant lobbies? Once again, instead of strongly standing behind Swamy’s freedom of speech the Indian media was thoroughly delighted and announced “Harvard snubs Swamy”. It is increasingly clear that the Indian media doesn’t stand for freedom of speech or expression but for the ideologies they pursue. Does Indian news media really stand for freedom of speech? Bluntly, most of them qualify to be in the harem of some Arab prince with his Persian gloves on.

Okay! Suddenly we have Vinay Rai, a new crusader for protecting religious sentiments and other mental cavities. He is a journalist with some remote Urdu publication called ‘Akbari’and covers politics. He has filed a petition in a Delhi court against Google and Facebook. Let me quote him from WSJ: “The content I have submitted to the court deeply offends several religions including Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. It involves pages and groups where users have mocked Hindu gods and goddesses, Prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ. Such content can create communal riots across the country. These are just a few examples…My intention is to ensure that the sentiments of any religion or community are not hurt”. Well, religions of the world must be so frail and fallible that it takes the Vinay Rais of the world to protect them and people’s sensitivities. In response to his petition the Delhi court even told the ISPs: “…if immediate steps were not taken, the websites would be blocked the way it happened in China”. We're used to a lot of Chinese goods, now our courts will deliver China-style bans too. Of course, our freedom loving UPA has approved the prosecution of Google and Facebook. And yes, it calls for another round of TV debates.

This time around you have Vinod Sharma of Hindustan Times referring to some video of Pakistan PM Gilani and Sherry Rehman on Youtube which according to him is tasteless and abusive. Well, maybe tasteless to him but it’s a silly incident, maybe unintentional, but the video has been viewed by over 2.5 million people. I guess all of those people must be idiots according to our media. People, out of curiosity, watch content and move on and not crib like politicians or journalists. And the panelists recommend a concept called “Self-censorship”. Laugh if you will, but that’s true. Why self-censorship for putting up stuff on the internet? People are smart enough to know what to access on the net and that freedom to choose is also self-regulation. I have serious doubts if Vinay Rai gives a damn about Hindu or Christian sentiments and the nature of his journal suggests he might have received mostly complaints from muslims, if any at all. And in cases like these there are usually far bigger powers that seek to score a larger political goal as censorship. Why wouldn't Sibal be willing? 

Slowly but surely the govt seems bent on making everything sharia compliant. The sheer size of abuse our media hurls on Hindus and Hinduism is testimony to the fact that Hindus don’t get offended too easily. The only ones that do are muslims and appeasing them by being sharia compliant is the best way for the Congress and much of our news media. Sharia is already practiced in Kashmir but there is backdoor sharia through the Congress and media in the rest of India as well.

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!