Retributions analyses the Islamic problem and reaches an intriguing inference: the real problem according to him, is not Islam but the Islamic state (Link courtesy: Desipundit). That is really intriguing not in the least because it’s the first time I’ve come across somebody taking this perspective, but because of the threads he has introduced to bolster this inference.

Which is why it begs a deeper look.

The opening sentences actually serve to derail what follows. It derails because of the author’s ignorance of Islam.

The question whether or not Islam is a peaceful religion has been the subject of a lot of debate. Some cite verses from Quran to prove how Islam is a religion of violence spread through the proverbial sword while Muslims argue that actually it is a religion of compassion and the terrorists are simply misinterpreting Islamic teachings.

This blog has always held that this is a largely irrelevant debate.

It definitely is not irrelevant because it is the root to understand Islamic terrorism.

Historically, India, and now, the West has failed to understand its true nature, which is why India was repeatedly invaded and its native population, converted at swordpoint. And I’m not even talking about the large scale destruction it wrought on several fronts: social, cultural, etc. For the record, while the world views them as terrorists, their consciences are clean: in fact, they’re convinced their work is a pious act. And it is Islam that convinces their consciences. They are the modern-day versions of Mohammad Ghaznavid, Ghori, Babar and Aurangzeb.

Those who claim it is a “religion of peace” are either the celebrated “moderate” Muslims who say so mainly out of fear, or the rest who say so out of fear/some other motive, or are plain ignorant.

Some of the reasons why the author says the debate is irrelevant:

Enough evidence can be cited from almost any religious text to show how every religion promoted violence and discrimination at one point of time or another. The very nature of religion as a group which can only expand its power by enlisting additional hands is enough to ensure that it can never behave fairly to those who choose a different path.

This one truly gets my goat: lumping all religions together. It merely shows the author hasn’t read at least the basics of any of these religions, but has merely relied on secondary accounts. Perhaps he has but this post doesn’t give that impression.

Islam and Christianity historically have been in the business of one-upmanship: Mine is the Only True God. Their texts essentially say the same thing but in a different language. However, using “discrimination” to extend the same argument to lump Hinduism into the same category further exposes the author’s lack of knowledge about it. Here are the words: Enough evidence can be cited from almost any religious text. Show me one instance where Hinduism has instigated violence. It has used violence to defend itself; surely, the author doesn’t find this objectionable. Also, show me one Hindu text that says any or all of these things:

• Hindusim is the only true religion
• Followers of other religions are doomed forever/sinners/heathens, and that they should either die or be converted to Hinduism
• Kill idolators (ok, in this case, kill non-idolators)
• Convert the whole world into darl-ul-Hindu (whatever its equivalent)
• X Hindu prophet was the last Prophet. Ordinary souls can’t aspire to directly reach God, so they need him.

I ask all these because they are the root of all religion-sanctioned violence.

Caste-based discrimination is not the same thing as these. Caste existed in Hinduism but Casteism is a post-Independence phenomenon. Historically, people from the lower castes also worshipped the same Gods in the Hindu pantheon: no upper caste person ever forbade a lower caste from worshipping Krishna/Durga unlike the Abrahamic religions. Moreover, we find hundreds of instances of lower caste Hindus worshipped by the upper castes. What the heck! Lord Krishna in today’s caste scheme was from a lower caste. Try and apply this to Islam. A Hindu can curse Gods and get away with it. If you are a Muslim yourself, try cursing Mohammed.

Which is why the debate is highly relevant. To put the problem in perspective. It is Islam, and not some Islamic state that is the problem as we’ll soon see.

It is also relevant from another perspective: the very nature of Abrahamic religions threatens the existence of others like Hinduism and Buddhism, which have much to offer the world and which don’t impinge on others’ freedoms. More crucially, neither Islam nor Christianity can be called religions in the sense the word is used: for instance, spirituality, universal experience, and so on. Islam and Christianity can more accurately be called tools to further imperialism. There’s no such thing you can associate with Hinduism.

The point is, if you want to criticise religions make sure you understand them correctly.

Thus, the important question is how is that religion interpreted now. (Italics in original)

The more appropriate question is: what do its source texts, commentaries, works of its leading proponents, luminaries, scholars, et al, say? Because that is what you’re supposed to interpret. As far as Islam is concerned there’s a mountain of such material available.

The crucial point here is that though Western Europe is Christian majority, it is not a Christian state and the same goes for Hindu Majority India. Despite the religious affiliation of their people, these countries are not theocratic states but liberal secular democracies.

As for the other Western European nations you mention, they were all Christian states which had witnessed centuries of religion-sponsored bloodbath before they were fed up with it and decide to move on. Yet, the West is decidedly Christian in culture and character: we rarely see the West condemning mass conversions its own citizens carry out even as I write this. Conversion is violence. If the Tehelka report is to be believed, Bush himself provides active support for conversion activities in India. This sorry record for one of the most secular government in the world. What this means is that while Church-State separation has been achieved in the West, we see some steep behavioural double standards especially where rights of other nations are concerned.

And what made the Indian people adopt a democracy in 1947? Answer: the heritage of this nation, or to be more precise, the foundations of Hindu Dharma. Western secularism is a far narrower concept when you compare the universal spirit of accommodation that is at the root of Hinduism. Let’s simply assume India was a Muslim nation (like say, Pakistan) ruled by the British till 1947. What’s the bet that it would have opted for democracy when the Brits decided to leave? And you need to look no further than at the group of Indians who refused to live in what they called “Hindu India.” They chipped off a chunk of land and called it Pakistan. This points to a larger phenomenon, which is variously called the Bloody Borders .

That my friend, is the reason India is a liberal (pseudo)secular democracy. Why can’t you say the same thing about Pakistan, which still professes democracy? Pakistan came into being for the very reason, which you say is irrelevant as a point of debate: Islamic tenets.

The problem with the Islamic world is not that the majority of people are Muslims, the problem is that the state is Islamic.

Huh? What is this supposed to mean? And who gets to choose or define what is an Islamic state: the Mullah? the Sheikh/Prince/King? Anyway, I’ll leave this with what a commenter on the post said . More appalling ignorance of Islam follows:

Their constitutions actively promote one religion(Islam) and attempt to run the country according to Islamic tenets. Thus, an institutional framework exists which (directly or indirectly) promotes violence and discrimination against religious minorties. And of course, in due course, this extends to hatred against those who do not share the faith, whatever their geographical location.

I sincerely suggest the author to read up the basic tenets of Islam, which he intersperses his blog with. What this means is very simple: Muslims hate non-Muslims because of state policy. Brilliant. I hate to say this, but I’ve not read anything this ridiculous so far. The reason as I’ve said umpteen times is the contrary: the root for the said hatred is to be found in Islamic tenets.

Here are a few questions which I’m hoping the author would answer:

• Why does a Muslim turn in the direction of Mecca five times a day during prayer, irrespective of which country he is praying in?
• Why does a Muslim strongly believe in the concepts of: ummah/dar-ul-Islam?
• Why does a Muslim revere Arabic as the purest language although it is not his native tongue?

Beyond that point, the post descends into chaos. Here goes:

A Hindu state or the Christian state would treat its minorities the same way as the Islamic states do.

On what grounds did the author arrive at this fantastic conclusion? Although I partly agree with the remark on the Christian state bit because of what’s happening in the North East and other tribal areas in the “Third world.”

Nothing the author has said earlier in the post can derive this conclusion about a tyrannical Hindu state unless we accept the author’s equating Hinduism with Islam and Christianity. I’ve already shown it is invalid. So all we’re left with is the author’s:

• pathetic ignorance of basic Indian history
• ignorance and/or half-baked understanding of Hinduism
• Either, or both of the above

As long as you can remember, a historic Hindu India gave other cultures/religions the proverbial open-armed welcome. Starting with Alexander, all external invaders found Hinduism valuable and actively patronized it. An active, religion-mandated campaign to destroy Hinduism started only with the Arab barbarians and later, the missionaries. Also, while we’re at it, please show me only five instances of Mosque destruction by Hindu kings in the manner of their Islamic counterparts’ large scale temple destruction. The fact that they didn’t derived from their naive belief that Allah is a God like a Hindu God. Where does this lead us to, again? Back to the Koranic/Mohammad-inspired hatred for idolatory.

Contrary to what you state, a Hindu India has the potential to show the world the means of harmonious living: history is proof to this statement. The Western solution for harmonious living has so far been secularism, which has proved powerless in the face of terrorist threat. England for example, can do nothing to stop terrorist-breeding for precisely this reason: its secularism guarantees the most fanatical Islamist freedom of thought and speech, which the said fanatic will use to turn upon England. Any talk of “Muslim suspects” will have the whole media and political apparatus hollering about “poor minorites being unfairly targetted.”

The author then follows up with the Mandatory Dose of Modi-bashing. I’m no fan of Modi but why does he find a place in an article that’s supposed to examine the “Islamic problem.” Perhaps, because the author doesn’t consider Islam to be a problem at all. Anyway,

Will a Hindu India led by the likes of Narendra Modi be fair to the minorities?

Secondly, the minorities aren’t in any particular danger. In India at least. No Islamic nation provides a Hajj subsidy to its own citizens. India does. And why does every talk of a Hindu state always mean a Hindu State of India led by the likes of Modi? Why doesn’t it include the likes of say Sri Aurobindo, or Patel? Why does the author choose to rely on biased media accounts of what constitutes the definition of a “Hindu state.” Has the author read Elst’s seminal works on the same topic: Decolonising the Hindu Mind , for starters?

But wait, there’s some added meat to Modi-bashing:

My point was that even if Mr. Modi became the PrimeMinister of India right now, he cannot violate the rights of the minorties because of the constitutional mechanisms in place.

Followed immediately by:

However this is the crucial differentiating point, Mr. Modi as the PrimeMinister of a Hindu theocratic India can wrek havoc.

Pray, how can Modi as the PM wreak havoc if our Consitution provides the mechanisms you said they provide? And again, why does the author choose to see only Modi as leading the imagined Hindu State of India? And again,

Will a Hindu India led by the likes of Narendra Modi be fair to the minorities?

It will, because by the author’s own admission, Indian Constitution is strong enough to stem the evil designs of Mr. Modi & co. That brings us to the question of the minorities themselves. How would the author explain their exemplary behaviour in a sample of instances:

• An Imam Bukhari proclaims secession and nobody says anything
• Riots erupt in Mau because the minorities don’t like Hindu festival processions
• Muslims kill Hindus in Marad and the case is quietly buried
• Muslims torch a train coach but that’s brushed aside because it’s comfortable to shift the focus to Modi

If you live in a pluralistic society you better assimilate. Nobody is asking you to abandon your belief/religion/faith. At the same time, you can’t ask for separate concessions at the cost of others.

Finally, the author’s brilliant conclusion:

Thus to judge Islam from how the Islamic states behave is completely wrong. Infact it misses the lesson which we must learn, that the only way to build lasting peace in the world is to discard theocracies and spread the message of liberal secular democracies.

A non-sequitur by the way. And an erroneous one at that because the author has got all his facts about Islam horridly wrong as I’ve demonstrated above. For starters, here’s what the Prophet in the Koran says:

The non-believers are the worst of creatures, they shall be in Hell-fire to dwell forever therein? (Koran 98.6)

They are the cause of tumult and oppression, that they block his path to Allah, that therefore they must be slaughtered… (Koran 2.217)

The unbelievers spend their wealth to hinder men from the path of Allah, and so they will continue to spend. (Koran 8. 36-37)

Strongest among men in enmity to the believers you will find the Jews and Pagans? (Koran 5.85)

The last one is especially pertinent to puncture the author’s claim that the Islamic state is somehow to blame. What about all those Muslims in Western nations, born and brought up in the secular, liberal tradition and yet, suddenly end up bombing trains and cities? Surely, UK wouldn’t count as an Islamic state (it’s getting there with Londonistan ). Where then falls the claim of Islamic state and not Islam as the problem?

And lastly, when the author can’t hide his admiration for Renaissance, he should at least get his facts right:

Going back a couple of centuries, the genius that was renaissance was only unleashed with the decline of the Church .

It’s actually the other way round. I remember reading in my sixth standard world history book that the Renaissance was largely responsible for defanging the Church.

Postscript : I sincerely request the author to read up stuff before attempting posts of this nature.