How Islam is Enforced
Monday, 22. June 2009 - 1:26 AM
The latest evidence.
The Bandra police has filed a case against Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan for allegedly making comments about Prophet Mohammad but the actor said it is a writing error and not a thought or view that he believes in.
“We have registered an FIR against Shah Rukh Khan after we received an application from an advocate who alleged that the actor made some statements hurting the sentiments of Muslims….The complaint was registered against Shah Rukh and the publisher of the magazine in which the purported remarks were published.
Complainant Khalid Babu Querishi alleged that in the July issue of the ‘Time and Style’ magazine, Shah Rukh had used objectionable language against the Prophet which is unacceptable,”….
What did Shahrukh actually say? Here, in his own words, from Time and Style:
[Interviewer] The most impressive figure in history, according to you?
There are lots of them, some negative ones like Hitler. On the other hand there are nice ones like Napoleon, Winston Churchill and if I can call it history, then Prophet Mohammed and from recent times – Nelson Mandela. And also Gandhiji and Mother Teresa who are equally impressive.
That was enough to get the Islam-in-Danger bogey all worked up. You need to assign opposite meanings to the words Shahrukh Khan has used to take offence. If anything, he has spoken with polite deference to Mohammad. And this as an extremely passing statement in the entire interview in a magazine catering to the severely dumbed-down. But the Islam-in-Danger brigade’s threat worked. As always.
Shahrukh was almost instantly on his knees.
…the actor…said that there is no more important figure in history than Prophet Mohammad. “Being a Muslim and standing up for the tenets of Islam is my most important agenda,” he said.
Meanwhile, none of our liberals have given this the serious treatment it deserves but I am boxing with air. And because I say this, I’m branded a Muslim-hater, communal, fanatic, and all the other nice designer labels.
And no Pink Panties (TM) to support poor Shahrukh Khan.
Tags: Commentary, India, Indian Media, Indian Politics, Islam in Danger, Islam Watch, Media Watch, Politics, Pseudosecularim Hall of Shame, Secular Media, Secularism, Shahrukh Khan, Society & Culture, Time and Style
22. June 2009 - 2:03 AM
I am actually amused and delighted to see a Disney-Islamist (there is no other word to describe SRK) get tangled up with the real thing. If memory serves me right – he refused to touch Lata Mangeshkars’ feet, not because he wanted to assert that as an individual right (understandable enough), but because he said it was against Islam i.e. the only way he will sow he is a good Muslim is by not bowing down. Add the absolute silliness this guy gets upto in the movies and all I can sya is – it could not have happened to a more deserving guy!!
22. June 2009 - 2:05 AM
I say it’s time for the BJP to come out in support of SRK on this issue [as a fine example of what they mean by pseudo secularism].
22. June 2009 - 3:31 AM
SRK wasn’t at his knees after the controversy. He’s been like that (closet Islamist) for a very long time. Just watch the number of times he, or for that matter any other islamist, uses the word inshallah and you can estimate the propensity to wage jihad in him. And his frequency has only increased over the years.
22. June 2009 - 1:22 PM
SRK is a vastly overrated actor anyways. There is no comparison between him and BigB. The latter is truly talented while our Disney Islamist (I like that, GhostWriter) prospered because of good looks aiding his better-than-mediocre talent. Incidentally, he is one of the contributors to Tehalka’s founding fund. Scratch these contributors and you’ll find either a commie loonie or an Islamist.
Reminds me also of the times when MF Hussain and Shabana Azmi earned the wrath of Islamists. It’s pretty interesting to see how some educated Muslims, despite having advanced the cause of Islam in their own way working around the constraints of their secular-liberal posturing, are still demanded to conform to Islamist principles in toto. There is no relaxation of rules for them (which would make tactical sense because they can then fool non-Muslims that much more) despite the service they are rendering to the quam.
More important: why was a case registered at all? Why can’t the citizen of a secular state believe that a religious figure is no more or no less important than other religious or historical figures? Fact of the matter is that a part of India is already a fascist society where thought policing is rampant, and is enforced even using Indian state machinery! Most Hindus are ignorant of this fact because by virtue of being Hindus they don’t inhabit this dark world of censorship. (Read the book on Fatwas by Shourie).
Commie loons argue that citizens should not be compelled to respect all religions. I agree with that stand, but of course, the reason that our loon advances it has nothing whatsoever to do with upholding free thinking. He wants to uphold Islamists’ (and commies’ and proselytizers’) right to denigrate the faiths they oppose. Point out the intrinsically fundamentalist/fascist nature of the faiths that the loon favors, with the aid of facts and examples like the above, and he begins to froth at the mouth. That’s an irony. The chap insists that people be allowed, for _reasons of faith_ (ie, because their own faith demands them to do so) to disrespect other faiths; but that faiths should not be disrespected for _logical_ and _rational_ reasons; for what the nature of beliefs is, and for what their behavior on the ground is. (I recently had fun with one such character on Swapanda’s blog; I suspect he’s the same who frequents yours as well
22. June 2009 - 2:22 PM
Oh, don’t shed your tears for poor SRK, atleast not so soon.
Being a ruthless greed machine SRK is, how can we rule out that this is not some gimmick to generate curiosity factor for his upcoming film ‘My Name is Khan” which no doubt seems going to whitewash Islam and paint muslims as victim. By the way he plays a retard in that.
Besides he made lots of investment in Dubai. He was some special guest during the opening ceremony of some lavish hotel during 2009 new year ceremony. So we can never know whether he is a closet islamist or not. So lets wait and watch whether this is some publicity gimmick OR some slip-of-tongue mistake by SRK. As expected our sickular media downplayed the story. It means despite the sensational and catchy appeal of the story, our sickular media struck to its muslim-appeasement stance.
22. June 2009 - 3:32 PM
What’s sensible and a way to look at it –
Ok, so SRK was actually being appreciative of Mohammed but got booked anyways because he was set alongside other good mortals. This did not make Mohammed exclusive and per Islam, no one compares with Mohammed.
In my opinion, the police did the right thing in booking the case against SRK. As a Muslim, this fellow should have known better than to equalize Mohammed’s stature. The next time round one must wish that the Muslim litigants do an aberrant full Islamic honor and not just file some silly case. That’s also as per their penal rule.
As for us Hindus, let’s not expect Muslims to act and react like we do. They are not like us and don’t think like us.
Let’s allow Muslims in this country to live fully, as Islam requires them to. Let there be no half measures.
I’m not at all being sarcastic. This is the way it will work and anything other than this will be a rotten deal for Hindus in India. So let no Hindu attract Muslim opprobrium by denying Islam to them.
One may ask what happens to the Hindus when Islam impedes their lives? Well, Hindus are not Muslims and are not governed by Islamic tenets and so are not required to subscribe to its rules. Eg – If MF Hussain paints nude Gods and Goddesses without the express approval of responsible Hindu authority, then Hindus retain the right to paint Mohammed and his Allah in equally insulting fashion. There then cannot be any sanction against Hindus because they are not Muslims, and they paint as Hindus do or would.
One may speak of conversions. Do conversions of any sort occur where Hindus are strong? No. The reasoning is like this – Islam and Christianity asks its followers to convert. Hinduism does not have such a system of evangelism. If a system does not convert, this only means that the system was never used to the idea of losing or gaining adherents from or to its “fold”. This means conversions are against what Hinduism believes in. Any conversion from Hinduism to any religion into which any Hindu cannot freely walk into or out of, at will, will be illegal. Muslims and Christians cannot convert Hindus but can convert each other freely.
This manner of thought and action follows its own logic.
22. June 2009 - 8:11 PM
OT
Great analysis
I am tempted to compile all your though provoking comments that you leave on various blogs and release a book .
22. June 2009 - 10:43 PM
Prasanna, thanks for the kind words. Trust me, the admiration is mutually shared.
23. June 2009 - 4:19 AM
“Let’s allow Muslims in this country to live fully, as Islam requires them to. Let there be no half measures.”
Really?? That will mean unrestricted killings of Hindus, as the Quran is very harsh when dealing with pagans.
Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak. Quran 4:76
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. Quran 9:29
He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions; and Allah is enough for a witness. Quran 48:28
I could go on and on, especially about “what the right hand possesses” – which include sex slaves of nonMuslims origin, as mentioned in the Quran and Hadiths. Translated to modern Indian times that means Hindu sex slaves/harems.
“One may speak of conversions. Do conversions of any sort occur where Hindus are strong? No. The reasoning is like this – Islam and Christianity asks its followers to convert. Hinduism does not have such a system of evangelism. If a system does not convert, this only means that the system was never used to the idea of losing or gaining adherents from or to its “fold”. This means conversions are against what Hinduism believes in. Any conversion from Hinduism to any religion into which any Hindu cannot freely walk into or out of, at will, will be illegal. Muslims and Christians cannot convert Hindus but can convert each other freel”
As for the latter half of this paragraph – maybe, but practically speaking it does not work that way, so the Hindus will have to start doing *some* conversion, although since the Hindu has no world conquering agenda. The Christists and Muslims have the burden of trying to convert the world, and thus have – especially in the case of the christists – become overextended, and they will pay dearly for it (well at least the christists will; the muslims will pay dearly from their lack of a non-Quranic education)
As to the first part of this paragraph, while it is true that in the Sanatana Dharma there is no calling for conversion since the “religion” is not a restrictive one like Islam or Christianity, there are also no laws *against* conversion into the fluid Sanatana Dharma. We may convert, we may not convert. Now is the time to do the latter because it will help the Dharma expand – but there is no need for overextension.
23. June 2009 - 5:15 PM
Krishna,
All that you say wrt to innate Islamic aggression against Hindus is true.
My response would be; This is the consequence of tolerating Islam in this country. How can Hindus hope to restrict or negate Islam’s influence without political power? Hindu society itself acts on impulse. That’s also why we see scattered resistance. So, why not allow Islam to destroy itself through self-perpetuation? It cannot hope to undermine Hindu society. But it can certainly anger Hindu society enough. Think about it.
On conversion, the truth is we are not a converting religion. Exceptions apart, it is not in our psyche. But we can use our heads in order to take the wind out of Islam and Christianity. We need not get into a game we cannot win. Let’s play the game we can surely win. The recent Hindu-Christian dialogue has shown a way. We must use these summits to make the Church and such, sweat. Let’s talk about these more and give more publicity.
24. June 2009 - 5:20 AM
“My response would be; This is the consequence of tolerating Islam in this country. How can Hindus hope to restrict or negate Islam’s influence without political power? Hindu society itself acts on impulse. That’s also why we see scattered resistance. So, why not allow Islam to destroy itself through self-perpetuation? It cannot hope to undermine Hindu society. But it can certainly anger Hindu society enough. Think about it.”
Islam will undoubtedly destroy itself when given freedom to do so, as in Pakistan – the problem is when the Muslims are significant minorities in Kaffir countries, such as India, they become more focused and unified in their objective to convert or kill the Polytheist. I agree, it is better to let the enemy destroy itself, but that is more applicable to Pakistan. In India, what needs to happen is a nullification of the power of the Mullah, Madrassas and Mosques. Along with that, conversions.
Or the Hindus can simply out-reproduce the Muslims, as that is the key element to the Islamic march.
“On conversion, the truth is we are not a converting religion. Exceptions apart, it is not in our psyche. But we can use our heads in order to take the wind out of Islam and Christianity. We need not get into a game we cannot win. Let’s play the game we can surely win. The recent Hindu-Christian dialogue has shown a way. We must use these summits to make the Church and such, sweat. Let’s talk about these more and give more publicity.”
Are you serious? Do you think dialogue is enough with the Christians? These are fanatics we are dealing with, who strongly believe the Heathens need saving; they will not give up until they either self-destruct or are defeated. Fortunately there is some help on the way as the economic might of the West is about to be destroyed (self-destruction in action). The key is to gain control over the Church’s economic leverage, such as their ability to buy up property. If it cannot be done through legal channels then alternative means are not out of the question. Of course intellectual activity (including simple things such as the Church’s disturbing pedophilia) against the limited Christist ideology is importance, but intellect without action does not yield much result.
Again, I have not said conversion is to be the be all and end all of the Hindu strategy, but I have no problems with it. And the main point I was making is that there is no real injunction against it, even though there is nothing in favor of it either, within the scripture.
24. June 2009 - 7:00 AM
Had to share this Quranic gem
Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly. Quran 5:82
-It says it right there folks! Muslms are to align with the Christians over the Jews and Hindus. I cannot believe I never came across this verse before.
24. June 2009 - 4:29 PM
Krishna, I am merely relating to our current and medium term realities. Some would even say long term. All of that which you feel Hindus should do, they can do with political power. Not otherwise.
What Hindus can do today and before they gain power is to ensure non-Muslims see the fullest extent of Islam’s mischief. This cannot be done by Secular laws ruling over us. What Secular laws succeed in doing is to hide the true nature of society’s dynamic. Hindus can make use of the corrupt Secular ways of our polity in order to allow Islam to really rule over Muslims. If excitable Muslims get to Hindus, then we know that we deal with such situations with appropriate brutality. All this can be accomplished without political power.
For instance, under Islamic penal code, SRK would be dead by now. Or at the very least lashed miserably. Today there is a an impotent police case and a half hearted fatwa. Certainly not situations that Islam or Muslims can claim to be happy with.
Yes, I think dialogue more in the nature of stripping the wolf’s sheep cloth than to resolve irresolvable issues. Dialogue as projection of power. This is the game the Church will be beaten at. An apt analogy is getting Al Capone on Tax than on murder. You need Hindu society’s muscle with Islam and Hindu society’s brain with the Church.
I caution against wishing for the demise of the West. Even if the West falls, they fall to Islam and not to any benevolent system. The Church has enough resources to last it many generations. Let’s be smart about grabbing them where it hurts most and matters more.
30. June 2009 - 3:57 AM
“Hindus can make use of the corrupt Secular ways of our polity in order to allow Islam to really rule over Muslims. If excitable Muslims get to Hindus, then we know that we deal with such situations with appropriate brutality. All this can be accomplished without political power.”
1. I understand your point, but you are forgetting two things. The first, though not as important in itself because it goes along with the reaction you state the Hindus will have, is that allowing literal Islamic law would mean the enactment of Jaziya etc, Hindu sex slaves, slaughter of Kaffirs all supported legally. But the next point is the important one – the Islamic principle of Taqiyah, dissimulation. Muslims know that they cannot all of a sudden thrust True Islam on the Hindus, so they will pretend, for awhile, until they get enough numbers, that Islam is “peaceful” and “tolerant”. They do this because that is a useful tactic to shield the unbelievers from the true nature of the beast. Therefore the MUSLIMS will probably not wish for the True Islam to fully govern Muslims, at least not yet.
2. Again, dialogue is not enough, even with the Church. Have you seen the recent news that Christians in Assam are forcibly converting Hindus? Spreading information to other Hindus as to the true nature of the Christians is more important than dialogue, because the Christians will believe the Hindus need to be converted irrespective of how good the Hindu argument is – the Christians are fanatics, lest we forget.
As for the demise of the West, whether I wish for it or not, it is here. The Church’s resources are primarily economic, and irrespective of how much money they take in their coffers, the key is the value of their money – foreign currency – within in India. At some point, the values of the Dollar, Euro, Sterling (this one in particular is already happenning) will plummet, decreasing the leverage the Church has in India. That is where the Chinese and Arabs controlling the debt of the West comes into play (even though those two do benefit from the current system as well). The other church resource, ownership of Indian land, is a little trickier, and at this moment in time I cannot hypothesize one method or another to break this situation.
Another thing to do is to simply find a way to funnel Church money into Hindu causes, although this would require much ingenuity.
30. June 2009 - 4:03 AM
Also, speaking of the Church’s resources – understand that they will have to spend more of their resources on their own whites from now on, as there will be a lot more Westerners impoverished as a result of this current economic depression.
30. June 2009 - 9:18 AM
Krishna, I have a few observations on your note -
Taxes like jazia are imposed on conquered or subject people. Islam, naturally cannot impose a (really) punitive tax on people it cannot subject to to its Shar’ia. That is why some features of Islam are sustaining of itself and others are ruling of its subject people who are un-believers. In our case Hindus cannot be taxed the jazia simply because it does not fall under the “ruling” category.
Similarly with sex-slaves and such.
When I speak of Islam ruling Muslims in India I speak of Shar’ia. To be fair, their methods of propaganda do not involve denial of Shar’ia and its inherent barbarism. It only involves stressing a little less. This quasi-disguise will vanish when non-Muslims see Islam in action for Muslims.
I remember my uncle talking about an “open-air” be-heading ground in Saudi Arabia way back in the 80s. He was repulsed by it. But in India he is back to being the “live and let live Hindu”. That’s the difference.
On dialogue with the Church, naturally I am not talking about just dialogue. You seem to have misunderstood my purpose of dialogue. Dialogue between opposing groups initially will be like testing waters. Testing each others endurance and will. Then it will be pushing advantage depending upon how much the other has weakened. We know Hindus have made themselves weak in this area. The Church uses this weapon to its advantage with devastating effect. This is also what it uses to convince its Western money bags that Hindus need Christ. We must defeat the Church in this area. When I say “defeat the Church” I do not mean convincing them of our righteousness. They won’t be. I mean making open the dialogue to the public and shedding the Church’s disguise. This also depends upon who we send as our delegates. As far as Assam like events are concerned, what are Hindus doing about it today? When they don’t have that kind of dialogue yet? Our muscle with the Church is not working because these people are not rash. We must use our minds.
After the dialogue, let the Church relegate themselves to forcible conversion and come out into the open.
On the West and India, all I want to say is that India is not a water-well, inure to conditions in other parts of the world. More-over self-preservation will pull back Church monies into the West. This is my point. The Church has been and is now openly and finally acting at cross-purposes to Western interests. It is not in the interest of the (real and not immigrant) West to self-destruct at the alter of a so called “kingdom of God”. The Church in the West will have to take on it’s initial role of the same preservation of Western civilization that once inspired Constantine to take to the Church.
You seem to see the point of Islam becoming supreme at the cost of Western weakness. China too. How are these alternatives better than what the West or it’s Christianity, was to India and Hindus? If they are not better then my submission is they are a thousand fold worse. What should be Hindu strategy here?
Awaiting your thoughts.
9. July 2009 - 6:07 AM
“On the West and India, all I want to say is that India is not a water-well, inure to conditions in other parts of the world. More-over self-preservation will pull back Church monies into the West. This is my point. The Church has been and is now openly and finally acting at cross-purposes to Western interests. It is not in the interest of the (real and not immigrant) West to self-destruct at the alter of a so called “kingdom of God”. The Church in the West will have to take on it’s initial role of the same preservation of Western civilization that once inspired Constantine to take to the Church.”
Thats exactly my point – hence less church money will be sent to India, given us a bit of a breather. Still irrespective of how much money they bring back to the West, it will be wasted. Right a lot of money spent in the West is sent into the equivalent of black holes – it is wasted permanently. The Church will not be immune to these capital traps – namely, the Christian citizens who have lost concept of the value of money.
“You seem to see the point of Islam becoming supreme at the cost of Western weakness. China too. How are these alternatives better than what the West or it’s Christianity, was to India and Hindus? If they are not better then my submission is they are a thousand fold worse. What should be Hindu strategy here?”
The Hindu strategy should be to play each enemy off the other. Islam, Christism, China, Self-hating Hindus all should be gamed in appropriate proportion, which may mean somewhat more focus on Islam but not that much more than on Christism.
9. July 2009 - 4:56 PM
“The Hindu strategy should be to play each enemy off the other. Islam, Christism, China, Self-hating Hindus all should be gamed in appropriate proportion, which may mean somewhat more focus on Islam but not that much more than on Christism.”
- Are Hindus strong enough today? If not how much time will it take to be strong enough to facilitate this kind of “co-ordination”?
9. July 2009 - 7:43 PM
“Are Hindus strong enough today? If not how much time will it take to be strong enough to facilitate this kind of “co-ordination”?”
Hindu’s are strong enough, and have always been, because no weak country could have survived a 1000 year onslaught the way we did. Imagine if the same wave upon wave of invasions entered Saudi Arabia – it would barely survive more than one week.
The questions are of organizations, awareness, and the capacity to become more aggressive. The key here is to take advantages of obvious divisions between the enemies, which are presenting themselves on a daily basis if one were to simply peruse the headlines. From there, not THAT much needs to be done, perhaps a slight nudge here and there will be enough.
9. July 2009 - 8:03 PM
Krishna – You speak of two different kinds of strength.
The way I understand them, these are Societal/Social and Political (Military-Economic)
I will readily concede that our society is strong. Is very resilient and is capable of withstanding and even rebuffing social aggressions.
With this, please consider the following fact – It is not Hindu political power that is driving this resistance.
It may be argued that political power is unimportant here. True to a great extent but if we are to remain unaffected by fall-out from the various wars of attrition that are being carried out now and those that will be in future, we certainly require political power. It is this power that will drive our security (Military) as well as prosperity (Economic) aims. This will also lend much needed logistical help to strengthen our Society.
But this is all in the long term.
For the short term, we must look at allies.
12. July 2009 - 12:50 AM
The Christists are not our allies at heart – only a weak man will make that argument or seek such creatures as friends (unless he intends to double-cross them). The Christists seek the same goal for India that the Muslims do. Of course, practical considerations are necessary.
12. July 2009 - 8:34 AM
Yes, I’m talking about practical considerations.
12. July 2009 - 9:07 AM
First of all SRK is the most annoying Indian actor! I get irritated every time I see him (usually at an Indian restuarant). Can’t understand why he is so famous.
Hindus are not united and divided which is why anyone can take advantage of their weakness…I doubt they have learned from their history…I blame it all on them…Others only take advantage when you are weak yourself.
India will continue to limp along with the amount of population it has…but will India again be an impressive country ever, I mean noticeable not because it has such a large population but because it contributes to civilization in a significant way?
The Hindu revival in places like Gujrat makes one optimistic…such things usually come with economic prosperity.