Take the Islamic terrorist bull by the horns

19.07.06 [This was posted in Haindava Kerala as comment on their posting that the administration of Jammu had advised the Amarnath pilgrims not to raise slogans like Bharath Mata ki Jai, fearing displeasure of the majority Muslims. Well, wait till India becomes a Muslim majority country – you will not be able to even wear a tilak then.] Take the Islamic terrorist bull by the horns. We Hindus must once and for all realise that the source of all terrorism in India is Islam (even Naxal terrorism has grown only because they see a weak State made so by its refusal to fight Islamic terrorism) and therefore we must, in answer to fears of 'Bharath Mata ki Jai' or 'Vande Mataram' being offensive to Muslims, come with slogans like 'Islam Murdabad' and 'Bharath Chodo Baber ki Aulad' to whip up an atmosphere that challenges the Muslims and warns them that Hindus are prepared to take the Islamic terrorist bull by the horns. The principle is: Ushnam ushname shanthi.

Banning of Blogs

19.07.06 [This is my comment on the government banning some sites in the wake of the Mumbai train blasts. Strange they should ban many Hindu sites and only a few Muslim sites. Are we Hindus actually the real terrorists?] There is no doubt that blue-blooded secularists in UPA have used the opportunity to be 'more loyal than the king' to show their commitment to their Islamic benefactors and have gone ahead to ban Hindu sites. The reason why Muslims want to throttle the freedom the Net gives is because Islam cannot stand freedom and stand the risk of been exposed for what it really is - a narrow minded dogma (Quran - [3.85]: And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.) With the net poised to be the preferred source of research, Islam is in danger of being more laughed at than feared. It won’t be long before the best of Muslims abandon Islam and take to the more meditative religions with spiritual stirrings. Why, Sufism may come of age and herald a spiritual revolution in Islam and rid Islam of its dogmatic structure and narrow-minded vision. Until now they had governments in Muslim countries to ensure that no one speaks of the spiritually debilitating religion that Islam is. And in non-Muslim countries like India, they have the protection of 'secular' governments to ensure that those who call a spade a bloody spade was classified as communal and sought to be isolated. Hindu servitors of Islam like Arjun Singh, Laloo Prasad Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav and their ilk who pack the so-called secular parties are ever ready to do their bit for their Muslim masters and have now gone ahead to ban sites which might expose Islam. But I don’t think anything can prevent Islam from being exposed. The Net will refuse to be strangulated and limited by anyone. There are enough tech-savvy freedom-loving geniuses to ensure that.

Mumbai Train Blasts and shape of things to come

17.07.06 [This is an e-mail I sent to my friend to Dubai. But I was not sure she would be pleased to be thinking on my lines. Not surprising, you are in Dubai and not just free expression, even free thoughts might be perilous there!] I delayed sending this e-mail to you in response to your e-mail on the Mumbai blasts. I shall give the reason at the end. 1. The only question, following the serial blasts in the Western Line, is: will such incidents stop or will they continue, maybe getting worse in the form of communal riots and all that. 2. While nobody can predict the future, and we would want to hope for the best, I think it would be sensible to prepare for the worst. The situation would seem to be hopeless if an unbridgeable divide on communal lines occur, but we should not be deterred. We should be boldly determined to do what we have to do. 3. What we have to do is to first understand that there is no way to avert a communal divide (unless Hindus want to become second class citizens) for the simple reason that the Muslim psyche is not just a religious one, but it is also a political one. 4. Islam, alone among all the religions of the world, seeks not only to teach it’s adherents about things concerning God and all that, but it has also the aim, right from the days of Mohammad, to dominate the world politically. They have 51 countries under their belt, and now they are going high gear by trying to set up ‘pure states’ like they had in the Taliban government in Afghanistan, Sudan, and now Somalia. 5. This is not true of Hinduism because Hinduism is the only culture that has allowed multiple forms and ways of worship and methods to reach God. Hinduism is not a religious culture that seeks control from outside but one that teaches freedom from within. 6. Having said that Islam has political ambitions, the only solution, if the Hindu culture is to be protected, is to ensure that India remains a secular country. By secular here I mean a state (government) that permits varieties of religious experience and itself (the state) does not favour one religion over another. 7. But today’s secularism, perfected by Congress, is a fraud. It is openly favouring the Muslims in the name of minority rights. And the Congress supports conversions (particularly by Christians), thereby agreeing with the Christian Church that Christianity is the only true religion. 8. Therefore as Indian citizens, it is our duty to ensure that the politicians whom we vote for are not appeasers of Muslims (like Laloo Prasad Yadvav, Arjun Singh, V.P. Singh, Mulayalam Singh Yadav and suchlike). More than that, we must strengthen organizations that understand the importance of the Hindu culture not only for India but also for the whole world, particularly at a time when religious terrorism is leading to a clash of civilizations. Only the broad-minded Hindu culture can teach the world the lessons of its own vision of acceptance of varieties of religious beliefs. And more important, it has the history of having defeated Islam once in its history. (Where is the great Mughal empire now?) In conclusion, we can prevent Muslim attacks upon Hindus only if the Hindu asserts the greatness of his culture and becomes proud to say that he is a Hindu. There is no other way to stop Islamic terrorism from bombing more trains and temples. The reason why I delayed my reply to you was because I wondered if you might find my line of thought a wee bit dangerous as you are now staying in an Islamic country. If you think I should not put down such thoughts when writing to you, please inform. I shall be more discreet in future. On the other hand, if you find my line of thought stimulating, I shall only be pleased to write to you more on this line.

Narendra Modi and the 'State' of Islam

17.07.06 [This was written in the backdrop of Narendra Modi’s visit to Mumbai to commiserate with the victims of the train blasts. His visit was opposed by Muslim fanatics.] I think we would be fooling ourselves if we ascribe terrorism in India to anything else other than Islam. Some of our secularists would like to think that Islamic terrorism was born in India as a reaction to the destruction of Babri Masjid, conveniently forgetting that Muslims partitioned India because they wanted an Islamic state. And this indeed is the basis of Islamic terrorism, right from the day Prophet Mohammad destroyed the idols in Mecca to convert it into a mosque to dito done by Babur to convert the temple at Ayodhya into Babri Masjid. Not only is Islam intolerant of other religions but it alone among all the religions of the world seeks to set up a world state (government) based on Islam. Therefore it is inherently against all states in the world and will not rest till it sets up Taliban like Islamic states everywhere. Thus, it can be seen, Islam is very much a political entity. The relevance of Narendra Modi is that he, as head of a democratic state himself, is eminently positioned to call the bluff of Islam as a religion and expose it as source throughout its history of intolerant regimes and anti democratic ideology.

Valsan Tillengeri - swayamsevak par excellence

13.07.06 [Valsanji, of the RSS, was arrested by the Marxist government of Kerala to appease the Islamic terrorists. Hindava Keralam had written about his fast in jail and I was inspired to write the following.] Valsanji, you are destined to be the pivot upon which a mighty Hindutva force is going to be generated in the coming days in Kerala that will display the intrinsic strength of the Hindus in such a fashion that the anti-Hindu forces would shudder to challenge the Hindus. Cheer-up, chin-up and prepare to be the symbol of a mighty Hindutva thrust right into the enemy's chest!

Amarnath Shiv Ling

06.07.06 Those involved in doctoring the Shiv Ling at Amarnath ought to be charged with crime against faith. They should have left the ling alone, whatever its size. It is the faith of the people that builds a pilgrimage centre and that faith is based on the belief in the sacredness of the place. A Shiv Ling, big or small, is a sacred object. Doctoring it defiles the object. It has now to undergo traditional purificatory rites. People do not go on pilgrimage or pray at a temple for ‘sight-seeing’ in the nature of a tourist, though that is indulged in as a matter of bonus. They go because of a belief that their destination is a sared spot, made so by the penance of rishis.

The importance of Modi and the political agenda of Islam

17.07.06 [This is in the light of Modi's planned visit to Mumbai written about in Haindava Keralam. I commented therein.} I think we would be fooling ourselves if we ascribe terrorism in India to anything else other than Islam. Some of our secularists would like to think that Islamic terrorism was born in India as a reaction to the destruction of Babri Masjid, conveniently forgetting that Muslims partitioned India because they wanted an Islamic state. And this indeed is the basis of Islamic terrorism, right from the day Prophet Mohammad destroyed the idols in Mecca to convert it into a mosque to dito done by Babur to convert the temple at Ayodhya into Babri Masjid. Not only is Islam intolerant of other religions but it alone among all the religions of the world seeks to set up a world state (government) based on Islam. Therefore it is inherently against all states in the world and will not rest till it sets up Taliban like Islamic states everywhere. Thus, it can be seen, Islam is very much a political entity. The relevance of Narendra Modi is that he, as head of a democratic state himself, is eminently positioned to call the bluff of Islam as a religion and expose it as source throughout its history of intolerant regimes and anti democratic ideology.

Haindava Keralam

[Haindava Keralam is obviously a Sangha site. There are doing a good job and I thought some encouragement to its workers is in order.] I congratulate all behind Haindava Keralam. You are constantly updating with the latest news and views. A site would attract and retain readers only if it is a live-wire, which your site is. Please keep posting information on all activities of Parivar members. Best wishes to all at Haindava Keralam!

Reforming Islam

[This is an essay I got from the net on the subject reforming Islam, from a Western perspective. I give my comments in [ ], as usual.

IN a now-famous interview to Al Jazeera Television, Dr. Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychiatrist, took on the Muslim world by proclaiming that "only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies". [Actually, all religions have a history of doing these sorts of things; but yes, these days they seem to have monopolized such activity.] Her unabashed articulation of the backwardness, barbarity and corruption prevalent in the Muslim world [many parts of the Muslim world are modern, civilized and is only as corrupt or not corrupt as the rest of the world. The problem that singles out the Muslim world is Islam’s intolerance of other religions.] made headlines all over the world. In the weeks after her outburst, Sultan's rise to fame followed the predictable series of appropriation and threats that ensues every time someone from the Muslim world openly rebels against the strictures placed on criticising Islam. [Are the Muslims lacking faith in Islam to imagine it cannot hold its own against any criticism?]

Within days there were reports of her going into hiding as a torrent of fatwas were issued against her. One group calling itself the Al Munasireen al Rasullah issued a death threat against her. Also rushing into the milieu were conservative and right-wing groups with admittedly Islamophobic agendas which welcomed her with open arms in the centuries-old union forged between those who fight a common enemy.
Wafa Sultan describes herself as a reformer whose task is to lift Muslims in order to enable them to acknowledge the debilitating weight of intellectual stagnation and patriarchy and to rise above their obstinate and self-destructive aversion to change. She is not alone in embracing the thorny mantle of reforming the ailing Ummah. In recent years, self-proclaimed reformists of diverse stripes and colours have appeared on the political landscape of the Muslim world. Like Ayan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born former member of the Dutch Parliament whose controversial film about abuse of Muslim girls in the Netherlands led to the death of film-maker Theo Van Gogh, Sultan has chosen the incendiary and hence perilous route of reform after renunciation.
In her initial interview, Wafa Sultan stated that she is a "secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural". In later conversations she has reiterated that she does not consider herself a Muslim. Also, like Ayan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan does not shy away from pushing ideas that come with the weighty baggage of being easily appropriated by those whose interests lie not in reforming Islam but in promoting a fundamentalism of their own. [This is an interesting point. Does the writer suspect that Islam per se has no faults to be criticized?]

In her Al Jazeera interview, Wafa Sultan characterised the clash between Islam and the Western world as one between "a clash between civilisation and backwardness, between the civilised and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality". [The truth is not so black and white. There are strands and strands in everything and anything. We have to realize that Islam has been hijacked by a fanatical strand. If in liberal hands, it can yet be salvaged. We need to ‘sufise’ Islam.] In almost identical language, Ayan Hirsi Ali, who herself fled an abusive marriage before seeking asylum in the Netherlands, has also condemned Muslims for being backward, uncivilised and steeped in medieval and archaic traditions [This has become the image, which a fanatic school has been able to stamp upon all Islam.] that promote the subjugation of women.

While the substantive truth of the critiques espoused by both Wafa Sultan and Ayan Hirsi Ali can be denounced or embraced based on one's politics, a more crucial question centres not on the veracity of their arguments but rather on their viability as instigators of change within Islam. Admittedly, an inquiry so focussed is cynical in its prioritisation of evaluating the packaging over the product.
However, as many political theorists have noted over centuries, the bridge between realising the need for reform and effectuating reform is one punctuated with the constant peril of obliteration. In this particular case, the threat of elimination is based on the reality that unless any recipe for reform is able to win a constituency in the hearts of those that must change, it is likely to die an unceremonious death on the shelves of Western bookstores. [Well said.]
In a radio interview to Israeli National Radio, Wafa Sultan spoke to those whom she sees as this very constituency - the women of the Islamic world. In a poignant and heart-felt plea she begged them to recognise that it was they who were the true leaders of the Islamic world and who possessed the power to effectuate reform. Undeniably, she too recognises the necessity of agents who must bring about the reform she is advocating. The disjoint between her recognition and her rhetoric becomes more obvious when one notes her choice of forum and rhetoric. Can those in the Muslim world transcend the damning reality that the interview was given to Israeli National Radio and still heed her call to reform?

Similarly, can Muslims watching Al Jazeera accept the truth of her argument regarding the pressing need for reform within the faith despite her own avowed renunciation of Islam? In essence, to what extent do both Ayan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan delegitimise their own project by using an uncompromising rhetoric that makes it only too easy for Muslims to discard their entire argument? [Good point.] At its core, then, the argument can be reduced to the oft-occurring means justifying the end that faces every question of campaign for change.
Must those such as Wafa Sultan and Ayan Hirsi Ali soften their rhetoric to score political points and cajole their target constituencies into accepting the pressing need for reform? Is it possible that those vilified as backward and barbaric will swallow the bitter pills of such an unflinchingly harsh diagnosis and still be inspired to change? [Their rhetoric nevertheless serves to open the eyes of the West to the danger of Islam, for the West’s sense of political correctness can blind it to the reality of Islam.]

On the other side of the "reform" spectrum, a drastically different course towards instigating change is being charted by "internal" reformers, those that seek to reform Islam by grounding their arguments within Islamic tradition itself. In an effort focussed precisely towards mobilising Muslims for change, Tariq Ramadan, author of Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, issued an "International call for moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in the Islamic world". To the Western reader, there seems little to distinguish the rhetoric used by Ramadan other than the obvious fact that the latter's call is grounded in sophisticated academic argument that would be expected from a seasoned scholar. From the Muslim perspective, however, each argument formulated by Ramadan is an exercise in situating the argument for change solidly within Islamic doctrine. While denouncing the barbarity of the Hudud punishments of stoning and stoning to death, Ramadan laments not their inherent barbarity but the fact that there is no theological consensus within Islam on when such punishments may be justly applied. In an effort to ground his argument in doctrinal legitimacy he draws from precedent in which Omar Ibn Khattab, the third Caliph of Islam, suspended the cutting of hands as a punishment for theft during famine. The argument used by Omar, and now by Ramadan, is that the conditions for the just application of the punishment simply do not exist. He adds also that the majority of Ulema say "these penalties are on the whole Islamic but that the conditions under which they should be implemented are nearly impossible to re-establish". Ramadan, therefore, navigates the tumultuous seas of advocating change by harnessing his ship to the edifice of faith. His argument is based not on a personal/political experience of suffering at the hands of archaic laws and customs but pivoted on using historical examples from within Islam to effectuate change. [This is fine and as it should be. But who can resist the temptation to call a spade a spade and sometimes a bloody spade?]
While the Ramadan strategy manages to evade the minefields of delegitimisation that seem to plague those taking the paths chosen by Wafa Sultan and Ayan Hirsi Ali, it is not without its own scourge. The gargantuan problem confronted by a reinterpretation of tradition within Islamic doctrine, such as the one suggested by Ramadan here, is the seemingly impossible task of subverting the entrenched traditions that have existed for centuries while at the same time remaining within the praxis of faith. Ramadan's effort to enact a moratorium on Hudud punishments is an excellent example of just this quandary. Soon after he issued his statement advocating the end to Hudud punishments, a statement was issued by a research group of Ulema at the renowned Al-Azhar University in Cairo. The statement denounced Ramadan's call for a moratorium as a "denial of the central tenets of Islam". The Ulema further took issue with Ramadan's use of the legal precedent of Umar Ibn Khattab's suspension of the punishment for theft. That precedent, they stated, was "limited to use during wartime and is therefore clearly inapplicable for the contemporary context".

Ramadan's strategy thus falls prey to the tremendous burden of destabilising tradition without being compromised and co-opted itself. Ramadan is not alone in traversing the tightrope of both proposing reform and maintaining his legitimacy as a Muslim. [Is appears that Islam is not amenable to reform. Well, either reform or bust.] In a recent essay for Boston Review, another such internal reformer, Khaled Abou El Fadl (author of the book The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from Extremists) reviewed a recent compilation of Osama bin Laden's speeches. The review essay, cleverly themed around the comparison of bin Laden to the Christian Crusaders, achieves the marvellous rhetorical feat of situating the terror of the Muslim present against the demons of the Christian past. Abou El Fadl denounces Wahabi Islam but not without reminding everyone that such extremism is not unique to Islam. The result is an essay that creates successfully an analytical distance between Islam and the most dangerous Muslim. Westerners reading the article are likely to be impressed at the unequivocal condemnation of bin Laden by an educated Muslim scholar. Muslims reading the article can evade the question of how exactly their avowedly peaceful faith can also be the ideological force behind such evil extremism. An impressive illustration of the "moderate" Muslim perspective, El-Fadl's meticulously composed essay flirts with the danger of making arguments so well reasoned and self-evident that they fail to instigate any response at all. [That’s funny – how would that happen?] In appeasing all, he exhorts none and in suggesting the omnipresence of fundamentalism in all historical epochs, he creates a convenient place for denial and self-deception within Islam.

If reform is truly the goal, then has El-Fadl wandered too far into the realm of apologia thus neutralising the possibility of change? Must the arguments made by Ramadan and Abou-El Fadl be discarded for not going far enough in their condemnation of certain practices? Is it indeed possible to distinguish between the "internal reformer" that seeks to change the faith from within and the apologist that manipulates the terminology of reformist ideas to maintain effectively the status quo? [Is he accusing Abou-El Fadl of actually being a subversive?] At the same time, should the Machiavellian analysis of political success be allowed to stymie the much-needed critique being advanced by Wafa Sultan and Ayan Hirsi Ali?