French President Emmanuel Macron merely dared to say Islam is in crisis, and got himself into big trouble.
Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan asked him to get his head examined. Pakistan’s Imran Khan wrote a two-page sermon to fellow Muslim nations calling for a re-education of the West about Islam.
No such restraint for Malaysia’s 95-year-old Mahathir Mohamad. He got so furious as to nearly justify mass killings of the French for what they might have done to Muslims in the past, besides indeed condemning the decadent, ‘Christian only in name’ West where women often walk around with no more than a “little string (that) covers the most secret place”. Protests broke out in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.
But, did Macron speak the truth or not? The reaction of these prominent leaders from powerful and populous Muslim countries points to a crisis. If tens of crores of Muslims across the world feel that they are victims of mass Islamophobia, it is a sense of siege and crisis. Unlike a sacred scripture, however, there can be many versions of what this truth is. Here is this humble editorialist’s effort.
Also read: Why French President Macron’s clash of civilisations with Islam is misguided
Let me break it down in five broad points:
1) All religions are political. At this point, though, Islam is the most politicised. You can surely hark back to the centuries of the Christian Crusades, but that was some time back. Doesn’t matter if that imagery is often invoked by leaders of al-Qaeda, ISIS and sometimes also the odd angry Islamic nation.
Islam is also the second largest faith in the world, with nearly 200 crore adherents, just behind Christians by about 20 per cent. Like Christians, Muslims also live across the world. But unlike Christians, in the countries where they have a majority, very few have democracy. That’s a checkable fact. Important to note, about 60 per cent of all Muslims are in Asia and four of their largest populations in the world live under different degrees of democracy, between India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Stretching this argument further, in countries where Muslims have a majority, secularism is generally a bad word, or a Western concept. But in democratic nations where Muslims are a minority, they persistently put the republic’s secular commitment to test. France, Britain, the US, Belgium, Germany are all good examples. There is a reason I do not include India here. Because, unlike Europe to which they migrated lately, in India Muslims were equal and voluntary partners in forming this new republic.
2) There is an unresolved tension among Muslim populations and nations between nationalism and pan-nationalism. This arises from the concept of Ummah — that all Muslims of the world are one supra-national entity. Check this out from Imran Khan’s two-page discourse to his fellow Ummah leaders. We have seen this expressed in the subcontinent sometimes. In the Khilafat Movement of 1919-24, protesting against Kemal Ataturk’s winding up of the Ottoman Caliphate and founding of the Turkish Republic, to Salman Rushdie to the now-fading support for Palestine. And now France.
There are some interesting consequences here. While the notion is pan-Islamism, many more wars are fought between Muslims and Muslim states than with others. The Iran-Iraq war was the longest, a large number of Islamic states joined the coalition against Saddam under the US, and, closer home, in the Af-Pak region, Muslims only kill Muslims and not all of them in Friday bombings at Shia mosques.
The last time we saw a truly pan-Islamic alliance fight against a common, non-Muslim enemy was the 6-Day War in 1967 against Israel. There was a bit of it again in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. But then Egypt and Jordan signed up for peace. Iran is left mostly alone to fight Israel from a distance, Syria has self-destructed. In none of Pakistan’s wars against India has any Islamic nation come to its aid. Barring Jordan transferring some F-104 Starfighters in 1971.
Also read: France attacks show Muslims’ self-inflicted paranoia. But Quran allows freedom of expression
3) Which brings us to a brutal irony. If pan-Islamism, the Ummah spirit, has worked on the ground, it is with multi-national terror groups. Al-Qaeda and ISIS are truly pan-Islamic organisations, which mostly target settled Islamic states. ISIS actually says that if you believe that all Muslims are part of the same Ummah, then they must also have a Caliphate subsuming international boundaries and enforcing the common Shariat.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, keep counting. This should also make us reflect on why is it that so few Muslims from the subcontinent, home to one-third of all the world’s Muslims, are seen in al Qaeda or ISIS. The argument I put forward in this debate is, in our nations, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, nationalism trumps pan-Islamism. Muslims in these countries have a flag and a cricket team to support, a leader to love or hate. And if they hate him, to vote him out or protest in any preferred manner. Why should they prefer some mythical Caliphate?
4) The fourth is a crippling contradiction. There are sharp national boundaries dividing Muslim populations and wealth. A bulk of the populations, in Asia and Africa, lives in poor economies. Whereas the world’s wealthiest nations, the Gulf Arabs, have relatively minuscule populations. They won’t distribute their wealth equally to the rest in the spirit of pan-Islamism.
They are happy to find a compact with the West, and now also with India and Israel. Because for them, everything, their political power, royal privileges, global stature depends on that one thing pan-Islamism challenges: Status quo. Nobody has an answer to this GDP-population mismatch. And the rise of a power like ISIS only further fortifies these walls.
5) And last, because of a democratic deficit, in most Islamic countries you cannot even protest, express your resentment against your regime. You might feel sickened that your royalty is sold to the American Satan, but you can do nothing about it. Not shout a slogan, wave a placard, write a blog, a letter to the editor, even a tweet. This could land you in a jail forever, or get you beheaded. So, you go and do it where you can.
That is why, in 2003, I wrote a ‘National Interest’ headlined Globalisation of Revenge. Because you cannot do any of this in your country, you do it in Europe, America. You cannot even whisper a word in anger in your brutally-controlled national security state, so you go to another. Where you can freely live, train to be airline pilots, and then slam those planes into the twin towers. Where even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has the right to a somewhat fair trial. You can’t fight your masters, so why not punish the master’s masters? Isn’t this globalisation of revenge?
In conclusion, let’s return to the killing of Samuel Paty in France. The killer was Abdoullakh Anzorov, an 18-year-old from a Chechen refugee family. Chechnya is a tiny Russian republic in the North Caucasus with just over a million people, 95% of them Muslim. Russians subdued their separatist rebellion after two brutal wars. But, by the time ‘normalcy’ came, half of that little population was living in refugee camps. Many sought a better life in Western democracies, like this teenaged assassin’s family.
Let’s reconstruct the jigsaw. When Chechnya fought a jihad against the Russians, many Muslim ‘fighters’ from across the world, including many veterans of Afghanistan, joined them. Because this was all they had learnt to do yet, fight a jihad against the Russians. Pan-Islamism led to death, destruction and mass destitution of Chechens. Tens of thousands escaped to liberal democracies for safety, a better life and peace. Now they also want compliance with their own social and religious values there. To decide what your cartoonists can draw and teachers can teach. Reflect on this and then debate if the five points we detailed earlier make sense or not.
Also read: Muslim world faces divide after Erdogan takes on France for its crackdown on radical Islam
The problem faced by France for a few years now whereas INDIA has been facing similar attacks for the past 800 years.
However the attacks are justified by anti HINDU activist and journalists . They defend rioters are innocent and blame victims as PERPETRATORS .
FAKE HISTORY WRITERS under congrass rule imposed education in INDIA wherein Muslim invaders who were extremely violent and religious BIGOTS are painted in history books as some benign rulers .
A hybrid war of religious activist , NGO’s and rented jhollawallas and journalists a combination of pro pakistan and china groups are together creating a belligerent narrative of hate.
HINDUS believe in education and science and prosperity and must face those forces without fear and MODIJI is the right leader in today’s circumstances.
Fortunately social media is exposing fake paid news propaganda by HINDU hating journalist.
SG in this editorial has simply put out the seemingly complex issue of Islam threatening World peace. Human rights, the driving force that accepts desolate refugees, while addressing individuals does not address culture. Invasion of culture by Islam is the major issue in European and Western democracies. It is becoming an issue in India too. This fissure is exploited by terrorist organizations in the name of pan Islam.
Over centuries, since the advent of Arab traders on the West coast, Arab culture and later Islamic culture permeated into the Indian society. During my school days this was very evident in my state Kerala. It worked both ways. Then, a woman in a burqua was rare and if we saw one we were sure she has arrived from Saudi Arabia. I left Kerala after School. For some reason things there are different today.
The problem is not religion affecting politics….the problem is religion affecting cultures. As I always say, in India if all religious leaders come on one platform and proclaim in unison that “ your GOD is as good as mine” and ingrain this idea into young minds, we would have come a long way in maintaining communal harmony.
Dear Shekhar Gupta,
Thank you very much for your concern about Islam and the Muslims. I do not understand what caused you to write this article, because the French Muslim who carried out the act of terrorism was someone you did not know. I am sure you do know hundreds, if not thousands, of Muslims in your country in whom you find kindness and a disgust to such terrorists. I would have liked had you focused on such Muslims rather than joining the world hype against one particular religion and holding it responsible for what a cruel human being, who just happened to be a Muslim, did in France. It is also pertinent here to point out that such acts of brutality are not committed only by the Muslims, but when an uncivilized Muslim commits them, the media calls it terrorism; while it is called murder or lynching or anything but terrorism when a non-Muslim commits them.
When you recount what Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Imran Khan, or Mahathir Mohamad say about the French act of terrorism, it is you who is making them representatives of Islam, not us. You need to ask other Chechens living in France about what they think about this atrocity.
You say, “If tens of crores of Muslims across the world feel that they are victims of mass Islamophobia, it is a sense of siege and crisis.” Let me rephrase it in order to describe my side of what you call the many versions of this truth. I would say, “If tens of crores of Muslims across the world feel a sense of siege and crisis (because of a Chechen teenager who was hardly a university graduate, not to talk of him being a Muslim scholar), it is mass Islamophobia.”
1. You say Islam is the most politicized religion of all. Probably ‘yes’ in the media, but not in reality. While you begin this article by referring to the many versions of the truth, you end up considering democracy and secularism utopic – which is certainly not the case around the world. I am sure, being a journalist, you know this fact better than I do. So, in summary, an absence of democracy and secularism cannot be a proof of a failed political state. Nor can their presence prove a just and fair political state.
2. When you say that there is an unresolved tension among Muslim populations and nations between nationalism and pan-nationalism, you admit to the fact that the concept of Ummah has never arisen among the Muslims of the world. When there is not a single political entity called Islam or Muslims in the world, why on earth are you criticizing my faith and my identity because of the French terrorist? When you try to write off the crusades as past history, why even recall the wars fought among the Muslim nations? Even these wars are part of the past, albeit not so distant. In any case, these wars are hardly related with what has happened in France.
3. If pan-Islamism has worked with Al-Qaeda or ISIS, why is it that I hear of them only through you, and no one in my contact is associated with these organizations? I would argue that pan-Islamism in me is a lesser reality than pan-anti-Islamism present in you.
4. When you say, “They won’t distribute their wealth equally to the rest in the spirit of pan-Islamism,” do you want “them” to distribute the wealth equally and form a pan-Islamic political identity? I am not convinced that you do. If this be the case, why pick such a hole in Islam or Muslims that even if it is filled, you are not going to speak in favor of Islam or Muslims? Or is it that you feel that criticizing Islam is the easiest way to become a successful journalist?
5. I am an Indian so I can only talk about India. Anyway, when you say that in Islamic countries you cannot protest, do you think that protest is possible in other countries? I am sure that you are better aware of the world’s current affairs than I am.
“You can’t fight your masters, so why not punish the master’s masters?” So, you think that democracy is also about being a master? Is the US or the West, master of the Islamic countries, according to you? Anyway, I am not fighting my master or my master’s master. I am only trying to bring sanity in the thinking of a friend or a friend’s friend – i.e., Shekhar Gupta.
Here is wishing you more success and longevity, in your career as a journalist, and your life as a human being.
Best regards,
Your friend or a friend’s friend.
From your friend or friend’s friend:-
Not just Mr. Shekhar Gupta but everywhere across the world people seem to be thinking along these lines. Reason is the reaction of Muslims and leafers of Islamic nations to the attacks. Millions of Muslims are protesting against Mr. Macron – wishing death to him and his people, insulting his nation and society.
However, this same rage was not visible when the dastardly attacks took place. In fact, most if not all, justified the barbaric attacks.
You talk about India regarding the freedom to protest but the fact remains that no one was murdered or beheaded for the anti-CAA protests.
Your disdain and contempt for political ideas like democracy and secularism easily gives you away and shows your true colours. The fact that you dont consider these to be the basic premises on which a nation and a society must be built – no matter the religion or any other affiliation of the masses – in a way shows your support for Islamist nations/societies which have never accepted and practiced these ideas. Am pretty sure you would prefer to live in an Islamic theocratic state compared to a secular democratic one.
Also, Erdogan, Imran and Mahathir are/were elected/selected leaders of their predominantly Islamic nations. Hence, Mr. Gupta names them.
This. when idiot mullahs in Mumbai and bhopal took out massive rallies against macron.
This lot can’t deal with fools of their own religion and now we have to deal with these pseudosecular semi educated types.
Such a long prologue to sayt that Muslims are the true horrors in the present day world. Wherever Muslims are numerous enough they create a horror. Then they claim that they are being victimised. No sympathy for such cry babies.
To the Muslims I would say, set your own house in order. Stop blaming others. The world is fed up of you and your misdeeds. If the Muslims of the world don’t start living in peace with everyone else then sooner or later some country is going to do what the Russians did to Chechens.
Shekhar Gupta is a Hindu who’d be more than happy to live under Muslim rule.
The barbaric activities of Islamists worldwide are rooted in their book and their refusdl to reform. The points made by the author are at best pheripheral. There are umpteen number of dictats in the book seeki g to promote harred and violence.
Mr G Yagneswaran: The vast majority of Muslims, including Muslims whose mother tongue is Arabic do not – I reiterate do not – understand the Qur’an, written as it is in classical, ancient Arabic. This is especially true of Muslims from the Indian sub-continent, the majority of whom are barely literate and cannot read and write even in their own mother tongues. So I will posit that very Muslims have actually read the Qur’an. Just as very few Christians have read the Bible and very few Hindus have read the Gita or the Ramayana.
However, demagogues, religious leaders and any notable with some following and power will be able to incite masses into participating in demonstrations and carry out needless, barbaric acts of violence. And that happens across the board and in all religions. Thus, you have Muslims carrying out acts of violence, reacting more to incendiary preachers in mosques, politicians or to online propaganda than to any in-depth reading of the Qur’an. Indeed, online propaganda is currently the most effective recruiting tool for getting jihadists to leave the safety of France, Germany, US or UK and fight in Syria. And then get to regret it and want to get back home to the safety and comfort of Europe – as Britain’s ISIS terrorist Shamima Begum now wants.
Likewise, in India, lumpen elements respond to the clarion calls of Adityanath, Uma Bharti, Sakshi Maharaj and other Hindutva thugs and go on a rampage killing and lynching innocent Muslims. The mere allegation from these rabble-rousers that Hinduism is under threat from Islam will get these foot soldiers of Hindutva – in reality cannon fodder – to march for causes they know little about. Indeed, during the 2002 pogroms in Gujarat, these useful idiots who responded to VHP and RSS calls were quietly dumped by the VHP & the RSS and many now languish in jails. Clearly, these lumpen foot soldiers of Hindutva heed the calls of their political masters rather than any Hindu religious text.
So Mr G Yagneswaran, please do not over-estimate the intellectual abilities of those who march for religious causes and certainly not those who kill for religious causes.
Was Godhra a pogrom?
Yes.
The Muslims book is replete with references to khafirs – derogatively refering to followers of other faiths. Any amount of word jugglery and lengthy explanation is not going to help. What is needed is introspection of the community as a whole.
Issue is Muslims are doing mayhem in places where they came a refugees.
it is different story if they are doing it in middle east.
Bulk of them are essentially illegal Immigrants, to use modern terms, in South Asia & Europe and have shown their total unwillingness to assimilate. People came from outside in past both in Europe and South Asia. People like Greeks, Scythians, Huns etc came to India & Europe but they assimilated. British came and gone. You don’t see Brits in India. So British colonization was plunder like done by Tamerlane & Nadir shah. But it has no lasting damage to local people.
In South Asia , Muslims came as invaders, destroyed many temples robbed Indians of their wealth. The biggest nonsense propagated by Historians like Romila Thapper is that the rule by Delhi Sultanate was good. it is like South American Indians celebrating conquistadors as philanthropists in spite of stealing their land and killings. I like is description by Komireddi regarding behavior of people like Shashi Tharoor.
“India’s ‘secularists’ furnished explanations of the kind Tharoor reheats here when he writes that the Islamic invaders who settled in India were different from British imperialists because they invested their loot in India. Reading this, I pictured Warangal as the Delhi Sultanate’s Muslim troops captured its Hindu king in the 14th century. I don’t think any native who witnessed that great city’s subsequent destruction thought to himself, ‘They are smashing our majestic temple, carting away its golden idols, slaughtering men and abducting children, but it’s all right: I hear they are investing the gold up in Delhi.”
This is the history In spite of such violent history Muslims have refused be to assimilated into local culture. THAT IS THE REALITY that everybody sees. Your writing a book won’t change that perception and reality as seen by local people.
That shows you and others who justify violence for expressing a view have no clue about French history and how sacred the principles of the French revolution is to the French people. Ever heard of Voltaire — and his famous exhortation:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
Many years ago I heard a little girl saying to her Bangladeshi Buddhist doctor father that if you are so concerned about your culture, you should not come to the west in the first place, and stay in your home country.
Last line is reiteration of the camel and tent syndrome
I agree with only one point, i.e. all religions are political. Any discussion on why global Islam is in danger with practically no mention of American foreign policy in the middle east and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is meaningless. One could go on listing more reasons, but I’ll fall short of space here. You mention ex PM of Malaysia justifying mass killing of the French people for their crimes of the past. Indeed a horrendous statement. But compare it with the justification that Madeleine Albright (US secretary of state in the Clinton administration) of the (actual, not hypothetical) deaths of almost half a million Iraqis in the 90s due to American sanctions on Saddam. That is just one tiny example of how some lives are valued more than others (based on their socio economic status in the world).
When fragile societies are hit with a sledgehammer, there are some natural consequences to it. Terrorism (which for me is killing of innocent people to advance political and ideological agenda, not some fancy one sided definition that a government came up with to make their people feel good), is one of those consequences. This is an explanation, and not a justification of terrorism. These debates on supposed free speech in France are a red herring. I don’t think that the world, largely western world, has any intention to have an honest conversation on the topic, because that would involve admitting to some horrendous crimes that they have committed over the past half century or so (the illegal invasion of Iraq is one such example).
In short, we can all sit here and talk about how horrible is lung cancer (terrorism). That is an easy conversation to have. It will find an overwhelming consensus, but nothing useful is expected to come out of it. What is not easy is an honest discussion about its causes, namely smoking and pollution (read western interference in the Muslim world, and their continued support to anti-democratic forces which are hell bent upon crushing any kind of secular nationalism to develop in that part of the world).
This is called whataboutery. A textbook definition of the same.
Your root causes theory is the same one invoked by Mr. Imran Khan to justify violence. Question is if you feel so strongly against the Western world and its injustices, why immigrate there? If you know that you would forever be incompatible with their society and uncomfortable with their values and principles, why do you migrate? Why dont you just stay in your own nation?
The arguments that you have put out are specious to say the least.
Yeah the west is evil and all syrians and chechens muslim flee to that evil west. None go to the land of the pure.
Interesting whitewash Singhji !! Everything turns out to be the Westerners’ fault! Apparently, according to your logic, the westerners target only the Muslim nations; wonder why they are so much interested in only Islamic nations! The reality though is, the developed nations have no interest in any particular religion. They act only what is to their self-interest. The rest is a needless linking to religion, for the obvious fact that Islamic is a potent concoction of religio-politico-social movement, (not a religion per se).
Before we discuss issues put forth in this article, one basic point we should debate is – how much freedom of speech is justified? Also, what may be palatable to one person may not be so to another and that person may express his reaction by becoming violent, as that may be the only thing he understands. So the Western democracies need to debate and settle about the sensitivity of others and have a robust common sense of how to responsibly enjoy one’s freedom of speech.
Would you put up this very same (and lame) defence of the violence which has scarred France if it were committed by Bajrang Dal members?
Or are you just another commie who feels that he is duty bound to defend the Islamists and their barbaric acts?
Freedom of speech with restrictions is no, “Freedom”. There is no justification for violence because what someone has said is not palatable. It isn’t the Western democracies who need to debate and settle this. Those indulging in violence should do the debating.
In point no.5 you seem to justify violence. no matter what, no religion should ever resort to violence whatever the compulsion. the whole world must unite to make this very very clear.
It seems he has given a treason in point 5, not a justification
People should really come out of the cocoons of religion, culture and be liberal to people of other religion or culture. In fact the level of a true Christian, true Musalman, true Hindu, etc. is much above the human level. It’s wrong to think that a person born from a parent who’s trying to follow a religious path is of that religion. Nobody becomes a Christian or Muslim or Hindu by birth. The guys who are perpetrating violence or hurt by words are in fact yet to become true humans, least of all they’re religious by any means.
Beautifully put! Kudos to Shekar Gupta for looking beyond the obvious pointless view points.
Author is forgetting that many Pakistanis actively participated in Chechnya war, supported by its military state.
Overall the author is giving an impression that subcontinent muslims are less radical than middle eastern muslims. There are two flaws here: first is clubbing India, Pakistan, Bangladesh as subcontinent. Pakistan muslims have largely participated in terror activities, whereas Indian muslims didn’t. Second is author has failed to realises that the expression of radicalism depends on the their majority or minority status.
It is stated in the above “Editorial” that all religions are political. I think it is wrong to say so. Religions purely and totally “personal” to be practised within the four walls of the respective followers’ house or place of worship / prayer. Religion is a means of connecting one with the God in the way the individuals prefer or believe. It is therefore, one’s personal wish or believe to follow a particular way of worship or prayer or any other pattern and it should interfere in one’s transactions/ interaction etc., with others in any way whatsoever. This was the practice in the past some centuries ago. There were absolutely no conflict of faith to the extent that would harm the society’s well being and safety. On the contrary, people used to respect others’ religion and religious practices. There were instances of one community helping the people from different community /ies for fulfilling their religious practices if needed. Complete harmony was overwhelming. However, when political leaders started interfering and misleading the gullible masses on the basis of religion, things took different turn, particularly for worse. Now situation of interfering has become so intertwined with religion, there is seems to be no matter of more importance for the leaders except exploiting the masses’ religious sentiments. This has become so much such that political existence /survivalof the leaders depends almost solely on this platform. Therefore, I think, the idea of “all religions are political ” has gained. weight. Leave the “Religion” to the individuals in the real sense, there will be peace, tranquility and harmony in the society. But this does not come without a cost. The cost is “Politicians survival as politicians” to be at stake. Who will exercise this option ? None except those minuscule politicians who have the welfare and well being of the society and humanity at the bottom of their heart..
A fairly realistic and profound analysis of what limits the Muslim population across the world. To the extent that Islam is such a beautiful religion, but as SG says every religion is political, so is Islam and therefore it’s upon fellow Muslims to realise their religion will still be weighed down under political, economical and nationalistic barriers and until these are broken down, establishing something pan Islamic that is transcending is near to impossible.
A very thought provoking and insightful peice by SG sir and makes a very good weekend read – kudos!
Flawed Article , all my previous comments are deleted by The Print Liberal team ,who always talks about freedom of expression and freedom of speech , what a joke
Go on post on republic I have seen so many of your comments cut the crap
Khuran mandates the killing of non-Muslims and ex-muslims. Somehow if that one instruction can be deleted from Khuran, world would become a better place to live in.
Why is the Congress party & its paid media like The Print silent about persecution of Muslims in China?
Is it because your secularism is fake?
There have been numerous article and youtube videos by theprint with regards to Muslims in China.
A great clear headed article. But what about the growing asymmetry of terrorism where nationalism must stand up against not pan national organizations necessarily but against individual actors backed and supported by such organizations anywhere in the world?
French president is right , secularism , freedom of speech must be taught to every person to keep away from radicalism . Radicalised and fundamentalists are a threat to world . These radicals are misguiding people in name of religion . Prophet mohammad was abused by others but in quran it is written to keep calm and ignore those people
There is a key point to be made in some of Shekhar’s observations. The majority of Muslims do not subscribe to the various shortcomings listed. A majority of Muslim immigrants to liberal democracies do not subscribe to beheading of folks who insult Islam. Similarly, they don’t choose to be undemocratic nor would most push back against a democracy any more than North Koreans would. Given the fact that many societies are starting to condone violence and outright discrimination as a means of asserting a real/perceived loss of cultural identity, there is a great risk of further fanning Islamophobia if the point above is not also made, in articles like these.
Islamic apologist Guptha
Where a book can be written, you have covered or tried to cover in an article! I appreciate that you have the courage to look for reasons for the situation we are in. Just as France has done. Muslims have got themselves to blame for the current situation because they justify their acts through their religion & its’ teachings. Those within the community who don’t agree that the religion doesn’t spew venom won’t speak up. If a sensible veteran like Mahathir Mohammed can speak this language, what do you expect from the Erdogans and Khans of the world!
If Muslims want to reverse this situation, they need to assimilate themselves to the societies & countries where they belong. For that to happen, the educated people in Islam should come forward and speak up what their religion truly preaches, rather than leaving serious matters to the clerics.
how did muslims contributed to formation of indian republic……immediately after indepence..they formed islamic pakistan…and still were they are in majority ..they create problem…the problems with journalist in india is they can not be brutally true …and this is the most important cause of social and communal tensions…were oppresrror is never called opprsessor in india…
Pranam Gupta ji !! Please read Q and H with an open mind/ critical mind , m sure your understanding of the present situation will gain more clarity….. pan islamism or ummah nationalism crystallises and consolidates only if there is a “kaafir “ against them ,which you have conveniently ignored or forgotten……dhanyavad ??
@smartchap – freedom of speech does not care about your feelings. People need to learn to be mature and not go on beheading others in the street.
When in minority and living in democratic country, Muslims ask for more then equal treament and preach secualrism.
When in majority, they convert the country into islamic state and convert or masaacre non-Muslims.
This is the un-deniable fact. Offcourse there will alway be minuscle exceptions. But no need to sugar coat the brabaric nature of the followers all in the name of “peacefull” religion.
very thought provoking. Especially for a liberal.
Your article is completely biased. Let’s analyze. You have taken Pakistan’s corrupt political model (as their political leaders paint the colour of religion to everything under their hood) and applied globally. Firstly, everyone knows that the so called west were the first ones to start brutal killings, enslaved people and plundered many asian countries right from the 15th century. If you read history, you will know what gruesome and heinous crimes they committed.
Now coming to Mr.Macron, he from the very day of becoming the leader, have made negative comments about Islam and have continued to do so. This means he is a core hate monger or a master politician who wants to polarize people for votes under the pretext that french values are in danger (BTW, this is what every other politician in so-called democracy do including countries such as India, Bangladesh, pakistan, Srilanka etc.).
If Mr.Macron is a hate monger, he could do what the Mr. Trump does like limiting immigration, curb on muslim nations etc. Now, coming to the actual act, which is showing the cartoon of Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH) in bad light was a really insulting act to muslims globally. Now, people argue if the same is done to Jesus Christ or Moses (Jews) or Hindu/greek gods, people will note create such a mess as the muslims do. Arguably, yes! The reason is Muslims put Allah and his Messenger, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) above their own life, even more than their loved ones. The same is not seen in other religions because the they don’t love their gods/messiahs like the way muslims do. I am sure a non-Muslim will not understand this. For the non-Muslims sake, let me give an example. I am sure people, irrespective of their religions, love their parents, their children and siblings. Let’s assume Mr. Macron for that matter. If Charlie Hebdo/any other media draws a nude cartoon of Mr.Macroon’s mother and publish it all over their country, will Mr. Macron support the same act in the name of freedom of speech? He won’t! Likewise, no muslim would agree.
Now, coming to the killings, I think muslims there need to learn tolerance. Never-ever a killing is justified in Islam. If Mr. Macron tries to portray Islam in bad light, let him do. End of the day, each and every person, no matters who he is, is measured by the deeds he/she commits, in the eyes of God. Muslims know this. They also know that God will punish the bad, reward the good. It’s a universal fact, irrespective of religion. Now if that chech immigrant had accepted this fact, he wouldn’t have killed Mr. Paty. If Mr.Macron was a genuine person, he would have nabbed the killer and closed the chapter. Instead, he chose to demean Islam under the pretext of freedom of speech. This is called as politicising the issue, which Mr.Macron seems to be best at. And to the French muslims, they should have condemned both the acts. The drawing as well as the killing.
Such acts of violence and intolerance are exclusive to the Muslim community.
Question is why do the Muslims immigrate to nations like France knowing fully well that they will never ever be able to accept and accommodate the ethics and principles adhered dearly to by the society of that nation?
France provides free food and free everything to immigrants. No Islamic country does that.
But Muslims insult other religions every day. They claim their is the only true religion and every-other is false
– You insult me !
Thanks
Sincerely
Sri Krishna
Dear Krish,
I don’t want to go the right wing way and tell that people of your community Lynch muslims in the name of religion. I know know that majority of people don’t support that.
However, the statement you mentioned that many muslims insult other religions is not true. Some do. I know. Because they feel that they are the saviours of the religion and they think they are superior. They are sick minded. Islam doesn’t teach that. The best person in Islam is the one who doesn’t hurt others even through his words. This is clearly mentioned. But I know some peope might like to glorify what they like and conceal what they don’t. That’s a fact across religions, not just Muslims.
Dear Krish,
I don’t want to go the right wing way and tell that people of your community Lynch muslims in the name of religion. I know know that majority of people don’t support that.
However, the statement you mentioned that many muslims insult other religions is not true. Some do. I know. Because they feel that they are the saviours of the religion and they think they are superior. They are sick minded. Islam doesn’t teach that. The best person in Islam is the one who doesn’t hurt others even through his words. This is clearly mentioned. But I know some peope might like to glorify what they like and conceal what they don’t. That’s a fact across religions, not just Muslims.
Best,
Sameer
Dear Krish,
I don’t want to go the right wing way and tell that people of your community Lynch muslims in the name of religion. I know know that majority of people don’t support that.
However, the statement you mentioned that many muslims insult other religions is not true. Some do. I know. Because they feel that they are the saviours of the religion and they think they are superior. They are sick minded. Islam doesn’t teach that. The best person in Islam is the one who doesn’t hurt others even through his words. This is clearly mentioned. But I know some peope might like to glorify what they like and conceal what they don’t. That’s a fact across religions, not just Muslims.
Regards
Dear Mr.Krish,
Some DOES NOT represent ALL! If that’s the case, I can attribute all the muslim lynchings that happened in India by right wing hindu workers to all Hindu community. As a sane person I won’t think like that.
I hope you understand.
Best,
Sameer
Good point.
Right wingers like to always generalize and paint a community with same brush rather than accept it as isolated acts of few people blinded by faith. They want an enemy so that they can unite all Hindus against an “enemy” dspite differences in their caste system and many different spoken languages.
What do right wingers have to say about the Australian Christian priest who was burnt in Odisha? Should Christians then say all Hindus are violent?
In France the freedom of speech is absolute and all citizens are bound by that. If someone does not like a prophet cartoon ,
they are free to criticise, or produce counter cartoons to this. But they are not supposed to take to the knife or gun. Even Jesus Christ can be lampooned.
The problem is that French citizens from Islamic nations have taken all advantage of the French economy , its freedoms etc but want to retain their old Islamic modes of thinking. Native French are now saying conform , or move out , which is fair enough.
Sir, could you please ask your editorial staff to be just as reasonable & objective in their articles instead of choosing facts to justify their own prejudices? What your editorial staff follows is what modern educated Indians call pseudosecularism.
Isn’t it arrogant on the part of your editorial staff to believe that, educated modern Indians who compete on the world stage & are accepted as highly intelligent & rational people all over the world, are no better than journalists?
Dr Mahesh Docherla: Amusing to read your preposterous claim:
“.. educated modern Indians who compete on the world stage & are accepted as highly intelligent & rational people all over the world ..”
Alas, Dr Docherla, the vast majority of Indians in the West as well as in the Middle-East do not fit your description and categorisation. Many work in the service sector doing menial jobs or jobs that the natives won’t take. Glowing adjectives such as “educated”, “modern”, “highly intelligent & rational” and so forth might apply to a few (some?) but certainly not to the vast majority.
Fact is, most Indians do not make the news as the Sundar Pichais, Sathya Nadellas, Dr Sanjay Guptas, Nikki Haleys (Namrata Randhawa) and their ilk do. Unsung Indians, mostly blue collar workers toiling away, often out of sight of people like you are also part of the Indian diaspora.
Indeed, India is one of the top exporters of clandestine immigrants to the US, UK and Western Europe. In the US alone, there are more than ½ a million (525,000) undocumented Indians (ref:pewrsr.ch/382RsmS). The figures for the UK are in the range of 1 million undocumented (ref: bit.ly/37WuCNA) Indians. And most of these Indians work in gruelling, back-breaking and dangerous jobs for less than minimum wages and with no healthcare or other social protections. Of course, your ilk would perhaps not like to read about this group of blue collar immigrants – a group which is extremely important to the Indian economy as they remit more money back home than documented migrants.
You might also be surprised that Indians today function as de facto slaves in many Western countries. You ought to see the incisive Al Jazeera documentary “Italy’s Sikh Slaves” to get an idea of the level of exploitation. (ref: bit.ly/35QmJXq). But interestingly, most of the Sikhs in Italy are actually exploited by their own countrymen and co-religionists. Nonetheless, they would rather work in these inhuman conditions in Italy than go back to India. I guess they truly understand that Modi’s much ballyhooed “achche din” is a lot of tosh !
The image of India outside the country is a lot more complex and nuanced than what your jingoism would lead you to believe Dr Mahesh Docherla.
Many work in the service sector doing menial jobs or jobs that the natives won’t take.
That is true for bulk of Keralites in middle east.
Finally a secular worth of it’s cause, Cull out the all fake secualar who are quiet.
Muslims are not considered equal?
We bend over backwards as a society to accommodate them. We give them the right to different personal laws, subsidize their religious pilgrimages, and have a vocal, though clueless, bunch of morons with quick fingers and Twitter accounts.
As a professional engineer for the last 25+ years (IIT Grad), with a decade and a half in leadership positions, I challenge your premise. Never have I discriminated between any of my people, whether on religion, sex or any such measure that many use to divide people. Some of my best people have been Muslim. And many more were Female. All of them good , hard working, intelligent people. All they needed was a safe platform on which to perform. I gave them that – an equal playing field. My motto has always been – “Show me you can and go to the head of the class. No shortcuts. No Flags. Just your ability and willingness to work.”. Don’t take my word on that – ask those who worked with me in many different organizations.
Nor do I discriminate against them in broader society.
Please don’t paint us regular Indians, and Hindus, with a brush like that.
It wont make much difference even if you do. For we will not change that which is good – humanity.
Shekhar Gupta again demonstrates what quality journalism should be – simplify complex social/ economic/ political issue which is important and current. I wish he brings a second part. What are the possible solutions to this crisis. Draw lessons from the period when Christianity was somewhat similar to Islam of today. What elite muslims need to do? Why there is no moderate global islamic leadership?
Why no responsibility on individuals to get integrated in the culture and ethos of the country where immigrants go ? If they dont like the secular state and its free speech why they should go to such a place ? Instead the Chechan and others like them go to Pakistan , Afghanistan !
The concept of defending the right to expression, come what may, is liberating, even in concept. That President Macron is implementing it in verse is truly heroic. It is only hoped that France will defend the right to expression irrespective of which religion, society or country comes into play. But it is equally interesting to hear the Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, say that the terrorist attack in Nice was wrong but freedom of expression has limits. And he has a point.
But then how do you implement it? A discussion between Macron and somebody from the Islamic religion? But which logical, progressive and modern leader does the Islamic world have that can make this happen? Food for thought.
Excellent points. As a muslim I agree with all. Islam is indeed in crisis. There is no other way.
The problem of Muslims being insecure, divided, poor and oppressed in their own countries as Mr Gupta pointed out is only one part of the root cause analysis. The other part is the response of the multi-cultural societies to which Muslims belong. It is either brutal suppression like in the case of China, erstwhile Yugoslavia or even back home in Gujarat and Kashmir or laissez faire approach of the secular Europeans and Indian centerists and leftists. Why is it the European democracies do not insist that immigrant Muslims must put their children into state sponsored schools only for education and any religious education can wait until the child becomes an adult? Why is it that Mr Modi who has built his whole career on brainwashing Hindus into believing that all Muslims are fanatics did not push for secular education for all children in Gujarat while he was 3 term CM? Why does the PM not outlaw obvious religious symbols of expression in public all over India? He has pushed enough idiotic laws with his brute majority. I am sure that this can also be done. Why the same urgency has not been shown towards education as it has been towards building Mandir or outlawing beef or striking off 370? The brutal truth is that it is convenient for Mr Modi if Muslims remain ultra-religious, backward and susceptible to jihadist sympathies. Then he can tell Hindus “look your Muslim neighbour is a fanatic, vote for me to save you from him!”
Shekhar Guptha, if you are scared to write truth about Islam, donot write , you will put an attractive head line to your story and when we start reading, we find out typical Leftist apologist writer in your article about Islam . So please stop white washing Islam.
It is siege without.
SG
You are an absolute idiot with no knowledge of islamic history, caliphate
Freedom of expression shouldn’t voilate others religious beliefs
If u condemn killings ,you should have condemned blashpamous cartoons also
We will rise again we will caliphate and sharia
Mind your language man!
Syria is rising Yemen is rising
The 5 points point one truth..that the symptoms and cause lies within. There’s a saying when you point your one finger to another, three point towards you. Islamophobia is within Islam. Pan Islamic is a canvas to show it’s symptom. That takes us to need to closely examine and refine the Qaran. The rich class of mid East have no time for that, the majority middle class in Asian countries like India are muddled in day to day life and politics. Islam has no committed establishment like Christianity, nor its text a moderate one or one having only peaceful verses for teaching. The cancerous cells within Islam will ultimately decide it’s longevity. Like it or not. In the process ordinary Muslims will get sandwiched in their life for no reason. In that space, what Macron is taking a lead is laudable and will benefit French muslims atleast in the long run. Back home, Modi’s manifesto for Indian Muslim’s backed by RSS is also on the same lines. Give only cream of Islam to its Muslim citizens. Rest throw it in dustbin or burn it ruthlessly.
In the wake of the firm stand taken by the French President (a secular GORA), suddenly the intellectuals are now quoting what has been obvious to many idiots in the past. The stronger religious or ideological affinity over the national affinity has been promoted as means of garbing power by the religious and communist groups, across the world. They have been successful in countries where the state repression was very heavy with rulers having everything. In countries with the history of peaceful transition of power, these groups will only remain fringe players.
The freedom of views and expressions which do not directly encourage or lead to violence must be protected at all costs. Calling coukidar Chor and dande se marenge or state resembling POK is all part of that and OK.
ANY THING THAT DOES NOT CHANGE IS DESTINED TO PERISH and that applies to IDEALOGIES.
My two pence opinion. In my stay in KSA I have seen that they hate us because they realise that they have been left behind in progress. That is why they take to religion.
Another paradox is the context of modern Islam when muslims are in a majority they seem to have found a kind of self destruct button and when they are in minority in a country they want to take every one down along with them just because their religious leaders keep on brainwashing them that the only way to be a true Muslim is by negating the culture of the place and by living as differently from them as possible.
Bang on the target. Vintage Shekhar is back
Mr. Gupta,
Good analysis. You also could include the difference in treatment of Muslims from subcontinent by those from middle east. Subcontinent Muslims are not considered equal.
Muslims are not considered equal?
We bend over backwards as a society to accommodate them. We give them the right to different personal laws, subsidize their religious pilgrimages, and have a vocal, though clueless, bunch of morons with quick fingers and Twitter accounts.
As a professional engineer for the last 25+ years (IIT Grad), with a decade and a half in leadership positions, I challenge your premise. Never have I discriminated between any of my people, whether on religion, sex or any such measure that many use to divide people. Some of my best people have been Muslim. And many more were Female. All of them good , hard working, intelligent people. All they needed was a safe platform on which to perform. I gave them that – an equal playing field. My motto has always been – “Show me you can and go to the head of the class. No shortcuts. No Flags. Just your ability and willingness to work.”. Don’t take my word on that – ask those who worked with me in many different organizations.
Nor do I discriminate against them in broader society.
Please don’t paint us regular Indians, and Hindus, with a brush like that.
It wont make much difference even if you do. For we will not change that which is good – humanity.
You misunderstood my comment. Subcontinent Muslims are not treated well or considered a proper Muslim by those from Arab countries. They feel that Muslims from subcontinent are those converted from Hindu religion.
” You also could include the difference in treatment of Muslims from subcontinent by those from middle east. Subcontinent Muslims are not considered equal.”
Of course not. why should they? beggars can’t be choosers.
Sub-continental Muslims are there to better themselves, not to local people. As a matter of fact Arab countries are keeping smarter policies. Sub-continental Muslims has been fed the idea of entitlement by Hindu secularists. Middle-eastern countries have brought all these people as beast of burden, not fore their self -perceived entitlement. Because of these tough policies Middle-eastern countries are able to allow far larger percentage of outsiders compared to their local population.
There are not may cases of immigrant Pakistani or Chechen killing local because he was angry, for whatever the reason. West’s problem arise from their willingness to accommodate fanatic Muslims coming to their country.
Of course Hindu secularist like you don’t like that. You want Arabs to bend backward like Indians to accommodate fanatics and export your Chaos there.
The beginning of the article itself is flawed. French president did not get into trouble because he said Islam is in crisis. He invited the wrath of all, because of justifying the insulting of prophet in the name of freedom of speech.
Ok,so beheading is justified according to your religion ? If that’s what you are telling me,time to ask NIA to keep an eye on radical Muslims like you.
Muslim rage does not emerge from respect for muhammad but from the knowledge that muhammad is a fraud & that their entire system of belief is a fraud that could never stand up to any scrutiny…!!!!!!
If the world’s religions were paintings in a museum, Islam would be a child’s dirty smeared finger painting all in one color.
no he did erdogan was the first one to pounce on this.
You imply that freedom of speech is qualified, no it isn’t . This is what the debate is all about. If some one expresses something deemed wrong by certain people, that person is not to punished by beheading. He has right to express, and live with that expression.
maybe you should check the chain of event. it started when he said Islam is in crisis. n defend the right to publish cartoon. he does not defend the cartoons but the right to publish them
Specifically in France , the cartooning of prophet is fine and everyone can do this. Maccron himself does not justify this, but he upholds others’ right to depict cartoons. If Islamic people want to retaliate they can produce counters to this in newspapers and magazines. But they cannot take up the knife or gun . It’s all a question of conforming to French laws and conventions and the migrants haven’t understood this.
Smartchap: So how exactly should this “wrath” manifest itself ? Through violence?
All the problem would be solved if all Muslims in France left that country in protest. But they will not because where else they will get free food anfd free everything.