Activists demonstrate against French President Emmanuel Macron over his controversial remarks on Islam, at Iqbal Maidan in Bhopal, Thursday, Oct. 29, 2020. | PTI
Activists demonstrate against French President Emmanuel Macron over his controversial remarks on Islam, at Iqbal Maidan in Bhopal, Thursday, Oct. 29, 2020. | PTI
Text Size:

The beheading of Samuel Paty, the Paris school teacher, has brought reactions from world over. While most of them straightaway condemn the heinous act, few are coated with the spice of ‘conditions’. A few others have been apologists for the killer. Among all the reactions, I read an interesting article by Zainab Sikander in ThePrint: “Quran doesn’t tell people to fight any more than Gita, Bible, Torah. Why pick on Muslims.” Even though I read the article with the utmost care, I could not find the expressed arguments in the right order.

According to Zainab, offensive cartoons of Prophet Muhammad have humiliated and bullied a faith that is older than fourteen centuries in the name of “freedom of expression”. If I read the author’s expressions well, then French President Emmanuel Macron’s endorsement of Charlie Hebdo’s caricatures of Prophet Muhammad was a grave mistake, and a deliberate attack on Muslims — an insult to the Rasul. But, wasn’t it the same France that gave refuge to Muslims, among whom was Paty’s killer Abdoullakh Abouyedovich Anzorov?

Even before Anzorov was born, Charlie Hebdo had a reputation for being satirical on all Abrahamic faiths. Largely, the magazine has always been anti-religion. Hence, it is never of great sense to expect it to behave differently for a particular faith. As far as Macron’s endorsement is concerned, one must get the context right. The French President’s reaction came after Samuel Paty was beheaded for showing Hebdo’s caricature of Muhammad in the classroom to explain ‘freedom of expression’. As per the reports, Samuel had requested Muslim students to leave the classroom to avoid any offence. He was sensitive enough to take care of someone else’s faith. But despite that, he lost his life.


Also read: 5 dead, 15 wounded in Vienna terror attack as gunmen open fire at 6 locations


Quran and violence

Zainab says that be it 9/11, Paty’s killing, IC-814 hijack or Al-Qaeda, Prophet Muhammad cannot be held responsible for these acts.

But every incident she mentions has happened in the name of Muhammad. I, as a non-believer in Muhammad’s words, always get sceptical of his true will and desires. For a Kafir like me, the question continues to trouble — whose interpretation should I accept? Of an Islamic scholar like Zakir Naik or some other deemed-to-be Moderate Muslim? The fact is that even the Quran was penned decades after the demise of the Rasul and we have various versions of it. As per Quran, it is supposed to be the final book, but despite that, Hadiths were written. Everyone tried to become an advocate for Rasul. Unfortunately, there are verses in the Quran that talk of beheading quite clearly.

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom ’til the war lay down its burdens. (47.4)

When the Lord inspired the angels (saying) I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. (8.12)

Commentators agree that beheading is prescribed in war. And the likes of Osama bin Laden have been using Quranic verses to terrorise people. Hence, when these verses offend non-Muslims, Muslims shouldn’t be questioning them. Instead, the onus lies upon the Muslim community to first recognise the offence and protest the misuse of the Quran by terrorist organisations. Non-Muslims never have issues with Quran-defending Zainab Sikanders, but they have issues with bin Ladens and Baghdadis who, too, quote the Quran to smit the neck of innocent people. In this case, Zainab’s defence of the Quran becomes invalid because people are still out there who behead in the name of Muhammad and the Quran. Hence, it should be the duty of the Ummah to ensure that the Holy book and the Rasul don’t remain hijacked by the terrorists.

Islamic terrorists have always chanted “Allahu-Akbar” while executing the crime. The verse is considered pious by the world’s one-fourth population who thinks an ‘insult’ to Muhammad as offensive. Shouldn’t Muslims first take offence of the fact that terrorists use the name of “Muhammad” and “Allah” while they commit heinous crimes? Every liberal Hindu went “la la” to sing the tune of “Not in My Name”, but in contrast, it never appeared among the Islamic diaspora. Instead, “Ummah” always stood only to condemn and protest the acts of blasphemy.


Also read: For French Muslims, every terror attack brings into question their loyalty to the republic


French law allows everyone to be Samuel Paty

What Zainab also forgets in her protest of the cartoonists is that France has long abolished the blasphemy law. Hence, drawing cartoons of Muhammad or any other prophet is not a crime there. The Constitution of France gives rights to every citizen to do what Charlie Hebdo and Samuel Paty did. Why should someone have a problem with the way France has operated for so many decades? Did refugees like Anzorov not consider France’s socio-cultural fabric when they came seeking shelter in the country about a decade ago? And did any other country stand for them in their crisis, the way France did?

There have been incidents in India and world over where the silence of the Muslim community have been deafening — it’s only hurting them.

Kamlesh Tiwari was murdered because he addressed Muhammad as gay. A Dalit Congress leader’s house was set on fire in Bengaluru because his nephew shared a derogatory post about Muhammad. The Swedish city of Malmo saw rioting after far-Right activists burned the Quran. In all these incidents, I have never seen Muslims protest or come together and condemn the acts of violence. Don’t people often quote the Quran 5.32?

“… whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely…”

Does this verse from the Quran not talk about corruption in the land? If so, then breaking the rule of a country amounts to corruption. But there are no large protests against those murderers? Shouldn’t humanity outweigh the book? If Muhammad was present today, the apostle of peace that he was (as mentioned by most of my Muslim friends), he would have been the first to disown these heinous acts against non-Muslims. The people who call themselves the followers of Muhammad must ensure that the non-believers see him in a good light. Let verse 5.32 be more of Muhammad’s identity than 8.12. The action speaks louder than words.


Also read: Greek orthodox priest shot at in French city of Lyon, reason for attack unclear


The Muslim world needs ‘not in my name’

According to Zainab, the world has been fixated with Islam for nearly two decades because of terrorism. It appears she is ill-informed. Islamist extremists have perpetrated 31,221 terror attacks and killed 146,811 people worldwide since the ugly episode of 9/11, says the reputed German newspaper Welt in a report published a year ago. If I do basic mathematics, it gives that around five terror attacks happen every day. In India, we have seen huge support at funerals of terrorists like Burhan Wani when agitations should have occurred against them. Does it not answer why fingers are pointed at Islam? Aren’t ‘deemed-to-be-moderate’ Muslims responsible for it?

Zainab believes that the French President’s reaction has kept France talking entirely about Islamic terrorism. But how else would have Macron reacted? Was it not Islamic terrorism that tried to curb the core principle of French democracy, which is ‘freedom of expression’? Zainab finds Marcon’s decision to keep publishing Charlie Hebdo’s work as deliberate provocation and insult to Muslims. Why is she expecting France to go against her natural character, just to appease a particular community?

While the author seems to feel the pain of the one-fourth population of the world, she ignores what happens in Hindu-majority India, most of the time. Many stand-up comedians have insulted Hindu gods/goddesses. Do these ever lead to global protests?

Protests that stand on the blood of innocents only push Muslims on the back foot. The story would have been much different had the pan-Islamic community made an exception in 2020 by bringing large assemblies condemning the attacks in France and starting a movement like ‘Not In My Name’.


Also read: Understand feeling of Muslims over cartoons of Prophet, says Emmanuel Macron


Context and Quran

Zainab says that people cite Quranic verses out of context to paint Islam violent. But she fails to understand that precedents supersede contexts. The Ummah believes in the establishment of Dar al-Islam, and as per theology, until the same is fulfilled, Dar al-Harb shall ever remain an enemy State. The Muslim world, globally, needs to denounce the idea of Dar al-Islam. Until the same is done, it is impossible to believe that Ummah is not going to consider non-Muslim kafirs as enemies. B.R. Ambedkar decodes the idea in his book Pakistan or Partition of India.

Zainab states that it is wrong to cite Quran 2.191 to establish Islam’s open support for violence. According to her, verse 2.191 of Quran was revealed when Muslims on the Hajj pilgrimage were attacked and killed by the Quraysh tribe who had signed a treaty with the Prophet, promising not to attack the pilgrims. But is this claim by the author true? One needs to read Sīrat Rasūl Allāh by Ibn Ishaq to know the reality, detailed in folio 803.

After the treaty of Hudaibiya was made, two feuding tribes aligned themselves on opposing sides of the Meccan-Muslim divide. The tribe that allied with the Meccans had suffered a series of murders at the hands of the other before the alliance, which they sought to avenge. The matter can be summarised as below:

A member of Tribe Banu Bakr (later allied with Mecca) is murdered by members of Tribe Khuza’a (later allied with Prophet Muhammad). In revenge, the Bakrs murder a Khuza’a. In retaliation, Khuza’a kills three members of Tribe Banu Bakr. After this bloodshed, while Khuza’a joins the Muslim alliance, Banu Bakrs join the Meccans. Banu Bakr then seeks revenge for the last murders by killing members of Khuza’a.

Although the original chain of murder was started by Khuza’a, the fact that they were attacked by the tribe allied with the Meccans after allying with the Muslims constituted a technical breach of the treaty – which Muhammad then capitalised on by marching his superior forces into Mecca and establishing the authority of Islam by force. Hence, it would always appear that the Meccans were the first to violate the treaty. Significantly, the treaty’s main purpose was to allow Muslims to enter Mecca and perform the haj at the Kaaba. This had been the main grievance of Muhammad (Source: Sura 2 of the Quran). Not even the staunchest defender ever claims that the people of Mecca hindered Muslim pilgrims following the treaty’s signing. Hence, in plain words, they were faithful to the terms, making armed conflict unnecessary.

However, even within the realm of technicalities, Muhammad was still the first to violate the Treaty of Hudaibiya. In fact, the Quran acknowledges this, which means any knowledgeable Muslim must as well.

The terms of the treaty specified that any Muslim who flees Mecca for Medina must be returned. But when a group of Muslims did exactly that a few weeks after the treaty was signed, Muhammad did not return all of them and kept the women. The same finds justification in the Quran; 60.10. So was Muhammad given personal permission to break the treaty?

Hence, it becomes clear that Muslims were murdering Meccans well after the treaty was signed and also before for revenge killings between the opposing tribes.


Also read: Erdogan’s assault on Macron is the height of cynicism


Quran and Gita, a flawed comparison

Zainab also compares Quran 2.193 with Bhagwad Gita 2.33. Another wrong comparison. In the former’s case, the Meccans were forced into war and in fact, Muhammad himself had broken the treaty technically (as explained above). Also, here the history involved the establishment of a religion. But in Gita, Krishna asks Arjuna to fight for the sake of Dharma. Zainab commits the mistake of equating religion and Dharma. Religion is an institution while Dharma is the way to strive to be right. Dharma tells to reject the institution which shows the wrong path. It signifies behaviors that are considered to be in accordance with Ṛta, the natural order that makes life and universe possible. It includes duties, rights, laws, conduct, virtues, and the right way of living. ‘Rajadharma’ means king’s duty, not religion. We mustn’t confuse “dharma” with “religion.”

It was futile to compare Gita with the Quran. When Bhagwad Gita was conceived, the concept of religion was non-existent. The fight was not about religion but about dharma — righteousness. The truth is that, however bitter it may seem, no one kills in the name of Gita. No one has ever cited verses of Gita to justify why he wishes to kill non-Hindus. But verses from the Quran have even been part of Osama bin Laden’s Jihad declaration over the US.

Muhammad will not come back and nor will Krishna, but our deeds will portray the image of them upon generations to come. With the given circumstances around, it must be understood that the image of the Quran and Prophet Muhammad lies in the hands of the Muslims, and not in its comparison with Gita, Bible or Torah.

Aabhas Maldahiyar @aabhas24 is a practicing urban designer, columnist, author and an amateur History researcher. Views are personal.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it

India needs free, fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism even more as it faces multiple crises.

But the news media is in a crisis of its own. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, yielding to crude prime-time spectacle.

ThePrint has the finest young reporters, columnists and editors working for it. Sustaining journalism of this quality needs smart and thinking people like you to pay for it. Whether you live in India or overseas, you can do it here.

Support Our Journalism

73 Comments Share Your Views

73 COMMENTS

  1. barking dogs stop to bark against Muslims.I thinks that why the non muslims in the world are in fear due to quick spread of Islam conidering Islam as untrue way?? If Islam is untrue then why it is spreading too fast??

  2. Finally, an articulate and no-nonsense approach to addressing the damn elephant in the room….thank you Print, and Aabhas ! He has said everything that I and most others that read Zainab’s piece were thinking of, but weren’t articulate enough to express.

  3. Absolutely brilliant article. But the problem is complex. Even if some Muslims were to initiate “Not in my name” movement, our Liberals, Leftists, Congress and Democrats would brand them as reactionaries and dismiss them. Imam Tawhidi, Tarek Fatah etc are branded Sanghis while Owaisi, Zakir Naik and such people are true representatives of Islam for the Liberals. How can we expect reforms ?

  4. the comments have already said it but i also want to repeat that it is a great article. and mainly it exposes the infactual claims of Zainab.

  5. Islam cannot be reformed. It must be rejected wholesale by entire humanity. Muslims should actually launch protest against islam itself, not (purported) right or wrong interpretations of quran.

    Islam must be named and shamed for the evil religion that it is.

  6. I kid you not, I’ve talked to Muslims online who think a drawing of MoMo is LITERALLY no different than sexually assaulting / raping someone’s mother. Voltaire coined it best with ‘Fanaticism’

  7. “While most of them straightaway condemn the heinous act, few are coated with the spice of ‘conditions’. ”
    You see only a few ?

  8. A positive thought, definitely. Changes have to come from within. Ancient texts are just that – ancient. Change is the only constant. You can’t move forward in reverse/neutral gears.

  9. Zazinab is an aboveground operative and apologist for the evil supremacist hatefilled cult founded by the genocidal, misogynist, slave trader, rapist pedophile.

  10. Hehe , Moderate muslim???? Have you heard their taqiyya? Its halal to deceive kafir for the glory of Islam . Do not ever try to trust them. Merkel is a traitor who sacrifice her people for her ideals. European people have became spoiled, deluded in their ideals. That’s why they always complained about chinese, asian, indian robbed their job. Wake up, European people! I’m a chinese descendant living in muslim majority country. Many temples have been burned, many churches have been closed down, some town prohibits x-mas and even family ritual was prohibited, and bakery cannot display x-mas cake if they want Halal certificate. Tolerant ?? Haha , it;s just they perform taqiyya!

  11. Brilliantly written, but completely wasted effort as it will have no effect on those for whom this article is intended. Is there a single Muslim who has come out in support of what the author has written in the comments section? How many Muslim journalists, and there are a few in The Print itself, have condemned the beheadings without whataboutry? In fact Zainab Sikandar told a lie when she wrote that “Dharma” is equivalent to religion. Is her knowledge indeed so shallow that she thinks that Kurukshetra War was about religion? And now think how that article made it past the editorial team, assuming that The Print has one.

  12. Zainab Sikander is a frivolous writer. It is giving her too much respect and credence to rebut her silly writing so elaborately. But, the writer is bang on the point when leads arguments to conclude that Image of Muhammad lies in the hands of Muslims. Is murdering the supposed offenders only way of conlcuding an argument? Anyway, in Gita 2.33, Krishna advises waging war as a warrior’s duty. It is not prescribed for every follower of Hinduism. Anyway, in thousands of years, none has understood the defence and description of wars in Hindu scriptures as licence to go around beheading the supposed offenders.

  13. Excellent articulation by Aabhas ji in response to false equivalence between messages of Koran and Gita and interpretations by followers. Co existence of different faiths needs acceptance by all. Leaders and followers of any religion , who believe they are superior and their scriptures give them right to rule the world by killing others or by conversion are the real problems. This will face more resistance in the times to Come. Clearly responsibility lies with the believers of coexistence to raise their voice.

  14. A few things got cleared – 1. Islam = Right to get offended and justify taking law in individual’s hand.
    2. Muslims simply don’t care. This author does not even have 0.00000001% impact on Muslims with simply compared with Zakir Naik.
    3. Comments from non-Muslims – if you read first 2 comments right, you rather worry for self and author. Expect no change in behaviour of Zainab and likes of her. Because of likes of Zakir Naik and secularist.

  15. Not only Islam, they publish material which may offend all religions! Others let it pass! It is the Muslims who respond and such responses may include beheadings and acts of violence!!

    Is their Muslim response per Quran? Please read on:

    What blasphemy Law?

    The Quran informs the reader that the Prophet was mocked, ridiculed (37:12) like the messengers before him (13:32; 15:11; 21:41). He was called an inventor, forger, a liar (16:101; 25:4), a man who was bewitched (17:47; 25:8), that he was a possessed poet (37:36). Insults were even hurled at the Quran, in that it was called ‘muddled dreams’ (21:5), ‘foreign, outlandish’ (16:103), an invention, a forgery (38:7) and tales of the men of the past (25:5).

    However, the single most grave blasphemy was undoubtedly the blasphemy against God Himself.

    7.180 “The most beautiful names belong to God: so call on him by them; but shun such men as use profanity (Arabic: Yul’hiduna) in His names: for what they do, they will soon be requited”

    Arabic: Yul’hiduna – Blaspheme, deviate, violate, distort, pervert.

    At no point did any of these insults attract the death penalty.

    Rather, the advice was:

    38.017 “Be patient over what they say and remember our servant David, the man of strength for he was repeatedly turning (to God)”

    20.130 “Therefore be patient with what they say, and celebrate (constantly) the praises of thy Lord, before the rising of the sun and before its setting, yea, celebrate them for part of the hours of the night, and at the sides of the day: that you may have (spiritual) joy”

    Whether repeated insults and evil transgression which incite hatred, terrorism and evil in the land can be classed as ‘fasaad’ remains a matter for the state to decide. However, this is very different from the general ‘blasphemy’ understood by many Muslims today who believe it correct to murder anyone for uttering anything against the Prophet.

    • So, God ask for help to his creatures? Isn’t that God is Supreme and himself created even no believers? For that case, God himself is capable of punishing those insulting him, but as you are being at his meet, and choose to fight to save him from blasphemoy, then you are clearly supporting the argue of nobelievers as they say , all the Gods and his so called Holly books are man made fictions..Instead of asking for mass destruction just arrange mass prays and. Ask God to interference ..

    • except MoMo was a fraud given how he failed miserably at the previous covenant. In Judaism, GOD HIMSELF punished those who persecuted the Israelites, and when Israelites were told what they must do in order to prevent being enslaved again, and they found that horrific, and subsequently were enslaved again. Jesus was mocked but he didn’t hire a group of thugs to kill those who insulted him. The fact that Mohammed claims to have Jesus’ OK is CLEAR proof that he doesn’t know anything Jesus taught. He denied the civinity of Jesus and claimed he was just some kid who made clay birds. Mo is literally the Antichrist. and let’s not forget the insults and mocking Mohammed did of the Meccan pagans and their idols.

  16. Excellent rebuttal to the article. When I first read the article by Zainab . I was pained to learn that the beheading of an innocent teacher in the name of their religion doesn’t cause abhorrent shame for the entire community. Instead they rant by quoting inaccuracies veiled as authentic references. The very fact that perceived insult to their so called holy book enrages them more than loss of an innocent life in the most tragic way , considering the attacker was using islam’s holy words clearly shows where their priorities lie. Very rightly said that their job is to call out the extremists and tell the whole world the extremists view is not the right one . Obviously of course if that really is the case one always wonders.

  17. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50, London: Longmans, Green Co., 1899).

  18. AAbhas, I wish we had more voices like you!! all the digital platforms are openly biased and do not recognize ideology and Indic voices like you.. Great article!!

  19. Excellent one, someone who has the courage to write, without offending any religious sentiments of pious muslims, More voices of moderate liberal muslism will help free Islam being held hostate by fanatics. Stop trying to convince non muslims, first protest kiiling sbeing done in the name of Allah.

    • I agree. Aabhas needs to be congratulated for writing a nuanced article on this thorny issue. If we have to fight fundamentalism then moderate voices must gather strength to speak firmly against such acts of cruelty as indulged by the killer of French teacher. There needs to be strong ‘ not in my name’ movements to dispel perception of violence attached with Islam.

  20. Thank you so much to the author writing this. He has courage and be safe. Sir in south news papers used to publish so many cartoons on Ganesh especially during Ganesh chaturdi. They mix with humor. Everyone one likes those cartoons. Btw hinduism is way of life. No hindu fought wars on religion they fought for dharma

  21. Islam – offended by everything but ashamed of nothing.
    People like Zainab Sikander are closet Islamists. They are happy when non-believers are beheaded or slaughtered but keep their glee hidden lest someone call them out for who they actually are.
    However, if anyone from the Ummah becomes the target of violence and discrimination, they rail and rant.

  22. As long as Muslims believe that killing an infidel will get them guaranteed place in heaven, there is no way Muslims will rectify their behaviour.

  23. Ours is a hidebound, traditionalist society mired not so much in physical backwardness as in mental backwardness. Only a sick society living in the past would indulge in the kind of extended Sharia debates which seem to be one of our regular pastimes. Ayaz Amir, 14/2/14 The News.

  24. In an interview with the German daily Bild, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban defended his country’s refusal of an EU-wide refugee resettlement quota, saying that he believed refugees are “Muslim invaders.”

    Orban also rejected the idea that Hungary should be open to accepting people from majority-Muslim countries, saying his country “doesn’t want to be forced.” “We believe that a large number of Muslims inevitably leads to parallel societies, because Christian and Muslim society will never unite,” Orban told the paper. “Multiculturalism is only an illusion,” he added.

  25. Not sure who the author is preaching to. If it’s to Muslims then the truth is they don’t care, including the likes of Ms Zainab Sikandar. Does the author seriously think that Ms Sikandar or those of the ilk don’t already know what the author has written. The truth is that there are 2 types of Muslims one those who behead and the rest like Ms Sikandar who support the beheading. Anybody else is not considered a Muslim. Instead of trying to enlighten those who refuse to see the light, what is more important is the reaction of the non-Muslim world. Whether they accept the ifs, buts and whataboutery of those who justify beheading whilst drawing false comparisons or will stay resolute to the their own beliefs based on freedom of expression, liberty, equality and fraternity. Giving homilies to Muslims is pointless. They have made up their minds. It’s for the rest of the world to decide.

  26. Muslims are probably the only sect that have brought woe onto themselves by their own heinous acts, steeped as they are in their religious bigotry. It is time they gave free thought a chance.

  27. ”Millions of Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Jews and Buddhists are also poor, illiterate and oppressed. Do they engage in terrorism, riots and bomb blasts, population explosion and jihad like Muslims do? ” Taslima Nasreen

  28. Muslims must always be Muslims, but the rest of the world must be secular. Muslims must have the right to change the demography of every non-Muslim countries of the world, but non-Muslims cannot have any such rights. Muslims must have the right to abuse other religions, demolish their religious temples and churches, but others cannot have that right. Muslims have the right to kill others in a train or in a church, but non-Muslims cannot reciprocate.

  29. Prophet Muhammad is the greatest in the history of humanity according to #lamartine a French native. Therefore it’s the responsibility of the non Muslims to first clearly understand the basic principles of Islam not to argue out of context because the personality of Osama bin laden can’t be muched with the Muhammad and at the same time, the whole religion of Islam will not be criminalised cose of his acts thus his greatness to the light of Muslims can’t be faded away by what is so called “expression of freedom of speech which is 100times younger than the book of the prophet. I only welcome wise sayings. Islam the truth religion.

    • Islam only right religion – lol, That’s the exact problem. Your faith is yours. If you want to impose your thinking on others, the matter will only be decided by war and this is why Muslims are always protesting for wrong reasons. If your prophet is great, show it by your community’s actions. As we can see from your words,you are a bigot and hater who is only loyal to ummah. Such ppl who cannot abide by nation state rules should move to an islamic country. Nothing wrong in saying this.

    • The life of muhammad shows clearly he was a robber at his very best and a scoundrel at his very worst. You muslims need to understand that.

  30. Take it from me. ‘Not in my name ‘ protest won’t come in from Muslim community . All these secularism is only for Hindus.

  31. This is a spiteful article written with a lot of hate and little knowledge and understanding of the religion. The author might be making references to scriptures to come across knowledgeable but seems clearly deluded.

  32. It is the need of the day for moderate Muslims to come forward and take the leadership of Muslim minorities worldwide. Because if they failed the result would be catastrophic, as there would be polarization of Muslims resulting in counter-polarization of non-Muslims, which could lead to clash.

    • No such creature called the moderate Muslim exists. So the question of them taking the lead simply does not exist. The more extreme Muslims behead and the less extreme (moderate?) Muslims support the beheading.

  33. as you have rightly mentioned, we have no problems with quran defending zainab sikabders and our problems are with extremists shouting allah -u- akbar.
    but we are equally scared that the same zainab sikanders would take a foot if given an inch. if their likes are even given a glimpse of an opportunity, they will try their level best to impose their will on all non islamic countries and if possible convert them all into an islamic nation.
    there in lies the danger to india.
    that is why perhaps the so called rising hindhu militants believe that it is better that india becomes a militant hindhu state rather than a miltant islamic state.

  34. It is a thoroughly researched reply.One wonders whether Zainab knew as much about Islamic theology as the present author.Obviously a scholarly counter.

  35. A little unfair to ask 1.8 billion Muslims – one fourth of the world’s population – to take moral responsibility for what a microscopic minority is doing. Make a public spectacle of distancing themselves from acts of terror, which should not be classified / categorised as Islamic terrorism in the first place. Like young Muslim children being asked to wave the tricolour a lot more vigorously than their Hindu friends, whose patriotism is a given.

    • If that one fourth gives moral support to the acts of “microscopic minority”, then it is morally responsible for their actions. If you indulge in whataboutry, as Zainab Sikandar has done, you are morally responsible.

    • What about hindus/hindutvadis taking responsibility for lynchings (100 or so in a land of more tan a billion)which have always occurred in feudal/tribal parts but have suddenly come to media focus as an ‘indian’ problem as tho muslims here are unsafe in global media? Do you know how many hindus are lynched? perps of BOTH religions . Read the whole article. Answers your questions

  36. Oh My God! Couldn’t have expected better reply than this. Written in good context and facts. I must say Muslims should read this. They still follows Osama’s Quran and not Zainabs. Awesome.

  37. A big salute to the author from the depth of my heart. Its really a piece of intellectual and scholarly work though very short. It has torn off all of Zainab’s arguments for that matter most of the Muslim umma. I too agree that at least the so called moderate peace loving muslims should come out and say loud and clear “Not In May Name”. That will save lot for the humanity. Once again congratulations Mr. Aabhas.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here