The Distinction between People and Ideologies

This is a post explaining once again my views on Islam and why I write what I do. This is in response to the comments to a post from yesterday, Geert Wilders is a Maladjusted Person. This post will not be of interest to you if you don’t care about the topic of Islamic terrorism.

In a comment to that post, Sriram quoted me —

Islam brainwashes people from an early age to become terrorists and suicide killers, as the report from Islamabad reveals. It turns people into killing machines. Humanity is lost and often to a degree that parents bury their children alive for such trivialities as talking.

— and wrote, “These kind of statements are quite not upto the bars you raised otherwise.”

I fail to see where I have failed to meet the standards (whatever they be) that I have set. I would like to believe that I do present reasons for my assertions. In the present instance, my claims that Islam brainwashes people to become terrorists and suicide killers is supported by evidence. Just open the newspaper any day of the week. Do people turn into killing machines as a result? Evidently so. Once again read the papers.

Check the statistics. TheReligionofPeace.com reports that for the week Jan 30 — Feb 05 2010, there were 29 Jihad attacks, which killed 210 people and left 716 critically injured. It reports that since 9/11/2001, Islamic terrorists have carried out more than 14,793 deadly terror attacks. They don’t report a death toll since 9/11/2001, but it must be over 100,000 dead. For the month of January 2010, it is 683 dead and 1,251 critically injured.

These statistics cannot be accurate. They may be under-estimates or over-estimates. It does not matter, really. The story they tell is undeniable. Even discounting them heavily makes you realize the extent of the horror that Islam motivates against non-believers.

Sriram writes —

I can easily counter this with so many instances: how about the music maestros such as Ustat Bade Ghulam Ali Khan, Amir Khan, Abdul Karim Khan, Bismillah khan not to touch even other spheres of human intellect? Not many devout muslims are turning out to such Killing machines.

Yes, you can counter with many instances of great Muslims. But then you are not arguing against me, in that case. You are arguing against someone who claims, “There are no good Muslims.”

Even if 90 percent of Muslims are peace-loving and non-violent, it does not in any way negate the proposition that Islam is a hateful ideology. That proposition is supported by the Quran (Koran) and other religious texts of Islam. People — critics and ardent faithfuls — have quoted chapter and verse which call for the murder of non-believers. Every act of Islamic terrorism is loudly proclaimed by the killers as an act of faith and in accordance with the highest ideals of the faith.

Sriram, if you have any evidence to contradict any statement that I make, please do present it at your convenience. Whenever I am disabused of a false notion, I am very grateful. I have very strong opinions but they are weakly held. Give me reason to, and I will change my mind.

Sriram writes —

All religions have flaws and could be anachronistic in today’s world for a few elite. Some religions have longer history (due to hospitable climate in such regions) and hence have evolved to more tolerant/accepting/receptive to other nomadic tribes.

OK, so Sriram does admit that all religions are not the same. Some are more tolerant. I am happy to note that we agree.

My point is that Islam preaches hatred towards infidels. That’s all. I have never claimed that every Muslim has been brainwashed by Islam to be a killing machine. I have never claimed that all Muslims are terrorists. People who read into my criticism of Islam a generalized hatred towards all Muslims are likely projecting their prejudices onto me.

Sriram writes —

Yet I do not like the hate mongering as it only leads to conflict. Does any one like a direct negation of their basic existence by others? At same time, how can we think of abolishing 30% humans overnight? Intolerance about intolerance is what i see in your posts. Something is not right. Is it my articulation?

Glad you clarified that you do not like hate mongering, Sriram. But since we are on the topic, have you stopped beating your wife?

See, that’s the problem, Sriram. You have elevated yourself by writing that you don’t like hate mongering, and simultaneously insinuated that I like hate mongering.

Of course no one likes direct negation of their basic existence by others — to answer your somewhat obtuse question. But where have I done that?

Now Sriram, you wrote about “abolishing 30% humans overnight”. Why? Can’t you distinguish between an ideology and groups of people? Sure Islam is an inhumane ideology. But Muslims are born into it. They do not choose to be bound by Islam. They have no choice in being Muslims. Islam demands death for apostates. Even if they wanted to, Muslims cannot escape from Islam. Your position that 30% of humans be “abolished” is hateful and dangerous. Not a good thing, not a good thing at all.

Sriram, you should really examine your soul and realize that criticism of an ideology does not imply that one is calling for the wholesale murder of innocent people. I agree that Islam does advocate summary murder of anyone who is an infidel. But going from your name, you don’t appear to follow Islam. That is puzzling.

Allow me to quote from an old post which dealt with the Nov 26-29th 2008 Islamic terrorist attacks on Mumbai. This I wrote for people like Sriram:

PS: And now I would like to very politely suggest that all those who believe that they have read in what I have ever written that I am calling for violence against Muslims, that they should get their effing heads out of their collective behinds and read what I actually wrote. I am against Islam — an ideology — not Muslims — a collection of humans. If you cannot distinguish betwen the two, you should get yourself some remedial reading courses at your local high school. Furthermore, if you are misconstruing what I wrote as a diatribe against Muslims, perhaps it reveals your subconcious hatred of Muslims. Take a deep breath and ask yourself if you harbor ill-will against people merely because they are different. If you do, perhaps you subscribe to the Islamic doctrine of labeling people without justification.

Now I move on to Sahir’s comment where he wrote —

I really enjoy reading your posts on India’s development, education and economic situation. However, when you write about religion, especially Islam, you come across as being anti-muslim and anti-islam. I don’t think you are not a racist or an extremist, and I do think your point here is not “Islam is bad”, maybe your point is all religion is bad, or more along the lines of how freedom of speech is being eroded in the west, but it does not come across as this.

Sahir, thank you for your kind words about my posts on development, education, etc. And as you write later in the comment, you have not had a chance to read all my posts and therefore you do not know my position on all matters. I have written a lot of stuff over the last nearly 7 years of blogging and I don’t expect anyone to read it all.

So allow me to repeat myself. You write, “you come across as being anti-muslim and anti-islam.” That is a half-truth. I am anti-Islam and not anti-Muslim. You have my word of honor. There is no reason for me to lie about this to you or to anyone. If I were anti-Muslim, I would say it.

I do say what people consider pretty god-awful things, anyway. So why would I not say that I am anti-Muslim if I were indeed so. In fact, think about this: it is more dangerous for me to say that I am anti-Islam than it is for me to say that I am anti-Muslim.

I hope you appreciate the fact that I am brave (or foolish) enough to say it like I see it. I believe that it is my dharma — my most basic nature — to criticize ideas. I do that for all ideas. I do it for political ideas, I do it for economic ideas, I do it for religious ideas.

To some, all ideas are fair game for critical examination with the exception of Islam. For me, Islam is not immune from scrutiny. I argue that it is a dangerous and harmful ideology. If you disagree, I am willing to listen to your arguments. I will not kill you for disagreeing with me and I hope you will extend the same courtesy to me. (BTW, the “you” above is generic, and not Sahir.)

Sahir writes further —

However, the articles like this discredit you and might turn away potential blog followers. In addition, a blog post like this does not really add positively to the collective discussion about religion and freedom of speech, rather it would serve to make muslims defensive or angry, even the liberal or moderate ones, who are open to more discussion and rational thought .

I am mindful of the fact that telling someone that their mother is ugly will piss them off. If I honestly write critically about the evils of the Nehru-Gandhi clan’s control of India, it will piss off Congress faithfuls. I hate communism and say that openly but risk the ire of commies. I dislike censorship and therefore rub those who love to impose restrictions on other people’s freedom of expression the wrong way.

The purpose of this blog is my own edification and amusement. If along the way, someone finds this blog of some use, that’s great. But I am not in any popularity contest and even if I were, I am unlikely to win. So why bother lying when it feels much better to tell the truth as I see it?

I think uncritical acceptance of bad ideas lies at the core of pretty much all human misery. Economic distress is itself a consequence of bad ideas. India is poor because of bad ideas. There’s a reason for whatever it is that I criticize — at least to my mind. It is possible to discern it if one takes the time to read my blog. But I know that people are busy and they will misunderstand me. So what!

If someone says, “Oh what a brainless cretin and retard” on reading a post or two, and moves on, it does not matter. Big effing deal. You go your own way and I go mine. I will not demand that you be murdered and I hope you will not ask for my murder.

So I hope that I have addressed Sriram’s and Sahir’s points and to some extent once again clarified my position. I write “once again” since it seems to be a regular feature of this blog — my having to explain what I mean. Just for the record, here is what I had written previously on the topic.

Please read the following if you want to better understand where I am coming from. If nothing else, it will convince you that I am consistent in my position. Finally, if you feel that because of my opposition to an ideology — communism, socialism, Gandhi-ism (both the original and the fake family), Islam, monotheism, whatever — you don’t wish to read my blog, you are most welcome. The INTERNETS is big and there’s tons of interesting stuff out there. Don’t waste time over here.

OK, so now I quote myself extensively:

Religious insanity should be ridiculed as strenuously and as frequently as one can. . .

. . . the Guardian.co.uk reported that (as of Feb 17th, 2008), “180,000 demands to remove images of the Prophet” from the Wiki page on Muhammad have been made. I assume that these were followers of Islam who made that demand. Islam forbids the depiction of Muhammad because it could lead to idolatry — that is worshiping of Muhammad — and Islam calls for the death of all idolaters.

Yes, the followers of Islam if they so choose should not depict Mohammed or any other living creature. But demanding that non-Muslims follow the dictates of Islam is patently idiotic, and ridicule and derision should be heaped on attempts at controlling others.

Here’s a clue to those clueless retards that want to control others. You are not required by law — human or physical — to go check out any material that is not consistent with your ridiculous belief system. If you don’t like to read something or watch something because it offends you, then don’t do it. Just read or watch or listen to what you don’t find offensive. Don’t like a novel? Don’t read it. Write your own which suits your taste and follows your religion’s dictates.

Let me remind you. I find your belief system offensive and inhuman. (Don’t thank me. I am merely returning the compliment. Check out what your “holy” books say about my belief system.) But I would not presume to tell you not to practice it in the privacy of your own home. I don’t call for the ban of your “holy” writings that the majority of humanity finds offensive. . .

Let me also remind you that the world is a pretty big place. It is much much bigger than could be conceived by the writers of the “holy” books who lived and died their whole miserable lives in a desert in the Middle East a couple of thousand years ago. They thought that what they could see from the top of their camels is all that the universe was. Nope, the world is much bigger. Other people have other ways of living and thinking. Believing that the entire world was just a huge freakin’ desert where everyone must do everything exactly the same way is retarded and unimaginative.

It is stupid and dangerous insanity to want to dictate to others how they should live under your religion’s prohibitions. Let me give you an example. To most Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists, killing cows and eating them is offensive and against their religion. Would you support a worldwide ban on the slaughter of cattle? If not, why not? What makes your ban any more reasonable than the ban on something that most Indians find offensive?

Grow up. It is way past the 7th century and we are no longer in the Arab peninsula, Toto. [Feb 2008 — Ridiculing Religious Insanity.]

To which, one person named Alpana wrote, “However I find it very strange that you fail to find it offensive when the same thing happens in your own country esp. by the goons of your favourite party:” She included a link to some protest about Delhi University text books by the BJP.

I wrote in reply —

Alpana, it is called division of labor. You take on the responsibility of reporting on “the goons of my favorite party” (as you put it) and I will keep reporting on what the goons of your favorite party (religion) are doing.

Deal?

Did it ever occur to you that you should really be thankful that India is indeed a Hindu majority country? Have you ever considered what it would have been like for the minorities if the majority were not Hindus?

Take your “favorite countries” — Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, etc — what does Islam have to say about the non-Muslims and what do the people of your favorite countries do? Here’s a clue: they wipe out the minorities.

I really should not be so impolite to a visitor to this blog but this has to be said. I think that your attempt at equating Islamic global terrorism with the idiocy of bunch of hooligans is stupid and lacks a sense of proportion and decency.

I don’t know what motivates the self-loathing in you that compels you to come to the defense of Islamic terrorism by reducing it to a minor inconvenience. I can understand an illiterate Muslim from Saudi Arabia doing so. I can imagine the a Pakistani when told that Islam destroys temples whenever and whenever it can, responding that “But didn’t Hindus destroy the Babri Masjid?” That one act of insanity committed by a bunch of thugs is now used as cover for hundreds of years of destruction of thousands of temples.

Shame on you and your fellow travelers. India would not see so many dead from Islamic terrorism but for the cover that the likes of you provide. You are the “moderate” face that encourages the “tiny minority of extremists” to terrorize the world by trivializing their terrorism.

In this comment I name you and the message is specifically to you. But in general, there is a significant section of India which actually displays the same behavior and due to the same reason — ignorance and illogic. This message is for them as well. India has paid a heavy price (and I don’t mean just the jiziya) and will continue to pay for the generalized stupidity.

Miss Alpana replied in a comment essentially calling me a Nazi (although not in those words.) So I decided to set the record straight and I wrote —

This is a follow up to the Ridiculing Religious Insanity post. One reader, Alpana Sadya broadly agreed with the basic idea of the post but accused me of bias in that I did not object to incidents that involve goons of what she claims is my favorite party the BJP. She reported that there was a case of vandalism on Delhi University campus a few days ago and it was regarding the Ramayana. She feared that it portends ill for India and that India may break up in a civil war.

Just for the record allow me one clarification. I do not hold any brief for any political party or organization, foreign or domestic. I am free to criticize whomever and whenever I feel like. Most of the time my focus is on ideologies and not people. That distinction is worth keeping in mind. If ever someone misconstrues my criticism of an ideology with animosity against a group or a person, it reveals at best a reading comprehension problem and at worst guilt associated with a hidden prejudice of the reader against the group I am accused of opposing.

That last point is worth underlining. I am for or against ideologies, not people. I judge the people for how they behave, not what they fundamentally believe in. To lend support for my assessment of a certain ideology, I will have to point to specific actions by individuals or groups that acted in accord with the dictates of that ideology. I am given that opportunity by the actions of the followers of the ideology and is not something that I invent on a whim. If the facts I choose to highlight are in dispute, I’d like to be corrected. Otherwise I would like to hear an argument why the ideology cannot be judged, first, objectively without reference to actions; and second, by noting the consequences of the ideology as evidenced by the actions of those motivated by it.

Now on to other substantive matters.

By the time one has outgrown one’s childhood, most people without cognitive impairment figure out that one cannot eat one’s cake and have it too. We intuitively realize that there are trade offs in our universe: you either eat the cake and not have it, or you have your cake only if you resist eating it. Being unable to appreciate that basic principle is indicative of a mental defect. In very small children, it is cute to observe how they misapprehend the world but in adults that same behavior is pitiable.

Not everything that needs our attention can be attended to because we are finite creatures with finite resources. We have to prioritize things and then depending on our assessment of the urgency and importance of the things that need done, we sequence our actions. Not everything is equally urgent, or equally important. Some things are important but not urgent. The house burning down is urgent; getting daily exercise is important. Leaving the house to burn down because you have to get your routine jogging done is stupid.

The ability to make distinctions and see differences is absolutely critical. Perceiving the universe as one indistinguishable whole with no boundaries or distinctions is a wonderful mystical Zen experience perhaps but in our daily living we need to distinguish the benign from the malignant, the useful from the useless, the healthy from the diseased. We do that as a matter of course as it is ingrained in our genes: like all other living things, we are the descendants of a very long line of ancestors each of whom was successful in making that distinction long enough to mate and procreate.

We humans differ from other living things in one significant way: we live in a world of ideas, not just a world of things. Ideas can also be broadly characterized as benign, malignant or neutral. The same can be done for an ideology which is essentially a collection of ideas. The theory of evolution — like all scientific theories — is also an ideology, just like capitalism, or communism, or any other ism. Ideologies, like things, can be grouped and their characteristics examined. Any specific religion is an ideology. A group of related religions can also be examined as an ideology. Judging the goodness (however defined) of any ideology is no different from judging the goodness of things.

I have made the case that ideas matter elsewhere before and I am sure to do more of that later. But for now I will focus on religious ideologies only.

All religious ideologies are not created equal. They differ naturally because they were created by different people under different geographical and historical circumstances. Religious ideologies are contingent and don’t have any absolute existence, unlike say the ideology of the theory of gravitation. If you did the right inferences from observation, you would arrive at the same theory of gravity as someone who lived in a different land at a different time.

The major monotheistic ideologies were born in the Middle East and they share the same lineage. Their family resemblance is unmistakable. Judaism came first; the Christians acknowledge the Jewish bible and added their own two bits; then Islam came along and plagiarized bits from the preceding two and added its own twisted bits to it. Every age and every place that has been touched by the monotheistic ideology has suffered profoundly from its malignant influence. It has killed, raped, burnt, pillaged, and destroyed whatever it can. Not content with merely killing non-monotheists, it has encouraged its followers to turn their rage against one another. Sibling rivalry, perhaps. But the history books are full of rivers of blood shed by mutual hostility between Protestants, Catholics, Shias, Sunnis, and all of them at some point or the other against the Jews. Though Christianity and Islam are descended from Judaism, the Jews are held in special contempt by the followers of the other two. A Darwinist may explain that by saying that they all occupy the same ecological niche and hence the bitter rivalry.

But they are not equally vicious. The Jewish god is a monomaniacal savage but he does not command Jews to go out and kill the others. His world is restricted to the Jews and how he controls them. The Christian god is a much meaner god. He created a hell for non-believers and instructed his followers to go out and either convert or kill those who don’t follow him. A few hundred years later, the Islamic god upped the ante and instructed its followers to basically kill everyone who refuses to submit to him until the entire world is enslaved to him.

The sequence of origination ensures that the ideology which came later had the opportunity to revile the earlier one(s). Islam labels Jews and Christians monkeys and pigs; Christianity condemns Jews for having the blood of their savior on their hands. There is a progression of increasing violence in the three monotheistic ideologies.

One reasonable explanation for the savagery of Christianity and Islam is that they were invented by savages. They lived in a brutal and brutalizing environment. They lived in a dog eat dog world where worldly pleasures were few and far between. Their god is a reflection of that mentality that brutalizes humans and humanity. A brutalized male dominated warring society living in harsh conditions could not conceive of a god that was loving. The fantasies of a paradise which can only be described as an impotent man’s wet dream figures prominently in Islam.

How anyone can believe in a god of the monotheists is a fascinating subject. That god is literally unbelievable. This is widely recognized by the monotheists themselves — those who believe in the Islamic god vehemently reject the Jewish and Christian god, the Islamic god is unpalatable to the Jews and the Muslims, and the Christian god is idiotic in the opinion of the Jews and the Muslims. Each comprehends the utter stupidity of the other two, and non-monotheists arrive at the logical position — the logical union of the three views — that monotheism is utter stupidity.

What distinguished monotheism from other religious ideologies is that it is supremacist, exclusivist, and triumphalist. That attitude finds it most extreme expression in Islam — it claims it is perfection in every sense, no other ideology can be permitted to exist, and it will ultimately conquer every human for eternity. The non-monotheist religions are cautious and hesitant. Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism all claim to be correct but also make allowances that there are multiple ways and that different people will see the world differently. They are willing to accommodate other points of views, and other ways of living. But to the ideology of Islam, there is only one way and if you refuse to willingly submit to the dictates of Islam, you have to be subjugated and if need be, annihilated.

The followers of ideologies are humans. Human action is motivated by a wide range of impulses and incentives, not just ideologies — religious or otherwise. It is not too difficult to determine what the prime motivation may have been for a certain action. The kamikaze bombers of the second world war may have been Buddhists but the Buddhist ideology was not the prime motivator for their suicide missions. It was not an adherence to the principles of Buddhism but rather their allegiance to the Emperor and the nation that moved them. Stalin and Mao murdered scores of millions for a political ideology and not for their being atheists. They were bad people doing what came naturally to them as followers of a certain ideology.

Steven Weinberg has said: “Without religions, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But it takes religion to get good people to do bad things.” I would generalize that observation: Without ideological motivations, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But to get good people to do bad things requires bad ideologies.

So why am I writing about religious insanity in a blog which is about economic growth and development? How is religion relevant? Let me elaborate on why I think religion matters and why more importantly the ideology of Islam matters to India’s development.

As I have said before, all ideologies are not created equal. Some are benign and can be safely ignored. The Pastafarians will not sic their Flying Spaghetti Monster god on me if I call them ridiculous for their ridiculous beliefs. Well never mind the FSM as it was meant to parody monotheism. How about if I call Buddhists a bunch of retarded egg-heads and call the Buddha a dried shit stick? Not a problem. At worst someone may challenge me to a dharma duel which I could easily win by smiling stupidly as I make some seemingly profound statement like “what is the sound of one hand clapping” or “if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.”

These days you can mock all ideologies — religious or secular — except one: Islam. Scribble something on a piece of paper and regardless of where you are and whether or not you have broken any local laws, Islam can and will take offense if it so pleases. That is usually followed by some of the faithful flying into a murderous rage (which is different from murdering people by flying planes into buildings) and setting out to kill you.

I object to an ideology that responds to criticism with violence and murder. Yes, the ideology has the response encoded within it. It is not the invention of the followers. By not allowing criticism, it forces a stop to human progress because it will not allow any idea — religious or secular — to survive if it is not consistent with Islam. This is why most countries where Islamic ideology is dominant do not figure in any area of science, technology, arts, and entertainment. Pretty much everything we know about the universe was discovered after the 7th century and therefore all that Islam could possibly know (and knows) was (and is) bounded by what was known by essentially ignorant people in the desert in the 7th century. So if Islam is allowed to dominate India today — today when it has finally emerged after a thousand years of servitude — it will be a disaster. What sort of disaster? Well, look at Pakistan and Bangladesh — those parts of the Indian subcontinent where Islam has triumphed.

Ideologies matter. Observe the differing performance of the differing ideological groups from the Indian subcontinent in Western nations. That is a natural experiment the results of which clearly demonstrate that Islamic ideology hinders the development of people because it prohibits precisely those freedoms that are most critical in human development and growth.

The ideology of Islam matters to today’s India and it has done so for around a thousand years. Will Durant, an American historian summed it up this way. ““The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in History. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown barbarians invading from without and multiplying within.”

The partitioning of India was based on that ideology of Islam. The Muslims of colonial India voted that they cannot co-exist with non-Muslims because their ideology did not permit that. The creation of Pakistan (and subsequently of Bangladesh) was the direct and unavoidable result of Islamic ideology. Thereafter, the constant state of war that exists between the three fragments can be reasonably traced back to the Islamic ideology of dividing all humanity into the land of Islam and the land of the kuffars. The millions of lives lost over the centuries continue to be added to every year — sometimes in bloody wars and more regularly in a war of thousand cuts of random acts of terrorism. Resources that could have been used in alleviating the misery of its poverty-stricken population, India is forced to use instead to buy weapons from the advanced industrialized nations to deter Pakistan from declaring and fighting one more of the Thousand Year jihads.

Being in a constant state of war with Pakistan is without doubt one of the reasons that India is miserably poor. I should hasten to add that it is not the only reason. Even without the existence of Pakistan, I am sure that some people would have figured out other ways of keeping India poor. And indeed they did. I have, for the same reason that it keeps India poor, opposed socialism and communism. But the Islamic specter haunting India is making the job that much harder. As the on-going conflict with Pakistan is religiously motivated — just like the partition of India was — I find it hard to evade the conclusion that India would have been much better off if it did not have to contend with Islam.

So now for the objections that prompted this essay. I agree that stupid people vandalizing property because of some offense they have taken is a matter of concern. But that is bad people doing bad things. None of the Indic ideologies (Jain, Buddhism, Hinduism) lend the least support to violence against people merely because of what they believe in or profess. I would worry about it but I would not lose my sleep over it. It is neither urgent nor important in the overall scheme of things. I could rant and rave about it but there are more pressing things that matter to me.

Which brings me to the point that I had made earlier in my response to Alpana in the previous post.

Alpana, it is a division of labor. You deal with what you consider to be the most pressing issues and I will do likewise. Our assessment will be different since we have different viewpoints. Besides, given that all tasks are not equally urgent or equally important, we have to prioritize and pick out battles. Complaining that I don’t balance out every instance of Islamic intolerance and terrorism I report on this blog with an instance of Bajrang Dal or Shiv Sena intolerance and mayhem is stupid at best. They are orders of magnitude different in their frequency and impact. And besides, like I have mentioned before, I am writing about a particular religious ideology and then illustrating the consequences of that ideology when it produces the natural result. Please feel free to do the same using your choice of religious ideology — I suggest Jainism as they are rarely taken to task and it has never been called a religion of peace. I am sure that you will have lots to write about Jain terrorism.

I know that I have a bias which reflects my personal history and upbringing. For instance, I am a non-Muslim and therefore my view of Islam is that of an outsider — an outsider whom Islam considers to be a little less than filth. As I was born to Hindu parents, I am a Hindu. As a Hindu I am quite familiar with the faults of Hindu society and I am critical of any bits of the ideology that is irrational and stupid. Fortunately, Hinduism is flexible enough that you can pick and choose the bits that appeal to you and reject the rest with nary a thought. For instance, I like the ideas behind the idols — the symbolic representation of the gods — even though I am not a theist.

Not only am I biased but I know that I am biased. I am not an impartial observer. I am partial towards rationality and reason. I don’t think tales of people rising from the dead and people flying off on their horses to the moon make any sense at all. Only those who don’t really understand what the world is clearly understood to be can entertain such idiotic notions. I think that anyone who seriously believes that the books that the monotheists follow were dictated by god — an omniscient eternal omnipotent being — is dumber than a doornail. Heck, those books are so full of nonsense and factual errors, that even a reasonably educated person living a thousand years before they were written would have known better. For instance, that the earth was a sphere was known since antiquity. Yet the authors of those books were clueless — they did not even have what is fairly common information. The so-called omniscient being apparent only knew what was known to ignorant desert nomads.

I have spent the last two hours writing this because I have had it up to here with the pseudo-secularists blaming the victims for the harm that is ideologically motivated and is unacceptable in a civilized society. I realize that it will not make me popular with that crowd because what I wrote will stick in their craw since they cannot factually refute any of the statements I made above. Their position is generally a fine mixture of illogic and ignorance — the antithesis of what I stand for. (It’s my blog. I can write this with only a hint of humor.)

So Ms Alpana, yes, India can break up in a civil war. It is quite possible. But to understand the likely cause, I would refer you to the previous break which was in the making for centuries but happened around 60 years ago. Examine the causes and it may give you a clue about the next one.

It’s all karma, neh? [Ridiculing Religious Insanity — Part 2.]

Here’s a post (Tragedy and Farce — Part 2) from Dec 2008 which I wrote following the Islamic terrorist attacks in Mumbai starting Nov 26th.

In the ultimate analysis, ideas matter. Ideas are what distinguishes humans from all known forms of terrestial living beings. The differences one observes in the development of various societies ultimately boil down to the set of ideas that a society developes, borrows, adopts, adapts, and uses. Ideas as embodied in the institutions and mores of society ultimately dictate how prosperous it is. A set of ideas that persist and pervade the collective consciousness of a society can be called an ideology. After controlling for all other factors such as natural endowments and accidents of history, the state of development and prospects of growth of a society (and therefore its economy) are fundamentally and inextricably tied to the dominant ideology of that society.

Ideologies that deny humans freedom are not consistent with development. The world has seen many totalitarian ideologies and witnessed their eventual and inevitable passing. That is not surprising because totalitarian ideologies are weak in the evolutionary sense: they cannot compete against ideologies that admit the ultimate force in human societies — human freedom.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology. It literally means submission and that submission is to a man who lived in 7th century Arabia and who determined that all have to submit to the will of his god, Allah, and that he was the one who was entrusted with the task of conveying the wishes of his god for the rest of humanity for all times and all places. As an ideology, it is inimical to humanity’s primal drive: freedom from dictation from above. As far as it goes, Islam was a perfect instrument for winning in tribal conflicts of 7th century Arabia. But the world is temporally and spatially much bigger than 7th century Arabia. Islam’s ideology cannot win in a globalized world, a world where the fittest ideas survive in a battle of competiting ideas and ideologies. Any ideology that has to resort to violence to maintain itself merely demonstrates its weakness and its days are ultimately limited.

Empirical and analytical evidence abounds with regard to the developmentally harmful effects of Islam. As an explanatory factor for underdevelopment and retarded growth, Islam is significant. Most of the Islamic majority economies are far behind in most indicators of human development. Even those Islamic states that have immense natural endowments such as oil and natural gas — and they earn hundreds of billions of dollars annually in exporting them — even they lag behind other states that are not so fortunately endowed. This is not conjecture or mere prejudice. Even a cursory reading of the present state of Islamic states reveals that fact.

The Arab world, overwhelmingly Islamic, has not contributed in any significant way to the modern world in terms of discovery, invention, production of art, advances in the sciences and humanities. It surely must be remarkable that Jews — vanishingly small in number relative to Arabs — have contributed astonishingly to technology, sciences, arts and humanities. Evidence is everywhere but just look at the number of Nobel prizes won by the Jews. Why?

The prime minister of India, echoing the reports of many committees, has noted quite rightly that Muslims of India are on average poorer, less educated, less skilled and generally do poorly in many generally accepted indicators of social development compared to non-muslims in India. That is not a badge of honor even though it is apparently proudly worn by some to claim that they are discriminated against by non-muslims.

The claim is that they are victims and therefore they are entitled to not only income transfers but also get a free pass for any transgression against basic human values. Not given to critical self-examination, the fault is always of the other. Proudly wearing the cloak of the victim, they cannot do any wrong. Predictably, after every act of Islamic terrorism, the so-called “intellectuals” and opinion-makers emerge with a ready-made explanation: Islamic terrorism is a response to poverty.

That is an untenable explanation. India has a large number of poor Muslims. But then it also has a much larger non-muslim population which is in the same economically dire straits. Why aren’t these non-muslims using terrorism as an instrument of influencing public policy? Since Kashmir is a favorite example trotted out dutifully in the explanation of random Islamic violence in India, how does one explain the total lack of terrorism by non-muslims who were driven out of Kashmir and are huddled in pathetic refugee camps for decades? Why aren’t poor Biharis terrorising India in their attempt to secure economic justice from the rest? What about the dalits and the other downtrodden? Why?

Every act of Islamic terrorism currently undertaken in justified on two incidents: Godhra riots and Babri masjid. Anyone will grant that destroying a mosque is damnable; and so are the roits that killed innocent Muslims and Hindus following the Islamic terrorism of burning innocents on a train. But how long can every act of Islamic terrorism be justified on those two incidents?

Here’s a bit from the most recent act of Islamic terrorism as reported in The Wall Street Journal:

On the 20th floor, the gunmen shoved the group out of the stairwell. They lined up the 13 men and three women and lifted their weapons. “Why are you doing this to us?” a man called out. “We haven’t done anything to you.”

“Remember Babri Masjid?” one of the gunmen shouted, referring to a 16th-century mosque built by India’s first Mughal Muslim emperor and destroyed by Hindu radicals in 1992.

“Remember Godhra?” the second attacker asked, a reference to the town in the Indian state of Gujarat where religious rioting that evolved into an anti-Muslim pogrom began in 2002.

“We are Turkish. We are Muslim,” someone in the group screamed. One of the gunmen motioned for two Turks in the group to step aside.

Then they pointed their weapons at the rest and squeezed the triggers.

They left a pile of dead bodies. Like they always do. But then can Godhra and Babri masjid be used to justify the thousands of temples that were destroyed in India over the last thousand years? Can they be used to justify the killing by the millions that Islam unleased on non-muslims in India over the centuries? Are there any statutes of limitation on the revenge that will be extracted for these two acts? When will be non-muslims in India finally have paid fully in terms of innocent blood, sweat and tears for these two acts of wanton violence and destruction?

I am far from done on this line of enquiry. But before I close this post, two additional points. First, the concluding paragraphs from an opinion piece (Is Yoga Bad for You?) by a Pakistani commentator, Irfan Hussain, writing in The Dawn commenting on the outcome of the lastest spectacular episode of Islamic terrorism:

Whatever the reason, such desperate and ultimately futile measures only serve to further marginalise Muslims. Already viewed as a backward community by much of the world, Muslims risk withdrawing from the rest of mankind at a time when globalisation is breaking down barriers at a frenzied pace.

In India, Muslim ulema have won the right to dominate women as a religious right. This exemption was granted to them by a secular Congress Party. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Taliban and their supporters want to ban music, movies and even kite-flying. When the Taliban were in power, they had banned education for girls, and had denied women medical care from male doctors. Where will this madness end?

It will end if and when Muslims decide that enough is enough, and that they do not want to live in the sixth century. Unfortunately, there is much confusion in the Islamic world, with the result that uneducated mullahs issue half-baked edicts on everything under the sun, and ordinary people, unsure of themselves, pay lip service to these teachings.

Millions in the Islamic world have convinced themselves that their current weakness has been caused by the West. If they examine the causes for their backwardness more closely, they will discover that they lie much closer to home than they would like to admit.

Irfan Hussain leaves the reader to make up his or her own mind on the ultimate cause of the distress of Muslims in India and around the world. I am convinced that it is Islam. Muslims, in my opinion, are also victims of Islam as much as the rest of the world. That is the unvarnished truth and in all likelihood expressing that view publicly is not too good for my health. It is just an opinion but in today’s world, it is not safe to do so. This is significant. I can voice my opinion on what’s wrong with capitalism, or socialism, or communism, or nazism, or whathaveyou and people who disagree with me will call me all sorts of unkind names but only Islam will call for my beheading. Which brings me to the other point that I want to make before I conclude this piece.

Islam does not allow dissent — not just to its own adherents but also to non-muslims. Its supremacist and triumphalist doctrine essentially says that it has to subjugate the rest of humanity eventually, and if that means the total and complete annihilation of the non-muslims, so be it.

In the estimation of Islam, I am an idolator and therefore have to be killed merely because I refuse to bow my head in submission to Islam. I am guilty a priori. By my mere refusal to submist to Islam, I am the enemy. I, along with the rest of the non-muslim world, am guilty and therefore my destruction is ordained by the divine edict of the Islamic god Allah.

But as I said before, to me it appears that Muslims are as much the victims of Islam as the rest of the non-muslim world. (Some wit noted that Pakistan is a victim of Islamic terrorism; the first to die in a suicide bombing is a Pakistani.) I am not against Muslims for the simple reason that I have nothing againt random people I have never met. I can only like or dislike people for what they have done to me, not just because they subscribe to some ideas or ideology, however kooky and senseless it may be. Islam divides creation between two opposing and warring factions: the Muslims and non-muslims. I don’t. It is just unfortunate that I — an idolator — am categorized as an enemy of Muslims but I am not. As an average human being, I could not be bothered to go out seeking Muslims to kill.

And that is the point: non-muslims don’t wish any harm to Muslims merely because Muslims believe in Allah. But Islam does declare in no uncertain terms what Muslims are required to do to infidels. Hindus — such as yours truly — are not even classified as dhimmis — those who can buy protection from their Muslim overlords because they are the “people of the book.” I am to be killed outright if I refuse to submit to Islam.

Islam is a failed ideology, just like communism and nazism. The surest sign that it is failing is that it resorts to mindless violence against humanity, just as nazism and communism did. They have been consigned to the dustbin of history and so will Islam — soon.

To the candle burners: there’s illumination required where the sun doesn’t shine. Stick them up there please.

Author: Atanu Dey

Economist.

75 thoughts on “The Distinction between People and Ideologies”

  4. Thanks for the follow-up post. This definitely clears up things. You have gotten me thinking about potential solutions for this issue. I understand your distinction between people and ideologies, and since the ideology in question (Islam) is not going to change, I wonder what need to be done, or is being done to make the followers more moderate or at least more modern, so that they can be productive members of a functioning democracy. Do you have any thoughts on this?

    Like

  7. Doktor-Ji,
    Great effing post! I’m amazed that you have the time and energy 🙂
    Naturally, as you well know, I cannot agree with everything you “rant” about, but that sort of agreement is not really required by the educated and “logically” thinking amoungst us.
    Factually, all three Abrahamic religions have a “holier than thou” ideaology and have in the past and will continue to use their holy books to castigate, brainwash and subjugate us ALL. Just as GWB said “If you’re not with us you’re against us”.
    However, the current belligerence of “Islam” has more to do with US-Zionistic unfairness in the Middle-East than anything written in the Quran. As you have pointed out on many occasions, ideas formed upon a camel’s back is the middle of the desert by an uneducated bunch of sheepshaggers simply cannot have any redeeming intellectual content.
    A good doctor does not treat the symptoms but attacks the cause of disease.
    Thanks for a well argumented post.
    Take care.
    Jayant

    Like

    1. Jayant-ji,

      I think anyone who does not agree with me must be eliminated, preferably by firing squad first thing at dawn.

      But I am willing to tolerate minor disagreements born out of obstinacy and ignorance. So don’t panic. You write, “However, the current belligerence of “Islam” has more to do with US-Zionistic unfairness in the Middle-East than anything written in the Quran.” Probably you know more about the Quran than I do. I have merely seen it in English and fear the hatred that it preaches towards idolaters such as myself. Let me quote Sam Harris in response to your thesis.

      Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist. What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim. The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence. Unless the world’s Muslims can find some way of expunging the metaphysics that is fast turning their religion into a cult of death, we will ultimately face the same perversely destructive behavior throughout much of the world.

      While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization. The world, from the point of view of Islam, is divided into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War,” and this latter designation should indicate how Muslims believe their differences with those who do not share their faith will be ultimately resolved. While there are undoubtedly some moderate Muslims who have decided to overlook the irrescindable militancy of their religion, Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest. The only future devout Muslims can envisage—as Muslims—is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed. The tenets of Islam simply do not admit of anything but a temporary sharing of power with the “enemies of God.” Devout Muslims can have no doubt about the reality of Paradise or about the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there. Nor can they question the wisdom and reasonableness of killing people for what amount to theological grievances. In Islam, it is the moderate who is left to split hairs, because the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world.

      We are now mired in a religious war in Iraq and elsewhere. Our enemies–as witnessed by their astonishing willingness to slaughter themselves–are not principally motivated by political or economic grievances. How many more architects and electrical engineers must fly planes into buildings before we realize that the problem of Muslim extremism is not merely a matter of education? How many more middle-class British citizens must blow themselves up along with scores of noncombatants before we acknowledge that Muslim terrorism is not matter of poverty or political oppression?

      Thanks for caring to post your comment.

      Like

  8. There are really very few people (I guess fewer than the tigers in world, and existence of world depends on this people much more than existence of tiger, also these people face more threat to their life than tigers) who point out that “Islam” is a threat and not muslims.

    Congress, BJP, RSS, Obama, Brown everyone say one common thing. Not all muslims are terrorists, only few misguided souls are. None of them ever claims that Islam might be problem, on the contrary they go out of the way to prove that Islam is in fact religion of peace equivalent to rest of the religions.

    Saying that Islam is not a true religion, its fake it is directly responsible for violence will certainly offend its followers. But then in the end it is in the interest of Muslim community as well.

    I dont understand WHY, WHY on earth is everyone is so scared to acknowledge the reality on which our existence depends so much.

    Like

  9. =>
    However, the current belligerence of “Islam” has more to do with US-Zionistic unfairness in the Middle-East than anything written in the Quran.
    =>

    How so? Is it American-Zionist plot that makes Muslims next door persecute Ahmaddiyas [link], and forces Shias and Sunnis to kill each other?

    Like

  10. Sahir, you write “I wonder what need to be done, or is being done to make the followers more moderate or at least more modern, so that they can be productive members of a functioning democracy.”

    I think Sam Harris has expressed very well what Muslims should do in his article Bombing our Illusions (thanks to Shrek for the link):

    It is not enough for moderate Muslims to say “not in our name.” They must now police their own communities. They must offer unreserved assistance to western governments in locating the extremists in their midst. They must tolerate, advocate, and even practice ethnic profiling. It is simply a fact that the greatest predictor of terrorist behavior anywhere in the world (with the exception of the island Sri Lanka) is whether or not a person believes that Allah is the only god and Muhammad is his prophet. Moderate Muslims themselves must acknowledge this fact without equivocation. The time for political correctness and multi-cultural shibboleths has long passed. Moderate Muslims must accept and practice open criticism of their religion. We are now in the 21st century: all books, including the Koran, should be fair game for flushing down the toilet without fear of violent reprisal. If you disagree, you are not a religious moderate, and you are on a collision course with modernity.

    You may wish to read the whole article. It is from 2005 but is very relevant even today, unfortunately.

    Like

  12. >>Here is one blog’s perspective on what a moderate muslim is:

    Not that evidence was needed, but in the light of the above, the claim that criticism of Islam makes moderate Muslims angry is incorrect, patronizing and in fact does a disservice to (moderate) Muslims.

    Like

  13. Jayant-ji,

    You write:

    However, the current belligerence of “Islam” has more to do with US-Zionistic unfairness in the Middle-East than anything written in the Quran.

    This is not true. It is as old as Islam itself. You have to read the history of India, about Islamic invasion and the number of infidels killed in the process.

    Like

  14. Excellent Atanu Dey ! Very well written. Hope your wilful detractors ponder over the content.

    I also like your ” India is poor because of bad ideas”.

    Once bad ideas strike roots it becomes so difficult to undo the damages done.

    Like

  15. Acchha very sorry to again be the dissenting voice over here. Atanu-ji, I think I have the answer to why the labels of bigot and hypocrite are levelled against you. It is because you are so busy pointing out the faults of others that you fail to see the rot in your own house. Your analogy of the morning walk versus house burning is a weak and convenient one. I posit that your stance is akin to gleefully pointing out the conflagration in your neighbour’s house while being blissfully unaware of the quicksand that is engulfing your own. Please bear with me while I elaborate.

    For example, you fail to notice that Hinduism has been responsible for the subjugation and dehumanisation of millions of people, over thousands of years in the name of the caste system. Count them all up. Your oh-so-kind-and-gentle ideology includes the ritual oppression of not the minority but the majority of people. The position of the Hindu woman is an atrocity, starting before birth with female foeticide, infanticide and if allowed to live, a life of subjugation. All this continues to this day, and if you ever turn on the TV, you will find it being glorified instead of being condemned. We now make heroes out of child brides and women who burn themselves to death to protect their “honour”.

    Our great civilisation now has a billion people whose brains are so filled with superstition and belief in God that the powers that be are making off with the immense riches this country has to offer and no one can resist. You cannot see this? clearly not, because otherwise supporting a political party which wants to run society by religious ideology would be an act of extreme cynicism, wouldn’t it?

    You also fail to take note of the remarkable achievements of Arab civilisation. Far from being sheepshaggers, the Arab world and its neighbours in the Levant and the Fertile Crescent are the birthplace of civilisation. Starting from Babylonian times, the people here have built wonderful civilisations, they invented agriculture, built the pyramids (I know Egyptians are not Arabs) and were the centre of the greatest trade route known to man. They also made major advances in mathematics such as trigonometry and algebra, along with high levels of artistic and architectural achievement. All stringed instruments, for example, owe their existence to the oudh, an instrument invented by those sand-niggers. The Syrians invented the modern alphabet. Without them, you would still be digging in the dirt with your bare hands. When you say “I’m not saying that there are no good Muslims”, you tell a half truth. You’re not saying it, but calling them barbaric, desert dwellers with no education and culture is implying that the good ones are an exception to an otherwise uniformly bad culture. It’s nearly the same thing.

    You also make throwaway statements like “Muslims have been killing jews for centuries.” (I forget now in which one of your posts this statement was) This is patently untrue. Jews and Christians flourished under the Ottoman empire. Infact it was the White Christian Europeans that were the most enthusiastic murderers of jews, what with their pogroms and holocaust.

    You also support capitalism and free markets and you want to ignore all those inconvenient facts like colonialism and the rape of India and Africa. Those shiny cities and well fed people in the West came not just from the accumulation of capital but from the deprivation and degradation of colonial subjects. Do you really think that we can afford to walk the same path?

    You want a statute of limitations for Muslim anger at Babri Masjid, but you want no such thing for the people who broke the Masjid. After all they were responding to a centuries old injustice. Would you care to defend yourself on this point?

    You go out of your way to make statements like “Poor people should not have children if they can’t look after them” while ignoring the fact that in India’s poorest districts, the upper castes have appropriated all the land. Should they do that? What about their responsibility towards society? Wishing for the disappearance of a class of people is the intellectual equivalent of genocide. It might not see you in a war crimes tribunal, but it is a hateful agenda.

    The reason you are a bigot is because for you, your intellectual process is complete when you can blame some people. “It’s their fault” you proclaim loudly. You cannot see that it was this same ideology that built the Islamic golden period http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age. You do not take the next step and say, “so what went wrong? Is my ideology susceptible to the same corruption?”, etc etc. You are not interested in the truth. Of course, you are free to think and write what you want, and to have your own set of priorities, but please do not pretend to be fair and balanced. It doesn’t take much effort to present a fair view of Islam. Your statements like “They thought that what they could see from the top of their camels is all that the universe was” reek of ignorance.

    War with Pakistan has less to do with Islam than with the fact that war is extremely profitable. Would you make the argument that the USA has been in a constant state of war for 70+ years on their protestant ethic? Islam makes suicide bombers? What about the woman who assassinated Rajeev Gandhi? No, for you the reasons are not important. You have no sympathy for people whose circumstances are so dire that their anger finds expression in these acts. Their “irrationality” is so self-evident to you that you need never ask why? Your gaze upon them is as though they are sub-human, somehow inferior to you.

    A man can but only be a product of his circumstances. If you want to change a man, change his circumstances. The current Islamic zeitgeist is indeed very worrying. It has to change. But blaming individuals is meaningless. If perhaps the US boot was not so heavy in their homelands, things might have been different? After all, there were no suicide bombers before Zionism…or were there?

    Replacing one religion with another is not going to fix anything. End them all, or atleast, take them off the menu of possible social structures. keep it private. mumble to your imaginary friend all you want….just keep it off the streets and the tv, ok?

    In the end, it is that old saw again – power corrupts. It will corrupt socialism, capitalism, islam, hinduism and any other ideology. This is why the anarchist position is the only morally defensible political stance in the modern age, by which I mean an age in which the rights of man are held to be self-evident. If the word anarchy means nothing to you except a rioting mob, I suggest you do some research.

    As long as human beings remain divided on gender, caste, religion, race, etc., the elites of the world will continue their oppression. If you are not being oppressed at this time, then unfortunately, you are an oppressor. While I’m on the topic I might as well add a few more objections I feel towards your extremely objectionable blog. Here goes:
    a) You claim to be a Ph.D in Economics, and it might just be a presumption on my part to expect this, but you never seem to present any insight that might come from a student of economics. Your assertion about how poor people should not have kids is particularly repugnant in this context.
    b) You claim to be interested in development, but you clearly know nothing about the beneficiaries of your grand plan – the undeveloped, poor masses. Your flickr or whatever stream is a litany of nice images designed to make us envy you. Have you ever been amongst these people that you would like to make the world a better place for? Do you know them? Or would you prefer if they just disappeared one day. I’m not saying that you don’t know them, but it would be nice to see some evidence. Of course, it’s your blog, so you can do what you want.

    Before I end, just let me say that I have no doubt that you mean well. Many bigoted people do. I am optimistic that you will rise to more compassionate philosophy. Hatred is too easy. There’s no intellectual challenge there.

    yours sincerely
    siddharth

    Like

  16. Pingback: Tweets that mention Atanu Dey on India’s Development » Blog Archive » The Distinction between People and Ideologies -- Topsy.com

  17. Mr.Dey ,

    I came across your blog only today afternoon. I had heard of your blog, never bothered to have a look at it. But now that I am here, I am here to stay. You have won yourself a loyal reader. 🙂

    And needless to say, I agree with everything you say on the Islam issue. I have nothing but contempt for those who equate Islamic terrorists with a few random BajRang Dal goondas. I pity them for not seeing the difference. But their ploy of equating Islam with Hinduism is unforgivable.

    Like

  18. Hi Atanu,
    So you have answered the question:

    There are many “good” muslims, how can you say Islam is “bad” based on just a few rotten-apples?

    Now its the turn of:
    You think Islam is bad. Hinduism is bad as well. What right do you have to talk about Islam at all?
    Basically, “Jaani! jinke ghar sheeshe ke hote hain, woh dusron ke ghar par pathar nahin phenka karte.”

    And sone pe suhaga: our friend svs has conveniently summarised succintly and precisely what Hinduism is all about:

    Hinduism ->

    1)the caste system-> a)subjugation of millions, b)dehumanisation of millions,c)ritual oppression of the majority (not the minority),

    2)the (atrocitious) position of the Hindu woman-> a)female foeticide, b)female infanticide, c)if allowed to live, a life of subjugation, d)child brides, e)women who burn themselves to death to protect their “honour”,

    3)superstition and belief in God.

    And then follows a summary of the glorious days of Avicenna. My only grouse is that this guy left out a few personal favorites– the “shayri”, the innocuous-looking “1001 nights of Arabia” (Alif Laila by Ramanand Sagar– LMAO), and of course Mullah Nasruddin (played by Raghuvir Yadav?? cant recollect).

    The parting shot is just superb:
    “Hatred is too easy.”

    Simple, innocent, cute lil words that make such an impact.

    Met you your match eh Atanu?

    Like

  19. In reply to Mr SVS all I can think of is Hindus affected Hindus and no one else; whereas the same cannot be said of Islam.

    I understand where Mr Dey is coming from and appreciate the fine difference between Muslim and Islam. But at the end of the day even the moderate Muslims succumb to Islamic pressures due to their overwhelming desire to be seen not to be defying tradition which has been brainwashed into them from the age of 4.

    Thank you Mr Dey for a fine post.

    Like

  20. >>A man can but only be a product of his circumstances. If you want to change a man, change his circumstances.
    This is what I was also trying to say. Its economic conditions than religion. When a region has depleted resources and/or resource contention There is a chance for a demogogue to exploit and benefit from this and he will be usually not from abject conditions but will find a place to further his goals.

    Is it by chance that Islamic terrorism only occurs in last couple of decades?

    Just a theory:
    What led to Nazism? Were the circumstances breeding grounds then? I think Jews never melted into the society and constantly kept siphoning off using usury and brought upon ire of larger society, albeit in a reprehensible form. They crossed a tipping point. Hitler was only waiting to happen then. Ofcourse, it could have manifested into much more civilised unrest but thats all chance.

    I contend this Siddarth’s claim to the credit of Arabs:
    You also fail to take note of the remarkable achievements of Arab civilisation. Far from being sheepshaggers, the Arab world and its neighbours in the Levant and the Fertile Crescent are the birthplace of civilisation. Starting from Babylonian times, the people here have built wonderful civilisations, they invented agriculture, built the pyramids (I know Egyptians are not Arabs) and were the centre of the greatest trade route known to man. They also made major advances in mathematics such as trigonometry and algebra, along with high levels of artistic and architectural achievement. All stringed instruments, for example, owe their existence to the oudh, an instrument invented by those sand-niggers.

    Islam is by no means a lesser devil than any of the religions. Its tenets are so rigid and have no scope for an evolving society. I still insist that religion brought order to the barbarism. But like any double edged sword, it constricts its followers from evolving to grow beyond its leaders

    Read Arun Shourie’s account of # Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud

    Sadly, such things can not be reverted and trying come up with retort with Bajrang Dal NOW is going to be bloodbath. But our folks are so frail in their mind that its possible for another equivalent of hindu demogogue to surface. Luckily, the other all important condition is not met: indians are not yet pushed to the brink of *there is no tomorrow*

    Sriram

    Like

  21. siddharth:

    I suppose you are using a pseudonym. A cunning pseudonym, if I may say so.

    Your lengthy comment is instructive. Unable to prop up your claims with facts, you have resorted to ad hominem arguments.

    Here’s the basic ad hominem argument (wiki)

    Person 1 makes claim X
    There is something objectionable about Person 1
    Therefore claim X is false

    I don’t expect you to understand the implications of the above, but never mind.

    Just for the record, I do believe that the poor are complicit in their poverty. The rich use the poor as a convenient tool. As I have written previously Some are born to sweet delight (Feb 2007),

    I have a theory. Human labor supply in India is immense. This keeps the price of labor low. The fecundity of the poor helps the rich. Because if it didn’t, the rich are powerful enough to have figured out how to stop the poor from reproducing so rapidly. It also seems to me one of the contributing factors why Mother Teresa is held in high regard around the world. She was helping out the rich have access to cheap labor. Someone has to fill up the slums of Mumbai for the rich to have low cost labor. The poor oblige.

    You clearly fall in the M Teresa clan — friends of poverty. You would rather see human beings suffer so that you can redeem yourself in the eyes of your savior. Your savior demands blood sacrifice and you are willing to offer the children of the poor. You are too rich to offer your own children.

    I would have said, “Shame on you, you pathetic retard. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.” But you are a visitor to my blog. I have to be nice to you. Therefore I am not going to flame you. I will however give you a clue: them internets is huge. Go read something else.

    Sincerely,
    Atanu

    Like

  22. Amazingly worded and agreed to every bit of it! felt like i wanted to say this for long, but obviously not everyone can put it in words! thanks for the great post 🙂

    Like

  23. Atanu,
    If you are not to be given the title of “propagandist”, please substantiate which claims I have been unable to prop up with facts. And here’s another classic ad hominem:
    “You would rather see human beings suffer so that you can redeem yourself in the eyes of your savior. Your savior demands blood sacrifice and you are willing to offer the children of the poor. You are too rich to offer your own children.”, “I don’t expect you to understand the implications of the above, but never mind.” and the gloriously unsaid “Shame on you, you pathetic retard. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.” Also, very cleverly casting aspersions on my character with “I suppose you are using a pseudonym. A cunning pseudonym, if I may say so.”. Totally unnecessary.

    How, exactly, did you come to the conclusion that I want to see people suffer? I did ask you whether the rich have any responsibility since they have appropriated a majority of the resources. Perhaps the rich, who are consuming all the worlds resources need to stop having children? These questions you fail to answer.

    To the previous commenters, I only bring up Avicenna to counter claims that these people were unwashed nomads.

    To gopal who says “Hindus affected Hindus and no one else; whereas the same cannot be said of Islam.” two things – a) how does that make it right? and b) question for homework – how exactly did Buddhism die out in the land of its birth?

    Atanuji, if you had not made such an eloquent defense of free speech I would not say this, but I believe you are obliged to publish this comment now in the name of free speech.

    Like

    1. svs:

      Atanuji, if you had not made such an eloquent defense of free speech I would not say this, but I believe you are obliged to publish this comment now in the name of free speech.

      Not being given to hypocrisy, I don’t delete any comments — unless they are spam or basically abusive and off topic. Your comment is on topic and although abusive, I see no point in removing it. But it not a free speech issue. Free speech has to do with a person’s freedom to express his or her own opinion, etc. It does not mean that a person is free to speak wherever he feels like. You are free to express your opinion but you cannot barge into your neighbor’s bedroom at midnight and start ranting. That is an act of intrusion and if your neighbor kicks your butt out, you cannot accuse him of stifling free speech.

      I think you need to learn how to reason.

      Like

  24. Dear SVS,

    I think that before we start a discussion, I would like to summarise your views and then debate them. I would be grateful if you could please bear with me. Thanks.

    1. You said “For example, you fail to notice that Hinduism has been responsible for the subjugation and dehumanisation of millions of people, over thousands of years in the name of the caste system” – First can you please define the word caste for me. You see old chap, we Hindus dont quite use the word caste in our scriptures. Its either varna or jati. Could you pelase describe to me what you mean by caste. Also once you have done that, could you also provide me with tangible data on the so called “caste composition” of Indian society since ancient times and also tangible evidence about how there was oppression and dehumanisation of millions over thousands of years. (by tangible evidence I mean hard numbers and records and not isolated quotations from an insignificant text like the Manusmriti)

    2. You said – “The position of the Hindu woman is an atrocity” – Kindly provide incontrovertible scriptural evidence to support this statement.

    3. You said – “starting before birth with female foeticide, infanticide and if allowed to live, a life of subjugation.” – Please establish a solid link between these phenomena and Hindu scriptures. (I mean please let me know which scripture at which page advocates female foeticide, infanticide and a life of subjugation for women)

    4. You said – “All this continues to this day, and if you ever turn on the TV, you will find it being glorified instead of being condemned. We now make heroes out of child brides and women who burn themselves to death to protect their “honour”.” – Please establish a clear religious link.

    5. You said – “You also fail to take note of the remarkable achievements of Arab civilisation. Far from being sheepshaggers, the Arab world and its neighbours in the Levant and the Fertile Crescent are the birthplace of civilisation.and all the other paens to the Arabs etc” – The conversation is about Islam the ideology and not Arabs as a people. Could you please clarify how the glory of the arab civilisation is relevant. By the way Hitler also gave us the Beetle, Wagner’s music and missile technology, Golden age of the Germanic civilisation eh.

    6. You said – “You also make throwaway statements like “Muslims have been killing jews for centuries.” (I forget now in which one of your posts this statement was) This is patently untrue” – Could you please read the Quran and the Hadith’s. The massacre starts with the banu Qurayza and while you are researching the greatness and tolerance of the Ottoman Turks, dont let the words Armenian Genocide distract you old chap, Carry on.

    7. You said – “After all, there were no suicide bombers before Zionism…or were there?” – But their ceratinly was terrorism, for more read the chronilces of travellers and court historians of Muslim Sultans.

    8. You said – “how exactly did Buddhism die out in the land of its birth?” How indeed my friend, how indeed. For starters research Taxila and Nalanda. And please dont start on Pushyamitra Sunga my friend – I will counter through Agnimitra Sunga 🙂

    Happy reading

    regards.

    P.S: Atanu Babu, during the course of thsi discussion I might have to use politically incorrect facts and language. My apologies in advance.

    Like

  25. SVS,

    I have a couple of simple questions for you:

    The position of the Hindu woman is an atrocity, starting before birth with female foeticide, infanticide and if allowed to live, a life of subjugation. All this continues to this day, and if you ever turn on the TV, you will find it being glorified instead of being condemned. We now make heroes out of child brides and women who burn themselves to death to protect their “honour”.

    Is “sati” sanctified by scripture or what happened due to barbarians taking away the women as “prize-catches”. Is there any proof of this happening in places unaffected by invasions?

    Is there any binding reason for Atanu to make a statement on evils “of Hinduism” (as you would like to call it do your incorrect understanding), when he makes a statement on evils of Islam, that too on his blog?

    Your next claim may be that “ritualistic hindus killed Buddhists and drove them out of their land”. Please read what happened to Nalanda Library in Bihar,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda

    In 1193, the Nalanda University was sacked by Bakhtiyar Khilji, a Turk;[21] this event is seen by scholars as a late milestone in the decline of Buddhism in India. Khilji is said to have asked if there was a copy of the Koran at Nalanda before he sacked it. The Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj, in his chronicle the Tabaquat-I-Nasiri, reported that thousands of monks were burned alive and thousands beheaded as Khilji tried his best to uproot Buddhism and plant Islam by the sword;[22] the burning of the library continued for several months and “smoke from the burning manuscripts hung for days like a dark pall over the low hills.”

    Like

  26. svs sounds so wearisomely predictable like many Hinduism bashers out there.

    To know what Hinduism is , one has to learn from a competent Guru. Thanks to Almighty Parameshwara , such Gurus have always existed & still exist in our country Bharatvarsh.

    It is downright silly to blame Hinduism for socio economic ills of Indian society. The lack of infrastructure , corruption & squalor around are known to all of us. Yet , there is that SOMETHING in our country which one simply cannot find anywhere else even among developed countries. That I would attribute to our Hinduism alone.

    Like

  27. Oh, this is going to be easier than I thought.

    Sunil first.
    1) First of all, your entire argument is based on your surety that I will not be able to recite you chapter and verse from the scriptures. Well, I don’t need to point out chapter and verse for you because surely we can agree that any behaviour that is sanctioned by the priest class is essentially sanctioned by the religion. Are you arguing that the practice of caste discrimination has not been sanctioned by Brahmins? Untouchability, lack of access to places of worship, segregation in civil life – did none of these happen? Were none of them sanctioned by the Brahmins? Wow….I must be seriously misinformed, and blind and stupid to boot. And so were Ambedkar and Gandhi and all those countless other idiots who never realised that there’s no scriptural basis for the caste system. What a waste. P.S. So now Manusmriti is an insignificant text? How convenient.
    You want tangible evidence, I suggest you open your eyes. 3% of India is Brahmin. Calculating how much of the land they own, how many seats in college they occupy and how many positions of power they occupy is left as an exercise for the reader. Make a trip to Mirzapur district. You can see for yourself. Oh wait, poor people are stupid and lazy and complicit in their poverty….right….so silly of me to have forgotten that. That 7% of Bhumihars in Mirzapur (for example) own 90% of the land is prima facie evidence of….a) expropriation b) stupidity of the 93%. Your answer is a choice.
    2) Ditto for the position of the Hindu woman. I would point to the Manusmriti but what to do? It is an insignificant text.
    Notwithstanding this:
    “The Smritis stand next in authority to the Vedas and explain and develop Dharma by laying down the laws that govern Hindu national, social, familial and individual obligations.
    The Dharma Sashtras are the books that are expressly called Smritis. The three great law-givers are Manu, who wrote the Manu Smriti or Manava Dharma-Sastra, Yagnavalkya, who wrote the Yagnavalkya Smriti which is next in importance to Manu’s Smriti and Parasara, who wrote the Parasara Smriti. These are the three great law-givers and their Dharma-Sastras are still studied today to gather guidelines for social conduct.”
    It is no surprise that there is no reference to the caste system in the vedas. The vedas are products of nomadic people, who generally do not generate a surplus and the institutions of oppression….damn, my Marxist leanings are showing…sorry.
    3. as above. The link between Hindu religion and the oppression of women is thus. Women are and have been oppressed. The position of widows, child brides, menstruating women, husband worship (pativrata) – all these may or may not have been sanctioned in scripture, but the fact that they went unopposed by Brahmins means that the priest class is complicit in these actions and cannot be said to not have sanctioned it. Why, these widows were kept in the most appalling conditions in holy places like Varanasi with nary a peep from the priests. It is not important that this is or isn’t in the scripture – all these behaviours were sanctioned by Brahmins and thus by Hinduism, since the Brahmin is the keeper of the codes. you cannot even claim that the brahmin need not interfere everywhere. He did. Child birth – brahmin. First meal – brahmin. Naming ceremony – brahmin. Thread ceremony – brahmin. Schooling – brahmin. Marriage – brahmin. Death – brahmin. Death anniversary of ancestor – brahmin. Full moon – brahmin. New moon – brahmin….you get the drift. The brahmin was present all the time to extract rents in exchange for blessing. You cannot claim that they never sanctioned these behaviours.
    Besides, my thesis is not about good or bad scripture. Good or bad can come without scripture, with scripture, half scripture etc. Are you really saying that these practices are not a part of Hindu India? They don’t exist? They are not refered to as our “Indian culture” and “Hindu dharma”?
    4. I have no answer to this in the terms that you require.
    5. You say “The conversation is about Islam the ideology and not Arabs as a people” but I have repeatedly contended that the only reason I bring up Arab and neighbouring civilization is to counter Atanu’s claim that they were unwashed nomads. No, some very smart people fell for the Islamic ideology (and I might add, the Hindu one). By the way, do you guys read my comments or do you just pick out some keywords and slot me into some convenient category? This is the third time I’ve had to say this.
    6. The incident you refer to was an act of war. Our own texts are full of such massacres. Armenian massacre was conducted by the secular forces of Kemal Ataturk, not by the Ottomans. I of course cannot guarantee that there were zero incidences of jew/christian persecution under the Ottomans. My stance is that it was not a state policy and was not systemic persecution as in Russia and later Germany. Yes, invading Muslim armies were brutal. Which invading army isn’t? You think when the Maurya armies spread out across the peninsula that they went with feathers and chocolates?
    7. The existence of Agnimitra does not disprove that Hindus took part in the persecution of Buddhists. I fail to see your logic.

    Amar, you said “Is there any binding reason for Atanu to make a statement on evils “of Hinduism” (as you would like to call it do your incorrect understanding), when he makes a statement on evils of Islam, that too on his blog?”
    It is not my incorrect understanding of Hinduism that is the problem, but the fact that Hinduism has a shifting definition based mostly on the convenience of people trying to defend its barbaric practices. I count as Hindu anything that has received the sanction of Brahmins and which has been practiced in society for a reasonably long period of time. Anything I say about Punjabi Hindus might never apply to Tamilian ones, but we can either discuss substantive issues like oppression and superstition or we can split hairs about chapter and verse. Hinduism, like the judge said – I can’t define it (and neither can you) but I know it when I see it (as do you).
    Essentially, my point is this. The truth does not come out of double standards. If you wish to claim that you are a seeker of truth then you may not criticise others while turning a blind eye to the failings of your own people. That is propaganda. That is bigotry. And this is the same attitude that perpetrates the circle of violence. Atanu is under no obligation to point out the failings of Hinduism. But if he does not, then he is not entitled to claim that he is fair and balanced. It is Atanu’s pretence to be modern, reasonable and logical while spewing bile at other people that offends me and which compelled me to speak in a forum where I know that I am in a minority. Why, I am in a minority in this great country of ours.

    Atanu-ji, there is a difference between offensive and abusive. My views might be offensive to you, but I can’t see how you can call my posts abusive. The one incidence of “fuck you” was in your post…oh I forgot. You never said it. Besides, this is not your bedroom. Your blog is a platform for discussion and debate (you do have a comments section that is open to the public) and we are engaging in that. If you stop to publish my on-topic, offensive but not-abusive posts, then you will be conducting censorship by virtue of accepting some comments and not others. I am not worried any more though. Like I said, I think you essentially mean well.

    In the end, I am not an apologist for Islam. Yeah, they did and still do some terrible things in the name of religion. Neither do I have any particular ill-will towards Hinduism. Hindus also did and still do some terrible things. Why nis this so hard to accept? Ham doodh ke dhule, baaki sab kharaab? wow. impressive doublethink.

    I find it easy to see both of these as very wasteful social structures, oppressive structures and I wish to see the end of them both, along with every other religion on planet Earth. Forgive me, but as an atheist, seeing you people defending one religion against the other just makes me laugh. It is almost as idiotic as saying BJP is better than congress or Obama is better than Bush.

    Maybe if you come off of your capitalistic and scriptural high horses and read some Marx and understand the materialist philosophy you might be a little closer to understanding the world. (I have already anticipated your “socialism has failed”-type ignorant comments, so save those pixels). If Marx is too heavy, read 1984. It is a very truthful book. I might also suggest “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins. Take the next step. Be free.

    And in the end, the shape of your heart, like the shape of your society is a choice. You can choose to base it on “logic” and “reason” and let your reason take you as far as making scapegoats of other people and then formulate a society based on this notion. Or you can choose to love and to make a society where many if not all can find fulfillment. You can reward selfishness or altruism. It’s a choice. “Man is greedy” does not do justice to the human species. Accepting it as an axiom is a choice.

    Peace.
    Sid

    Like

  28. Hi Atanu

    Plain and simple. ISLAM was born 1200+ years ago. People have been looted and raped and all and we were no exception. Again, there was a natural law.
    Why do you think NOW we pronounce the indictment? And what next you see as the solution? What comes out of it? Believe me, you may make a fine nuance (really, it is!!) and I agree that People and Ideologies are distinct and you condemn the ideology and not the people. OK. How many (even elite) agree that their ideology is BAD but they have come to terms with that? Religions are not meant to evolve since that defeats the purpose of leader at that time. They have to cast their dictums for people to unconditionally subjugate. With all this baggage, your statements about islam will only lead to deadlock and not a workable solution. If there is any, it only could be in looking for alternatives causes (dont veto out, please :-)) which could be worked out. Such as my posit that *economics* could do some miracles. If not this, something else that serves as a common denominator. What say? Something else, even slower, but which shows 5000+ yrs of evolution

    Sriram

    Like

  29. =>
    I find it easy to see both of these as very wasteful social structures, oppressive structures and I wish to see the end of them both, along with every other religion on planet Earth. Forgive me, but as an atheist, seeing you people defending one religion against the other just makes me laugh.
    =>

    Sid, could you please point me to any links to blogs/websites where you have similarly – and with the same passion – argued with Muslims about Islam being a wasteful social structure that you wish to see the end of, and pointed out its negatives? I mean, if you accuse Atanu of something, you need to show that you’re not indulging in the shoveling of the very same horse manure.

    And if you are really so passionate about your highly bombastic (and pretty stupid) statement that you “wish to see the end of [..] every other religion on planet Earth” (BTW, as an aside, do you get a raging hard-on with such thoughts about your own capabilities?), you can start with the theocratic states where your efforts are most needed – at least India is theoretically a secular democracy. Baby steps. I need not mention which countries are ruled by theocracy today – you seem to be pretty erudite.

    =>
    Maybe if you come off of your capitalistic and scriptural high horses and read some Marx and understand the materialist philosophy you might be a little closer to understanding the world.
    =>

    Ah yes, let me rephrase: “You shall have no gods – other than Marx – before me.” Yet another proselytizing and highly intolerant thinking – this time under the name of Marx – that can be added to the list of other intolerant ideologies (Objectivism, Christianity, Islam). Good luck with that!!

    Like

  30. Good morning Comrade svs.

    >>Oh, this is going to be easier than I thought.

    Your confidence impresses me. You are one guy who’s certain of the ground he is standing on. You have moral outrage on your side. You stick to your argument. You are not the kind of guy who’s going to backpedal like his ass is on fire. I must have a conversation with you.

    >> I must be seriously misinformed, and blind and stupid to boot.

    Yes. Of course you cannot be wrong. Why would I be impressed otherwise? If you are not an Islamic fundie in a commie’s clothing, you must be a commie. In other words, you indeed were seriously misinformed by a genocidal ideology — 20th century’s biggest killer in fact — which rendered you blind and stupid.

    >>Well, I don’t need to point out chapter and verse for you because surely we can agree that any behaviour that is sanctioned by the priest class is essentially sanctioned by the religion.

    Actually, I don’t agree with crappy commie theories. But _you_ do, and that’s what matters. And it would be interesting to see how soon you’d start issuing amendments and alterations to your bogus theories.

    Whenever the hatred exhibited by Abrahamic faiths towards “unbelievers” is mentioned, the stock-in-trade “counter”argument that apologists of Islamic fundamentalism like you pull out of the dark recesses of their anatomies is caste discrimination in Hinduism, as if that justifies the intolerance of Islam. But wait a minute. Caste only in Hinduism?

    Here’s a news report for you of upper caste Muslims bashing up dalit Muslims because the latter demand reservations:

    “PATNA, FEBRUARY 23: A meeting convened by the high power Sachar
    Committee today to identify solutions for the social, economic
    and educational backwardness of India s Muslims culminated in
    fists and blows over the issue of reservations for the minority
    community… Tensions ran high when the Pasmanda Muslim
    Mahaj, an organisation championing the cause of Dalit Muslims,
    demanded that reservation to Muslims should be based on caste and
    not on religion. Mahaj president Ali Anwar argued that as among
    the Hindus, caste-based backwardness also exists in Muslim soci-
    ety… Anwar went on to allege that everything was pre-
    planned by State Minority Welfare secretary Aashiq Ibrahimi to
    throttle the voice of Dalit Muslims…The pre-planned attack has proved how upper castes among Muslims are trying to suppress Dalit Muslims, he said.”

    I bet your fruitcacke commie theories never told you how deeply ingrained caste and caste discrimination among Muslims are. If you are interested in shedding your stupidity on the subject, do ask me, and I’ll do you the favor of pointing you to some literature.

    Therefore, getting back to your crappy commie theory that you badly feel the need of in your mission of justifying Islam’s oppression of various categories of people:

    1. The priestly class of Islam imposes a caste order and a caste discrimination on Muslims.

    2. And of course, this priestly class also propagates discrimination and hatred against “unbelievers”

    It’s not merely a double whammy..

    3. Needless to add, this priestly class puts women in black tents, consigns four of them to the fate of sharing one husband, rules that they must be home-bound, needs four male witnesses when they are raped, etc, etc. All of that making you feel repugnant, no?

    4. This priestly class also discriminates against non-Arabs; since Islam is also Arab imperialism.

    5. This priestly class also advocates internecine killing: only a couple days ago, in the land of the pure to our west, sunni suicide bombers killed a few shia women and children.

    In other words, “discrimination” and “oppression” is written all over the Sunni uppercaste male priestly class of Islam. Instead of having tons of moral outrage on your side and a heart that bleeds like the Niagara for the oppressed, you want to trivialize the oppression that Islam enforces on many categories of people both within and outside the faith, by comparing it to caste discrimination in Hinduism.

    I have a feeling that the hideous little brown creature that I spotted in my toilet the other day (“Hit” is recommended) has a better value system than you.

    Like

    1. Oldtimer wrote:

      In other words, “discrimination” and “oppression” is written all over the Sunni uppercaste male priestly class of Islam. Instead of having tons of moral outrage on your side and a heart that bleeds like the Niagara for the oppressed, you want to trivialize the oppression that Islam enforces on many categories of people both within and outside the faith, by comparing it to caste discrimination in Hinduism.

      Thanks. Could not have said it better myself.

      Like

  31. =>
    Essentially, my point is this. The truth does not come out of double standards.
    =>

    I agree. Only Papa Marx had the capability to preach the truth free of any double-standards – rest all were idiots.

    BTW, Sid, do you call/consider yourself a Hindu? If so, then why? Just renounce it if, as is obvious from your comment on your wish of exterminating religions, it is so loathsome to you. At least there’s no apostasy in Hinduism and no one will kill you for deciding to not consider yourself a Hindu.

    Like

  32. Hello SVS,

    Welcome back

    1. You said – « Well, I don’t need to point out chapter and verse for you because surely we can agree that any behaviour that is sanctioned by the priest class is essentially sanctioned by the religion” – I completely disagree with your assertion that any behaviour sanctioned by the priestly class gains automatic sanction from the religion. A religion is based on texts and scriptures (and in case of Hinduism on personal experience) and only those texts and scriptures determine what the tenets of religion are. Also old friend how exactly do you determine what is sanctioned by the priestly class and who is the priestly class in Hinduism. If I take the example of the priestly class of the “Arya Samaj” they condemn the caste system with utmost vehemence. And by the way using your own logic Islam would be the most violent and abhorrent of all religions since every human atrocity from slavery, subjugationand torture of women to manslaughter not only has sanction from the priestly class but is actively propagated by them.
    2. “Are you arguing that the practice of caste discrimination has not been sanctioned by Brahmins?” – Are you telling me that 100% of the brahmins have sanctioned cast discrimination. Also are you telling me that their sanction means that Hinduism sanctions the catse system. What evidence do you have that all brahmins unanimouisly sanction the caste system and by what logic are you trying to tell me that even if they do, it would mean that the catse system (whatever it is that you mean by it) has the sanction of Hindu religion as a whole. It’s a bit like sayng that since the Chinese practice economic capitalism, Communism actually sanctions it. And before you start off can you please tell me again what Caste actually means?
    3. “You want tangible evidence, I suggest you open your eyes. 3% of India is Brahmin. Calculating how much of the land they own, how many seats in college they occupy and how many positions of power they occupy is left as an exercise for the reader.” – I want tangible evidence on the oppression of millions over thousands of years driven specifically by the caste system. I don’t want evidence on how much land Brahmins own in India now. Owning land does not prove that those who own the land have oppressed others for thousands of years. A small exercise in logic for the reader and more importantly you.
    4. You said “Make a trip to Mirzapur district” – Well old chap if you think Mirzapur is representative of all of India and also how all of India has been for centuries, then all the best to you. In America the top 20% of the citizens control 80% of the wealth, does this eman that they and their ancestors have been exploiting the millions of others for thousands of years – I think not. By the way, I own no land, are you trying to say that my ancestors have been exploited for thousands of years. Inequal distribution of wealth is not equal to thousands of years of exploitation. By the way do you know how the land was distributed in Mirza pur in the 10th century AD or even the 17th century AD?
    5. You said – “The Smritis stand next in authority to the Vedas and explain and develop Dharma by laying down the laws that govern Hindu national, social, familial and individual obligations.” – There you see old chap, as a Hindu I am under no obligation hold the Manusmriti in veneration. Also The manusmriti is contradicted in many places by the mahabharat and the Bhagvat Gita (not to mention the Vedas, Also the vedas do talk about the Varna system, but that would be expecting too much intelligence from you). To base your rather serious allegations of “Oppression of Millions over thousands of years” on one text of dubious origins that is contradicted in many places by many other texts and inferior to the vedas is a bit like fitting data to a pet theory – Like some one said “How Convenient”.
    6. You said – “The link between Hindu religion and the oppression of women is thus. Women are and have been oppressed. The position of widows, child brides, menstruating women, husband worship (pativrata) – all these may or may not have been sanctioned in scripture, but the fact that they went unopposed by Brahmins means that the priest class is complicit in these actions and cannot be said to not have sanctioned it. Why, these widows were kept in the most appalling conditions in holy places like Varanasi with nary a peep from the priests. It is not important that this is or isn’t in the scripture – all these behaviours were sanctioned by Brahmins and thus by Hinduism, since the Brahmin is the keeper of the codes. you cannot even claim that the brahmin need not interfere everywhere. He did. Child birth – brahmin. First meal – brahmin. Naming ceremony – brahmin. Thread ceremony – brahmin. Schooling – brahmin. Marriage – brahmin. Death – brahmin. Death anniversary of ancestor – brahmin. Full moon – brahmin. New moon – brahmin….you get the drift. The brahmin was present all the time to extract rents in exchange for blessing. You cannot claim that they never sanctioned these behaviours. » – The link explained by the above statement is between the brahmin and not Hinduis unless you equate the two. That would be as fallacious as equating communism to free markets just because the Chinese practice it. Think about it old friend it is not so hard to understand.
    7. You said – “You say “The conversation is about Islam the ideology and not Arabs as a people” but I have repeatedly contended that the only reason I bring up Arab and neighbouring civilization is to counter Atanu’s claim that they were unwashed nomads” – Atanu babu said that those who created the religion were unwashed Nomads. He did not say that all arabs were unwashed Nomads. And by the way the inhabitants of the civilisations that came in for great priase from you (persians. Levant, turks) did not unflinchingly accept Islam. It was a bloody affair. Just because some smart people accept an ideology, it does not make the ideology great. I am sure a lot of smart people believe in Nazism, Communism and Marxism as well, but to disastrous consequence as we have seen. 
    8. You said – “The incident you refer to was an act of war” – There are many other my friend, many many others. Read more on the Granada massacre and the and Maleppo for a start.
    9. You said – “Our own texts are full of such massacres” – Show me a few of them old chap.
    10. You said – “You think when the Maurya armies spread out across the peninsula that they went with feathers and chocolates?” – Do you think they went with the sword and a holy book. If so prove it.
    11. You said – “Armenian massacre was conducted by the secular forces of Kemal Ataturk, not by the Ottomans” – ah the delusions of marxism. – Armenian genocide by Ataturk. – here read this link , it might wake you up from your stupor- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide#Life_under_Ottoman_rule
    12.

    Adana Massacre, 1909
    Main article: Adana Massacre

    An Armenian town left pillaged and destroyed after the massacres in Adana in 1909.
    A countercoup took place on April 13, 1909. Some Ottoman military elements, joined by Islamic theological students, aimed to return control of the country to the Sultan and the rule of Islamic law. Riots and fighting broke out between the reactionary forces and CUP forces, until the CUP was able to put down the uprising and court-martial the opposition leaders.
    While the movement initially targeted the nascent Young Turk government, it spilled over into pogroms against Armenians who were perceived as having supported the restoration of the constitution.[32] When Ottoman Army troops were called in, many accounts record that instead of trying to quell the violence they actually took part in pillaging Armenian enclaves in Adana province.[33] 15,000–30,000 Armenians were killed in the course of the “Adana Massacre”.[34][35]

    Happy reading

    Regards,

    Like

  33. Hello SVS,

    I forgot to add this. My apologies.

    You said – “The existence of Agnimitra does not disprove that Hindus took part in the persecution of Buddhists. I fail to see your logic” – In order for me to try to disprove that Hindus took part in persscution of Buddhists, you first have to try to prove that they did. You seem to think that Hindu persecution of Buddists is a fait accompli. Unfortunately old chap things dont work like that in an enlightened debate. You first have to give evidence to prove that Hindus took part and only then will I try to disprove you. You obviously fail to get the Agnimitra link. Please research more (use google) and I am sure you will understand what I was driving at. And please come back with facts and not assertions like “Hindus took part in prsecution of buddhists” whiuch you then expect us to accept as a given.

    Regards.

    Like

  35. Unable to counter with logic, the mob descends into name-calling. Guess it’s time for me to wrap up. Sigh….here goes:

    “Sid, could you please point me to any links to blogs/websites where you have similar…” Irrelevant to the argument.

    ” you can start with the theocratic states where your efforts are most needed” – me? what can I do? I’m just one guy. I can’t make a difference in the building society where I live, let alone bring down edifices of civilisation. Please, I am not an atom bomb. I am free to think, though. And to hope.

    “You shall have no gods – other than Marx – before me.” Marx is not a God, not even for me (If you read my posts carefully, you will know I am an anarchist). However, I feel his much maligned philosophy is much closer to describing a true world than any of the alternatives. Of course, Marx himself is hardly original. All these ideas of the brotherhood of man and universal equality have been yearning for expression throughout the years. The New Testament, the Franciscan order, Islam, Buddhism, Sufism and countless other radical sects and orders find their appeal in this message of the equality of man. Like I said, the shape of your society is a choice. The idea of a mostly equal society where nobody has to suffer and live a wasted life full of pain is more appealing to me than let’s say the capitalistic or feudal ideas, or the idea that religious dogma be the guiding force for social organisation. I know we might sacrifice some “technological advancement” (though any linux users will know that anarchy and technological superiority are not mutually exclusive), but the iPhone is not so important to me. (Please save your arguments about how I am using the wonders of tech to have this conversation etc etc. These arguments are worse than meaningless)
    I always find it amazing how many people will balk at the idea of a society with no rich and no poor. It always surprises me, the vehemence with which their nose curls. Strange choices some people make.
    “You have moral outrage on your side.” Not moral outrage. just logic.

    “You stick to your argument” – What can I do? I’m the only one here with a decent argument. hyuk hyuk.

    “Here’s a news report for you of upper caste Muslims bashing up dalit Muslims because the latter demand reservations:” Colour me surprised. Not! Power will always use convenient ideologies to bolster their position. There exists a caste system amongst Goan Christians as well. Curious though, how it happens only in India….checkmate.

    “If you are not an Islamic fundie in a commie’s clothing, you must be a commie” – I don’t have to be prefect for my argument to have merit. Please do not indulge in ad-hominem responses. Atanu will scold you with a quote from Wikipedia.

    For all the people pointing out the ills of Islam, please. Islam is indefensible. I am not defending Islam. When did I give that impression? I’ll say it again – please do not slot me into categories of Islamic apologists. I have said repeatedly that I have nothing nice to say about any of the religions (with the possible exception of Buddhism, but I have not done enough research to solidify my position on it). I believe any organised religion is a corruption of mankind’s sincere yearning for connection with the Universe and for meaning. Their texts may or may not be edifying, but their manifestations are almost always beneath contempt.

    “I agree. Only Papa Marx had the capability to preach the truth free of any double-standards – rest all were idiots.” Papa marx didn’t preach. He proposed a theory. some of it was right. Some of it is wrong. Ideologies need not be accepted wholesale. There’s some good and bad in everything.

    “BTW, Sid, do you call/consider yourself a Hindu? If so, then why?”
    I consider myself fortunate to have been born in a mostly areligious house (in a much more tolerant country, I might add. India in the 70s). I mostly escaped the brainwashing necessary to indoctrinate a child into religion. I never had a thread ceremony. I can’t renounce something I’ve never had. I feel no urge to count myself amongst believers in God as mandated by the religions. (Actually the only form of Hinduism I have found palatable is as practiced in Assam. No idols, no castes, no gender discrimination. perfect.)

    To Anonymous, who said “It is downright silly to blame Hinduism for socio economic ills of Indian society.” By that logic you should be attacking Atanu alongside me for blaming the ills of the Muslim world on Islam. See the double standards?

    If someone has a logical point to make, please make it. I find it tiring to respond to the name callers. also, just to be clear, I commented not to defend Islam which I see as indefensible, but to point out the hypocrisy and bigotry in calling other people names when chances are our own houses are in similarly bad shape. Look for the truth, it shall set you free.

    Life is complicated. Simple truths are neither simple nor truths. Watch out for the messenger of hatred.

    Peace.
    Sid

    Like

  36. Sunil,
    well, you see, if Hindusim is an amorphous, undefinable thing then we can have no argument. Whatever I can point to, you can say, that is not Hinduism. So let me ask you one question – which all religions in the world have a caste system? please answer. make a reasonable assumption for what constitutes a religion, and what constitues a caste system. your own definitions. what is your answer?

    Work day begins. Will respond to the rest later.

    Like

  37. Hello SVS,

    You said – “which all religions in the world have a caste system?” – Please tell me what you mean by a “caste system” and I will tell you which religion has one (if any). Please also tell me what the word caste means in the Hindu context according to you. I have been asking this question since the very beginning of this conversation.

    Eagerly awaiting your response to the remaining.

    Regards.

    Like

  38. Caste system could be defined as a system of grading society based on castes, where a caste is an endogamous group and caste membership is conferred by birth. A caste system also implies a hierarchy of castes, each with different duties and privileges.

    Please proceed.

    Like

  39. Hello SVS,

    Thank you very much for your definition. If I may clarify it some more. Please let me know if I have gone wrong. For a system to qualify for being called a caste system, it must have ALL of the following:

    1. A system of grading society

    2. Endogamous groups

    3. Membership conferred by birth

    4. Heirarchy of castes

    5. Each with different duties and priviliges

    Well then. I cannot think of any religion which promulgates a system that exactly posseses the aforementioned characteristics. However I do know of one that comes pretty close. It’s Islam.

    1.A system of grading society – believers and Kaffirs

    2. Endogamous groups – A muslim can only marry another Muslim

    3. Membership conferred by birth – This is where there is a slight variation, Islam allows conversion, ie. even if you are not born to it you can opt for it or be forced in to it 🙂

    4. Heirarchy of castes – You bet, research Dhimmi.

    5. Each with different duties and priviliges – Absolutely, kaffirs are to suffer and pay Jiizya, believers to rule.

    Thank you for answering my question on defining the caste system. Now can you please proceed to prove to me how Hinduism scripturally propagates a system whose characteristics exactly match the ones you have just described. Also I would be most grateful if you could answer some of the other points I have raised earlier.

    Regards.

    Like

  40. Hello SVS,

    Forgive me , I did not complete one of my comments.

    3. Membership conferred by birth – This is where there is a slight variation, Islam allows conversion, ie. even if you are not born to it you can opt for it or be forced in to it. But Like Hotel California, “you can come any time you want, but you can never leave” -Apostasy warrants capital punishment. So while Islam does not impose inward rigidity, it does impose outward rigidity.

    Regards

    Like

    1. Hello Sunil:

      One small correction. At the Hotel California, they’re “programmed to receive, You can checkout any time you like, But you can never leave!”

      Now back to your regularly scheduled argument with SVS.

      Like

  42. Sid,

    I note you have a soft corner for Buddhism. Buddhism is not exclusive of Hinduism – Adi Sankara preached as much to defeat the Buddhist scholars during his time without shedding a drop of blood! You can be a Buddhist and a Hindu. Or a Hindu and a Buddhist. Or a Muslim and a Hindu. A Christian and a Hindu. An Alien and a Hindu, and even an Athiest and a Hindu and find justification for it in the philosophy. Of course, loonies like the Shiv Sena will come after you, but fortunately they are a pathetic and misguided minority in society. Today, you can burn the Bhagavad Gita, defecate on any of the epics, demonize a high priest, yet enter most temples unscathed and hold your own. There is no central power structure that can pronounce what is right or wrong, and never has been. Fortunately, you can air your viewpoints without restrictions and enter a large number of Western churches too today, thanks to Christianity turning the corner a few centuries ago.

    I think you have done an excellent job in responding to contrarian views and abuse with cool and calm – even if I disagree with your stance.

    All I will add is this: you are right in pointing out the implicit “hatred” in Atanu’s viewpoint. It is not a message of love, and neither did he dress it up as such. Yet, it is hugely important that he points out that he doesn’t hold the anger against individual Muslims. I too share some of his anger against the dogma, and trust me, I am in no way proud of it. I hope you will at least acknowledge where the significantly bigger source of hatred and viciousness is institutionalized. From a self-preservation standpoint, it is not at all clear to me whether love will conquer it, or terrible conflict will.

    Peace out.

    A.

    Like

  43. =>
    I consider myself fortunate to have been born in a mostly areligious house (in a much more tolerant country, I might add. India in the 70s). I mostly escaped the brainwashing necessary to indoctrinate a child into religion. I never had a thread ceremony. I can’t renounce something I’ve never had. I feel no urge to count myself amongst believers in God as mandated by the religions. (Actually the only form of Hinduism I have found palatable is as practiced in Assam. No idols, no castes, no gender discrimination. perfect.)
    =>

    Sid, that was the longest non-answer I’ve ever read to a very simple and straightforward question I asked, which you could have logically answered in “Yes” or “No” – I mean, are there any other answers to that question? Either you consider yourself a Hindu, or you don’t – I don’t see any other half-way stations on that route where you can get off. Perhaps that is symptomatic of the confusion and illogic fermenting in your own mind about your identity and the self-loathing you display. Which is fine.

    =>
    However, I feel his much maligned philosophy is much closer to describing a true world than any of the alternatives.
    =>

    Basing one’s conclusion about a philosophy on just feelings and accepting it as the truth, without putting it to a rigorous logical test and without doing a comparison with other philosophies is foolhardy, don’t you think? Throwing around dots is not enough – and you haven’t done enough to connect those dots.

    =>
    [..] but to point out the hypocrisy and bigotry in calling other people names when chances are our own houses are in similarly bad shape.
    =>

    What do you mean by “our own houses”?

    If it is “India” you refer to, then India doesn’t only have Hindus living here – there are people of different faiths, and that means we can and should criticize any ideology/faith that exists in India and which needs to be criticized – we’re all Indians first. It weren’t Hindus who terrorized Taslima Nasreen in Hyderabad not so long ago for writing a book, unless you’re implying that non-Muslims should never criticize any such incidents in India that involve Muslims. But then, that would be communal (if we only criticize “our own religion” while being blind to other evils in our country), not to mention it’ll keep in place the barriers of religion between people, which is antithetical to your wonderful goal of unity and equality of all. 🙂

    If your reference was to “Hindu”, then are you agreeing that India=Hindu?? That’s so Hindutva of you. 😉

    And it brings us back to the question I asked you (whether you consider yourself a Hindu or not), which you answered with a tortuous prevarication.

    =>
    “Sid, could you please point me to any links to blogs/websites where you have similar…”

    Irrelevant to the argument.
    =>

    Why is it irrelevant?

    1. You accuse Atanu of being hypocritical – that he doesn’t criticize Hinduism.
    2. You state that you wish to get rid of all religions.
    3. Yet you criticize only Hinduism here.

    So it is logical – and very relevant – to ask you where on the internet have you indulged in a similar debate with non-Hindu religious people telling them that their (in your own words) “very wasteful social structures, oppressive structures” need to go. If you’re really so beholden to the truth and think it will set you free, you could have answered truthfully to my question, instead of prevaricating with an “irrelevant” when you are smart enough to know it wasn’t irrelevant.

    And since you seem to be an expert at anticipating objections and pre-empting them, let me do the same just this once, though I do not make any claims that I can read the other person’s mind or know their positions beforehand – what’s the point of a debate/discussion then? Coming back with “I criticize what I’m most familiar with” won’t cut ice in this wonderful world of internets when Papa Marx has adherents all over the world and information is available at the click of a button.

    Oh, and a final note and a few questions on
    =>
    I believe any organised religion is a corruption of mankind’s sincere yearning for connection with the Universe and for meaning
    =>

    1. First of all, how do you define “organised religion”? I’d asked this same question on Shantanu’s blog too, and never really got a satisfactory or logical answer. Seems to me kind of dogmatic to throw around stock phrases like that without thinking about them or coming up with concrete examples.

    2. Are you talking about YOURSELF or about others? How is “organised religion” stopping YOU from YOUR sincere yearning for connection with the Universe? Did it stop you? How do you know that a person who willingly goes to a temple or willingly participates in “organised religion” is having his yearning blocked and corrupted by “organised religion”? Do you see yourself as a savior of all these stupid, misguided people (which is what you seem to imply – please correct me if I’m wrong) who need to be rescued from the clutches of “organised religion” and need to be shown the same light that you’ve seen?

    Thanks.

    Like

  44. I have a question for you:


    If someone has a logical point to make, please make it. I find it tiring to respond to the name callers. also, just to be clear, I commented not to defend Islam which I see as indefensible, but to point out the hypocrisy and bigotry in calling other people names when chances are our own houses are in similarly bad shape. Look for the truth, it shall set you free.

    Consider a hypothetical post by Atanu when he points out the evils of Communism/Naziism. Would you reply in that post saying hatred is not needed? My understanding is that you would not. Then why do you object to his post pointing out the evils of Islam? What makes you think that he is full of hatred when he made that post that is right in every sense of the word?

    Please read these sentences:

    There is a distinction between people and ideologies
    There is a distinction between people and ideologies
    There is a distinction between people and ideologies

    BTW, the above is taken from the *title of the post*. Do you understand the basic point that Atanu is making on Islam? If so, why should you object to it by writing homilies?

    3. For every evil which is directly attributable to Islam, you are attributing some other reason for the evil, like power, corruption, economics etc., instead of using the Occam’s rule. Why? Are you afraid of Islam?

    Like

  45. Amar has hit the nail on the head.

    1. Criticism of any x, y, z => OK
    2. Criticism of Islam and Muslims when that criticism is deserved => Not OK, and on top of that, you’re a bigot for speaking your mind.

    Somehow, criticism of Islam is misconstrued as hatred, but criticism of everything else is just that – a criticism. Not sure what logic these people are following to come to that conclusion, but it is definitely beyond me.

    Like

  47. svs agrees with atanu by saying that islam is indefensible. He also agrees that all organized religions are bad but maybe buddhism is ok. Atanu is also a fan of buddhism and does not like organized religion. Then why would svs call Atanu a bigot, etc. What is the bone of contention ?

    It seems that svs is pissed off because he thinks atanu uncritically accepts the ills of hinduism while ranting against islam. He also thinks that atanu uncritically supports bjp which clearly svs hates. Mr svs , you are making unsubstantiated assumptions here. Sure, atanu has not written as much about hinduism as he has done about islam. There are enough people out there who do that job. Atanu is trying to fill the huge gap that exists in criticising islam.

    Surely you cannot say that things have not improved in hinduism over the centuries. Sure its not hunky-dory yet, but it would be dishonest to say that reform has not taken place, and is taking place. This was possible because people were free to criticise the problems in hinduism.

    Well you see the problem is that its not happening in islam. This is made worse by the fact that there are many regimes which are based on islam which threaten their own citizens and their neighbours. The situation is quite disturbing in India. We have special civil laws for muslims in india which have been discarded even in islamic countries. But where is the outrage from the secular lobby ? Where is the public criticism ? If there is none, how will reform be possible ?

    We know why there is no criticism. Because that would either get you killed, or ruin your professional and personal life due to the atmosphere of political correctness when it comes to criticising islam. I am amazed at the courage of Atanu in making these posts on islam.

    svs is greatly troubled because we are ignoring the great things achieved under islam. Sir, this is not a monopoly of islamic cultures alone. We have had great art, literature, maths, music, coming out of different cultures. Is it your contention that these would not have happened among the arabs if islam did not exist ? Do you want to say that without some religious ideology, arabs would have been no better than sheepshaggers ? Ok, islam brought some order to that region. But how does that nullify the horrible ideology that it proposes and in fact wants to impose on the rest of the world ?

    Then svs rants off in all possible tangents by bringing in capitalism, america, brahmins, poverty, etc. It is clear that svs is not pissed off because atanu is saying bad things about islam. He is troubled because he thinks atanu is a card carrying member of some hindutva brigade. He thinks atanu is a capitalistic pig. As I see it, svs main agenda is to make a personal attack on the motives of atanu rather than debate his posts on islam.

    Like

    1. Thank, vsv. I think you have analysed the matter very accurately. I agree with you.

      It is time someone identify and name this syndrome that svs displays. The script is very predictable.

      1. Someone X criticizes Islam and points out a number of bad attributes.
      2. Someone else, Y, says X is a bigot. Y may or may not be a Muslim.
      3. When Y is asked what bits of what X said that makes X a bigot, Y replies that Z ideology is bad.
      4. Someone else points out that X never made any claims about Z. What X was talking about is Islam. Please stick to the subject, Y is told.
      5. Y continues to rant about Z and never addresses the points that X had raised.

      This has to be given a name. Islamoidiocy.

      Some examples of the use of the word.

      a. The rise of islamoidiocy is pissing off people big time.
      b. Joe Blow is an islamoidiot.
      c. Islamoidiots do give cover to the extreme nutjobs among Muslims.

      Please use the word as often as you can.

      Like

  49. “As I see it, svs main agenda is to make a personal attack on the motives of atanu rather than debate his posts on islam.”
    Bravo. Someone gets it. Actually to be honest, I don’t wish Atanu any personal harm. My endeavour here is simply to point out the illogic in his stance and to equate his illogic with hypocrisy and bigotry by proving that Hinduism suffers from VERY SIMILAR drawbacks. More below. I might add that these comments do not refer to the arguments in this individual post but rather to Atanu’s whole stance on religious skullduggery which he sees as confined to other religions.

    Sunil,
    you have still not answered the question. So, which all religions have a caste system? Islam has one? Fine. Put it on the list. Though perhaps my definition was a bit lacking. I’d like to add another condition – the caste system applies internally to a body politic, i.e. a group of people who have criteria for membership and who can differentiate between members and non members. In case you accept my amendment, Islam does not have a caste system.

    My intention never was to defend Islam. If Islam has a caste system, then Christianity has one too. Put that on the list too. And yes my friend, the Maurya armies did carry swords (! amazing we have to say this). And maybe not a holy book, but a standard with a god was almost de rigeur. Hindus did break other Hindus’ temples. Shaivites murdered Vaihnavites and vice versa….what’s the big deal? Why this yearning for an idyllic, cultured paradisical past, destroyed only by the Mussalman hordes from the North?

    All people who need hard evidence of caste oppression, please feel free to do your own research. There are people who will deny the holocaust and the moon landings. If you search for the evidence and are satisfied that there’s no caste oppression, then by all means, consider me misguided. Same for female oppression. If you can look at the position of Indian women and conclude that they have equality in society, then I have nothing further to say. If their inequality does not bother you, thats fine too. It would be too exhausting to make a person feel compassion when the person has none.

    Atanu, your definition of islamidiocy does not fit this case. I see nothing wrong in criticising Islam. It is the continued and exclusive criticism of a “them” while ignoring the ills of the “us” that I find objectionable. Also, continuously painting the “other” as bad and ourselves as good (or atleast much better) is a simplification the world can do without.

    “When Y is asked what bits of what X said that makes X a bigot, Y replies that Z ideology is bad.” Here Z being your preferred ideology which suffers from the same drawbacks as Islam? Yeah, this action constitutes the pointing out of a double standard. One standard to judge yourself and another for others is a form of bigotry, because it has no basis in logic. The rest of the argument is essentially to decide if we have ills in our society. You, the readers, are free to decide. If you decide that Hinduism has nothing to do with these ills, that’s fine. The caste system is OK? Fine. Women aren’t oppressed? Fine. I don’t see the world that way, but there’s no accounting for taste now, is there? However, if you do find that these ills exist, then Atanu is a bigot due to double standards.

    Kaffir, There is a difference between criticizing x,y and z and criticizing Islam or any other religion while being silent on your own religion. for example, Atanu writes many posts critical of Gandhi. I don’t have a problem with this because while I do not agree with him, reading these posts do not make me hate a whole group of people. A whole group of people presents complex problems, the simplification of which leads to untruth. Besides, it is meaningless to say “Atanu, what about Modi?” The criticisms against Gandhi and Modi are bound to be very different. However, when it comes to religions, they all suffer from the SAME DRAWBACKS such as illogic, denial of humanity of a particular group of people, etc. All cultures have indulged in violence. This is why criticising one religion/culture while being uncritical of another (especially your own) is in itself illogical. for example, Islam is 700 years old and “primitive”. Hinduism is 3000 years old but it has “antiquity”, not “primitivity”. This is a double standard, made all the worse because it creates ill-will against a whole group of people, all of whom had no choice about their religion. It’s like hating a snake for being poisonous. Islamists suppressed and oppressed the jews and hindus, but Hindus never harmed anyone. Can you really make a statement like that? with a straight face?

    vsv said “Is it your contention that these would not have happened among the arabs if islam did not exist ?” Please, please for the fourth time – my contention is simply that even peoples capable of building great civilisations fell under the sway of this ideology. This country, also once a great civilisation, is under the sway of a different ideology which also has much to criticise. People with PhDs fall for it. If you think you are immune to illogic because you have education, then the above contention simply says that some very very smart people have fallen for this nonsense so you are still vulnerable and only logic will save you. These ideologies probably speak directly to the reptile brain because they are immensely seductive. Be careful is all I am saying.

    “We know why there is no criticism. Because that would either get you killed, or ruin your professional and personal life due to the atmosphere of political correctness when it comes to criticising islam. I am amazed at the courage of Atanu in making these posts on islam.” You are amazed at the courage of a member of a priviliged section of the majority religion for criticising the minority? and what does it say about your thesis that Atanu is alive and well several years into his blog? Received any death threats lately Atanu? And anyone who wears his fundamentalism on his sleeve like that is probably not going to be a good person to have on a highly educated team, so yeah, if fundamentalists have crap professional lives then that is only fair.

    If Hindusim were reforming I would be very happy. a lot of good has been done in the past – the Arya and Brahmo Samaj’s etc but clearly these reforms have been either very localised or shortlived. I brought up the television in the first post because it is leading infact to a regression. more illogic. more female oppression. more indifference to the suffering of the less fortunate. I grant that these apply to the whole of society and not just Hindus but how can Hinduism reform when society is being seduced into regressing? And how can society progress when people are blind to oppression, superstition and illogic?

    “Consider a hypothetical post by Atanu when he points out the evils of Communism/Naziism. Would you reply in that post saying hatred is not needed?”
    Difficult to reply because Communism and Naziism are two completely different things. I will rewrite your statement as “Consider a hypothetical post by Atanu when he points out the evils of Naziism.” My answer? It depends. If Atanu is a Mussollini supporter but a critic of Hitler, then he is clearly a hypocrite. That is the analogous situation that I see him in today.

    “How is “organised religion” stopping YOU from YOUR sincere yearning for connection with the Universe?”
    Were I to be born into a Christian fundamentalist house, the religious indoctrination I received and the crippled ideologies I would then call my own would definitely prevent me from achieving a sincere connection with the Universe. Are you arguing otherwise? My personal situation is unimportant in the face of discussion about systemic ills.

    “Do you see yourself as a savior of all these stupid, misguided people (which is what you seem to imply – please correct me if I’m wrong) who need to be rescued from the clutches of “organised religion” and need to be shown the same light that you’ve seen?” Bravo. though saviour is too strong a word and I would never use it. I advocate atheism. Yes I do I do.

    “3. Yet you criticize only Hinduism here.”
    No, I criticise Islam, Christianity and Judaism too. Buddhism, Sikhism and Sufism get some credit for trying to avoid concentration of religious power in the hands of a clergy (though these attempts have probably failed) and the socialist themes in these ideologies appeal to me, though not enough to identify myself as a Buddhist, Sikh or Sufi. I don’t know enough about Taoism, Shintoism and Zen to comment. I criticise Hindusim here because we are having a debate and there is no point in debating things that everyone agrees on. Perhaps these are my first comments ever on the Internet. Does that invalidate my logic?

    “If your reference was to “Hindu”, then are you agreeing that India=Hindu?? That’s so Hindutva of you. And it brings us back to the question I asked you (whether you consider yourself a Hindu or not), which you answered with a tortuous prevarication.”

    Strange logic. Even if all citizens of India were Hindus then that would still not achieve Hindutva’s goals because the state of India would remain a republic and Hindutva’s goals are to build a political system based on the Hindu religion (as I understand Hindutva).

    I do not consider myself a Hindu as in the “religion” or whatever it is. I thought I was quite clear when I said “I can’t renounce something I have never had”. Sorry.

    “Basing one’s conclusion about a philosophy on just feelings and accepting it as the truth…”
    Feel here being a figure of speech. You can read as “In my opinion”. Happy?

    “Buddhism is not exclusive of Hinduism”. Please do enlighten us with Adi Sankara’s comments because I fail to see the logic here. And to call both the materialst, atheistic Carvaka philosophy the same name as the worshippers of Ganesh basically goes to show that no meaning can be associated with the word Hinduism….doesn’t it?

    “I think you have done an excellent job in responding to contrarian views and abuse with cool and calm – even if I disagree with your stance.” Thank you. I might add that this is mostly true of everyone on this page. I have enjoyed debating with you all, even though it can get a little lonely sometimes 🙂

    “I hope you will at least acknowledge where the significantly bigger source of hatred and viciousness is institutionalized.” Significantly bigger than the caste system? than rapacious capitalism? than the military-industrial complex? These are also institutionalised viciousness. what criteria do you use? Number of wasted lives? Number of tears shed? Go on, add them up.

    “From a self-preservation standpoint, it is not at all clear to me whether love will conquer it, or terrible conflict will.” And the aftermath of the terrible conflict? The polarization of society? The militarization of religion? The eradication of innocent people as “collateral damage”. If you hate ideologies and not people then terrible conflict should be the last thing on your mind because terrible conflict is about people, mostly innocent. Killing the adherents of an idea will not destroy the idea. It is like killing individual cockroaches while leaving the nest intact. An idea can only be destroyed by another idea. Find it. Use it. Try!

    going to work now.

    cheers.

    Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: