This is Modi's election. And in that, this election is a battle for Indians to wrestle back their identities that have been assaulted and demonized. In order to facilitate colonial structures that perpetuate slavery. This Indian election is an exercise in freedom.
The Case against Patanjali by Indian Medical Association and the tone of Judiciary is alarming. We need to look into its historical and global context to fully grasp its ramification.
Why do seemingly normal people commit atrocities and genocides? More importantly, why do millions other go along with these crimes as participants? We explore the Perpetration-Induced Trauma and its impact on the societies.
Shahrukh Khan is in trouble. Because the Muslims believe that he said something insulting about the Prophet. He was asked by a magazine “According to you who is the most impressive figure in history?” He replied “There are lots of them, some negative ones like Hitler, Napoleon, Winston Churchill and if I can call it history, then Prophet Mohammed and from recent time Nelson Mandela.” “And there are nice ones like Gandhiji and Mother Teresa.”
Now, Muslims say that he clubbed Mohammad along with Hitler, Napolean and Churchill. Shahrukh Khan replied back to Mid-day on this:[1]
“Obviously, I think there is no figure in history more important than Prophet Mohammed. Also, being a Muslim and standing up for the tenets of Islam is my most important agenda… and if they have seen my interviews, etc on TV about Islam, then the people who are objecting, should realise that what has appeared is a writing error not a thought or view that I believe in. Prophet Mohammed is the most important positive figure in Islam… and anyone who questions my view on that, is doing it just to create a controversy.”
Shahrukh had sometime back started asserting his Muslim identity since past few years and after 26/11, he made a grand statement about Islam and expressed his anger against the attacks.[2]
Rajdeep: You mentioned in the starting that you are liberal, you are Muslim. What has been interesting, your Indian identity or your Muslim identity? You are a proud Indian Muslim, now when you hear terrorists who speak on the name of the religion, speak on the name of Islam, claim that through some form of terrorism they’ll actually reach jannat(heaven). What do you have to say those?
Shah Rukh: Let me clarify, I have read the holy Quran. It states that if you heal one man, you heal the whole mankind, and if you hurt one man, you hurt the whole mankind. Nowhere in the Quran does it say that jihad will lead you to jannat (paradise). As a matter of fact, the book says that in a war, you can not kill any woman, you can not kill any child and you can not kill any animal, or destroy any crops. Jihad was supposed to be propagated by the Prophet himself but unfortunately now two versions of Islam exist. There is an Islam from Allah and – I am not being anti – very unfortunately, there is an Islam from the Mullahs. I appeal to all of them to please give the youngsters, the right reading of the Quran.
Now, the major thrust of his argument is the statement of the healing and killing a person extrapolates to the entire mankind. But is that really true?
Here are a few verses to look at specifically, and you can find a more detailed list of verses by Suras that exhort the “believers” to not only subjugate the unbelievers but actually kill them mercilessly for the blessings of Allah and as the righteous way of living.[5]
002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
SHAKIR: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
002.192
YUSUFALI: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
002.193
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.
SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
================
Update:
To completely understand the meaning of the word “oppressor”, one has to look at the last sentence of Verse 191 above.. which gives out the most significant characteristic of an oppressor – “disbeliever”. Which essentially means one who does not believe in the Islamic way of things. There is another verse, which actually became the bed rock of Jizya – the tax on non-believers. If there was any confusion about whom the earlier verses exhort a believer to fight, then this verse adequately and unequivocally clears the confusion up. Fight against those who (i) do not believe in Allah, (ii) Do not believe in last Day, and (iii) do not forbid what Mohammad forbid. Not going along these three things is enough to make you a fair target for killing.
It would be interesting to study a scenario where Buddha was living in the village next to Mohammad’s and just as He did in his lifetime, completely negated the existence of a God… and gave his “middle path” instead… and just as He did in his lifetime, sent his followers to evangelize his teachings to Mohammad’s village. Would that have been “Oppression”? Would that have been “crime” enough for Mohammad to order his followers to kill.. actually slay Buddha? The verses of Quran, at least point to that possibility… if they are analyzed in any detail, sans the spin that many “moderates” apply … bound as they are to their duty of Al Taqqiya!
Now, read the verse that the features of the person whom the believers are exhorted to fight….
9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
================
Of course, many will say this is “hate-mongering”, but all I am doing is CITING the Quran. Mind you, I am not giving an opinion as yet. Just citing the scripture for people to think on their own. A scripture that Shahrukh Khan claims works for peace of mankind. He
He has made an assertion which is a “Sky is Blue” kind of grand statement. I would like to understand the veracity of the statement in light of these verses. That’s all.
Al Taqiyya: The Holy Deception
The Taqiyah doctrine is based on the following verse from Qur’an 3:28:
“Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather then believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them”.
Sunni commentator Ibn Kathir explained that “believers that fear for their safety from the unbelievers… are allowed to show friendship to the unbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly”.
What does this mean?[3] It basically means that when there is a “danger” to Islam, the believers can show goodness and friendship for unbelievers – at least outwardly. It also translates into the obfuscation that goes on by the moderates when they keep on making the grand “Sky is Blue” kind of statements that Shahrukh made.
The real thing is to of course ask these “moderates” to explain themselves in light of the scriptural edicts, which betray a totally different message. As this article argues,[4] is a “moderate” Muslim one who is a nice human being? How does one define a “moderate” Muslim? For the very definition of a Muslim is that one who lives by the way Mohammad lived and acts like he did… basically replicate him. But given the verses in Quran and injunctions in Hadiths, the people whom we call terrorists seem to be living those teachings the most closely! Who else is treating Unbelievers the way Mohammad did or asked his followers to treat.
The moderates, meanwhile, are also playing along the scriptural advise.. and doing their bit by practising Taqiyya… the great game of Holy Deception.
Reference Links:
1. SRK Receives No-Bail Prize
2. ‘No political party’s agenda can be communal’
3. Taqiyya
4. Refuting Counter-Terrorism Dhimmitude
5. Translation of Quranic Verses
Meghalaya is a state which has the highest amount of rainfall in the world. Cherrapunji holds a world record of
Displacing farmers out of their farmland is the neo-liberal economic growth model – prescribed by World-Bank so that India can throw
It seems the D-company [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1678918.cms] of Dubai and Karachi fame is not entirely done.
Zabihuddin ‘Zaby’ Ansari alias Abu Jundal (born on Nov 31, 1980) was born and brought up in Beed. He studied
Every Sunday AM (US Time)/ PM (India time), we send out a weekly detailed newsletter. We also share other insightful notes during the week. Its free. Do sign up and share with friends!
