I know that the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is reaching out to diplomats and leaders in the Arab world to try to explain the situation, but reiterating that his government can not interfere with issues concerning the press. Everybody in the Muslim world, though, wants a clear-cut apology. IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser. Politics Covid U. News World Opinion Business.
Share this —. Follow NBC News. By Charlene Gubash. Charlene Gubash. It was born in a law separating church and state that was meant to allow the peaceful coexistence of all religions under a neutral state, instead of a government answering to powerful Roman Catholic clerics.
Crucifixes were at one point torn from classroom walls in France amid painful public debate. A century later, polls suggest France is among the least-religious countries in the world, with a minority attending services regularly. Secularism is broadly supported by those on both left and right.
As the number of Muslim in France grew, the state imposed secular rules on their practices. A banning Muslim headscarves and other ostentatious religious symbols in schools remains divisive, if not shocking to many outside France. A law banning face veils made Muslims feel stigmatized anew.
Protesters burned his portrait or stomped on it at protests in multiple countries this week. That's in part because of a law Macron plans to introduce to crack down on Islamist fundamentalists he contends are turning some communities against the state and threatening pillars of French society, including schools. In the wake of recent extremist attacks, his government expelled Muslims accused of preaching intolerance and shut down groups seen as undermining French laws or norms.
It was too much to endure, and the outbreak of rage against these alien, infidel, and incomprehensible forces that had subverted his dominance, disrupted his society, and finally violated the sanctuary of his home was inevitable. It was also natural that this rage should be directed primarily against the millennial enemy and should draw its strength from ancient beliefs and loyalties.
Europe and her daughters? The phrase may seem odd to Americans, whose national myths, since the beginning of their nationhood and even earlier, have usually defined their very identity in opposition to Europe, as something new and radically different from the old European ways. This is not, however, the way that others have seen it; not often in Europe, and hardly ever elsewhere.
Though people of other races and cultures participated, for the most part involuntarily, in the discovery and creation of the Americas, this was, and in the eyes of the rest of the world long remained, a European enterprise, in which Europeans predominated and dominated and to which Europeans gave their languages, their religions, and much of their way of life. For a very long time voluntary immigration to America was almost exclusively European. There were indeed some who came from the Muslim lands in the Middle East and North Africa, but few were Muslims; most were members of the Christian and to a lesser extent the Jewish minorities in those countries.
Their departure for America, and their subsequent presence in America, must have strengthened rather than lessened the European image of America in Muslim eyes. In the lands of Islam remarkably little was known about America. At first the voyages of discovery aroused some interest; the only surviving copy of Columbus's own map of America is a Turkish translation and adaptation, still preserved in the Topkapi Palace Museum, in Istanbul.
A sixteenth-century Turkish geographer's account of the discovery of the New World, titled The History of Western India, was one of the first books printed in Turkey. But thereafter interest seems to have waned, and not much is said about America in Turkish, Arabic, or other Muslim languages until a relatively late date. A Moroccan ambassador who was in Spain at the time wrote what must surely be the first Arabic account of the American Revolution.
The Sultan of Morocco signed a treaty of peace and friendship with the United States in , and thereafter the new republic had a number of dealings, some friendly, some hostile, most commercial, with other Muslim states. These seem to have had little impact on either side. The American Revolution and the American republic to which it gave birth long remained unnoticed and unknown.
Even the small but growing American presence in Muslim lands in the nineteenth century—merchants, consuls, missionaries, and teachers—aroused little or no curiosity, and is almost unmentioned in the Muslim literature and newspapers of the time. The Second World War, the oil industry, and postwar developments brought many Americans to the Islamic lands; increasing numbers of Muslims also came to America, first as students, then as teachers or businessmen or other visitors, and eventually as immigrants.
Cinema and later television brought the American way of life, or at any rate a certain version of it, before countless millions to whom the very name of America had previously been meaningless or unknown. A wide range of American products, particularly in the immediate postwar years, when European competition was virtually eliminated and Japanese competition had not yet arisen, reached into the remotest markets of the Muslim world, winning new customers and, perhaps more important, creating new tastes and ambitions.
For some, America represented freedom and justice and opportunity. For many more, it represented wealth and power and success, at a time when these qualities were not regarded as sins or crimes.
And then came the great change, when the leaders of a widespread and widening religious revival sought out and identified their enemies as the enemies of God, and gave them "a local habitation and a name" in the Western Hemisphere.
Suddenly, or so it seemed, America had become the archenemy, the incarnation of evil, the diabolic opponent of all that is good, and specifically, for Muslims, of Islam. Among the components in the mood of anti-Westernism, and more especially of anti-Americanism, were certain intellectual influences coming from Europe.
One of these was from Germany, where a negative view of America formed part of a school of thought by no means limited to the Nazis but including writers as diverse as Rainer Maria Rilke, Ernst Junger, and Martin Heidegger. In this perception, America was the ultimate example of civilization without culture: rich and comfortable, materially advanced but soulless and artificial; assembled or at best constructed, not grown; mechanical, not organic; technologically complex but lacking the spirituality and vitality of the rooted, human, national cultures of the Germans and other "authentic" peoples.
German philosophy, and particularly the philosophy of education, enjoyed a considerable vogue among Arab and some other Muslim intellectuals in the thirties and early forties, and this philosophic anti-Americanism was part of the message.
After the collapse of the Third Reich and the temporary ending of German influence, another philosophy, even more anti-American, took its place—the Soviet version of Marxism, with a denunciation of Western capitalism and of America as its most advanced and dangerous embodiment. And when Soviet influence began to fade, there was yet another to take its place, or at least to supplement its working—the new mystique of Third Worldism, emanating from Western Europe, particularly France, and later also from the United States, and drawing at times on both these earlier philosophies.
This mystique was helped by the universal human tendency to invent a golden age in the past, and the specifically European propensity to locate it elsewhere. A new variant of the old golden-age myth placed it in the Third World, where the innocence of the non-Western Adam and Eve was ruined by the Western serpent.
This view took as axiomatic the goodness and purity of the East and the wickedness of the West, expanding in an exponential curve of evil from Western Europe to the United States.
These ideas, too, fell on fertile ground, and won widespread support. But though these imported philosophies helped to provide intellectual expression for anti-Westernism and anti-Americanism, they did not cause it, and certainly they do not explain the widespread anti-Westernism that made so many in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Islamic world receptive to such ideas. It must surely be clear that what won support for such totally diverse doctrines was not Nazi race theory, which can have had little appeal for Arabs, or Soviet atheistic communism, which can have had little appeal for Muslims, but rather their common anti-Westernism.
Nazism and communism were the main forces opposed to the West, both as a way of life and as a power in the world, and as such they could count on at least the sympathy if not the support of those who saw in the West their principal enemy.
But why the hostility in the first place? If we turn from the general to the specific, there is no lack of individual policies and actions, pursued and taken by individual Western governments, that have aroused the passionate anger of Middle Eastern and other Islamic peoples. Yet all too often, when these policies are abandoned and the problems resolved, there is only a local and temporary alleviation.
The French have left Algeria, the British have left Egypt, the Western oil companies have left their oil wells, the westernizing Shah has left Iran—yet the generalized resentment of the fundamentalists and other extremists against the West and its friends remains and grows and is not appeased. The cause most frequently adduced for anti-American feeling among Muslims today is American support for Israel.
This support is certainly a factor of importance, increasing with nearness and involvement. But here again there are some oddities, difficult to explain in terms of a single, simple cause. In the early days of the foundation of Israel, while the United States maintained a certain distance, the Soviet Union granted immediate de jure recognition and support, and arms sent from a Soviet satellite, Czechoslovakia, saved the infant state of Israel from defeat and death in its first weeks of life.
Yet there seems to have been no great ill will toward the Soviets for these policies, and no corresponding good will toward the United States. In it was the United States that intervened, forcefully and decisively, to secure the withdrawal of Israeli, British, and French forces from Egypt—yet in the late fifties and sixties it was to the Soviets, not America, that the rulers of Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and other states turned for arms; it was with the Soviet bloc that they formed bonds of solidarity at the United Nations and in the world generally.
More recently, the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran have offered the most principled and uncompromising denunciation of Israel and Zionism. Yet even these leaders, before as well as after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, when they decided for reasons of their own to enter into a dialogue of sorts, found it easier to talk to Jerusalem than to Washington.
At the same time, Western hostages in Lebanon, many of them devoted to Arab causes and some of them converts to Islam, are seen and treated by their captors as limbs of the Great Satan.
Another explanation, more often heard from Muslim dissidents, attributes anti-American feeling to American support for hated regimes, seen as reactionary by radicals, as impious by conservatives, as corrupt and tyrannical by both. This accusation has some plausibility, and could help to explain why an essentially inner-directed, often anti-nationalist movement should turn against a foreign power.
But it does not suffice, especially since support for such regimes has been limited both in extent and—as the Shah discovered—in effectiveness.
Clearly, something deeper is involved than these specific grievances, numerous and important as they may be—something deeper that turns every disagreement into a problem and makes every problem insoluble. This revulsion against America, more generally against the West, is by no means limited to the Muslim world; nor have Muslims, with the exception of the Iranian mullahs and their disciples elsewhere, experienced and exhibited the more virulent forms of this feeling.
The mood of disillusionment and hostility has affected many other parts of the world, and has even reached some elements in the United States. It is from these last, speaking for themselves and claiming to speak for the oppressed peoples of the Third World, that the most widely publicized explanations—and justifications—of this rejection of Western civilization and its values have of late been heard.
The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty—not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race.
In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet.
I expect you to respect my right to eat beef or whatever else I like. Were they carrying out the act in these states? So do you think Chinese should argue your way? So there is no reason why India should be put up with their nonsense. They should have gone to Pakistan or shown their willingness to Aryanise.
It does not need to be overnight. Greeks, Scythians, Huns etc. British rule India. Otherwise India should adopt Arab model. Arab countries has taken far more Immigrants in proportional to their population. These were men who were lynched by your gaurakshak buddies and they were not consuming beef or slaughtering cows.
They were killed in cold blood by your friends simply because they were Muslims, nothing else. Your Hindutva friends and fellow travellers who brutally murdered these innocent Indian citizens were the ones breaking the law, not the Muslim victims. With regard to the consumption of dog meat in the West, well, there is no law against that at all. There are laws that prohibit the slaughter of dogs and cats in many countries but there is no law against the consumption of dog or cat meat.
Hence, if the Chinese want to eat dog meat, well, it is their business. Let me reiterate — the slaughter of cows and the consumption of beef is perfectly legal in the states I mentioned in India. Beef consumption is not prohibited in Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, Judaism and for that matter even in Hinduism.
Beef is a regular part of the diet of Hindu castes and in certain regions of India. Hindutva thugs have no business telling others what to eat and not eat. Incidentally, your BJP friends themselves indulge in cow slaughter and even people like you are actually complicit in cow slaughter. Indeed, the PM himself promotes leather as a promising sector under his flagship Make in India campaign, see the website at : bit. So tell me Gaurakshak Harry saab: Can you get leather without slaughtering cows?
Do you want to ban leather production also in the name of cow protection? And hand over this lucrative industry on a platter to Pakistan? You guys must be bloody traitors! Gaurakshak Harry saab? I consider myself at a higher moral plateau. I consider animals also have rights, not as much as human. To me if these type of people are killed by their fellow human too bad so sad. After all it was conflict between exploiters, some far worse than others, in second world war that freed many countries from colonial rule.
May be same thing is needed for nature, if bulk of people remain your type. May be evangelists wanting Armageddon are asking right thing for wrong reason. Counter agruments do not solve the original question.
Talk about Islam. We can talk about Hindus later. Good example is triple Talaq bill. Husband leaving house is OK. Nobody should be forced into staying in broken marriage. FR,why are you quoting Islam in the first place.
I have observed this phenomenon by Muslims everywhere. Maybe something is written or not written about violence launched by islamists.
But there is something called independent argument and using your own head rather needless quoting from Islamic scriptures. Is it because Muslims are forbidden to read anything other than Quran because of religious compulsion,that is why you have to rely always on what is written in Quran? Alas, the knee-jerk reaction of most of these hot-headed men — yes they are mostly men — is to resort to violence and nothing else. They are unlikely to immerse themselves in theological nuances of the type you prefer to turn to.
Perhaps they even lack the intellectual and educational wherewithal to do so. Nonetheless, despite And are threatened and ostracised by the wider family and Muslim communities when they do so, regardless of local European laws that allow freedom of religion; — Opportunistic, Islamophobic demagogues like Le Pen in France, Modi in India, Trump in the US, Viktor Orban in Hungary etc.
As someone living in France and as one who has lived and worked in 3 other European countries, you see the same trends more or less everywhere. Indeed, in Europe, one notes that almost all other minorities, including more recent migrants such as Vietnamese, Chinese, Cambodians etc.
I do not have all the answers to what needs to be done for the community. Clearly, the British mosaic model where you could retain your identity and practise your religion has failed. Undoubtedly, state and private discrimination has played an important part in the marginalisation of Muslims more than other communities.
But you cannot sweep under the carpet the fact that the religion itself needs to introspect on how it needs to adapt and modify its tenets when practised in non-Muslim countries such as W. Surah 9, Ayat 33 — Claims all religions except the Arabic one is false, particularly targeting the polytheists. Surah 9, Ayat 5 — guides the believers to Kill the Polytheist — whenever they find them. Just to remind ourselves, No Indian Believers are allowed to marry Arab ladies, will never be allowed to be citizens in Arab countries, even after doing 50 Hajj.
Cherry picking verses in holy books is not going to help. In most religious books there is quite a bit of nonsense written. Including Hindu scriptures. Religions were formed hundreds or thousands of years ago , what they wrote or preached then is not entirely valid today.
But becoming a good, trustworthy person and recognising goodness or trustworthiness in others is an everlasting principle. Surah 9, Ayat 33 — He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.
Lie 1. You claim it says all religions except Arabic one is false…. Propagandists like you have no knowledge of Islam Lie 2. It particularly targets Polytheists, No Polytheists of Makkah had broken the treaty and killed unarmed Muslims going for pilgrimage to Makkah, this Surah is a declaration of war to Polytheists, of Makkah.
There is no targetting here, they are the only audience as they are the ones who have killed Muslims and are going to get retribution for it. Surah 8, Ayat 41 — And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! And Allah is Able to do all things. This is talking about Ghanimah, there is a different thing called Fai.
Someone who knew the difference between Ghanimah and Fai would have never made the statement you made, primarily because you do not know anything about Islam,.
You go to Propaganda websites and digest all the shit they give. Tell me have actually ever read any book by renowned scholar of Islam. Surah 9, Ayat 5 — Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive , and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free.
Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Again your ignorance shines high in making the claim. The entire Muslim word understands it as only Mushriks of Makkah who had broken the treaty and killen unarmed Muslims going for pilgrimage in the sacred months of pilgrimage. Hence it is asking Muslims that do not steep down to the level of Musrikhs and let the sacred months pass, but after that you must take vengeance from those who broke their treaties and kill unarmed men women and children.
You propagandist never look at what Polytheists of Makkah did to Muslims when they were in power, and only want to talk about retribution by Muslims, as if Muslims were the instigators.
No Indians are allowed to marry Arab ladies! Where did you get that…. Propagandist can only tell lies. Thank you Ali Mustafa Khan for your clarifications. So also some seemingly liberal and well read Hindus like Shekhar Gupta who have absolutely a superficial understanding of Islamic culture and history. Many of us Hindus have been fed this propaganda from our school days especially from our upper caste school friends. And you know where our friends got it from?
When leftists or academics many of them Hindus try to inform the truth as per historical evidence, these Vedic propagandists call them as distortionists of truth. His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse. It is not universal. Allah is just one of more than million Deva, equally large number of Asura, Yaksha, Raksha and other supernatural.
Only yesterday I was reading that science believes it may be possible that there may be million or more earth like planets in universe. Mr Harry: You have not understood the core of Hindu religion. Your mind is controlled into believing the superficial aspects around Hinduism and taking it too seriously. Just like Islamists or Christians or others. Superstitions, myths, beliefs and false stories intended to control people into following rather than to liberate.
Enjoy life every day as it comes. The politics of religion as it is followed without questioning can make our lives miserable. It is not I it is you who has not understood the core of Hindu religion. Looks like you are influenced by Arya samajis like Agnivesh or Approvanada. It believes world was created from Brahmh billions of years ago. Idea of true or false itself is delusion.
They are not wrong but their truth is not the whole truth and only truth. Should be: Polytheists are not wrong because they neither believe in one god nor the belief that there is is only one true path or there is a last message. I wish the author had a more in depth knowledge of world history, before attempting to explain such a topic.
Very shallow and bias article in favor of western european supremacy over the rest of human creeds and cultures. From the establishment of this current world order Muslims have been the target of political suppression by western powers. Understanding the spoils go to the victors we make no issue with such a outcome but only wait for the day when all things return full circle. Muslims actually suffer from a global inferiority complex.
In Middle East, despite having a numeric superiority they are weaker and less developed than the Jews and way less developed than the Christian, white Europe in north. If Hijab, Niqab were prohibited in India like it was done in Turkey way back in early twenties and France now Muslims in India would have been progressive and Muslim women would have equal opportunities. I like the way France prohibited burkini and other nonsense. If Muslim wants burkinis then they should also allow Frenchmen in Mosque with only underwear like they do in beaches.
If Hijab, Niqab were prohibited in India like it was done in Turkey way back in early twenties and France now Muslims in India would have been progressive.. The backwardness of Muslims in India has complex causes and the answers are to be found both in Islam and the discrimination they face in the countries they live in. They cannot be reduced to the wearing of a single item of clothing.
Conversely, if Muslim women do not wear the hijab or the niqab, will they get better treatment in India and in Europe? The answer is a resounding no. Should Sikh men stop wearing the turban in India? Do they get discriminated in India because of their turbans. One might say much less than Muslims who wear their religious garb. Although Sikhs were easily picked and killed during the pogroms of , by and large, Sikhs do not face the discrimination that Muslims in India face.
Want to modify your theory Gaurakshak Harry? Perhaps you might wish to talk to your itchy-testicled gaurakshak friends and mentors like Babu Bajrangi, Praveen Togadia and others to redesign your theory. A Muslim friend of mine, non-practicing one, also start keeping beard. I asked him whether had found faith. This is the real secret. One has to nip in bud. Surgery is needed to remove malignant tumor. Therefore Ataturk was one the right path and so is French government.
You Indian secu monkeys know nothing and due to your mentally challenged condition can not learn anything from past or present and talk like broken record.
A Muslim friend of mine, non-practicing one, also start keeping beard.. So go get yourself lobotomised! You are proving me right. You secus have learning disability. Basically you guys are mentally challenged. To keep beard or not is individual choice. Sikhs keep beard and so do Ayatollahs. That does not mean Sikhs will appoint Ayatollah as granthi.
The issue is a secular state should positively discourage overt sign of religiosity. The people who put religion above state should be encouraged to move to theocratic state. Exception should be made of indigenous faiths, because they have nowhere to go. That is what France is doing. That is the way for India to go. Under international law, female genital mutilation FGM is a human rights violation, torture, and an extreme form of violence and discrimination against girls and women.
Additionally, the Council of Europe www. Article 38 — Female genital mutilation Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the following intentional conducts are criminalised:. FGM is nothing short of unmitigated terror on year old girls and should be banned — no exceptions. Just as sati was banned…. But killing goats, cows etc. Can you explain us scientifically how? Or are you going back to your pseudo-science? Democratic countries should be extremely careful to give asylum to Muslims.
Muslims who fled from their own Muslim nations to save their lives and take asylum may not pose a threat themselves but there is no guarantee that their children who would be raised as Muslims would not be brainwashed by Kabilic ideas of Quran and become non-secular, anti democratic, irrational and finally terrorist. But then I did not expect anything subtle or accurate from a man with the intellectual ability of a Babu Bajrangi!
Fact is, most Muslims in Western Europe were people recruited after the 2nd World War to participate in the rebuilding of shattered European economies. Many of them came from former British colonies as people from the Indian sub-continent did to the UK, people from North Africaan colonies to France etc. Germany which lacked colonies, recruited actively in Turkey in the 50s and until the early 70s. You will find similar trends in other European countries as well.
Indeed, there is more violence towards Muslims in India by your Nazi Hindutva friends and you need to put your won house in order before delivering sermons to others. Arab countries also imported large number of people including non-Arab Muslims in their countries. As a matter of fact Immigrants out number locals in many Arab countries. But in none of the Arab countries a Pakistani or Chechen has killed any local irrespective of how much angry he or she had become.
Arab countries kick out troublesome immigrant or their children. This is the central issue. Unless Immigrant leaves behind his or her culture and has shown willingness to mainstream, countries import problems. In west Muslims and Sikh bring their problems and therefore are no much popular in local people in general, barring politicians who have build base and apex of their political carries like Congress, RJD, Trinmool Congress etc.
We reserve the right to comment on the issue simply because it is in our national interest to do so. France happens to be a reliable Indian ally. We will not sacrifice that relationship to appease insecure savages. At home or abroad. What is your problem with Christians wanting to import Muslims. Focus on our country and make it a better place to live. Secularists in our country are being flogged as every year passes. Let our countrymen see a bigger picture. Because they behave like monkeys.
Observing Monkeys is entertainment. But people are not in mood of entertainment from journalists, activists or politicians. They would rather see movies. Question is not importing Muslims. Muslims like everybody need employment and want to improve their living standard. Arab way of conferring rights to imported workers is better way for host country. All islamists must be de-islamised like China is doing. Only hard measures are needed to reform Islam by rewriting Quran.
I tried my best to extract some meaning out of this article, but failed miserably. Not because the author is uninformed or being haphazard, but the Islam that I had been taught all along, and being taught even today, at home, madrasa and through sermons, has been so all inclusive that I am unable to identify myself with all those things that are happening in the name of Islam today, which the author has pointed out in the article.
I will not be even the last person to hurt anybody; but the act of self-defence, I will definitely engage into, which perhaps is the right of every individual, Islam or no Islam. If they are in majority they call for islamisation like Malasia If they are minority they want secularisam as pretext to majoritise Islam. Radicalisation of Islam and sanctioning of killing kafirs in the name of Islam making other religious thoughts more insecure to civilised society.
There will be no remidy until Muslim society gets a social reformer. Now sympathy to secure votes to congress or leftist patries by journalist like Sekhar gupta is a half truth presentation. Good analysis but with your phrase,, master,s master ,,you have admitted that the the kings and dictators of Muslim countries are protected by the champions of democracy for their multiple interests.
And from West Asian countries people escape only fearing prosecution and to live life of peace and freedom. The rulers in Europe and America can not endanger their democracy but protect the autocrats, corrupts and murderous all over the world as long as they safeguard the master,s interests. The fact is until Muslims are de-Islamized like Christians in west are de-Christianized, middle eastern countries can not afford to open themselves as democracies unless they are self-destructive like Gorbachev.
They have already seen what happens when they try to do. These see what happened in Egypt. Even great Champion of Arab spring Obama kept his mouth shut after military removed Muslim brotherhood from power. The issue is not only Muslims, Christians in Asia and Africa are equally fanatic and look down upon people with different faith or atheists.
The Ummah is a spiritual concept all Muslims form one nation — if something affects one, it should be seen as affecting all — this is a part of the teaching of Islam. I believe the analysis is too superficial and simplistic.
France has unfortunately seen a bad situation because of some radicalized individuals and not all French Muslims want to take law into their hands. It is also incorrect for Shekhar to call the current generation Muslims in Europe as migrants. Also it is not because these Muslims come from repressive regimes and this gives them some sort of licence to be angry and forcing their beliefs to other states. When I read this I feel Shekhar thinks there was a kind of collective psychological disease that he wants us to be aware of.
Third generation Muslims in the west are generally angry because they find many of the western attitudes hypocritical. State holidays are only available on Christian festivals even in Secular France. In the din of all this — could Shekhar not understand that people can really get upset when the sole purpose of these cartoons is to link terrorism to the founder of Islam leaving aside the fact that drawing any images of the prophet is deemed immoral in Sunni Islam which is historically iconoclastic.
Of course, Shekhar would also very conveniently forget that many people who promote these cartoons are not also very charitable towards Muslims in their own lands. This type of logic is generally very prevalent among those who think they stand on a higher moral ground without even understanding the depth of the matter. PS: Mahathir said he was quoted out of context and Macron also says today that he was quoted out of context.
I have yet to see sizable number of Muslims talking about others rights. Most Muslims always talk about their rights based on Quran, an outdated book written in Kabilic times. Muslims are allowing themselves to become slaves of Quranic ideas. Are there no brave Muslims who can tame islamic beast who is forcing them to live 6th century life.
Sorry the indisputable fact is Muslims will not integrate into the societies they forbears had chosen to migrate to. And the reason is to proclaim the supremacy of their faith.
Therefore, Muslim taxi drivers refusing to carry passengers who have brought alcohol or sausages from the supermarket, elected Muslim officials refusing to shake hands with their female constituents, even Muslim lawyers refusing to stand up in court when the judge enters — on the pretext they cannot show that respect to lowly mortals, only to their god. Thankfully the school refused — it would have scared the kids!!
Islam needs internal re-formation, it cannot be done by outsiders and till now there is no space for such reformers in Islam, If something needs ot change that is the one. Non muslims are fully aware of he points listed by Shekar Gupta that is driving islamophobia, with no reformer or voice in sight, people are being to see it as truth. Excellent analysis. At the end of the day, Shekhar Gupta analysis may have been a bit too simplistic but the bottom line is that Islam is getting bad press, partly because of its own rigid actions and partly, it is not able to fit in with the rest of the world as fluidly as it should.
Such counter opinions explain the position much better though not sure how many would understand it. The right to criticize is a fundamental part of France and its culture. Get out of it. There are n number of things ppl dislike abt islam. And the way Islam treats others around it.
Islam is a glass house like any other. Islam preaches that Gods as defined by other faiths are false and not just false but the people believing in them are sort of sub humans living in darkness. But spineless Shekhar Gupta and others like im will never call a spade a spade and beat about the bush. Your days of claiming non-muslims dont know the hate preached in your quaran are long gone.
Perhaps the politicisation of this religion was made easy by the two inherent weaknesses which this religion provides scope for:.
In all probability the original reference should have been to those not believing in God generally as opposed to those not believing in Islamic faith. It would be incredibly naive if one were to accept that God would expect every one to follow the Islamic faith universally. Embedded into this belief system is another concept called jihad.
Together they create a perfect recipe for disaster and flaming this mix helps enormously in fixing political targets. Violence: a child born in to a Muslim household is introduced to physical violence early on in its life having to participate in animal sacrifice.
Potentially this provides the necessary psychological grounding for a violent outlook later on in its life. It has been proved time and again that modern education followed by economic prosperity alone provides the hope against this politicisation.
Discussion about what is happening in France is not complete without asking the simple question — is the freedom of speech equal to the freedom to offend? We have seen many instances in our own country. Gaurakshak Harry: The right to blaspheme is enshrined in French law and if this right offends you, well tough luck.
In February this year, a somewhat similar case cropped up in Lyon, France. That evoked an angry, vulgar response from a Muslim commentator and in turn Mila posted another video against Islam. This soon led to death threats and Mila had to change schools and her anonymity had to be protected.
Clearly, the Muslims issuing death threats had forgotten that Mila was still a child. The Mila case soon had the whole of France discussing the issue and President Macron said the following:.
0コメント