because you think it,
make it true
is no test of truth
me nor you
came close when he declared
therefore I am!”
like Dracula who dared
blood for jam.”
Taste of Dhoka Cola by Bachchoo
themselves up in Sri Lankan churches killing hundreds of people at prayer.
These idiots the media say have been brainwashed, believing that they will go
straight to paradise and be afforded earthly luxury and 72 virgins. (Are all
women suicide bombers lesbians?). I disagree — not with the notion of going to
paradise and its rewards but with the statement that they have been
brainwashed. One has to have a brain for someone to wash it.
murderers must, like creatures great and small, possess some protoplasm in
their skulls, but calling it a brain is an insult to every human being and even
to the birds that sing. These robotic “persons” have put themselves beyond
earthly justice through being programmed with a doctrine, which its cowardly
perpetrators call “Islam”.
last three decades, perhaps from the appearance in the public eye of Al Qaeda,
the vicious death-cult and several variations of it, have been labelled
was added to distinguish the death-cult from one of the popular religions of
the world. It shouldn’t have been. Islam should not in any way have been
associated with the death-cults and their convictions and preaching. Any
perusal of Islam, by laymen, by theologians, by scholars and renowned Imams
will prove that the religion does not, in any interpretation, instruct people
to tie explosives to themselves and kill innocent people Neither does any
interpretation of the Quran or the Hadith justify driving vans into people
walking on the pavements of Westminster Bridge. These are far-fetched willful
medieval interpretations unacceptable to most Muslims in the contemporary
Muslims are also being slaughtered, some by right-wing maniacs who target
mosques in New Zealand or in Finsbury Park, London. It is likely that both
these attacks were not motivated by any knowledge of the teachings of Islam.
They were murderous attacks on places where Muslims would gather to pray and
were racially anti-immigrant in their animus.
the same in attacks on Muslims by supposed other Muslims in mosques and shrines
in Pakistan. Those are, through the genocidal boasts of the perpetrators,
attacks by Sunnis on Shias and “Sufi” worshippers — not racial in nature but
motivated by historical and theological divisions attributed by the murderers
to their own interpretations of Islam.
are the bombs and slaughters in Palestine by Israel (not through the theology
of Judaism versus Islam but by territorial ambition and imperialism); the proxy
war of Wahhabi Saudi and Shia Iran in Yemen with millions of Muslims caught in
the conflict; the wars for control throughout the Middle East and North Africa…
not neglect a mention of the anti-Muslim rhetoric and actions of Hindutva
groups, politicians and murdering vigilantes in India.
In the wake
of attacks on Muslims in Britain, fatal and verbal, the present government is
considering a new definition of “Islamophobia”. The proposed definition is:
is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of
Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”
definition has been accepted by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democratic Party
and by Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London. Not, gentle reader, by me.
certainly needs a definition of and even a punishable law against
“Muslimophobia”. There have been an increasing number of attacks on mosques —
so far not anything like the massacres in New Zealand or Pakistan — and these,
or the instigation to perpetrate such attacks, ought certainly to be defined
and prohibited in law. So also, the instances of attacks on individual Muslims
— and that include “hate crimes” which may not be physical in nature.
proposed definition comes close to defining Muslims as a race in the eye of the
Muslimophobe. To call the acts they seek to ban “Islamophobia” can be interpreted
as a new, restrictive, blasphemy law, which were laws Britain abolished years
openly disagree with the Bible or the Quran without fear of criminal
prosecution. When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses it was perceived
by Ayatollah Khomeini and by millions who hadn’t or couldn’t read it, as
anti-Islamic. What the book wasn’t, or isn’t, is anti-Muslim and despite
demonstrations against it the government of Margaret Thatcher, a constant
target of Salman Rushdie’s politics, decided quite rightly, to afford him full
Hewitt, a senior police chief and chair of the National Police Chief’s Council,
has written to the Prime Minister pointing out that this definition proposed by
a committee chaired by a Tory called Baroness Warsi, may inhibit the
investigation — or worse — make it illegal to investigate people and premises
suspected of terrorism in the cause of “Islamism”.
objection to this definition comes from Trevor Phillips of the Policy Exchange
think tank. He quotes the case of schools in Birmingham which were investigated
for “teaching” extreme forms of Islamism as a result of having been infiltrated
by Islamists who joined as senior staff or school governors. The investigation
into what was labelled the Trojan Horse phenomenon would be prohibited as
Islamophobic under this definition and the besieged pupil-Trojans of Birmingham
would be institutionally subject to brainwashing, protected, if not by statute,
by this inhibiting definition.
rejecting it as an inhibition to free speech and recognising chief Hewitt’s and
Mr Phillips’ reservations about applying such a definition and enshrining it in
law or in any code of practice in Britain, I wonder if it would be useful in
the recent political climate in India. I think the Mahagathbandhan and even
Amit Shah, who professes to love all Indians, should have a look at it, even
after the election results.