Learning to Value Freedom

Mel Gibson is my favorite Hollywood actor. His movie ‘Braveheart’, is my favorite. It is a film about a great Scottish hero called William Wallace, played by Gibson himself. In the movie there is a wonderful situation where Wallace joins the Scottish army with his friends to fight against the English. When he realizes that his own countrymen are unwilling to fight against the ‘mighty’ English army and are prepared to flee from the battlefield, Wallace makes an inspiring speech as follows: ‘Sons of Scotland, I am William Wallace… and I see a whole army of my countrymen here in defiance of tyranny. You have come to fight as free men—and free men you are! What will you do without freedom? Fight and you may die, run and you may live… at least a while… and dying many years from now would you be willing to trade all the days, from this day until that, for ONE chance, just ONE CHANCE to come back here and tell our enemies that they make take our lives but they will never take our FREEDOM!’ True, freedom is worth trading our life for. After all what is life worth without freedom?

Alas, our incompetent and gutless Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, it seems, never saw the movie. His qualifications have not in any way helped him weigh the repercussions of the Indo-US nuclear deal against that of freedom of this great land. With the American Congress passing the deal, it’s now just one step short of becoming functional and thereafter India may be a nation of free people but the country’s freedom shall have been sold—forever. A blunder is being committed, a great act of betrayal is being staged, and yet the media is showcasing it as a ‘great triumph’. Nothing to me is more bizarre than the irrational and illogical portrayal of these incidents by the media.

The Political Side of Mangalore’s Mayhem

Last week, an untoward incident happened in Mangalore. The proselytizing center of ‘New Life’ Christians was ransacked by Bajarang Dal activists and, in the confusion, the Catholics too were targeted, thus leading to chaos.

There were two reasons that led to the attack by infuriated Bajarangees: first, the denigration of Hindu Gods and Goddesses; and secondly, ‘forcible conversions’.

The following are the list of abuses from one such book—Satya Darshini—distributed by the missionaries of ‘New Life’. This book is in Kannada and the translation of the abusive passages are as follows.

Nationalism – A Concept Alien to Islam

As an egalitarian nation, India has the constitutional obligation to guard the religious liberties of every citizen. Hence, recently, when Mohammad Zubair, a corporal with the Indian Air Force, was ordered to shave off his beard to maintain uniformity, he took no time in moving the country’s judicial system. ‘A true Muslim must keep his beard’, contended Zubair’s attorney, stating that it was an essential part of his faith as per the ‘Hadith’ and ‘Sunna’ (recorded customs). ‘We have the constitutional right to belief and practice of religion,’ he said, seeking protection of his ‘right’ to grow a beard.

But is growing a beard really mandatory in Islam? Yes, the Prophet has said, as reported by Abdullah-ibn-Umar, ‘Act against the polytheist, trim closely the moustache and grow your beard’. Thus, following these directives of the Prophet, Zubair is following his faith. But didn’t the Prophet, in the same statement, also say ‘act against the polytheist…’? Then, if promoted through the ranks, would Zubair not work against the ‘polytheist’ Hindus? Would he not follow the directives of his Prophet then also and seek to kill his ‘polytheist’ countrymen?

For years now, Muslim scholars, intellectuals, and journalists, have complained of ‘deprivation’ and the ‘lack of special privileges’. They have presented in a very viable way as to what it is that they lack. But have they ever spoken gratefully of the privileges they have received? Not that I can remember of!

What people don’t know is that in the righteous context, Islam is totally opposed to the idea of Nation. Nationalism as a concept is absolutely alien to Islam, because it (nationalism) calls for unity based on family and tribalistic ties, whereas Islam binds people together on ‘aqeedah’ (belief in Allah and His last messenger). Islam seeks ideological bonds.

Abu Dawood narrates that the Prophet said, ‘He is not one of us who calls for ‘assabiyyah’ (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for ‘assabiyyah’ or who dies for ‘assabiyyah’. In another Hadith, the Prophet is found stating, ‘Leave it (nationalism, racism, and patriotism), it is rotten.’ [Muslim and Bukhari] and in the Hadith recorded in Mishkat al-Masabith, the Prophet is found saying ‘Undoubtedly, Allah has removed from you the pride of arrogance of the age of ‘Jahilliyah’ (ignorance) and the glorification of ancestors. Now people are of two kinds—either believers who are aware, or transgressors who do wrong. You are all the children of Adam, and Adam was made of clay. People should give up their pride in nations because that is a coal from the coals of hellfire. If they do not give this up, Allah will consider them lower than the lowly worm which pushes itself through ‘Khara’ (dung).’ [Abu Dawood and Tirmidhi]

There are many examples in the ‘Seerah’, where the messenger of Allah rebukes those who upheld nationalism. On one occasion, a party of Jews conspired to bring about disunity in the ranks of the Muslims after seeing the ‘Aus’ and ‘Khazraj’, within Islam. A youth was sent to incite remembrance of the battle of ‘Bu’ath’ where the Aus had been victorious over the Khazraj, and he recited poetry to bring about differences between them. As a result, there was a call to arms.

When the news reached the Prophet, he is said to have exclaimed, ‘O Muslims, remember Allah, remember Allah. Will you act as pagans while I am present with you after Allah has guided you to Islam, and honored you thereby and made a clean break with paganism; delivered you thereby from disbelief; and made you friends thereby?’

Not only does Islam forbid people from grouping on nationalistic ties, but it also prohibits the establishment of more than one state, irrespective of whether these states are based on nationalism or otherwise. The only state that is allowed for Muslims is the Islamic State, one which is governed exclusively by Islam.

Given this, it is clear that Islam is completely against any nation, and this includes Indian nationalism.

The essential question, that which baffles my mind is: would not tomorrow those ‘devout’ Muslims claim, as their constitutional right, to abstain from their nationalist commitments on the ground that Islam directs them to be so? What would be the stand of our Judiciary then?

Author is a Fellow of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, UK.

Tactics and Propaganda of Proselytization

Ours is an era of capitalism—an era marked by financial prowess, controlled by financial czars, and ruled by corrupt politicos. The greatest weapon of our times is not one that kills the body’s power to breathe, but the one which kills the mind’s power to reason—propaganda. Any person or institution  which successfully utilizes this system is the one who can be victorious in all endeavors. Organizations in this country, apart from political parties, who use propaganda are Christian missionary institutions. Their sole reason for being is to proselytize the masses, largely Hindus, into ardent Christians.

Beginning from the time of the British, we have developed a system of negation. We have often demeaned our own religions, cultures, and knowledge, thereafter hailing the western ones. How often have we spoken of caste, creed, and other discriminatory practices like Sati and child marriage in our textbook? And how much have we cared to inform our generation about the brutality of Christianity which has for itself the most blood-soaked history?

Recently, when violence flamed in Khandamal district of Orissa, mainline media were quick enough to criticize the violent agitation of VHP, while at the same time hastening to defend the foreign Christian missionaries whom they called ‘peaceful’. I am still not clear as to what is making our eminent journalists term those missionaries ‘peaceful’, whereas their ambitions are such that they can’t be achieved without disturbing peace and harmony.