Secularists on Islam- Professor A.B. Shah

    When genuine seculars have looked into Islam impartially, they have drawn conclusions which are close to the concerns expressed by Hindu leaders who are dubbed communal and fundamentalists. This lists some of their findings.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Post Indian Independence [post-1947, when India became Independent and Partitioned] establishment intellectuals, mostly Marxist by orientation and the residue comprising of neutralized Hindus have defined their intellectualism through defense of Islam and Christianity. They go to great lengths to defend Islam, an allied dogma of Marxism, and bend over backwards for showering praise on it for virtues like tolerance, love and Sarva-dharma-samabhava (‘Equal respect to all religions’- something which Islam does not give). There are some convenient passages in the Koran which they can always quote. (Mostly early Meccan verses when Muhammad and his followers were in a minority, which are abrogated by later Medinan verses which preach intolerance and violence.) The Marxists of course are in the forefront for reasons given by Mr. Hamid Dalwai. Their general theme is that they are more sinned against than sinning. This is generally being done to show that there is nothing unique about Hindu faiths, which in fact are inferior because of what they claim are several shortcomings intrinsic in them. The whole purpose of this Macaulay-Marxist nexus is to discredit Hinduism so that Hindus lose confidence in themselves and ultimately lose the battle for survival at the hands of Islam and Christianity, particularly Islam.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 But this does not mean that there have not been scholars who have not analyzed at least some aspects of Islam, particularly in India. The more intellectually honest among them, generally genuine socialist intellectuals, have at least looked into the behavior of Muslims if not their scriptures. It will be rather surprising to note that they have echoed several comments made by various others who are dubbed communal and fundamentalists.

   It is rather surprising to note that post-Independence secular intellectuals have more or less repeated Dr. Ambedkar’s analysis. We quote below comments and excerpts from a few prominent thinkers to give examples of their thinking. We first refer to the writings of Prof. A. B. Shah and Hamid Dalwai published by the Indian Secular Society, Pune. Both of them come from a socialist and Seva Dal background, thus making them ‘blue blooded’ secularists.

Prof. A. B. Shah

    We shall first review two books of Prof. Shah who, although born in an orthodox Jain family, became an atheist and championed the cause of secularism all his life. He has written several articles and books on this subject. In his book ‘Religion and Society in India’2 which is a collection of his articles on this subject, he deals extensively with Islam in India. We give below a few passages from this book.

   “Every religion has to accommodate this phenomenon (i.e. mysticism) at a fairly early stage in its history. Christianity and Hinduism could accommodate mysticism within their compass without serious strain……. It is one of the tragedies of history that the kind of universalism that its mystics preached, failed to humanise the culture of Islam.” (P. 18)

   “This was also the attitude of Dr. Zakir Hussain [the late President of India], and it continues to be the attitude of most eminent Muslims even today. In private conversation they have no hesitation in adopting an enlightened, sometimes even Marxist attitude to religion, but in public they invariably swear by the Quran as the source of all the values they cherish.” (P. 20)

   “The 1971 census showed that during the ten years 1961-71, the Hindu population of India registered a growth of 23.69%, whereas the corresponding figures for Muslims and Christians were 30.85% and 32.60%……. As to Islam, the political and religious leaders of the Muslim community in India are not only obstinate; they are even ignorant of the history of their own religion. The Prophet Muhammad was not opposed to preventing conception by resort to azl (coitus interruptus)…… Besides, some Muslim leaders are on record to the effect that the only way of solving the Hindu-Muslim problem in India is for the Muslims to become a majority in the population. There are no doubt a few whose commitment to India, if not to secularism, is beyond question; but their way of thinking does not command the respect of their co-religionists. Not have they made any systematic effort to promote among Muslims a sense of territorial nationalism that would cut across religious differences.” (P. 27)

   “The Muslim opposition to the modernization of their personal law and the enactment of uniform civil code in keeping with contemporary liberal values is also based on religion. Here, again, they are ignorant of the facts of history. The Shariah, which is supposed to embody the Muslim personal law, is not an integral and immutable part of the religion of Islam as the Muslims apparently believe. On the contrary, it has evolved over a period of centuries and has been seriously tampered with in almost all the Muslim countries of the world. Four-fifths of the Shariah, dealing with criminal law, the law of contracts, the law of evidence, international relations and the nature of the state are nowhere in force. The family law also has been drastically changed in countries like Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Iraq, Syria and Iran. In India, too, what governs the family law of Muslims is not what the Shariah lays down in this respect but the Anglo – Muhammedan law which was enacted by the British in the eighteenth century.” (P. 28)

   “What one witnesses, however, is an opportunistic combination of orthodoxy, on the one hand, and insistence on the rights that a secular state confers equally on all citizens, including the Muslims, on the other.” (P. 45)

   “The traditional and dominant Islamic world-view for nearly fourteen hundred years now is basically anti-humanist. It has no place for the individual except as a servant of God and as a limb of the community…… Continued victory strengthened the Muslim’s conviction that his faith was perfect and superior to others, and its doctrine infallible……. human reason is not entitled to question the statements of the Quran or of the theologians based on “the legal material of the Quran and the Sunnah” ……. The reason is not that Islam is unique in its record of intolerance in the past – perhaps Christianity has a worse record – but that it still exhibits the same intolerance of free inquiry and dissent as it did in less enlightened times. What little possibility there might have been of the softening of this attitude after the mutual persecution by the Mutazilites and their opponents, and due to the growth of Sufism, was effectively destroyed by al-Ghazali (1058-1111) for centuries to come….. his work ensured that no renaissance would take place in Muslim society unless, as in Turkey, it was imposed from above…… The preceding discussions would show that unlike other religions, Islam has shown a remarkable persistence of belief and habits of thought in spite of the centuries separating the present from the years of its revelation and early growth. As mentioned above, it denies the autonomy and creativity of the human being.” (P. 91-95)

   “The tradition of Islam is not merely anti-intellectual, it is also in-hospitable to the growth of a secular democratic polity. For instance, it does not recognize the sovereignty of man, neither of the individual nor of the people as a whole, over the affairs of civic society. It is not man but God “unto Whom belongeth the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them”…… there is no distinction between state and church, civil society and religious community, the leader in war and the leader in prayer. The ummah is a community of the chosen people of God and the state merely an arrangement to enable them to walk in His path. The Caliph is therefore both monarch and supreme authority on matters religious…….. It follows that the Shariah was the secular law as well as religious……. Islam does not countenance revolt against tyranny as long as the tyrant does not ask his subjects to act against the injunctions of Islam… even in the latter case, not revolt but disobedience is recommended…… It is clear that in Islam as von Grunebaum says, “political absolutism parallels the absolutism of God’s relation to his creatures.” (P. 96-98)

   “In such a system of thought there can be no place for individual freedom and human equality, much less for the moral autonomy of man. The Quran emphasizes again and again the insignificance and utter impotence of man in relation to God’s will, which is not subject to any law and is therefore inscrutable to man. As to equality, one has only to note that the Quran permits slavery, and treats women as inferior to man not only in matters of divorce and inheritance, but also as regards her admissibility as witness.” (P. 98)

   “The popular belief that Islam stands for equality needs corrections on two other counts. First, Islamic equality, as is to be expected from any religious culture, extends only to fellow-Muslims, not to all human beings as children of the same God. Non-Muslims, are either Dhimmis (‘protected people’) if they have a revealed scripture as the Jews and Christians have, or Kafirs who have to make a choice between the Quran and the sword. [See Surah 9:5] Secondly, even this narrow conception of equality is confined to the prayer time. It does not apply in relation to the differences of wealth, status or family connection.” (P. 99) Prof. Shah then explains that Muhammad himself stressed the superiority of the Quraish tribe to which he belonged. Also, in India too, even during the Muslim rule, important posts were held by Muslims from abroad. “By the time the Mughal empire was consolidated under Akbar, they held nearly 70 percent of the superior posts in the army and civil life, the balance being shared almost equally by the Indian converts to Islam and the Hindus who had already come to terms with the Muslim rulers.” (P. 104)

   Prof. Shah advocates a uniform civil code for modernizing Islam and discusses the position of Muslim personal law in this context. He says, “On the one hand they take pride in the fact that Islam looks upon marriage as a civil contract; on the other they oppose any reforms in the terms of this contract on the ground that it would constitute interference in their religion.” (P. 121) He analyses the Muslim psyche and says that most educated Muslims “are sophisticated urbanites and have little first hand knowledge of the pragmatic and calculating nature of the orthodox Muslim’s opposition to the proposed reform. He is obstinate because experience has taught him that obstinacy pays. When he finds that this is no longer true and that reform is no more conditional on his consent, he will accept it with good grace or ill but without any resistance worth his name. The dramatic change in the attitude of the Nizam and the Razakars after the government of India had initiated the so-called police action in Hyderabad is typical of Muslim politics – with its bravado and bullying so long as the other party shows weakness and its sudden show of reasonableness (if not a complete volte face) as soon as it is clear that bullying would not pay.” (P. 122). Sri Dalwai has also made similar comments in his books. Hindu leaders should take note of these comments.

   Analysing Islam’s failure to modernise, Prof Shah says, “So great has been the hold of orthodoxy on the Muslim mind that nowhere has Muslim society been able to throw up, in the natural course, an articulate class of liberal Muslims committed to modern values and all that such a commitment implies in the fields of criticism and social action. Such a class alone can subject the traditions of Islam to a critical scrutiny and prepare the ground for entry of Muslim society into the modern age.” (P. 184)

   And what is the stumbling block for integration? “Not the fear of Hindu oppression but the strongly separatist Muslim attitude was primarily responsible for the tragic denouement of Hindu-Muslim relations in India…… ‘Separatism’ means an insistence on the recognition of one’s community as a national or quasi-national group which, qua such a group, is entitled to special considerations and privileges. It thus indicates a certain attitude to other groups and is reflected in obstinate resistance to any process of interaction that may ultimately lead to the emergence of a common national identity cutting across the old lines of division. Separatism in this sense has always been a characteristic of Muslim society wherever Muslims are in a substantial minority, and Indian Muslims are no exceptions in this respect. Historically, it has expressed itself in different demands in different periods, their nature and content varying with the changing balance of forces at a given moment. In India, Muslim separatism has been particularly strong because of the memories of Muslim rule for nearly eight hundred years before the sepoy mutiny of 1857. How deep-rooted this attitude is among the Indian Muslims, regardless of the degree to which they are orthodox, is illustrated by the fact that both the Muslim League and the ‘nationalist’ Muslims were united in their demand for reservations, weightage and special treatment in matters of language, personal law and employment under government. Even after partition most of these demands continue to be pressed by practically all Muslim organizations in India. And, like Jinnah, they too do not make a distinction between secularists who demand the modernization of Muslim society along liberal lines and the Hindu chauvinists who claim that India belongs to the Hindus and should become a Hindu state in which non-Hindus, including Muslims should be permitted to live as guests. In the eyes of the Muslim leadership, ‘both (the secularists and Hindu chauvinists) are equally dangerous to Muslims, untouchables and the other minorities.’ However, Muslims need not feel pessimistic about their future. ‘A single Muslim is nobler and higher than a thousand Hindus. The only need for him is to become awake and regard himself as a Muslim. He goes with Allah’s blessings. It is a holy deed when his dagger rushes into the heart of the aliens; and he is the victor.” (P. 189)

   Prof. Shah asserts that “If Muslim separatism is sui generis and not a reaction to Hindu revivalism, it still remains to trace it to its roots. I would suggest that it is inherent in the religion and culture of Islam (P. 194). He quotes Muhammad Iqbal [The poet, who first raised the demand for Pakistan by Partitioning India, which was accepted by Muhammad Ali Jinnah] “Islam, as a religion, has no country” (P. 179). He continues, “One may add that even Muslim intellectuals of the post-1947 generation, who profess Marxism, scrupulously avoid criticizing their community’s culture and religion for reasons of expediency. Till this situation changes there can be no satisfactory solution of the Hindu-Muslim problem” (P. 195)

   In another booklet3, he traces the Muslim problem due to lack of their modernization and urges the progressive Muslims, the worse offenders, to undertake a creative ‘reinterpretation’ of their faith. He laments “The failure of the Marxists to analyze the Islamic tradition and Muslim society in India has been all the more culpable. They have even gone to the extent of discovering secularism in the Muslim League in Kerala!” (P. 16) The writer then suggests a few measures to modernize the society, especially Islam. Some of them of interest to us are:

   “The existing laws regarding the location of temples, mosques, durghas, the playing of music before mosques, unauthorised killing of cows and the like should be firmly implemented.” (P. 19)

   “There is sufficient ground for belief that certain Muslim groups in India receive funds from abroad, not all of which are utilized for the ostensible purpose for which they are given. The provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 1976 should be rigorously implemented in all such cases.’’ (P. 19)

   “The government should see to it that reformist groups and movements among the Muslims are not subjected to physical or social persecution in the name of religion…… the hobnobbing of all political leader, including ministers, with persons like the Syedna, the Shahi Imam of Delhi and the Ulema of Deoband makes one wonder whether government and political parties are really interested in prompting a secular outlook among the Muslims.” (P. 19)

   “Government should make up its mind to modify the personal laws of not only the Muslims but also the Christians, the Parsees and the Jews so as to bring them in line with modern ideas about the rights of women in matters of marriage, divorce and succession.” (P. 22)

   He ends his note by pointing out that “Liberal Hindus and educated Muslims who believe that progress can be had without tears are living in a fool’s paradise.” (P. 22)

2. Religion and Society in India, Prof. A. B. Shah, Somaiya Publications, Bombay, 1981
3. What Ails our Muslims, Prof. A. B. Shah, Indian Secular Society, Pune, Reprint 1992.

10 Responses

  1. Face_The_Truth says:

    The very basic problem(s) with Professor Amritlal Bhikku Shah and other non-Muslims in India of similar “Secularist” mindset(s) is they refuse(d) to accept the following truths about Indian Muslims:

    (1) Muslims have always been the hereditary enemies of “Hindus”.

    (2) Muslims are often found to cherish anti-Indian and extra territorial allegiance!

    (3) Mecca to Muslims is a sterner reality than Delhi or Agra and some of the Muslims do not make any secret of being bound to sacrifice India if that be to the glory of their religion — Islam.

    (4) Muslims did not take part in the national struggle for freedom against British Christian imperialists, but Muslims reaped its fruits and Muslims are essentially anti-national.

    (5) The Muslims remained Muslims first, Muslims last, and Indians never!

  2. Face_The_Truth says:

    For readers who are not familiar, there are 29 self-governing provinces in modern-day India and in whichever provinces have political influences of either Indian National Congress Party or the Communist Party of India, one will observe majority “Hindus” are being persecuted for the betterment of minority Muslims and minority Christians.

    Just like in the province of West Bengal, in the southern province of Kerala, Muslims and Christians get an upper hand by virtue of the nasty political climate perpetuated by the Indian National Congress Party and the Communist Party of India!

    During Islamic rule, Muslim invaders re-named original Sanskrit names such as Prayag into “Allahabad”, Indraprastha into “Delhi”, and Karnavati into “Ahmedabad”, just to cite a few out of hundreds of hundreds of original Sanskrit names of “Hindu” places into Arabic or Persian names.

    Now in post-independence India, Muslims do not supposed to dictate “Hindus” after creating 2 exclusive Sunni Muslim countries namely “West Pakistan” and “East Pakistan” on Indian subcontinent and by murdering millions of millions of “Hindus” in the process.

    Muslims got whatever they wanted in 1947 A.D.

    Muslims should NOT be afforded additional privileges in post-independence India at the expense of Indian “Hindus”.



    Thiruvananthapuram: Former Kerala Police chief TP Senkumar was booked under non-bailable section of the IPC on Friday for allegedly spreading religious hatred through comments made during an interview to a magazine.

    In the interview to Samakaalika Malayalam, TP Senkumar had said that the “rising” birthrate among Muslims in Kerala would alter the state’s demographics and had questioned the rising cases of “love Jihad”.’

  3. Face_The_Truth says:

    My readers may find some of my posts mere repetitions of what I’ve written before!

    But, when it comes to religion and history, repetitions are essential because any religion itself requires repetitions of what one human believes in.

    As for history, first we look for eye-witnesses or contemporaries and, if that is non-existent, we look for the specific circumstance that’s been recorded and, if that’s also non-existent, we look for rationalistic explanations from non-speaking stones, icons, iconographies, architectural remnants, etc. which have survived assaults from time as well as living-breathing creatures including humans!


    In his book “Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, Vol. 2, The Islamic Evidence”, Second Enlarged Edition, New Delhi, 1993, Indian historian Sita Ram Goel wrote the followings:

    ‘Some apologists of Islam have tried to lay the blame at the door of the White Huns or Epthalites who had overrun parts of the “Hindu” cradle in the second half of the Fifth Century A.D.

    But, the apologists of Islam count without the witness of Hsüan Tsang (Xuan Zang), the famous Chinese pilgrim and Buddhist savant, who travelled all over this area from 630 A.D. to 644 A.D.

    Starting from Karashahr in Northern Sinkiang, Hsüan Tsang (Xuan Zang) passed through Transoxiana, Northern Afghanistan, North-West Frontier Province, Kashmir, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, North-Eastern Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Nepal, Bengal, Assam, Orissa, Maha Koshal, and Andhra Pradesh till Hsüan Tsang (Xuan Zang) reached Tamil Nadu.

    On his return journey Hsüan Tsang (Xuan Zang) travelled through Karnataka, Maha Rashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Bharat, Sindh, Southern Afghanistan, and Southern Sinkiang.

    In most of these provinces Hsüan Tsang (Xuan Zang) found in a flourishing state many Buddhist establishments consisting of vihãras (monasteries), chaityas (temples) and stûpas (topes), besides what Hsüan Tsang (Xuan Zang) described as heretical (Jain) and deva (Brahmanical) temples.

    The wealth of architecture and sculptures Hsüan Tsang (Xuan Zang) saw everywhere confirms what we learn from “Hindu” literary sources.

    Some of this wealth has been recovered in recent times from under mounds of ruins.

    During the course of his pilgrimage, Hsüan Tsang (Xuan Zang) stayed at as many as 95 Buddhist centres among which the more famous ones were at Kuchi, Aqsu, Tirmiz, Uch Turfan, Kashagar and Khotan in Sinkiang; Balkh, Ghazni, Bamiyan, Kapisi, Lamghan, Nagarahar and Bannu in Afghanistan; Pushkalavati, Bolar and Takshasila in the North-West Frontier Province; Srinagar, Rajaori and Punch in Kashmir; Sialkot, Jalandhar and Sirhind in the Punjab; Thanesar, Pehowa and Sugh in Haryana; Bairat and Bhinmal in Rajasthan, Mathura, Mahoba, Ahichchhatra, Sankisa, Kanauj, Ayodhya, Prayag, Kausambi, Sravasti, Kapilvastu, Kusinagar, Varanasi, Sarnath and Ghazipur in Uttar Pradesh; Vaishali, Pataliputra, Rajgir, Nalanda, Bodhgaya, Monghyr and Bhagalpur in Bihar; Pundravardhana, Tamralipti, Jessore and Karnasuvarna in Bengal; Puri and Jajnagar in Orissa; Nagarjunikonda and Amaravati in Andhra Pradesh; Kanchipuram in Tamil Nadu; Badami and Kalyani in Karnataka; Paithan and Devagiri in Maha Rashtra; Bharuch, Junagarh and Valabhi in Gujarat; Ujjain in Malwa; Mirpur Khas and Multan in Sindh.

    The number of Buddhist monasteries at the bigger ones of these centres ranged from 50 to 500 and the number of monks in residence from 1,000 to 10,000.

    It was only in some parts of Eastern Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier Province that monasteries were in a bad shape, according to Hsüan Tsang (Xuan Zang), which can perhaps be explained by the invasion of White Huns!

    But, so were they in Kusinagar and Kapilavastu where the White Huns are NOT known to have reached.

    On the other hand, the same invaders had ranged over Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and most of Uttar Pradesh where Hsüan Tsang (Xuan Zang) found the monasteries in a splendid state!

    The White Huns had even established their rule over Kashmir where Hsüan Tsang (Xuan Zang) saw 500 monasteries housing 5,000 monks.

    It is, therefore, difficult to hold the White Huns responsible for the disappearance of Buddhist centres in areas where Hsüan Tsang (Xuan Zang) had found them flourishing.

    An explanation has to be found ELSEWHERE.

    In any case, the upheaval the White Huns caused was over by the middle of the Sixth Century A.D.

    Moreover, the temples and monasteries which Hsüan Tsang (Xuan Zang) saw were only a few out of many.

    Hsüan Tsang (Xuan Zang) had NOT gone into the interior of any province, having confined himself to the more famous Buddhist centres.

    What was it that really happened to thousands upon thousands of temples and monasteries?

    Why did temples and monasteries disappear and/or give place to another type of Islamic monuments?

    How come that their architectural and sculptural fragments got built into the foundations and floors and walls and domes of the Islamic edifices which replaced them?

    These are crucial questions which should have been asked by students of medieval Indian history.

    But, no historian worth his name has raised these questions squarely, not to speak of finding adequate answers to them!

    No systematic study of the subject has been made so far.

    All that we have are stray references to the demolition of a few Hindu temples, made by the more daring Hindu historians while discussing the religious policy of this or that sultan.

    Sir Jadunath Sirkar and Professor Ram Sharan Sharma have given more attention to the Islamic policy of demolishing “Hindu” temples and pointed an accusing finger at the Islamic theological tenets which dictated that policy.

    But, their treatment of the subject-matter is brief and their enumeration of temples destroyed by Muslim Emperor Aurangzeb and the other Muslim Mughal emperors touches only the fringe of a vast “holocaust” caused by the Theology of Islam, all over the cradle of Hindu culture, and throughout more than thirteen hundred years, taking into account what happened in the native Muslim states carved out after the British take-over and the formation of West Pakistan and East Pakistan after the Partition in 1947 A.D.

    Muslim historians, in India and abroad, have written hundreds of accounts in which the progress of Islamic armies across the cradle of “Hindu” culture is narrated, stage by stage and period by period.

    A pronounced feature of these Muslim histories is a description — in smaller or greater detail, but always with considerable pride — of how the “Hindus” were slaughtered en masse or converted by force, how hundreds of thousands of “Hindu” men and women and children were captured as booty and sold into Islamic slavery, how “Hindu” temples and monasteries were razed to the ground or burnt down, and how images of “Hindu” Gods and Goddesses were destroyed or desecrated.

    Commandments of Allah (i.e., al’Quran) and precedents set by the Islam’s Prophet Muhammad (i.e., Sunnah) are frequently cited by the Muslim authors in support of what the swordsmen and demolition squads of Islam did with extraordinary zeal, not only in the midst of war but also, and more thoroughly, after Islamic rule had been firmly established.

    A reference to the Theology of Islam, as perfected by the orthodox Muslim Imams, leaves little doubt that the citations are seldom without foundation.

    The “Hindu” men and women and children who were killed or captured or converted by force cannot be recalled for standing witnesses to what was done to them by the heroes of Islam.’


  4. Face_The_Truth says:

    My readers might be aware that, Indian Christians overwhelmingly supported the creation of an exclusively Sunni Muslim nation named “Pakistan” in 1947 A.D.

    Indian Christians to this day despise Indian “Hindus” while praising Muslims!

    Indian Christians incite separatism amongst Indian Muslims in order to divide and destroy the ancient “Hindu” rashtra again from within.

    Indian Christians lie and lie and lie at every opportunity in order to uphold Christianism above Sanatana Dharma!

    Indian Christians claim that, when financially disadvantaged and downtrodden Indians are converted to Christianism, those financially disadvantaged and downtrodden Indians will be financially and spiritually better.

    But, after conversion to Christianism, those financially disadvantaged and downtrodden Indians do not see their lot improved financially, let alone spiritually.

    Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar hated Sanatana Dharma throughout his life and converted to Buddhism, but Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar DID NOT hate mother India.

    Indian Christians hate not only Sanatana Dharma, but also hate the “Hindu” Bharat Rashtra.

    In post-independence India, Indian Christians demand well-paid government jobs to be reserved for minority Christians and minority Muslims.

    But, Indian Christians did not say a thing when in newly created “West Pakistan” and “East Pakistan” minority “Hindus” were treated as sub-human beings since the Partition of Indian subcontinent in 1947 A.D. by the British Christian imperialists!


  5. Face_The_Truth says:

    My readers are well aware that “Face Book” website subscribes to worldwide Islamic mandate of NEVER insulting Allah’s prophet Muhammad the Arabian Bastard in any way or form.

    Now, the multi-billionaire inventor of “Face Book” — namely Mark Zucker-Face — has sent his emissary Joel Kaplan to the Islamic State of Pakistan to apologize any unintentional mis-understanding with the Pakistanian Islamic govt. with regards to any anti-Islam “blasphemous” post.


    ‘The Facebook management has assured Pakistan that it will remove fake accounts and explicit, hateful and provocative material that incites violence and terrorism.

    The commitment was given by Vice President of Facebook Joel Kaplan who called on Pakistanian Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan on Saturday.

    Facebook has reiterated its commitment to keep the platform safe and promote values that are in congruence with its community standards.

    It also committed to remove fake accounts, explicit, hateful and provocative material that incites violence and terrorism.’

  6. Face_The_Truth says:


    “A 65-year-old man died of stab wounds in Kolkata on Thursday as fresh violence erupted in parts of West Bengal’s Basirhat region that has been rocked by communal clashes over a controversial ‘Face Book’ post.

    Kartik Ghosh — a “Hindu” — was attacked by Islamic mobs with sharp objects when he was returning home on a motorcycle on Wednesday afternoon.

    This was the first death in violence that has swept the Basirhat region, barely 12 kilometres from the Bangladesh border, that has injured at least 23 people.”

    My readers:

    Please note the last sentence from above that “…the Basirhat region, barely 12 kilometres from the Bangladesh border, that has injured at least 23 people.”

    Muslims from Bangladesh (i.e., East Pakistan) have been illegally settling in the border regions of Indian provinces governed either by the Indian National Congress Party or by the Communist Party of India for over 5 decades!

    The Indian National Congress Party and the Communist Party of India want more and more migratory Muslims from Bangladesh for the sole purpose of receiving increasing number of Muslim-votes during elections.

    “Bangladesh” has been popularly known as an economic basket-case since the “East Bengal” became East Pakistan in 1947 A.D. with the help of British Christian imperialists.

    So, poverty-stricken Bangladeshi Muslims illegally enter and settle in the border regions of post-independence India for economic opportunities!

    However, when migratory Muslims become a sizable population in any territory on earth, Islamic violence, Islamic riots, and Islamic separatism are very common features.

    My readers, please just realize the simple fact that, “Face Book” was invented in America by a socialist Jew named “Mark Zucker-Face”.

    The multi-billionaire inventor “Mark Zucker-Face” is a Jew, NOT a “Hindu” at all.

    But, illegally settled Bangladeshi Muslims in Indian border areas are now punishing Indian “Hindus” for a very negligible issue of posting a very well-known comment about Islam’s founder Muhammad the Arabian Bastard.

  7. Face_The_Truth says:

    In certain provinces such as West Bengal of post-independence India, there are “Hindu” politicians aid and abet Indian Muslims for the propagation and sustenance of medieval Islamic ideals.

    Since independence, West Bengal is either always ruled by the Congress Party or by the Communist Party that supports, promotes, finances, and cherishes Islam, Islamic values, and Islamic invaders of Bharat Rashtra.

    In 1947 A.D. Indian National Congress Party and the Communist Party either directly or indirectly supported the creation of 2 Islamic Pakistans on Indian subcontinent in order to give Indian Muslims whatever Indian Muslims demanded.

    After the Partition of 1947 A.D. Indian National Congress Party and the Communist Party leaders have been acting exactly the same way as they used to act during the British rule on Indian subcontinent.

    Indian “Hindus” are routinely arrested, harassed, jailed, and tortured by Indian National Congress Party leaders as well as the Indian Communist Party leaders in order to appease Islamic ideology and in order to make India Islamic again!

    As Indian Christians routinely say, “Indian ‘Hindus’ worship demons and monsters!” and Indian Muslims always say that “Indian ‘Hindus’ worship false Gods!” while many Indian “Hindus” routinely say to date that world’s Christians and world’s Muslims worship one and only “True” divine on earth.


    ‘Communal tensions have flared-up once again in the Basirhat district in Bengal after a supposedly disrespectful Facebook post concerning Islam’s Prophet Mohammad began circulating online!

    What began as an Islamic protest soon escalated into a violent roving Islamic mob ransacking houses of the majority “Hindu” community in the district.

    It is believed that dozens of businesses, houses, and at least six police vehicles, were torched by an Islamic mob in West Bengal’s North 24 Parganas District.

    The incident began after a class 11 student posted a ‘blasphemous’ message on Facebook.

    The student in question, according to Indian news sources — a “Hindu”, was ARRESTED on Sunday night and prohibitory orders were enforced.’

  8. Face_The_Truth says:


    “Post Indian Independence [post-1947, when India became Independent and Partitioned] establishment intellectuals, mostly Marxist by orientation and the residue comprising of neutralized Hindus have defined their intellectualism through defense of Islam and Christianity. They go to great lengths to defend Islam, an allied dogma of Marxism, and bend over backwards for showering praise on it for virtues like tolerance, love and Sarva-dharma-samabhava (‘Equal respect to all religions’- something which Islam does not give).”

    ‘The psychology of surrender is best symbolized by the well-intentioned “Hindu” slogan of sarva-dharma-samabhãva when it is extended indiscriminately to Christianity and Islam.

    “Hindus” are shouting themselves hoarse in stressing the identity of Brahma with Abraham, of Manu with Noah, of Rama with Rahim, of Krishna with Karim, of Kashi with Ka’bah, and so on.

    But, the monopolises of Middle-Eastern “Mono-Theism” remain far from mollified.

    The orthodox among the Christian and Islamic “Mono-Theists” dismiss with contempt the “Hindu” claims of sharing the same faith with them fundamentally!

    The kinder (or craftier) among the Christian and Islamic “Mono-Theists” take pity on this plight of poor “Hindus”, and invite them to renounce their nebulous, if not counterfeit, “Mono-Theism” in favor of the fully developed Christian and Islamic doctrine.


    The psychology of imitation is manifest in modern Sikh scholars who have, over the years, forced the message of the great Gurus into monotheistic moulds.

    Sikh scholars have almost succeeded in eclipsing, more or less completely, the Upanishadic spirituality of the nirguNa saints among whom Guru Nanak occupies the front rank!

    Sikh scholars take immense pride in equating the Ek OMkãr with Allah, the Ãdigrantha with Al-Kitãb, the succession of Sikh gurus with the succession of prophets in which Guru Gobind Singh is the last like Muhammad, and the injunctions of the last Guru regarding outer symbols with similar injunctions of the Sunnah.

    In order to bolster their separateness from Hinduism, Sikh separatists magnify the Islamic elements in Sikhism.

    An element of this tendency is the replacement of Sanskrit-based terms with Persian terms, e.g., the Hari Mandir, “Vishnu temple”, in Amritsar is preferably called Darbâr Sâhib, “venerable court session (of the Timeless one)”.

    In militant Sikhism, we find a whole list of concepts and institutions remoulded or newly created in the image of Islamic (or Christian) counterparts, e.g., guru has become a synonym for rasûl, hukumnâma for fatwa, dharmyuddh for jihâd, pîrî-mîrî for khîlafat.

    And, of course, Khâlistân (from Arabic khalîs, “unmixed”) is the Sikh separatist equivalent for Pâkistân, both meaning “land of the pure”.

    There is enough of a prima facie case that Sikhism is a “Hindu” sect pure and simple.

    And, effectively, some Sikhs do claim that they are “Hindus”.

    Of course, the “Hindutva” movement holds the same view: The Sikhs are just one of the “Hindu” sects constituting the “Hindu” Commonwealth.

    Or no, not “just” one: Sikhs are the “sword-arm” of “Hinduism”.

    The Sikh Gurus Tegh Bahadur, brutally tortured and beheaded by Muslim Moghul Emperor Aurangzeb in 1675 A.D. for refusing to convert to Islam, and his son Govind Singh, who founded the military Khalsa order and whose four sons were killed by the Muslim Moghul troops, are very popular in “Hindutva” glorifications of “Indian national heroes”.’

  9. Sheikh Ali says:

    Today many educated Muslims want to leave Islam but are afraid that they will be killed by their fellow religionists. Hence the Muslims must be first shown a safe path so that they renounce Islam but does not arouse suspicion among their fellow Muslims. See

  10. Face_The_Truth says:

    Amritlal Bhikku Shah:

    “Liberal Hindus and educated Muslims who believe that progress can be had without tears are living in a fool’s paradise.”

    The very common mistake prevalent amongst Indian “Hindus” is the widespread thinking that, if only Muslims are given more lands and more privileges at the expense of Indian “Hindus”, Muslims will be grateful to Indian “Hindus”.

    There’re Indian “Hindus” today who think that, minority Muslims are financially and socially oppressed people and, therefore, any demand of minority Muslims must be satisfied.

    There are Indian “Hindus” who say — even now — world’s “Hindus” worship all sorts worthless idols whereas Muslims worship the one and only true God named “Allah” who apparently lives in Saudi Arabia!

    But, not many Indian “Hindus” — with the exception of a few — ever say that, the real reason why there cannot be peaceful and mutually respectful co-existence with Muslims possible is because of the historic fact that today’s world’s Muslims are generational bastards!

    Muslim invaders and Muslim conquerors murdered all non-Muslim males of arms-bearing-age and, subsequently, raped, sold and or married all non-Muslim female victims of Islamic conquests for over a thousand years from 7th century A.D. and onward.

    No matter how educated a Muslim is on the outside, in the inner-side every Muslim carry his or her rapist Muslim father’s DNA.

    Our genetic codes determine our outward facial and superficial looks as well as our inner psychological make-up.


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: