Don’t Blame the Taliban

A brilliant article by Kunwar Khuldune Shahid about the hypocricy of Muslims who condemn the violent acts of terrorists but refuse to pin-point the Islamic ideology as the root cause of the violence. Mohammad himself acted in the most reprehensible manner — ordering the killing of a pregnant woman critic, having sex with slave girls captured in war, marrying women at random to satisfy his sex lust, thinking up verses on the spur of the moment to permit his petty desires, his waging war against peaceful tribes and looting caravans. But Muslims go into denial about the malignant verses in the Koran and the disgusting behaviour of the Prophet — and hence the problems of Islam cannot be solved and the killings go on.

But for the first time, finally, a Muslim has dared to call a spade a spade, and identified Islam itself as the root cause of the violence and hatred that all Muslims are taught since childhood against women and the rest of humanity. I believe that humans are like empty vessels — they take the colour of whatever is filled into them. All humans have a spark of divinity in them and also a well of poison. Some ideologies trigger divinity inside them while some appeal to the poison in the psyche. Islam does the latter by giving spiritual permission for war, genocide, enslavement of women, and hatred and oppression of the entire humanity.

Don’t blame the Taliban:
Let’s call a spade a spade instead

By Kunwar Khuldune Shahid

The Malala incident is déjà vu times million. You have religious ‘extremists’ manifesting brutality; the ‘educated’ class calls the act heinous, the ‘intellectuals’ label the offenders as beasts, the ‘liberals’ protest against the ‘cowardly act’ and while everyone is condemning the act, they remain shushed about the root cause of it all: the ideology. Throughout the past every single person who has denounced the Taliban has acted as an apologetic, justifying the religious ideology and claiming how those ‘uneducated morons’ have ‘unfortunately’ misinterpreted the teachings of peace and tranquility – no, they haven’t, ‘unfortunately’.

It is so painfully amusing to note how the ‘moderates’ and armchair revolutionaries, would sit there with a glass of vine in their hands, uninhibitedly hanging out with the opposite sex, not having offered a prayer or fasted for ages, claiming how the Taliban – who lead their lives strictly according to the Shariah – are infesting their religion of harmony. The poor chaps are only doing what their scriptures – the ones that the pseudo intellectuals extol, or don’t have the cojones to criticize – tell them to do. When you are being taught, through the scriptures that are universally recognized by the followers as ‘authentic’, that all the non-believers or threats to the grandeur of your ideology should be killed, you will kill them, where is the misinterpretation here?

Finding slaves or slave girls, repulsive; physically assaulting women, disgusting; cutting off hands for theft, inhuman; stoning people to death, beastly and then venerating the ideology that permits this at the same time is hypocrisy of the very highest order. You sit there, criticize and mock the Taliban that follow your religion in its true form while you live in oblivion with your extremely palatable, but simultaneously blatantly fallacious, brand of religion and then claim that the Taliban are misinterpreting and misapprehending your ideology? Oh, the irony.

Let’s stop carving out quasi religions, or defending ideologies that we’ve all grown up blindly following as the truth. Let’s call a spade a spade instead and realize that at the end of the day as much as you might have a cardiac arrest admitting it, the root cause of religious extremism is: religion – especially in its raw crude form, which again is the only ‘authentic’ form.

Every single religion has a violent streak. Every single one of them orders violence and killing in one form or the other for the ‘non-believers’. One can quote verses from every holy scripture depicting loathe and despise for anyone who doesn’t believe in the said scripture and its propagator. Sure, those scriptures would have the occasional fit of peace as well, but that only springs into the open when it is recognized as the only supreme authority. Every religion is a ‘religion of peace’ as long as it formulates the status quo; there is no concept of ideological symbiosis in any religion. When a tyrannical regime or dictator calls for peace with the condition that they would reign supreme we label them as oppressors, but when this is done in the name of religion we tout it as maneuvers of ‘harmony’.

The Taliban have defended the attack on Malala Yousafzai through scriptures and historic precedents. You can clamor all you want about how there is a lack of understanding on the part of the Taliban, but how on earth can you refute clear messages of violence and historical evidence – scribed by historians of your faith – depicting brutality on the part of some of the most illustrious people in the history of the religion? It is easy to launch vitriol against the Taliban for attacking a 14-year-old girl, but it is also equally hypocritical and pathetic when you eulogize people from your history who did the same in the past, who massacred masses, destroyed lands, pulverized places of worship, raped women, just because they ostensibly did it in the name of your religion. Don’t blame the Taliban for following their lead, don’t blame the Taliban for using violence as a means to cement religious superiority – something that has been done for centuries – don’t blame the Taliban for the fact that you don’t have the guts to call a spade a spade even though it has been spanking your backside for centuries now.

The fact that groups like Tehreek-e-Taliban-Pakistan and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi exist is because Islam is still traversing its Dark Ages while other religions have gone through Reformation, resulting in a collective Renaissance – and that too half a millennium ago. None of the religion in its crude form can work in this day and age, and instead of taking the easy route and scorning at those that follow religious teachings in its original form, the more logical approach would be to accept the truth.

If you’re acknowledging Islam as the supreme authority, you have no grounds for hauling coals over Zia-ul-Haq for implementing laws from the Shariah, you have no grounds for attacking Mumtaz Qadri or feeling sorry for Salmaan Taseer who clearly spoke against the blasphemy law, you have no grounds for lauding Dr Abdul Salaam as a national asset who belonged to a sect that clearly defies Islamic teachings, and yes, you have no grounds for blaming the Taliban.

It’s time our ‘thinkers’ stopped taking the easy way out and finally picked a side. You either follow a religion in its true form or you’re irreligious. The Taliban know which side they are on. Do you?

Let’s finally address the elephant in the room

Which ideology can possibly justify killing a 14-year-old school going kid? That is the question being asked by the ‘moderates’. The Taliban claim that their ideology does. The apologists of that ideology claim that the ‘monsters’ have got it all wrong, and continue to castigate the ‘beasts’, while ensuring that no fingers point towards the ideology. It’s about time we finally addressed the elephant in the room, instead of pointlessly condemning violent acts without discussing their roots.

The Taliban have defended the attack on Malala Yousafzai according to their scriptures and history. Of course if you’re looking for a command that orders the killing of every 14-year-old school going girl who is inspired by the leader of Dar-ul-Harb, you won’t find one, but what you will find are quite a few historical precedents. Like for instance the case of Asma bint Marwan, a poetess whose murder was sanctioned in 2 AH after she conspired against Islam and the Holy Prophet, as narrated by Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa’d. And then there are Ibn Khatal’s two slave girls Fartana and Qaribah, who used to sing songs against the Holy Prophet and were among the ten shortlisted to be executed at the Conquest of Makkah in 8 AH – one of them was killed, the second managed to escape (Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat- Vol 2). Women were ordered to be killed for conspiring against the religion by their ideological predecessors, and so is it entirely the Taliban’s fault for taking cue and attempting to kill a girl who criticised their fundamentals; the fundamentals emanating from their ‘authentic’ religious scriptures?

Now to the question of Malala being a ‘kid’. According to Islamic teachings you’re an adult and responsible for your actions when you reach puberty – if a 9-year-old is considered old enough to get married, a 14-year-old should be old enough for being condemned for ‘conspiracy’. A plethora of Malalas under the pretext of threat to the religion bit the dust when the religion was expanding and therefore, if you’re defending Islam as the ultimate truth you can’t blame the Taliban for adopting violence as a means to assault the sceptics, unless you denounce the violence in 7th century as well and question the ideology.

I know what the apologists are saying at this very moment. When it comes to the off-putting facets of their ideology, everything:

1. Has a weak chain of narration

2. Is being taken out of context and is misinterpreted

3. Was the accepted norm of the time

Let’s address the first point.

Don’t you think it is rather hypocritical to claim that a particular verse from a particular compilation has a weak narration chain (even the two “most authentic” compilations Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are marred by this allegation) and then go on to quote other verses from those same books because you find them “acceptable”? Do you not realise that strictly from a historian’s point of view once there is a consensus that any part of any book or compilation is not ‘authentic’ that basically throws the authenticity of the entire scripture out of the window? And if we’re playing the authenticity game, how many of the apologists realise that the first ‘authentic’ biography of the Holy Prophet was written in 828 AD by Abd-al-Malik bin Hisham – a good 196 years after his death? Again, strictly from a neutral historian’s viewpoint if you’re allowing for a gap of two centuries between the events actually taking place and their first reliable narration, that slashes a question mark over the accuracy of pretty much anything you care to conjure up from Islamic history – violent or otherwise.

Now to the second point.

Let’s take the “out of context” bit into context strictly from the point of view of the concept of a divine deity. Religion – any religion – is supposed to govern mankind till the end of time. Its holy scripture is supposed to be the word of the creator; an unalterable, preset text that is supposed to be the guideline, till the deity decides to call it a day. Does it seem reasonable that something that was supposed to guide man till the afterlife is left to human interpretation – especially when it deals with something as brutally sensitive as killing another human being – and is left so ambiguous such that one can’t even find five of its followers who would agree on every single one of its aspects? You have a gazillion interpretations originating from a scripture that is supposed to guide the average man, with an average mind who will not delve into 1500 years of history or go through infinite volumes of literature before interpreting when killing another human being is justified and when it isn’t.

If the propagators really wanted to ensure that everything remains contextual, how hard was it to drop a line saying it? (There is no command declaring that: hang on, you can kill the ‘non-believers’ now but make sure you don’t do so in 2012 – when humanity would be aware of the repugnance of the act) If the propagators really wanted to make sure that the peaceful verses – most from the time at Makkah – last forever, why would they introduce the ‘Al-Nasikh-Wal-Mansukh’ doctrine of abrogation and then ensure that the commands preaching violence chronologically followed the commands of peace? If the propagators really wanted to promote harmony, why would they use provocative language asking the ‘true believers’ to cut off the finger tips of non-believers for instance or claiming how they can never be friends with the Jews and Christians or else they would be one of them?

Moving on to the third point.

Don’t you think the propagators of the religion – those that were ostensibly fighting against the norms with the new ideology anyway– should have risen up against the repulsive practices? If you’re discouraging the possession of slaves and slave girls, why would you own any of them yourself? If you’re discouraging violence, why would you use it to propagate your ideology? And if you’re carving out a code for all the future generations to come why would you bow down to the norms of the time – any norm –at all?

Condemning violence but remaining shushed about its roots is not only hypocritical but pointless if you actually want to uproot the cause. 810 million people have been killed in the name of religion throughout human history, and lives are being taken every single day in our neck of the woods in the name of the ‘religion of peace’. Considering the response to last week’s piece there are many who are categorically against this ignorance – how long do all of you plan on remaining silent about it?

The writer is Editor Business/City (Karachi), Pakistan Today. He tweets @khuldune and can be contacted at



Filed under Uncategorized

19 responses to “Don’t Blame the Taliban

  1. Vicjags


    Beautiful article and sounds sensible isn’t it???.. But let’s take the article to its logical conclusion… The moot point of the article is

    “You either follow the religion in its true form, or you are irreligious”

    The issue is it targets the Islamic moderates and not the Islamic terrorists.. But why discriminate Islam??? How about other faiths?? Why not apply the same standards to other faiths.. let’s analyze other religions in its TRUE FORM

    1) When we refuse to give the Islamic moderates the freedom to interpret Quran, in different light, why give the Hindus the liberty with their Vedas and Puranas?? These fellows have no right to reject thye Caste system, sati, Child marraige etc.. Their Manu smriti in detail explains what to with a Shudra when he listens or reads vedas and rightly defines the status of Woman along with Shudras.. So along with Islamic moderates even Hindus today have no right to interpret their Scriptures in good light..

    2) The Judaism,another ancient religion whose Origins go beyond documented history has the Old Testament which they call as Torah to guide their path.. This book is also equally violent and cruel.. Their God takes the role of Military commander and gives them strategies as to how acquire the lands of others and proposes severe punishments such as death even for simple menial crimes.. So if the muslim moderates don’t have the right to interpret then even the Jewish rabbis of today cannot play good..

    3) Though the Christians claim that they are under a new covenant with Christ; still all is not well with the New testament… Their epistles promote slavery.. Paul never writes a word condemning the age old practice but rather supports and welcomes such a cruel system..No wonder these fellows bought their own personal slaves from Africa… If the moderate Muslims have no right to interpret Quran, neither do the Christians of today have any right to talk about Human rights…

    All these religions are nothing but rubbish.. But actually the author makes self contradictory claims, at one point he says all other religions have attained reformation and collective renaissance centuries ago, but that’s exactly the point; It took more than 300 yrs for the reformation to set in the western world and change the social mindset of people..

    May be Islam is the late starter and it may take another 200 or 300 yrs for the middle eastern Islamic world to forget the past and move forward as a democratic secular republics.. For all we know, the Islam of 2300 AD might become a broadminded society that respects Individual freedom of choice and promotes rational criticism..

    The moderates among Islam who believe in Allah and Quran but at the same time abhor violence are our best and safest bet in this situation.. Rather than putting them down and breeding more Jihadists, it is much smarter to support them and engineer a change from inside.. They are the golden goose that is fighting Islamic jihadism along with the rest of the world and slaying it isn’t the right thing to do…

    Looks like the author of this article is more interested in us following the only true faith ATHEISM 😉

    – Vicjags

    • Indian Realist

      These fellows have no right to reject thye Caste system, sati, Child marraige etc.. Their Manu smriti in detail explains what to with a Shudra when he listens or reads vedas and rightly defines the status of Woman along with Shudras.

      Dude, this is missionary propaganda. Caste system, child marriage, Sati — nowhere in our scriptures — Gita, Upanishads and Vedas — have these things been even mentioned. In fact, they don’t talk about the social system or practices at all. They only talk about pure spirituality through yoga and contemplation.

      And Manu Smriti is a “Hindu scripture” only in the mind of the missionaries. For Hindus, it is as much a Hindu scripture as a John Grisham novel is a Christian scrpiture. You people never talk about our real scriptures — the Gita, the Upnishads and the Vedas — but keep babbling about obscure peripheral books written in medieval times and insist that Hindus should accept them as the core of their faith. This is really delusional, but this kind of behaviour is standard missionary tactic in all pagan countries. Screw Manusmriti — you talk about Gita, Vedas and Upanishads and the philosophy they contain — these form our core beliefs, not smritis (there are hundreds of them which are meant to be written for a specific period and then discarded).

      Also, it is monotheists who claim that their holy books are the immutable words of the True God. Then how can they be given the freedom to reject some of the commandments like on slavery — Did your God say it or did he not say it?

      • Vicjags


        First of all I would like to again make it clear that I was writing from an Atheist perspective.. I clearly stated there at the beginning that I’m only taking the article to its logical conclusion.. From the writing style of the author, he is more likely an Atheist and he had in fact made some valid points..

        The author also correctly points out the interpretation deadlock,which is so common when scholars interpret any historical text; and if the text has a theological significance, then the interpretation deadlock is insurmountable as the fighting parties hold on to their own particular interpretation no matter what the evidence for it or against it,as it is a question of their religious identity.. These are some good points in the source article but what I highlighted was that these things don’t apply only to Islam but to all world religions.. In fact if someone takes the article by the spirit of it, that is what author implies too..

        So I am NOT the one who attributes Hinduism with Caste system, I was only seeing it through the Atheist eyes.. An Atheist is against all religions that claim the existence of a being called God.. As of now I haven’t tried to pull Hinduism down by pinpointing social evils such a Caste system but rather only been dealing on the grounds of Hindu philosophies which were an exposition of Upanishads.. So I am not insisting anyone here to accept the smritis and have no problems even if Hindus reject all shrutis and come out with a seventh school of Hindu philosophy tailor made for 21st century..

        I simply fight on the grounds of Logic and whoever whenever brings out an Hypothesis of God or salvation(means to reach him) which is more reasonable than the earlier hypothesis, I accept it.. No issues.. So I’m not making the criteria that only a Rishi, yogi or sage should have written those words, but I believe even a common Hindu today has right to interpret Upanishads and carve his own philosophy out of it..

        This is also what is known as TRUTH VALUE.. Truth has no partiality towards anyone… We can all put across our own God hypothesis and try supporting it by use of basic human faculties of reasoning.. You people ask for spiritual democracy, this here is the spiritual democracy, where anyone regardless of caste colour or religion can put across his views and support it with good reasons.. and we decide only based on which is more reasonable hypothesis..

        We don’t trust any bronze aged literatures.. Our faith is not in Rishis/ Priests/Imams but only on our thinking mind.. When you seek after truth all criticisms will be blunt and logical and anyone and everyone can dare call a spade a spade… This is simply using a scientific approach to religion where acceptance and rejection is decided only based on the explanatory power and explanatory scope.of the hypothesis in question.. Arguments and counter arguments decides the validity of a statement rather than using the authority of ancient literature .

        And I have been using this same approach of debating in another thread in this forum,where anyone can start with Agnosticism and follow the path of reason to its logical conclusion and I’ll continue with Christian defence there in a few days time.. So when I said here that Islamic moderates should be allowed to interpret Quran liberally, I am saying it for a very different reason

      • Vicjags


        The point here is not to take that approach of Kunwar kuldane shahid, who sounds like an Atheist.. Many here have started applauding his lofty ideas
        without even understanding what Atheism is.. This fellow Kunwar isn’t going to allow you people to interpret Vedas, but instead will insist on literal word to word interpretation .. He is not the one who is going to accept the difference between Shruti and Smriti.. I have some basic knowledge on your scriptures and History hence understand how varna system originated and how it gradually became rigid after the later vedic period..

        But the prime goal of an Atheist is to disprove God.. You might rename your religion as “way of life” and I a my call mine as “Love relationship with God” but that doesn’t mean the Atheist is going to spare us… I might try and prove all I want and show him that, when Paul in Ephesians chapter 6 talks about slaves, the tone of the verse is very different and could never be used to justify African slave trade of 17th century; but he simply wouldn’t listen rather concludes Christianity advocates and encourages slavery and discrimination between humans.. In fact the verses go like this for your reference..This is not even an interpretation but exact word to word quote from my Bible..

        EPHESIANS 6 :-1 to 9

        “1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3 “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”[a]

        4 Fathers,[b] do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

        5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

        9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him”

        When the very verse ends with “Your God in heaven who is the ultimate master show no favouritism between men” only an Atheist can interpret it as a cruel Christian God who teaches his people how to torture slaves… You can read all that from “Skeptic anointed Bible” which understandably quotes only discrete phrases and not an entire Chapter from New testament..

        So obviously these are not the fellows that are going to accept Vedas without Smrtis, Gita without Mahabharata and puranas… You might say the original caste system was occupation based but an Atheist will adamantly hold on to what he wants to believe and reject Hindu concept of God only on those grounds.. I seriously doubt if none of you people here have debated or discussed with Atheists that you worship them so highly.. Most of them take a literalist interpretation of ancient scriptures and that is the main reason why I debate them on logical grounds bypassing the Bible..

        This is also the reason why I believe Islamic moderates should be given the privilege to interpret Quran in a liberal manner.. Today true Christians don’t practice slavery because they follow Jesus and not the 17th century America; Similarly almost all educated Hindus abhor Caste system and have openly condemned it.. I’ave been reading and posting in Agniveer for sometime now and wish there are many such initiatives to dissuade caste system..

        But the point where I am against Agniveer and his members is that they are simply refusing to give the same freedom to Muslims… While they can interpret Vedas to mean One God Ishwar and openly assert Vedas to be the only divine scriptures given to humanity, they claim that Quran is so violent that it’s beyond any interpretation and should be taken at face value.. SO WHAT??? Even I’ave read through Quran and life of Mohammed, but that’s simply not the point here..

        Unlike what “Indian Realist” believes many Muslims today are not claiming Quran to be the inerrant word of God.. Some openly admit it but others rather say that Muslims should only focus on the central theme of Quran, implying that they themselves have no confidence on it and are willing to practice and propagate their religion through constitutional means..

        I read many Christian- Muslim debates and every time when the Muslim tries to escape the violence propagated in Quran, our fellow Christians ground them with more verse from Quran and Mohammed’s adventures with 9 yr old Aisha.. As long as the Muslim doesn’t play with other religious books or try and interpret Mohammed from it, neither should any Hindu or Christian thrust upon them their interpretations of Quran..

        Not everyone is a Zakir Naik , the 14 yr girl Malala and her father are themselves not anti- islam but only anti taliban.. This incident today has repercussions all through Islamic world that even some of the most fundamentalist groups are forced to distance themselves from Taliban.. Renaissance of any religion can come only from inside and not from outsiders..

        A muslim is not going to listen to a Hindu or Christian advice.. Even if it is a genuine criticism he is going to attribute it to vested interest.. Therefore best tool is only Muslims themselves who will alienate Islam from violence and fight against the Jihadist tendencies.. This approach may not provide any truth value but certainly has a lot of peace value which the Indian society needs . We don’t need Muslims that fight against our country but those who respect the Constitution and fight for Indian sovereignty.

        Eliminating Islamic ideology from the face of the earth is a day dream that’s not gonna come true, so the most reasonable goal should be to reform Islam and not eliminate Islam and to reach this goal the Islamic moderates need the support of other faiths not rejection.. End of the day, “Good muslim is a dead muslim” philosophy will have miserable after effects in long term…

        Thank you,

        • I really want to commend you on your stamina to write so extensively on what you think.
          However, I feel that you have not understood the basic difference between Abrahamic religions and Dharmic ways of life as has been pointed out by some others here.
          I urge you to read a book called Being Different by Rajiv Malhotra. Please, please, since you use logic and truth value to take your endeavour forward, read this book before you equate religions and ways of life. I have even gifted this book to several people because it is a challenging and articulate account of what the points of difference really are between the major faiths of the world, and how we can approach them with logic and deep understanding. I would love to hear more of your views after that.
          Your search (and your support to others like you) is really commendable.

          • And then I’ll also be happy to debate with an atheist like you… 🙂

            You will have the advantage of being free and responsible to nothing, since atheists do not acknowledge the existence of God and therefore have nothing to defend. Whereas I will have the ‘burden’ of the entire Vedic and Upanishadic literature + the Shrimad Bhagawad Geeta. I’m sure people like Indian Realist, Rama and abhi will join in the exercise. And any atheists/agnostics/ on your side will be welcome as well. As long as they stick to truth value and logic. And we should be willing to read each other’s reference material.

            We will build proper foundations for our arguments, attempt proper interpretations and quote serious thinkers. Perhaps we’ll get somewhere useful. What say?

            • I’m assuming you are happy to debate from the atheist point of view (even though you are Christian, if I’ve understood correctly) leaving the Bible aside and using logic as your weapon, as you seem to have done on numerous other occasions.

              Let me know!

        • abhi

          islam is mohammad and mohammad is islam , anything bad in islam is directly proportional to mohammad. so if anyone really really wants to change islam or moderate it then they have to either discard mohammad or totally leave islam, both of which are less likely to happen, muslims donot dare to even question mohammd or islam or quran, all these are interconnected. whereas with christianity u can disconnect jesus totally from this religion and say that u only follow jesus. theological wise this religion is the same as islam. and honestly i would never come to accept/love/pray the sick god of abrahamic faiths. i respect all religions except abrahamic faiths.

  2. abhi

    “Every single religion has a violent streak. Every single one of them orders violence and killing in one form or the other for the ‘non-believers’…Every religion is a ‘religion of peace’ as long as it formulates the status quo.”

    khukdune generalizes too much , he has seen too much of abrahamic religious sh1t. i dont think any dharmic religion orders killing of non-believers , neither do they claim as being the “religion of peace” .

    every religion has violence streak in it, how much is it varies from religion to religion . and streak is higher in desert bloc religions.

    • Indian Realist

      Right — I had noticed that too. The problem is that monotheists see the world through their own lenses and assume that every relgion in this world is similarly hostile to people having different spiritual traditions. But that kind of hatred is a monopoly of monotheism, not of polytheistic faiths like Hinduism which don’t divide the world into believers and non-believers but give spiritual freedom to everyone.

      • Rama

        I totally agree.Instead of “every religion,” the author should have written:” All Abrahamic religions”. It shows his ignorance about dharmic religions. Hinduism unlike the Abrahamic religions, does not have any dogmas. Simply put, you cannot be an extremist of a religion if you do not have any dogma in the first place..

  3. Whats up with the ‘Kunwar’ title there. That is not a muslim title.
    Muslims titles are like ‘Mirza’, ‘Amir’ etc.

  4. Very fine article and close to reality. More and more Muslims should come forward and expose the true nature of Islam which is the root cause of all violence, hatred and blood-shed in the world. Our Indian pseudo-intellectuals would do well not to peddle tendentious theories in regard to religion in general and Hinduism in particular. Reality stares us in the face.

  5. mohit

    Sometimes ,to avquire land,property and culure , religion converts into geo political agenda and
    simultaeously convets into voilent cult.

  6. JGN

    Christianity and Islam are political ideologies masquerading as Religions. The Europeans set out to conquer the whole world “for Jesus” armed with Papal Bull. Similarly the Muslims set out to conquer the world from the Infidels with their swords. They would have been doing the same even now but for the repercusions.

  7. Punam

    May be both abrahmanic religions are trying
    to finish unfinised target in India.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s