Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Shari’a vs. Civilization

Welcome Dharmaveer to the Counterjihad blogosphere.

Regular readers know that Gates of Vienna urges an alliance among Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Taoists, atheists, and indeed any group of people that doesn’t believe in Allah or Mohammed.

India is a natural ally in the struggle against the Great Jihad, because it has been on the receiving end of the greatest abominations ever dealt out to the infidels by Islam. It has the world’s largest Muslim minority — somewhere between 140 and 165 million followers of the Prophet, depending on whose figures you use — and experiences horrific Muslim terrorist attacks almost daily, of which the recent Mumbai atrocity is simply the most well-known.

Dharmaveer has this to say about himself and his blog, “Thoughts of a nationalist Indian”:

I am a software engineer in Bangalore, India. I have been studying Islam for the past 8 years, and have thoroughly read the Kuran, the 4 canonical Hadiths, the Sirah, and various other books of Islamic jurisprudence such as Umdat al Salik etc. I have literally spend hours daily for these past years learning about Islam. Following suggestions from many friends, and after the Mumbai Jihadi attacks, I decided to make this blog to share ideas about the unique threat we Hindus face from radical Islam and its core ideology of Jihad upon kafirs.

I want to also use this blog to build bridges with the West, which faces the same assault we Hindus do. Hindu and Western civilization cherish the same ideal of freedom, a fact that contributes to the success of Hindus in Western countries. We must stand together to protect this ideal, else we will surely perish together.

And he explains his blogging pseudonym thusly:

This blog is dedicated to Sambhaji — the oldest son of Shivaji — who was given the title of “Dharmaveer” for refusing to convert to Islam after being scientifically tortured for over 20 days by Aurangzeb.

He died a Hindu.

With Dharmaveer’s kind permission, I reproduce one of his recent posts below:

Shari’a vs. Civilization

Modern civilisation is based upon a few axioms. These are held as self-evident, and while not every society has been able to arrive at successful practice of them, most would agree with them in principle. These are:

1. Equality of all human beings in the eyes of the law. In particular, men and women are equal in the eyes of the law, and members of all religious groups are equal in the eyes of the law.
2. Freedom of beliefs in general, and religion in particular. A person is free to choose his beliefs, including her/his faith and the manner of her/his worship.
3. Freedom of expression and freedom to dissent. Freedom to intellectually scrutinize any doctrine, including a religious one.
4. Belief in democracy as the ideal mode of governance.

Once again, while no society has arrived at this perfect ideal in practise, most modern nations would agree to all four points in principle.
- - - - - - - - -
But not Islam. Not Shari’a. Islamic law (Shari’a) is categorically and emphatically opposed to ALL 4 axioms of modern civilization. Let us inspect each one in turn.

1. Shari’a law denies equality to women and to non-Muslims. Both the Kuran and Hadith — the foundations of Shari’a law — assert that women are inferior to men, and this is reflected in Shari’a law. In particular, the testimony of a woman is worth only half of a man in a Shari’a court.

Similarly, since the Kuran and Hadith assert that “unbelievers” are not the equal of Muslims in any manner, the testimony of a non-Muslim is worth only half of a Muslim.

Once again, this is not just the case with “radical Islamists”, but has been agreed upon by all 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali, Maliki) since their beginning.

2. While Islam exhorts all Muslims to wage continuous war (Jihad) upon non-Muslims in order to expand the Islamic state, Shari’a law does not allow any Muslim to leave his faith. This includes someone who may have originally been of a different faith before converting to Islam, and now wants to return to her/his original faith. The penalty for a Muslim who leaves Islam is death, according to all 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence. This is based on numerous Hadith where either Muhammad directly says that those who leave Islam must be killed, or his close companions bear witness to him having said so. In several Hadith, this sentence is actually carried out (i.e., a former Muslim is put to death, and this is recorded in the Hadith). Indeed, there is a Hadith which records the execution of such a person (who was originally Jewish, became Muslim, and reverted to Judaism).

Shari’a law also does not give non-Muslims the right to build or repair their places of worship. It does not allow idol worship as a means of worship, and generally approves of the demolition of the temples of anyone it considers “polytheist” or “idolator”. This has been used to justify the destruction of literally thousands of Hindu temples all over India during the years of Islamic rule. Even today, strict implementations of shari’a law demolish idols, such as the Taliban’s destruction of the centuries old Bamiyan Buddhas.

3. Shari’a does not allow any sort of open discussion of Islam. Islam is held to be a doctrine straight from Allah, binding upon humans for all time and in all places. Hence, criticism of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad is punishable by death. This is part of law even in countries that do not have full fledged Shari’a law, such as Pakistan. Under Pakistan’s Tauheen-e-rasool (literally “disrespect of Prophet”) act, any criticism of Muhammad is punishable with death.

4. Shari’a is a strict alternative to democracy. In other words, Shari’a posits itself as a political system, and does not recognize the legitimacy of any other political system such as democracy. Every single school of Islamic jurisprudence says governance by Shari’a is the only acceptable form of Islamic government. Indeed, bringing about such governance by Shari’a law is considered the ultimate goal of the Muslim “umma” (Muslim nation). Democracy is categorically rejected as an acceptable system of governance. Almost every Islamist writing pours scorn on democracy and secularism as “western inventions” that are “contaminating the Muslim ummah.”

So Islamic Shari’a law is opposed to all four basic axioms of modern civilization as we know it. It is not a coincidence that Islamic societies “look very different” from free societies. I have not even gone into issues such as barbarity of punishments (such as stoning to death, chopping limbs etc. which are imposed under Shari’a law). I am speaking simply of the basic axioms that underlie modern human civilization and society and which mankind has generally come to agree upon, with the one exception of Islam. Islam rejects all these axioms. To accept any imposition of Shari’a law, no matter how “harmless” it is deliberately made to appear, would be tantamount to rolling back centuries of human civilisational progress. I particularly appeal to British readers of this blog to understand that by allowing even a mild form of Shari’a, they are allowing the imposition of a system that does not accept women and non-Muslims as complete human beings and forever relegates them to a status between human and animal. Is this what Britain stands for these days? I am appalled. Please, my British readers, raise your voices now.

What I have written here is not something our venal politicians will openly state. But these are the issues we face today. In India, as evidenced by the Shah Bano case, politicians are only too eager to please their Muslim vote banks by allowing limited forms of Shari’a. Shari’a law might soon be allowed in limited form in Britain — a startling new story in Europe’s lack of will to stand up to this civilisational assault. The Indian media, in a characteristically spineless display, did not give any coverage to the Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) posters saying “No to democracy, No to secularism, Yes to Shari’a” which appeared in many Muslim localities of cities including Mumbai. Make no mistake — rejection of democracy and secularism, and their replacement by Shari’a, is core to Islamist teaching. It is up to honest intellectuals to inform the public about what Shari’a means.

It means the end of civilization as we know it.

“Thoughts of a nationalist Indian” will be added to our blogroll as soon as I get my act together and update our template.

20 comments:

Afonso Henriques said...

"Hindu and Western civilization cherish the same ideal of freedom"

...



thoughts of an Indian Nationalist.

Profitsbeard said...

Why didn't the Muslims now in India move to Pakistan?

Best to have your sworn enemies outside your borders.

Best of luck India in resisting the Jihad!

Good blog from an Indian patriot.

Kudos Dharmaveer!

Thanks Baron!

mace said...

How is the Hindu caste system compatible with equality before the law?

joe six-pack said...

Those 4 issues are worth waging war over.

captain mission said...

it is time for all people interfaith and atheist and agnostic to come together and oppose what has to be humanities biggest threat. it's time to say 'enough! our limits of tolerance have been reached. if you want to live in a caliphate do so in your islamic countries, but not in our democracies.'
democracy is not perfect but given a choice i think i know where i'd prefer to raise my kids.

respect to Dharmaveer.

Tuan Jim said...

Good point Mace. That's one thing I've wondered about for a while now. Similarly, the recurrent anti-Christian violence (a la Orissa) by Hindu nationalists is a very disturbing cycle. What is so threatening about reaching out to untouchables?

José, The Fenec. said...

i would like to say "the enemy of my enemy my friend is" but, as the poster before me has said, hindus also have their radicals chasing christians while the authorities do nothing.

I'd say the muslim/hindu conflict is yet another proof adding to muslim/christians, muslim/budhists conflicts to show how muslims are activily trying to supress everybody else on a global scale.

But muslim/hindu conflict does not show we are all in the same "civilization boat", just like altough russians have their problems with islamisation they still help Iran in it's quest for nuclear weapons.

The West stands alone, the Western Civilization is Western, PERIOD.
Hindus are westernized at best, not western.

Whiskey said...

I would add another point that all civilizations EXCEPT Islam agree on:

Forbidding Polygamy.

Polygamy is destructive because it quickly breeds "Big Man" syndrome and creates a race to the bottom to be the biggest thug with the most thug followers to create and protect a harem. It reduces male cooperation to pure thug patronage, and crowds out anything else.

It's terrible, which is why all other civilizations forbid it.

mace said...

Tuan Jim,José

Exactly,any society that accepts institutionised oppression and injustice as divinely ordained is no friend of of the West. The Western secular state took 500 years to build, I don't want to see it disolved by constant accommodation to religious bigotry, or by the recruitment of very dubious "allies".

Afonso Henriques said...

I think one thing is European (Western) Civilisaion and another thing is Indian Civilisation of Hindu character. A Civilisation where, sorry Jose, the Russians belong to.

THERE IS NO REASON WHATSOEVER FOR EUROPEANS (and European derived States) NOT TO ALLY WITH HINDUS AND INDIA.

India cannot harm us and is not with such mood. India is between muslims and Chinese.

We cannot despize other Civilisations just because we think our is superior. Though it is very okay and healty to consider our Civilisation superior and not aloud Hindu Civilisation (for instance) a space in our lands. However, India, Indian shall be!!

Also, about the Hindu-Christian tensions in India, well... why did the Christians had to go there and convert what the Hindus see as their fellow inferior men? The Hindus did not go to Europe or Timor to persecute Christians or to convert Christians to paganism, did they?

------------------------------

However I'd like to stress that there is no "Modern Civilisation". There is European Civilisation and there is Indian Civilisation and then there is Humanity.

And I don't think any of the four points presented is "essencial" to European (Western) Civilisation but the third one.

Afonso Henriques said...

About the third point, when one say "freedom of dissent".
I don't see how it is positive to aloud institutions which advocate the National and Civilisational colapse such as Communist and Multiculturalist parties, for instance.

Such things have just as a goal the destruction of our societies (or is there another one I don't know?) and therefore I think a Nation could legitimate ban such "dissent".

Afonso Henriques said...

It will be very interesting to deepen our thoughts over India but I think we shall not close the door to India as an ally. Never.

India is the only non "Western" group that is Naturally our ally.

I am not agitating flags for an Indian Europe or an European India, nor do I want more Hindus (but those very, very skilled, but anyway, those go to the U.S.) or Indians in Europe.

Like, I'll keep making fan of the incomodative Wan-a-Flouer? but they are not a threat to our societies like the other groups. Nor is India a threat to us like China is becoming.

David said...

Thanks Gates of Vienna for putting me onto this excellent new blogger. I have a new favorite. :)

Czechmade said...

India is our ally from within. We need people like Fjordman focussing regularly on Indian heritage.

Hindu and Buddhist traditions had a very akin tradition to the Christian one, namely the divine eternally in love with the human being however wretched it might be.

There is no impediment for woman or low-class individual to become a great saint. The Indian gods have the capacity of suffering and fighting the demons (almost losing!) as we do.

The impetus on non-violence is matchless. And the divisive line between secular and spiritual powers consequently maintained.

A saint, a religious person never assumes wordly offices, does not even live in a "civilized" comfort.

The Hindu was not to follow some preacher or strictly defined rules, he could reach the divine on his own.

Every holy book deals with the divine fighting the demonic powers.
The gods win over the rakshasas, asuras, who behave exactly like our muslims (violent, greedy, haughty, fierce).

Matt said...

As an Indian Christian living among Hindus, I have some serious doubts about the real positions of the writer. And I am not even religious, and probably one of the most culturally integrated Christians around.

While most Indians, Hindus and Christians agree on the importance of freedom and enterprise, the cultural nationalist Hindus of India do not. Openly, and very clearly. I am not even talking about the violent attacks on Christian missionaries (who I agree ruin the delicate caste-economic balance of Indian villages by introducing Christianity there).

There are certain important pointers to the Hindu nationalist vision. They are:

1. No freedom to criticise Hinduism. If necessary that can be applicable to every religion, but no direct criticism of our religion.

2. In art, no depicting Hindu Gods or goddesses in ways we do not approve of. (Exactly like the Prophet Mohammed cartoon scenario).

3. Western culture - meaning, independent women, public display of affection, drinking, smoking (especialy by women), western attire, western celebrations such as Valentine's day or Christmas should be aggressively discouraged even to the extent of physically attacking those who indulge in them.

While true Hindu nationalism probably do not allow for all these points, that is now how it is practised.

Hindu nationalists in India rely on the regressive and backward-looking elements of the society to gain their political power, not on reason or logic. The core of the movement is revenge against the Islamic invaders of the past, atrocities commited then, correcting 'historical' wrongs, and vendetta from the days of the Partition.

My only hope is the non-nationalist Hindu. He is open, freedom-loving, and super casual about religion. he is a friend of civilization and the West - not the nationalists.

san said...

Hi Mace,

I'm an Indian and an atheist, myself. To answer your question, I'd point out that the Varnas (what you call the caste system) were never intended to become hereditary. They were intended to denote the division of labour/responsibilities in Indian society, but were never intended to as an hereditary stratification.

Also recognize that when India achieved independence, India as a poor country was quickly infected with the illness of Marxism before it had a chance to try and catch upto the developed world. Marxism of course tends to emphasize class warfare, just as Islam tends to emphasize struggle against Infidels. Marxism quickly turned its sights on Hinduism as a target for class warfare, and quickly framed the Hindu religion in terms of caste, for class warfare purposes.

I feel that Islam and Marxism have a lot of key elements in common. Both are stiflingly collectivist, fostering a hive mentality, subordinating the individual to the 'greater good' of the collective - called the Ummah, in the case of Islam.

The new war we infidels face is similarly also a war of ideas. But we will all now also have to forge new alliances in order to defeat this new common enemy.

san said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
san said...

Matt,

If you're an Indian Christian living among Hindus, you should also be aware of the disproportionate number of activists from your community who have decided to align with Islam and Communism. So I don't see what credibility your sectarian prejudices bring to the topical discussions on Gates of Vienna.

The conflict between Hindus and Christians in Orissa is due to the latter subscribing to Revolution Theology, which European/Western Christians repudiate. As a result, there are a disproportionate number of SouthAsian Christian activists who defend Islamic militancy in SouthAsia along with communist militancy.

By way of analogy, I'd point out that if you go to Australia and notice local creatures like the duck-billed platypus or the kangaroo, you'll recognize that the conventions of evolutions observed elsewhere in the world don't necessarily apply there. Likewise, I'd explain to others on this forum that people like Matt tend to downplay the threat of militant Islam while instead projecting Hinduism as a threat.

I'm an atheist, and I feel that Hindus are a valuable ally in fighting the rising menace of Islamic extremism. I would therefore urge others not to fall for the very selective prejudices of Matt, and recognize that his unique views would cause him to see reality in a topsy-turvy way.

san said...

As an Indian and an atheist, I'd like to further refute some of Matt's points.

Hindus certainly have a tradition of introspection, self-criticism and tolerance. Hindu mythology is itself full of tales where Gods and Goddesses are not always depicted in a flattering light, as can similarly be seen in Greek mythology.

I would argue that polytheism is the forerunner of modern pluralism, where people from adjacent villages each started out with their own names for God, and yet grew to embrace each other's in a spirit of give-and-take. This is completely the opposite of the "it's my way or the highway" attitude of Islam. Unfortunately, that attitude is sometimes shared by people from Matt's community (as an example, some activists in India forced the govt to bar the Tom Hanks movie 'Da Vinci Code' from played in theatres, because they deemed it blasphemous.)

It's laughable for Matt to caricature Hindus as opposing Western attire when so many go to work each day wearing the same shirts, pants and ties as workers anywhere else in the world. As a matter of fact, you'll find that the Indian textiles industry manufactures a significant portion of the clothes worn by people in the West.

It's foolish for Matt to claim that Hindus have only been at odds with Islam since the 1948 Partition which created Pakistan, since Hindus as infidels have a long history of fighting Islamic invaders. I would actually point out that Muslim conquerors who ruled over India considered Christian minorities to be 'people of the Book', and so did not persecute them with jizya, the religious tax. Needless to say, the most famous battles against Muslim invaders in Asia were obviously fought by Hindus.

Zenster said...

joe six-pack: Those 4 issues are worth waging war over.

This cannot be overstated. While the West has yet to fully comprehend this fact, Islam has busied itself with waging World War to force itself upon all people. Total War must be the West's reply if it wishes to survive Islam's withering embrace.

captain mission: it is time for all people interfaith and atheist and agnostic to come together and oppose what has to be humanities biggest threat.

I have advocated this for some time now and am heartened to see that the Baron declares this to be a central tenet for Gates of Vienna as well. Only a united front composed of all who treasure liberty and the inalienable rights of humanity will have any chance of crushing Islam.

it's time to say 'enough! our limits of tolerance have been reached. if you want to live in a caliphate do so in your islamic countries, but not in our democracies.'

Actually, the sheer existence of any Muslim claiphate is objectionable as they are cesspits of the very worst human rights abuse. The West has a moral obligation and duty to banish such barbarity from the face of this earth. No human being should be forced to endure the degradation of Islam. Over half of all Muslims are women and their institutionalized abuse is simply unacceptable to any rational mind.

This systematic abuse reaches its nadir in FGM (Female Genital Mutilation), and such cruelty is symptomatic of Islam's pervasive brutality. There can be no tolerating the intolerable.