True. there is no doubt.
But the choicest derision is reserved for Hinduism while Islam is handled with kid gloves.
He says ‘we had no opportunity to learn more about Hinduism…there are Hindus piercing ears with javelin..”
Mr.Bhagat, your ignorance is not Hinduism’s responsibility,
If you do not know about a Religion ‘ better keep your mouth shut,;make people wonder if you are an idiot than to open your mouth and confirm that you are one.
Have you heard of Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa,Sathya Sai Baba to cite a few among the latest?
Or have you heard of what Muslims do during Muharram, beating their chests,cutting their skins with knives?
Do you have enough guts to talk of Prophet’s marrying a widow or his marrying a child of 9?
Or do you know what the Vedas are?
If you do not know , please try to understand and do not sling mud without knowing the subject.
If you want to know what Hinduism is, read Swami Vivekananda’s works,(16 volumes) ,provided you can read some thing brainy.
Turkey is liberal?
Check your current knowledge of world affairs.
Mr. Bhagat, Hinduism is not pulp fiction.
Better stick to what you think you know,even there you are a writer for the prurient.
Leave it at that.
*For your information , I am providing a letter from the Muslims, India on yoiur article.
That is for your soft appraocah to Islam.
Defenders of Afzal Guru on par with Hinduism?
Imagine their reactions if you had included the points I have mentiuoned.!
Story:Muslim Indian, Hindu India
Let us begin with Hinduism. There is a section of Hindus who believe in mutilating themselves to please the Gods. They poke their cheeks with javelins. They pull chariots with metal hooks dug into their back. Hindu sadhus live the life of ascetics….
So let’s pose a question — what is a Hindu supposed to be? Is the cheek-poking devotee a benchmark? Is a sadhu the ideal Hindu? Or is a regular middle-class person, working in a bank, consuming chicken, drinking beer and occasionally visiting a temple also a good Hindu?…
For instance, take Saudi Arabia where Muslims are 97% of the population. Saudi legal system does not work on a separate constitution, but involves a strict, conservative interpretation of sharia law. Examples of Saudi laws include the need for women to cover up in public, a woman’s testimony being invalid (or carrying much less weightage than that of a man’s), and punishments such as beheadings, lashing and stoning for a variety of crimes.
The laws are imposed strictly. In a fire at a Saudi school, firemen allegedly did not let girls leave the burning building because they were not covered enough. The girls died. Many criticise the Saudi system, while others praise it for leading to low crime.
Let us take one more example of Turkey. Vying for EU membership, Turkey grants large amounts of personal freedom to its citizens. Religion and politics are separate. A secular constitution governs the legal system. Astonishingly, despite a 99% Muslim population, wearing the hijab is banned in universities and public or government buildings (although this has been recently relaxed) as some view it as a symbol of religion, which needs to be separated from state institutions.
Other Muslim-majority countries are somewhere in the middle. Malaysia is somewhat liberal, Iran isn’t, Pakistan is in the middle, etc. Which brings us back to the same question. Who is more or less Muslim in the above examples?
We are sorry, Mr. Bhagat, but the ‘’democratic republic’’ you talk of is not so democratic. If it were so, Afzal Guru wouldn’t have been executed to ‘’satisfy the collective conscience of the nation’’. Muslim youth would not have fallen prey to minority witch-hunting, and their killers not decorated with gallantry awards. Adivasis in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa would not have been ripped of their fundamental rights to live with dignity. Dalit poets would not have been falsely charged under sedition laws.
Loving one’s nation is well and good, but being blinded by patriotism is not. Why do Indian Muslims always have to prove their allegiance to India? Why can’t they also be critical of their country?
The party whose path you are treading has had Indian Muslims pass through too many Sita-like ordeals of fire, Agni Pariksha. You may have the privilege to turn a blind eye to the post-Babri Masjid Demolition violence, the Gujarat pogrom, but many others don’t. How then do you think a leader who doesn’t even have the integrity to apologize for his complicity in the Gujarat pogrom represent Muslim youth’s aspirations for ‘’scientific way of thinking, entrepreneurship, empowerment, progress’’ and above all, ‘’personal freedoms’’? And just by the way, have you heard of the word, ‘Justice’?