In a quest to develop a secular democratic framework for human development across the globe, we’ve been researching philosophies originating from civilisations outside of the Western world. We’ve found India (or Bharat, which is its indigenous name) to be an enchanting and truly vibrant case study. At its height – before it was invaded by British mercenaries, invaded by Islamic jihadists and even before then, before it was named ‘Hindustan’ by Arabs and Persians – India was one of the world’s top civilisations with significant achievements in science, mathematics, literature, philosophy, medicine, astronomy and architecture. Hindus also adhered to highly ethical conducts when organising society, and in warfare. Their neighbours to the East in China and to the West in Arabia found them to be relatively humane and tolerant in the way they conducted themselves.
“Truth is One, Sages Call it by Many Names, and The Whole Universe is one Family” ~ Hindutva ethos.
If one called Hindutva a Third World’s cry to emancipate itself from the preying snares of foreign invaders, foreign rule, and charity industrialism; that analysis would be anything but sophist. Moreso, that analysis would be correct. If Secularism is the antidote to religious cultural imperialism and inequality, Hindutva is India’s antidote to the fading dream of self-pride, a Uniform Code for All and self-reliance.
Hindutva is a much welcome and progressive nationalist ideology for India. One which Naipaul lauds in the face of critics, as a ‘corrective to the past’ and a ‘broader civilisational resurgence’. Prior to the early 20th century, Hindutva was non-existent. Its birth was the doing of systematic aggression. Its announcement to the world was purely in resistance to unfettered abuse and oppression.
To say the Islamist is the Islamic adherent’s worst enemy may sound conspiratorial but it is both historically and theologically factual.
Multiple reliable historical evidence record that the spread of Islam out from the harsh temperates of Arabia into the Indian Subcontinent, to the domains of China, through Eastern and North Africa, into Europe all the way to the heartland of France; was a most overhauling, violent and uncompromising imperialist undertaking. Some of the Natives in these regions initially welcomed the intervention of Islamic rule, where they themselves were being oppressed by the tyranny of their own governments (for example in Spain). A vast many of Natives however vehemently resisted Islamic conquest. In North Africa for example, the Berbers were a thorn in the flesh of Islamic imperialists in Africa. They forced the Muslim Arabs to withdraw several times from the Maghreb. In putting up a most staunch resistance to Islamic creed, Ibn Khaldun recorded that the Berbers apostatised twelve times before Islamic rule could decisively be imposed on them. It is needless to assert the obvious that through the course of this conquest, Islamic ideology was instrumental to seditiously disarming Native institutions and weakening local ethnic ties among Berbers. Islamic imperialism was so thorough there that today, an overwhelming majority of Berbers no longer identify with their despised Native ancestral lineage nor do they consider themselves Berbers. The loyalty of majority Berbers are today invested in the Arabian Heartlands. The Berbers, now Arabian cultural slaves, are today called Arabs. Could this colonist outcome have been any different considering that it was the Arabs who were the first cultural ambassadors of Islam? Can Islamisation result in any other outcome but Arabisation?
The modified declaration of the Human Rights Charter below is not an attempt to mock the inherent fascism in absolute religiosity. It is chiefly an attempt to aid both the human rights amateur (religious and irreligious) and the unquestioning non-Muslim, in understanding the stark implications and legislative practicalities of the supremacy of religious (Islamic) ideology. How is the Islamic religion different from other religions? Islam is the only religion known to man that seeks total pre-eminence over the personal, spiritual, social and political affairs of the living – whether the living be Muslim or non-Muslim. Through the course of centuries, the world’s biggest religion – Christianity – underwent series of Reformations to sway it from this intolerance affliction. Inherent to the precepts of Islam is the expansionist notion that the Islamic ideology must be exalted over the affairs of man everywhere, to the ends of the Earth and beyond into the great chasm of the universe. By divine law, Islam also reserves the right to militaristically pursue this outcome. While the accusation of inherent fascism does not apply to secular notions of religion (including Islam), it most certainly defines Theocratic notions of religion. It makes somewhat easier comparative reading, to be familiar with the original UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights Charter.
Below is an article that proffers a definition of what Secularism is and differentiates it from what it isn’t. Secularism is often touted as a space purely for Atheistic congregation, but Secularism, in truth, does not merely mean freedom from religion. Secularism is both freedom from religion and freedom of religion. Secularism is important in any civilisation because it creates a space for both the religious and irreligious to relate in a common language that both understand. This space does not inevitably culminate in persecution – as the theocratic space does – just because one does not speak in the same tongue as another’s deity. While Secularism is respectful of pluralism, a Theocracy sees the world only through the authority and the lens of a chosen deity.
The piece below was written by a Nigerian Author Ify Otuya. It was reblogged from http://www.werunthings.net/secularism-101-what-is-secularism/
Hindu-Muslim Divide: British Invention or British Complicity?
The Arab Spring was successful for Islam. It succeeded at reviving religious zeal amongst Muslims, many of whom saw the Arab Spring as an opportunity to revive Khilafa. In all of the countries where Arab Spring rebellions took place – Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria (ongoing) – secular governments were overthrown in favour of installing an Islamic Theocracy. Conversely, the Arab Spring was equally unsuccessful for Muslims themselves, and ultimately for Islam in the long-term, in that it inevitably led to a backlash of anti-Islam sentiments around the world. Non-Muslims from the Western world, Africa and Asia were appalled at the violence displayed by Al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamist groups who sought to overthrow Gaddafi, and by the FSA (loose coalition including Jabhat Al-Nusra Front and administered by the Muslim Brotherhood) who currently seek to overthrow Assad. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood assumed presidency, following the ousting of secular Mubarak. What’s worse, the narrative of unfolding events became muddy, as these Islamist ‘freedom fighters’ supported by many Muslims around the globe were fighting in alliance with Western governments, receiving funds to bomb ‘Muslim lands’ and kill (Muslim and non-Muslim) civilians, all in the name of re-establishing Khilafa or an Islamist resurgence revolution. The non-Muslims indigenous to these lands, whose ancestral identities predate Continue reading →
Islam, fundamentally is a policy of Divide and Rule. This iniquitous ideology was what caused the inevitable partition of India. Islam’s theological assault on the concept of pluralistic co-existence, and its politically-engineered weakening of local ties, also led to the genocide of two million Sudanese during the Second Sudanese Civil War. It further culminated in the equally inevitable partition of Sudan. Islam is unique in that it is the only religion known to mankind, which demands complete dominion over man’s personal, social, cultural and political spheres. Islam, fundamentally is invasive. Politically, it is uncompromisingly and eternally expansionist. Fundamental Islam leaves the non-Muslim with a choice to either wholly submit to Islam’s rule or violently part ways with Islam – leaving in the clutches of Islam, a small or large part of what used to be one’s ancestral land and one’s community.
How is the Shahada instrumental to Global Islamic Cultural Imperialism?
Shahada, the fundamental creed of Islam, says, “There is no God but Allah” [Quran 6:102,106; 2:163]. Islam—the religious, social, cultural and political order sanctioned by Allah, the supreme only true sovereign of the universe—must replace all else and dominate over all peoples. For establishing an all- embracing Islamic cultural imperialism—that is, Islam, as the only and the complete way of life for all peoples as demanded by Allah—Muslims must wage Jihad in whatsoever way they can [Quran 2:193, 8:39]. The ongoing pogrom of non-Muslims in Islamic countries, which goes on with little opposition from the wider Muslim populace, is, consciously or subconsciously, the enforcement of the Islamic cultural imperialism—a fundamental writ of Islam. Continue reading →
“There probably has been no imperialism like that of Islam and the Arabs. The Gauls, after five hundreds years of Roman rule, could recover their old gods and reverences; those beliefs hadn’t died; they lay just below the Roman surface. But Islam seeks as an article of faith to erase the past; the believers in the end honour Arabia alone; they have nothing to return to.” ~ Sir Vidiadhar SurajprasadNaipaul.
There are key differences between the Atlantic Slave Trade and the Eastern Slave Trade (aka Arab/ Islamic Slave Trade). While the Atlantic Slave Trade focused on transporting Black Africans to the New World to provide domestic and industrial labour, the Eastern Slave Trade was not race based. Prophet Muhammad himself, during the course of inaugurating a tripartite paradigm of Islamic slavery via his military campaigns and raids against the citizens of Arabia, enslaved some of the Semitic peoples of the region. The prerequisite for being enslaved in Islam for domestic or industrial labour; sex slavery and concubinage; or chattel, is not based on race but on being a non-Muslim war captive. As the Islamic Empire expanded out of Arabia via North Africa and into Europe, war captives of all shades – brown, yellow, black and white – were relegated to slave status.