It is now five years since Gujarat plunged into moral darkness. A darkness that was so thick that even five years could not erase it. A darkness that was so deep that it has now entrenched itself to become a part of the Gujarati society. It has infected so deeply that a majority of people in Gujarat are in a complete denial of this.
It is a moral darkness because for many people there is not even an acknowledgment that something utterly inhuman happened five years back. Reading through the comments put by readers on Internet forums or in reply to the articles on Gujarat pogrom one will find that they consistently pose the question ‘Who started it?’ or they attempt to hide it under the plight of Kashmiri Hindus or other issues which are unrelated! It is a tribal mentality. Just because a bunch of hooligans torched a train compartment (an assumption which has been questioned) unjustly killing more than 50 people it is given as the justification by so many in Gujarat and the right wing for the rape and massacre of thousands of Muslims.
This sort of logic is an anathema to any justice system or to any major religion. Not only that, but it is the murder of the very teachings of the religion that they who justify these acts claim to profess. What more shameful would have been than to hear the then Prime Minister of India Mr. Vajpayee, in the BJP conclave after sensing the mood of the gathering, saying ‘But who started it?’ In other words the former Prime Minister put a collective guilt on 140 million Muslims of India for the utterly inhuman act of a mob in Godhra! So much from the Prime Minister of a country of more than a billion people!
Though I personally think that Vajpayee was driven by political motives and he did not agree with many in his party but there are times when you have to take a moral ground which is rooted in your own traditions. He would have learnt something from Mahatma Gandhi, a Gujarati, who in the toughest situations picked up the moral position that he was convinced about and then stood by it. His fasts-unto-death, which were to strive for issues that were often completely against the public mood, make it evident. When the country was burning at the time of partition his strong stand brought in a sense of sanity in many parts particularly in Bengal.
That takes us to the party that talks about standing by the ideals of Gandhi. Congress has recently been shown the door in Uttaranchal and Punjab. A few weeks before that it got the drubbing in Maharashtra Municipal elections. The factor that is being ignored in the Maharashtra defeat is the Muslim vote factor. The state Congress had to pay by taking unprincipled stand on a few sensitive issues. The investigation in the Malegaon blasts has been skewed.
Secondly, even though the TADA cases in the Mumbai blasts are going on in full steam right now (and that is how they should be), no one hears about the Sri Krishna report. It needs to be seen in perspective that the systematic damage to the life and property of the Muslims in Mumbai happened even before the Mumbai blasts. The scale of damage was even wider than the Mumbai blasts. But while the progress on one has happened there is almost no progress on the other. Perhaps Congress is too afraid to open the cupboard full of skeletons from its own rule.
The same confusing message came when recent violence happened in Gorakhpur. While the violence was still going on the state unit of the Congress was more inclined in deriving political mileage from the situation. The Central Government took a strong position and sent in paramilitary forces but the local unit did not act in any way that is worthy of mentioning.
What Congress needs to understand is that for the Indian Muslims security of life and property is the most important priority. Now that priority is for all, but in other cases it is taken for granted that it will be there. The Indian Muslim has to consciously think about it and it has got inbuilt in the psyche. The ghettoization of the Muslim communities across the country is a symptom of this feeling. It is evident that two Chief Ministers, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Laloo Yadav, who were involved in mere tokenism, were still voted by Muslims time and again just because they gave a sense of security.
Maintaining law and order is the basic function of an administration and the surprising part is that it is this that often becomes too much to be asked for. If you maintain that with an iron hand and bring to task whoever breaks it, whether he is a Hindu or a Muslim, you set the right expectations. There needs to be a consistent policy of zero tolerance for violence. That will be good politics not bad politics.
It will be naive on the part of Congress to think that the message from one state is not heard by people in other states. Gujarat is an example. Any party that supported BJP was drubbed aside by the Muslim voters. Ask Chandra Babu Naidu. Congress needs to introspect and take the moral high-ground at times without thinking about the politics involved in it. The Congress high-command needs to send this message to its state units in Maharashtra and Gujarat and to all the rest. We want a Congress that not only follows Manmohonomics but also that remains rooted in Gandhian principles sans rhetoric. People are intelligent enough to separate rhetoric from sincerity. Then only they will vote for Congress with full conviction instead of a Mulayam or a Laloo.
It is sad that in United States where the Black History Month is being commemorated and many are highlighting Martin Luther King’s ‘pilgrimage’ to Gandhi’s Gujarat as his tribute to non-violence, in the same Gujarat we have a Chief Minister who continues to rule over a majority which has lost part of its moral compass somewhere. A state where extra-constitutional force have a upper-hand in stopping, boycotting or banning voices which do not follow their lines. They can stop a Parzania or a Fanaa just because they did not like the movie or the actor. This is not democracy but fascism under the skin of democracy. And we know from China that societies without respect for true democracy can be economically successful. Gujarat confirms that even further. But we need to understand that as a nation we take pride that we are the biggest democracy on the planet.
The Gujarat pogrom five years back was a blot. The healing can start only with an acknowledgment by one and all. Then only many can see the monster that is sitting dormantly and will be able to defeat it. Indian did this successfully with the 1984 anti-Sikh violence and it can do this again with the 2002 anti-Muslim violence. But it is perhaps too much to ask for from many of those who have in the past glorified the Nazis and Hitler!
Good post – well written and well argued. It deserves to be read beyond the audience of this blog. Did you consider sending it to newspapers?
@ Faisal
Thanks for putting things in perspective, it is a very well-written article. I agree with Girish that it deserves a wider audience.
@ Girish
As always, nice to see you here, I was wondering if you left us.
Mohib:
Good to be back. My frequency of visits has been low of late, though I never ‘left’ the blog. To be fair, the frequency of posts was also low for a period in the middle, so while I would visit, I did not see any new content. Good to see the blog being active again.
It’s a good suggestion that this blog deserves a wider audience. But how much wider can you get beyond the internet? I feel the net is the best media for the voices of Indian Muslims because: a) opinions can be more open than a newspaper which must stick to a certain ‘policy’ b) readers of this blog can immediately share their thoughts c) no newspaper can have as wide a readership than this URL. This is more than blog, its a community, its a movement and the internet offers unlimited potential for its growth.
It is not a question of blog ‘or’ mainstream media, rather one of this blog ‘and’ the mainstream media. I see only benefits if it gets published somewhere and reaches a wider audience, while simultaneously being published on a blog like this, with all the advantages it brings.
Ok, I am posting for the first time on this blog (and I hardly ever post on the internet). Greetings to all. I read over your blog and commend you on your general, broad sense of humanism, and the fact that you actually look for solutions, as opposed to endlessly going on about victimization.
I am of Gujurati descent, but really am not sure how I am connected to all of this. I was raised in New Jersey (which, granted, sometimes feels like a suburb of Ahmedabad), and, though I visit India often, it is to Bombay, where my family is. Still, your people are your people, and I feel a sense of reponsibility for what my people have wrought.
Having thought about this a lot, I can’t help but feel, at least sometimes, that India may have tried to move too far, too fast in the aftermath of partition. A country torn apart like that can’t just pretend that nothing happenned. At this point, it is better to be a Hindu living in Dubai than to be a Muslim in Gujurat, even though a Hindu in the UAE has no voting rights, no civil rights, no property rights, and minimal religious freedom. At least they have the ability to be safe, and to try and prosper. They are tolerated, and safe, because they pose no political threat to the power of the Arab elites on what the Arabs consider their own land. In contrast, a Muslim in Gujurat has voting rights, civil rights, and a degree of religious freedom far in excess of that enjoyed by Hindus in nearly any Islamic country, but he is worse off, because the fact that he has all those rights allow him to enter into a direct competition with Hindus, and then he is perceived as a threat, and antagonism keeps rising.
I’m not giving up on secular democracy, not at all, but sometimes I wonder if we could have gone about it differently, or perhaps implemented it more slowly. Is there any way to stop this from being a numbers game (more of you = more votes for you, and a lesser share of society for me; a zero-sum game between competing groups)? I think if you want to improve the lot of Muslims in India you will have to show that increasing numbers, and economic and political power, for Muslims, will not result in diminishing returns for other groups. The problem is, the current political system really does make it seem that way.
The problem is also deeper, and more existential. One article on this blog talks about the deep crisis in Hindu society, but honestly, there is no deep crisis in Guju Hindu/Jain society. I can see the vigor of it across the oceans. The religion is active and vigorous, and societal progress is proceeding apace; they are building fabulous temples and world-beater corporations in every corner of the earth. Yes, some people are left out, but if it wasn’t for the riots, we’d all be feeling pretty good about being Guju right about now.
No, the deeper, existential problem is that many have come to feel that Indian secularism essentially dooms Hindus to yet another conquest, once again at the hands of Islam. Islam contributed to India, and helped it on some ways, but it also harmed it in other ways, and it was brutal towards those who resisted actively – and this is something that Indian Muslims do not like to acknowledge. And, regardless of the overall impact on India, there is little denying that the effect of the Islamic conquest on Hinduism, as a spiritual tradition, was devastating – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, and a few smaller locales were all converted away. It is hard to imagine how any religious tradition might look upon this series of events as something favorable, though Indian secularism literally does make this demand of Hindus; they must celebrate their own conquest as a glorious event of history.
Now, in what remains, Islam is showing a rapid demographic growth, and secularism essentially provides no protections. And, we all know that Islam is a missionary tradition, in a manner that Hinduism is not; as the political power grows, it may very well be used to foster conversions, using the political and economic system to exploit the weaknesses of Hindu society. Before you say “tough luck” with regards to this issue, remember that, Indian Muslim society has even more weaknesses, and that a group that is impoverished, disempowered, and intentionally kept backwards by its own religious clerics is also ripe for conversion (in this case, by Christian missionaries – imagine what might happen if India ever gave them a truly free hand to use against Indian Muslims?).
Like I said, in some ways I am only peripherally connected to this, but in other ways, your people are your people, and we all need a slice of this world, and we don’t want that taken away. If you can find ways to make this more than a “zero-sum” game, I think we’d all benefit; I think we should start looking at the way that our current dynamic seems to automatically set us against each other. I don’t care if Islam is more prominent or powerful, provided that that doesn’t infringe on my space in any way.
Take care, and keep blogging.
Chirag,
Even though I don’t approve many of your points above but still I appreciate your honest opinion on the issue. I think its too small a space to discuss few questions you have raised against Islam so I will probably post these on this blog.
Sharique,
I look forward to your response. I’d like to see an Indian Muslim response to some of the following points I’m going to raise below; these ideas circulate widely (not just amongst Hindus, but pretty much amongst most of the non-Muslim world). I’m going to try to leave the things out that seem like nonsense prejudice to me (for example, I do not think that terrorism is due to Islam; and I don’t buy the things about oppression of women being because of Islam; and I don’t see the veil as oppressive or un-modern, etc.)
1. In Islamic countries, non-Muslim groups are limited in the degree of visibility they are allowed to achieve. In some places, they have religious freedom, in others, they do not; but by being kept at a low level of visibility, both through governmental restriction, and through societal pressures, the impact they are permitted to have on society as a whole is severely limited. This process of limiting the visibility and prominence of other groups seems intrinsically un-secular to me, and it occurs even in Islamic countries that are otherwise relatively free and open.
2. Islam proselytizes to, and converts, people from other religious groups. When in power, it does not permit other religions the same right. This is unfair, and creates resentment. This site has a post criticizing the Gujurat conversion bill — but surely, you recognize that this type of bill is the law in most of the Islamic world?
In Malaysia, supposedly a progressive country, you get sent to re-education camp if you decide you believe in something other than Islam. In Afghanistan, you have to be declared insane, or be killed, if you convert (see the recent court case). Isn’t the right not to believe, or to believe in something else if one chooses, the fundamental human right of all human beings? Isn’t the right to share one’s beliefs with others a fundamental right of all human beings?
3. On the South Asian subcontinent, over the last 60 years, there has been a major double standard. In the areas that were controlled by Indian Muslims, other peoples and cultures were driven off of the land, and were reduced to the point that they are no longer of any consequence. This occurred first in Pakistan, and has now occurred in Bangladesh (where a process of discrimination, intimidation, and violence has reduced the Hindu population dramatically). Now that it’s done, it is irreversible; the non-Muslim populations are decimated, and they won’t ever come back. Seeing the process of cultural and ethnic cleansing in both Pakistan and Bangladesh is very, very concerning for anyone who is not a Muslim on the subcontinent. Is this what will happen to everyone else, eventually?
5. Indian Muslims are not doing a good enough job of combatting Islamist political ideology. I accept that Indian Muslims are, on the whole, against terrorism. I do not see that they are against the idelogy of the Islamists. One can only convince other groups about the merits of secular, pluralistic democracy – which surely must be the one of the aims of this blog — if one actually believes in it oneself.
Chirag,
I plan to reply you in parts so here is the response of your first question-
There is a difference for a Muslim living in India, and a Hindu living in an Arab land. For one, India is meant to be a secular country, and it sells itself as such. Thus Muslims expect the same treatment as all other religious groups, as the constitution promises. However, Arab lands are governed, in part at least, by Islam
(and that is an important thing to stress; there is no country run on Islamic law, in its entirety), so inhabitants of the country expect to be treated according to whatever this semi-Islamic law says. If Saudi Arabia called itself purely ‘secular’, but gave favour to Muslims above everyone else, than they should be criticized, because they are going against their own constitution. However, they have never made that promise to anyone, and thus any non-Muslim going to live there should be aware of the consequences. It doesn’t make what they do correct, but it’s not like they lied to the people.
Also, it is interesting to note that even Muslims of non-Arab descent,cannot vote, or own property, or even attend university, in many Arab lands. Even though Rasoolallah (peace be upon him) very clearly said that a Arab is no better than an non-Arab, and vica versa. That is just one example of how ‘Islamic’ countries are not so Islamic.
In some countries there is religious freedom and in some other there is not. Like in USSR (when it existed) and even now in china, nobody is freely preaching religion including Muslims. Another thing that needs attention is that most of these so called muslim countries gained “freedom ” from a colonial power (Britain) and most of these were influenced (directly or indirectly) by the communism (erstwhile USSR) at that time because communism were the most powerful alternative. Today in Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Morrocco, Turkmenistan and many other countries even islamic parties (who preach Islamic code of conduct in society and constitution) are being crushed and democracy is denied.
Actually there are no missionaries of Islam in other countries like the Vatican sends across to the world. There are Muslim organizations formed to help local Muslims and plus converts do so on a voluntary basis. As fas as missionaries in Islamic countries are concerned, well Islam is an intolerant religion which doesn’t accept apostates (killing is only valid in case a person causes harm to Muslims as in this case
)
I don’t want to mince words here. The bottomline is that no Islamic government is allowed to assist an organization that intends to convert people to other religions. Well tell me a country that does that?? Any other country doesn’t take actions against them because they respect an individual’s freedom to practice any religion. With regard to government taking steps to stop this, well I think any government is perfectly justified to do as it pleases. Who is stopping them? If other countries don’t do then it reflects their non-pious nature. Any Islamic government cannot force Islam but can take steps to preserve its tradition.
I am not in a position to reply your question no.3. A person who is associated with those areas can answer that better. Even I have many prejudices against the Muslim community but no one can answer me![quote post="189"]Indian Muslims are not doing a good enough job of combatting Islamist political ideology.[/quote]
Its because there is no such dominant force. Hypocrites in Islam,who have raised their voice, have always been dealt with severe criticism on this blog and also by Muslims in general. Imam Bukhari for example.
Sharique,
you bold the fact that:
there is no country run on Islamic law, in its entirety.
The context and bolding make it somewhat clear you regard this as a bad thing.
I would just make a simple point, again: your inability to convince others of the need for secularism stems from the fact that your own committment to this is not very clear. From this post, and others, I would conclude that you favor Islamic law. You cannot expect others to be secular if you are not.
Secondly, you note:
“Any other country doesn’t take actions against them because they respect an individual’s freedom of practice any religion. With regard to government taking steps to stop this, well I think any government is perfectly justified to do as it pleases. Who is stopping them? If other countries don’t do then it reflects their non-pious nature.”
So in this context, if Hindus in Gujurat take steps to stop conversions to Christianity and Islam (the Gujurat conversion bill), it is OK? From your post, I take it that you would have nothing against such practices.
Indian secularism operates on a major double standard. So many of the posts on this blog make that clear – many of the participants here think that it is OK to promote the Islamic cause – but if Hindus promote the cause of Hinduism, it is “un-secular.” As this is what they’ve basically observed throughout, and this is what is the accepted, normal double standard of Indian secularism, the fact that this is a double standard doesn’t even occur to them.
Well Chirag I am all for peaceful measures. But don’t compare this with the anti-conversion law in many parts of the country. I highlighted that statement just to prove that none of the countries are indulging in the correct way to preserve Islam. I am against the use of force to convert people back. I am totally against any attempt by fascist to organize mass rallies or yags to convert people.
The problem with the anti-conversion law in India is that it would have been used to justify violence against the minorities and as you know the fascists look for excuses to vent out their anger so this would have been like giving candy in their hands. I hope that answers your concern on the other post as well.
It was a superb article to start with. But I feel the follow up discussion has gone wayward.
Mr Chirag’s all 5 (infact 4) questions surround action of other muslim countries. I appreciate his honestywith which he enlisted few common thoughts among Hindu brothers. But we should not forget that A wrong action can not be justified by showing wrong done by others.
The exercise of drawing parellels with muslim countries is invalid for many more reasons:-
1.We need to understand that Indian Unity was achieved on the guarantee of secularism. After partition, even the left over Indian muslims were considerable in influence and number. They agreed to subdue their religious identity to merge with Indian national identity on the guarantee provided by secularism. This was infact a treaty between the Nation and all other Identities. Since your background is New Jersy, you can understand this in the terms of so called Melting Pot of America. Secularism is the melting pot of India.
Muslims are still faithful to this treaty. So they genuinely expect same from the Nation. If a Chief minister of a state disrespects this treaty, he is presumed to be acting on behalf of Nation. Its nations responsibilty to distance itself from such misrepresentation.
The dilemma of hindutva brigade is that they are not firm on the question of wheather they approve or disapprove secularism. By confession they approve, but once uncomfortable they disapprove it, under the disguise of ‘pseudo-secularism.
2. >>Now, in what remains, Islam is showing a rapid demographic growth>>
My brother, it is a myth and only a percieved threat that muslims can beat Hindus in number game. Census data clearly suggests that population growth of muslims is not more than Hindus. Plantation of this myth is purposeful to evoke fear among majority Hindus. I hope that with deeper understanding you will get rid off many more such prejudices.
3.>>many of the participants here think that it is OK to promote the Islamic cause – but if Hindus promote the cause of Hinduism, it is “un-secular.â€?>>
can you please inform me about the cause of hinduism??
4.I, as a muslim have no objection against anticonversion law, becoz islam has spread in the face of far harsher anti conversion laws of past. My opposition to anti conversion law is as an Indian. I oppose this law because it is against secularism, and in a poorly organised society ,that India is, it is bound to be misused.
5.>>Indian Muslims are not doing a good enough job of combatting Islamist political ideology>>
Mr Shariq rightly pointed out that such Islamist ideology is not a dominant thought among muslim. mainstream muslims counter them, but this activity is purposefully overlooked, the purpose being holding ALL MUSLIMS responsible for any wrongdoing of so called Islamists.
muslims cannot invest their full energy countering ‘Islamists’ because they have to counter fascists, propagandists and innocent prejudiced Hindus too. If these contant distractions are not there, muslims may be more capable of containing Islamists.
The term Islamist is also a misnomer, because it includes those muslims who took law in their hand to revenge or to rectify a denied justice. Islam doesnt advocate revenge. A proper nomenclature therefore can be ‘Revengist’to indicate such people. Replacing Revengist with Islamist is an abuse of word Islam.
Demanding muslims to fight an obscure group is a far bigger demand than voting out a chief minister who is openly Revengist, and refuses to fulfill Rajdharma.
There have been very long debates, so I will try to put my point on one aspect i.e. Islam is a missionary religion and when in power Islamist use it for conversions:
1. Quran specifies that there is no compulsion in religion. If anybody follows Islam, it has to be from deep routed conviction, because Islam means ‘submission/ surrender to the will of Allah’ not submission to the will of any ruler.
2. It is often said that Muslims in power are not tolerant towards non-Muslims. The first great example of Islamic power was set when the Prophet (peace be upon him)conquered Makkah and no blood was shed. It was a peaceful victory, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave a general amnesty to all, although there were people amongst them who drove Muslims out of Makkah, tortured them and killed and mutiliated the dead body of beloved uncle of Prophet(peace be upon him) Hamza (may Allah be pleased with him).
3. The second great example was set, very akin to the conquest of Makkah, was the conquest of Jerusalam by the second Khalifa Umar bin Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) in 637. He entered the city, victorious, in humility walking besides his camel, while the slave was riding the camel as it was the slave’s turn. There was no blood shed and not a single non-Muslim soul hurt. Not only this, he permitted non-Muslims to pray in their religious places and declared that no harm will be done to them. That declaration (The Umariyya Covenant) still hangs intact in a major historic Church in Jerusalam. Ironicaly when the Crusaders conquered Jerusalam after a few centuries, there was so much bloodshed of Muslims that one narrator who participated in crusades there was knee deep blood in a mosque! History repeats itself, again when Khalifa Salahuddin Ayubi concqured Jerusalam in 1187, he gave general amnesty to all and no non-Muslims were killed, tortured or humiliated in revenge.
4. Muslims ruled India in the northern part, yet they continued to be minority despite the rule of centuries. Muslims have higher population ration in Kerala and J&K, where there was no Muslim rule.
5. Muslims ruled spain for 800 years and they did not do any forced conversions or shedding the blood of non-Muslims. However, when the lost power, Muslims were butchered to extinction in Spain.
6. No Muslim armies went to Malaysia or Indonesia, still these countries have Muslim majority population.
7. No Muslim armies went to East Cost of Africa, yet so many countries there have Muslim majority population.
8. Even today in all the Arab countries, the ruling power is with Muslims, yet 14 million Christians live in peace and harmony. Even in Palestine there are 10-15% Christians and you will never hear a case that any Arab killsed his fellow non-Muslim just because the government supports Islam. Even in Iraq you will not hear any attack on fellow christians despite such a turmoil. It is completely ironical situation as compared to India where minority Muslims live in insecurity despite a secular government.
9. Even presently the fasted growing religion is Islam. According to a Reader Digest publication Islam grew 235% from 1934 to 1984. We are all witness that there were no forced convervision to Islam taking place in present times. Not only this, 34,000 Americans converted to Islam after 9/11. In US, 80% of the mosques were built only in last one decade. Please also note that most of the converts are women, and in England up to 80% of the converts were women.
When non-muslims convert to Islam they do it with deep conviction this is why there are so many non-Muslims who converted and became internationally famous scholars of this religion; Yusuf Islam, Yusuf Estes, Abu Amina Bilal Phillips, Hussein Ye to name a few, while the list is countless. If this religion was so shallow to depend on swords, you will not find such scholars who can be heard on TV channels like Peace TV. Search on youtube, and you will find even videos of scientis and priests converting to Islam in Western countries.
On the other hand, I do not know any Muslim who converted to any other religion and became a scholar of that religion because when they do, they do it for worldly gains or ease.
I will close by citing the verse from Quran that I referred to in the begining:
Quran 2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
[quote post="189"]Even today in all the Arab countries, the ruling power is with Muslims, yet 14 million Christians live in peace and harmony.[/quote]
You have been reading too much of daa’waa literature.
Did you ever try to find out why those 14 million christians do not have a single church to show in the land of “peace and harmony”?
[quote post="189"]Even in Palestine there are 10-15% Christians and you will never hear a case that any Arab killsed his fellow non-Muslim just because the government supports Islam.[/quote]
You must be joking, sir! I suggest you to read “Princess” by J. P. Sasoon to get a first hand account of religious tolerance for non-muslims in so called muslim lands.
[quote post="189"]Even presently the fasted growing religion is Islam. According to a Reader Digest publication Islam grew 235% from 1934 to 1984.[/quote]
Please also quote how much the world population grew during the same time. You might be surprized to discover that the so called “fastest growth” has been achieved almost entirely by population growth – not by the miniscule number of conversions.
[quote post="189"]It is completely ironical situation as compared to India where minority Muslims live in insecurity despite a secular government. [/quote]
Yes, I agree that India has a long distance to go to provide a truly secular culture and an atmosphere of trust among minorities. However, it beats your model countries any day.
Abhilash-
Concerning your comments about Christians and other non-Muslims in the Arab countries and Palestine, a good book for you to read is ‘From the Holy Mountain’ by William Dalrymple. It gives a pretty detailed description of the churches in all the Arab countries and their detailed histories. You will be truly surprised (as I was) at the vast number of churches that have survived intact in all these countries over the past centuries and how well respected some of these are even among the local Muslims.
Please do read that book.
Thanks Taha. I have read William Dalrymple’s “The Last Mughal” and I admire his candour. I will definitely read this.
ASA,
I would also like to point everyone to the little post MM had on the Gujarat massacre of a few years ago… a poignant reminder of the horror of hindu extremism.
http://muslimmatters.org/2007/08/12/flashback-gujarat-massacre-of-2002/
Amad,
I saw the clip of Rakesh Sharma’s documentary ‘Final Solution’. Its a two and a half hour documenatary.
The full version and my review is here
http://mirzafaisal.blogspot.com/2006/11/final-solution.html
Chirag you have written a very accurate and thought provoking article. It pretty well sums up what we all feel and fear. I congratulate you on it.