Illustration by Soham Sen | ThePrint
Illustration by Soham Sen | ThePrint

French President Emmanuel Macron merely dared to say Islam is in crisis, and got himself into big trouble.

Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan asked him to get his head examined. Pakistan’s Imran Khan wrote a two-page sermon to fellow Muslim nations calling for a re-education of the West about Islam.

Ads code goes here

No such restraint for Malaysia’s 95-year-old Mahathir Mohamad. He got so furious as to nearly justify mass killings of the French for what they might have done to Muslims in the past, besides indeed condemning the decadent, ‘Christian only in name’ West where women often walk around with no more than a “little string (that) covers the most secret place”. Protests broke out in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.

But, did Macron speak the truth or not? The reaction of these prominent leaders from powerful and populous Muslim countries points to a crisis. If tens of crores of Muslims across the world feel that they are victims of mass Islamophobia, it is a sense of siege and crisis. Unlike a sacred scripture, however, there can be many versions of what this truth is. Here is this humble editorialist’s effort.


Also read: Why French President Macron’s clash of civilisations with Islam is misguided


Let me break it down in five broad points:

1) All religions are political. At this point, though, Islam is the most politicised. You can surely hark back to the centuries of the Christian Crusades, but that was some time back. Doesn’t matter if that imagery is often invoked by leaders of al-Qaeda, ISIS and sometimes also the odd angry Islamic nation.

Islam is also the second largest faith in the world, with nearly 200 crore adherents, just behind Christians by about 20 per cent. Like Christians, Muslims also live across the world. But unlike Christians, in the countries where they have a majority, very few have democracy. That’s a checkable fact. Important to note, about 60 per cent of all Muslims are in Asia and four of their largest populations in the world live under different degrees of democracy, between India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Stretching this argument further, in countries where Muslims have a majority, secularism is generally a bad word, or a Western concept. But in democratic nations where Muslims are a minority, they persistently put the republic’s secular commitment to test. France, Britain, the US, Belgium, Germany are all good examples. There is a reason I do not include India here. Because, unlike Europe to which they migrated lately, in India Muslims were equal and voluntary partners in forming this new republic.

2) There is an unresolved tension among Muslim populations and nations between nationalism and pan-nationalism. This arises from the concept of Ummah — that all Muslims of the world are one supra-national entity. Check this out from Imran Khan’s two-page discourse to his fellow Ummah leaders. We have seen this expressed in the subcontinent sometimes. In the Khilafat Movement of 1919-24, protesting against Kemal Ataturk’s winding up of the Ottoman Caliphate and founding of the Turkish Republic, to Salman Rushdie to the now-fading support for Palestine. And now France.

There are some interesting consequences here. While the notion is pan-Islamism, many more wars are fought between Muslims and Muslim states than with others. The Iran-Iraq war was the longest, a large number of Islamic states joined the coalition against Saddam under the US, and, closer home, in the Af-Pak region, Muslims only kill Muslims and not all of them in Friday bombings at Shia mosques.

The last time we saw a truly pan-Islamic alliance fight against a common, non-Muslim enemy was the 6-Day War in 1967 against Israel. There was a bit of it again in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. But then Egypt and Jordan signed up for peace. Iran is left mostly alone to fight Israel from a distance, Syria has self-destructed. In none of Pakistan’s wars against India has any Islamic nation come to its aid. Barring Jordan transferring some F-104 Starfighters in 1971.


Also read: France attacks show Muslims’ self-inflicted paranoia. But Quran allows freedom of expression


3) Which brings us to a brutal irony. If pan-Islamism, the Ummah spirit, has worked on the ground, it is with multi-national terror groups. Al-Qaeda and ISIS are truly pan-Islamic organisations, which mostly target settled Islamic states. ISIS actually says that if you believe that all Muslims are part of the same Ummah, then they must also have a Caliphate subsuming international boundaries and enforcing the common Shariat.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, keep counting. This should also make us reflect on why is it that so few Muslims from the subcontinent, home to one-third of all the world’s Muslims, are seen in al Qaeda or ISIS. The argument I put forward in this debate is, in our nations, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, nationalism trumps pan-Islamism. Muslims in these countries have a flag and a cricket team to support, a leader to love or hate. And if they hate him, to vote him out or protest in any preferred manner. Why should they prefer some mythical Caliphate?

4) The fourth is a crippling contradiction. There are sharp national boundaries dividing Muslim populations and wealth. A bulk of the populations, in Asia and Africa, lives in poor economies. Whereas the world’s wealthiest nations, the Gulf Arabs, have relatively minuscule populations. They won’t distribute their wealth equally to the rest in the spirit of pan-Islamism.

They are happy to find a compact with the West, and now also with India and Israel. Because for them, everything, their political power, royal privileges, global stature depends on that one thing pan-Islamism challenges: Status quo. Nobody has an answer to this GDP-population mismatch. And the rise of a power like ISIS only further fortifies these walls.

5) And last, because of a democratic deficit, in most Islamic countries you cannot even protest, express your resentment against your regime. You might feel sickened that your royalty is sold to the American Satan, but you can do nothing about it. Not shout a slogan, wave a placard, write a blog, a letter to the editor, even a tweet. This could land you in a jail forever, or get you beheaded. So, you go and do it where you can.

That is why, in 2003, I wrote a ‘National Interest’ headlined Globalisation of Revenge. Because you cannot do any of this in your country, you do it in Europe, America. You cannot even whisper a word in anger in your brutally-controlled national security state, so you go to another. Where you can freely live, train to be airline pilots, and then slam those planes into the twin towers. Where even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has the right to a somewhat fair trial. You can’t fight your masters, so why not punish the master’s masters? Isn’t this globalisation of revenge?

In conclusion, let’s return to the killing of Samuel Paty in France. The killer was Abdoullakh Anzorov, an 18-year-old from a Chechen refugee family. Chechnya is a tiny Russian republic in the North Caucasus with just over a million people, 95% of them Muslim. Russians subdued their separatist rebellion after two brutal wars. But, by the time ‘normalcy’ came, half of that little population was living in refugee camps. Many sought a better life in Western democracies, like this teenaged assassin’s family.

Let’s reconstruct the jigsaw. When Chechnya fought a jihad against the Russians, many Muslim ‘fighters’ from across the world, including many veterans of Afghanistan, joined them. Because this was all they had learnt to do yet, fight a jihad against the Russians. Pan-Islamism led to death, destruction and mass destitution of Chechens. Tens of thousands escaped to liberal democracies for safety, a better life and peace. Now they also want compliance with their own social and religious values there. To decide what your cartoonists can draw and teachers can teach. Reflect on this and then debate if the five points we detailed earlier make sense or not.


Also read: Muslim world faces divide after Erdogan takes on France for its crackdown on radical Islam


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

215 COMMENTS

  1. Gaurakshak Harry saab: In response to my statement:

    “.. I expect you to respect my right to eat beef or whatever else I like ..”

    you come up with a rant that makes one wonder whether you are an escapee from a lunatic asylum. What else is one to make of your puerile, sick, incoherent and utterly ludicrous response below:

    “.. Kili, do you expect me your respect right to eat human flesh or marry a child younger than ten years also? cannibals eat human flesh, just as Muslims eat beef, Westerners eat pork, Chinese eat dogs ..”

    ?

    Nowhere in my earlier post was there any reference to child marriages or for that matter my approval of child marriages. And yes, I know who you are referring to, given your congenital hatred of Muslims.

    But what your ilk forgets is that any comparison of the norms and cultural practices prevalent in mediaeval times with the norms, cultural practices and legal requirements of the modern age are simply idiotic. Such comparisons are the classic apples to oranges comparisons that are worthless to all except your pathetic saffronised ilk.

    Additionally, it is only a sick mind that will assume that because I would want to eat beef I would necessarily want to eat human flesh as well. The bulk of the Western world eats beef and do you think that since they are beef eaters they would necessarily become cannibals ?

    As regards your rant about the Islam’s Prophet marrying a 10 year old, well here is news for you. Plenty of Indians indulge in child marriage even today in India. And here are some stats for you from the UNICEF report “Ending Child Marriage”, ref: uni.cf/3kjqeLf

    – One in three of the world’s child brides live in India. Of the country’s 223 million child brides, 102 million were married before turning 15.

    – Over half of Indian child brides live in five states: Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh is home to the largest population of child brides, with 36 million.

    – The prevalence of child marriage varies across states and union territories in India. Over 40 per cent of young women were married before turning 18 in Bihar and West Bengal, compared to less than 5 per cent in Lakshadweep.

    Indeed, both my paternal and maternal great grandmothers had been married off before the ages of 10 to much older men. In 1909, celebrated mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujam was 21 when married his wife Janaki when she was merely 9 years old.

    The substantive point I make is that whilst child marriage is frowned upon today and is illegal, it was not the case until the recent past and even continues today. And the recent pandemic has actually seen an increase in the number of child marriages, ref: n.pr/3k6BjPn

    Gaurakshak Harry: Pull your head out of the cow dung pile or the cow’s arsehole where you generally park it and try to understand things in context.

    • “Additionally, it is only a sick mind that will assume that because I would want to eat beef I would necessarily want to eat human flesh as well.”

      Well it is like assuming that a rapist would only rape a certain woman and not other. if you have done once chances are you will do it again.

      ” The bulk of the Western world eats beef and do you think that since they are beef eaters they would necessarily become cannibals ?”

      The west is ideologically brainwashed by Christianity-Judaism that only human have soul, animal does not. So it is OK to kill and eat animal. But as west is becoming more enlightened they are shifting away from eating meat .Even for vegetarian like me i can live easily in west with totally vegetarian / vegan food without going for any Indian dish. The problem is in general person gets enlightened only having suffered himself. Therefore a few surviving inmates of Auschwitz mentioned that they felt Auschwitz was like world with all good and bad and worst are visible and after that experience they realized how bad humanity was treating animals.

      You are from country which had recognized for long that animals have soul. Therefore all major Indian religion praise non-violence and abhor eating meat. So people like you are reverting back to more primitive stage. . You are coming from area where at one time people called Raksha [ Rakshasha] were living. Many of them were eating human flesh. so seeing your regression is it reasonable to assume that you will revert to eating human flesh, if other food is not available in your area.

      • Gaurakshak Harry: From time to time, you pull your head out of the festering cow dung heap where you normally park it and come up with some asinine, putrid comment such as the one below:

        “.. The west is ideologically brainwashed by Christianity-Judaism that only human have soul, animal does not. So it is OK to kill and eat animal. ..”

        Well, Harry saab, people in most of Africa, Latin America and Asia eat meat. Indeed, even in India, 80% of the populace eats meat and the image of India being a very vegetarian place is largely a myth. Research (ref: bbc.in/2Uctnll) shows that meat eating is under-reported in India and vegetarianism is over-reported. I cite from the study:

        “.. Taking all this into account, say the researchers, only about 20% of Indians are actually vegetarian – much lower than common claims and stereotypes suggest. Hindus, who make up 80% of the Indian population, are major meat-eaters. Even only a third of the privileged, upper-caste Indians are vegetarian .. the extent of beef eating is much higher than claims and stereotypes suggest .. At least 7% of Indians eat beef, according to government surveys ..”

        In India religion, region, caste, class, incomes etc. determine what people eat. Thus you have otherwise very strict Bengali Brahmins who are 100% vegetarian except when it comes to fish. Beef is also eaten by Muslims, Christians, Dalits and many upper caste Hindus in Kerala and many other states. And eating beef or meat has not turned people into rapists as you try to insinuate.

        For an excellent Kerala style beef curry recipe, do head to: bit.ly/2ImWBLJ !

        Bon appetit !

        • “people in most of Africa, Latin America and Asia eat meat.”

          They are backward. Keralite women were going bra-less until the begininng of twentieth century.

          • Gaurakshak Harry: If people in the West, Asia, Latin America and Africa are all backward because they eat meat, what about people from India? After all, 80% of Indians eat meat ….

            As regards Kerala women going bare breasted, well that was a sign of caste oppression that prevailed until the early 20th century. Lower caste women were forced to pay a “breast tax” if they wished to cover their breasts. Indeed, some even converted to Christianity to escape the humiliation. So tell me Gaurakshak Harry:

            Who were backward, the upper caste men like you that forced lower caste women to go bare breasted or the poor lower castes who were forced into conforming with that perverse tradition?

      • Gaurakshak Harry: Some quick questions:

        1: Who gave you or the BJP the right to decide what people put on their plates? Will you saffron monkets decide what I should eat and not eat?

        2: Do you think that meat should be banned for Indian soldiers fighting in the icy heights of the Siachen glacier ?

        Care to pull your skull out of the cow’s arshehole when you get the time and answer my queries Gaurakshak Harry Saab?

        • Kili I will answer your question after you will reply to my following question that you have deliberately refuse to answer.
          “Fact is, most Muslim women in Europe and in India do not wear the Hijab or the Niqab.”

          Same is the case of female circumcision. Does that mean Europe or western countries should not prohibit female circumcision? because they only a few cases in Europe & India, but lots of cases in Egypt, Sudan & Somalia.

        • Some quick answer.

          You simply are low life uncultured barbarian. your comment shows low level of education from wherever you are coming from. The best best place for you is to live in pigsty. Your mind exhibit a person with his mouth in pig’s arsehole. Compared to you even Rasgolla has higher culture.

          No wonder US and others western countries refused to make Shashi Tharoor , who is from your part of India and probably exhibited your foul culture in his unguarded moment , UN president, because such position require culture , not primitive Barbarians, They being civil did not put it like that.

          It is not worth arguing with you. I admit my failure I lack skillset to enlighten a person from pigsty. To use Christian terminology you are beyond redemption.

    • Mr Kili,
      Pointless arguing with a religious supremacist.
      Supremacists of all kinds believe strongly in irrational things and have a constant fear of losing one’s own identity.
      They don’t offer data, scientific evidence, rational reason when they make their points. Much of what they know is based on absorbing propaganda. It does not matter if one is educated, one can can still be irrational and a vehicle for propaganda.
      One does not attain a high moral ground because of what one eats. What comes out of one’s mouth esp hate, anger etc. is a true reflection of one’s character than what goes into one’s mouth.

      • Mr Anbu: Romba thanks for the suggestion !

        As you rightly point out, there is no sense in arguing with a religious supremacist. And that too a fellow who issuch a thoroughly brainwashed bhakth.

        Your statement:

        “.. Much of what they know is based on absorbing propaganda. It does not matter if one is educated, one can still be irrational and a vehicle for propaganda ..”

        is a perfect description of that “muttaal” Harry !

        As the French writer Voltaire said:

        “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere”

        Do write more Saar, it is time we get some saner and sober voices here..

      • “They don’t offer data, scientific evidence, rational reason when they make their points. ”

        Oh yes. Explain to me scientifically your point.

        According to science man is evolved animal. Human and ape have 98.8% common DNA, Human and Chicken have 65% common DNA. Is it true or not? So as per science human is simply more evolved animal. Other than power human has no right to abuse animals. As famous Swedish philosopher has said: “It is only through tyranny that mankind have exploited and abused animals for so long.”.

        So explain to me scientifically other than power what is the rational for torturing or exploiting animals? if exploiting and killing animals is OK why not other human? In that case killing ,slavery, exploitation are all OK with that logic. Nazis were doing on humans exactly what mankind has been doing to animals.

        Of course you being a third worldite and and coming from backwood even in third world, an area with worst hunger index & acute hunger, it is beyond you to rise above Speciesism. After all so called rationalists in India only seem to ape west. They seem to lack facility to think independently. They seem more like programed robots. This is the reason people like Gandhi are admired because they can think independently and not slavishly follow west. Mahatma Gandhi had shown empathy with pain and suffering by example.

        If animals are abused only because man is more powerful than animals, there is no reason for guys like you to complain if powerful Muslims abusing animals like cows, goats, chicken and in turn are abused by more powerful Hindutva people and getting paid back in their own coin. If Hindutva people can make Muslims respect animal rights more they are the enlightened people in this backward country.

        it is only your selective sympathy based on your self interest. So your moralizing is like women from house of ill-fame lecturing regular housewives about fidelity.

        • Mr Harry,
          I am seriously suggesting you to see a psychiatrist at the earliest; you are full negativity and hatred for others and think of yourself to be all-knowing and all-judging. The sophistry, absurdity, sickness and the hurt that are associated with your comments are so disgusting and despicable that make me dread to read your comments. Decency of thoughts and expression is the foremost requirement to stay on a social platform. Wish you would take care of this in the future.

          • Murtada, why are you not discussing this point on basis of science rather than self interest?

            “So explain to me scientifically other than power what is the rational for torturing or exploiting animals? if exploiting and killing animals is OK why not other human? In that case killing ,slavery, exploitation are all OK with that logic. Nazis were doing on humans exactly what mankind has been doing to animals. “

          • You are right Mr Murtada.

            Gaurakshak Harry needs to see a shrink at the earliest ! And for all his professed love of animals, he would still be using leather products …

          • Gaurakshak Harry: Mr Anbu, the wise man he is, prefers not to engage with you. I guess he believes that engaging with you would be counter-productive. As they say:

            “Arguing with a fool proves that there are two” !!!!

  2. How does something that happens in France become important enough to be covered as part of SG’s “National Interest” ?

    Rape of SC’s or killing of SC’s by upper castes
    which happens right on our great soil but does not get covered in “National Interest”.
    Also isn’t it national interest to talk about India being in poor rankings in Global Corruption Index, Human Rights indices, Poverty indices, Press freedom indices etc…oh wait…those are all manipulations by White Christians or the NGO’s funded by them?

    Those living in glass houses should not throw stones at others.

    • Brilliant comment Mr Gaurav ! You hit the nail on the head when you remind bhakths that they live in very fragile glass houses and ought not be throwing stones at other communities.

    • France is critical supplier of arms to India. France & Russia are reliable source. Good part is they are not affected by so called activists like Harsh Mander, Ram Puniyani, refugees who ran away from Pakistan rather than fighter for it there. These refugees upon whom we took pity and took them in now lecturing us about human rights.

      • Gaurakshak Harry: When countries make weapons sales to one another, the calculus made is complex and cannot be reduced to one or two factors as you naïvely believe. And human rights workers like Harsh Mander, Nobel Prize winner Kailash Satyarthi, organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights watch, Save the Children, Red Cross etc. etc. wield a lot more influence and clout than what your mentors Adityanath, Babu Bajrangi, Sadhvi Pragya Thakur, the BJP, the RSS and so on will have you believe.

        When it comes to the arms trade, the the factors are usually at play in selling countries:
        – Internal legislation: Sometimes, there are outright bans on selling weapons to countries who are not perceived to be allies or or likely to become potential adversaries. E.g: France, being a NATO country has safeguards for ensuring that weapons are not sold to rogue regimes like North Korea, Sudan, Afghanistan etc. Likewise, when French built Exocet missiles were used by Argentinian forces to sink a British ship during the Falklands war, Britain pressurised France to stop the sale of said missile to its foes.
        – Lobby groups: Weapons sales are highly influenced by internal and external pressure groups such as human rights groups, democracy activists, powerful minority interests etc. E.g: During the apartheid era in South Africa, it was increasingly difficult for European and American weapons manufacturers to sell weapons to that nasty regime. Likewise, the powerful Jewish minority in the US and in many European countries would prevent the sales of weapons to foes of Israel.
        – Commercial pressures: Arms manufacturers need to turn a profit and they usually chafe at restrictions on arms sales. E.g. US Arms manufacturers would not mind selling weapons to any buyer and constantly lobby to have a “laissez faire” arms market.

        BOTTOMLINE: When it comes to arms sales, there is a complex interplay of many forces in the selling country that determine what gets sold to whom. Sellers and buyers are utterly opportunistic and there is no such thing as “reliable sources”. But that opportunism on the part of sellers is tempered and tamed by legislation and lobby groups, particularly human rights activists. Harsh Mander, like Mahatma Gandhi may be unarmed, but he gets a lot more respect and wields a lot more soft power than what your saffron friends would have you believe.

        • Looks like you are too dumb to understand complex issue of politics. Some countries have clarity, others are humpty dumpty. listening too much to activists make a country humpty dumpty. That is what happened to Soviet Union. From steely nation under Stalin it became weak under Gorbachev, who was too much into human rights, and collapsed. Russia has learned from that. France know from it’s own history.

          US had no such experience therefore they do all that nonsense. But they are hard-nosed too. Did you see how fast Modi became suddenly from being person non-grata to invitation to white house under liberal activist Obama once he won power?

          Britain did that earlier. To placate it’s Jihadis it cut-off link to Gujarat government under Modi. But being Gujarati Modi understands power of money. So when few Brit companies wanted to sell-off their assets in Gujarat, Modi prevailed upon potential buyer not to buy, forcing Brit companies to sell their asset at rock bottom price. This happened a few times and Britain got the message and change policy, as they realize the high cost of placating local jihadis & human rights activists.

          If we are paying customer, we simply don’t care of temper tantrum of seller. If he can not put house in order we can go to other seller. Fortunately there is no monopoly of arm manufacturing.

          India should start copying China and make itself business friendly like China and deal with both local & international activists like China & Arab countries do and make itself best in infrastructure, living standards animal rights etc. Leave the honor of Human rights torch bearer to our Pakistani brothers.

          • Gaurakshak Harry: Impossible to fathom the depths of depravity and cruelty that Hindutva fascists like you can sink to, cf. your statement:

            “India should start copying China and make itself business friendly like China and deal with both local & international activists like China & Arab countries do and make itself best in infrastructure, living standards animal rights etc. Leave the honor of Human rights torch bearer to our Pakistani brothers”

            Evidently, in that sick, inhuman, vicious and violent Hindutva mind of yours, the rights of animals are more important than the rights of human beings. And that same despotic, dictatorial countries run by thugs like Saudi Arabia’s Mohammad bin Salman and despots like Xi Jinping should become the new role models of India. And that human rights don’t matter.

            It is that rotten Hindutva ideology of people like you that ensures that poor Dalits and marginalised Muslims get lynched in the name of protecting the cow. Ignoring in the meantime the hypocrisy of India being one of the world’s largest exporters of beef and leather. And if you truly believe in banning cow slaughter, stop using leather products and shut down the beef and leather industries.

            Gaurakshak Harry: Your fondness for violence and cruelty would surely make the likes of Nazis like Josef Mengele, Adolf Eichmann and Klaus Barbie blush. At least the Nazis were not hypocrites like your and your Hindutva monkeys.

            SHAME ON YOU!

          • Kili If you and your assorted secus were showing as much concerns for dalit and tribal as you are for jihadis for last seventy years, India would been much better place to live. dalit, Tribal are indigenous unlike jihadis.

            It is nonsense to assume that a country with worst hunger index and acute hunger can be role model, rather than follower of other successful country’s model. . The writing is on the wall. West have invested far bigger capital in China than India. Far more Indians have approved YOUR SO CALLED despotic, dictatorial countries run by thugs by going in large number to THAT VERY middle east countries. One can see most middle-eastern countries teeming with Indians., while we rarely see Arabs in India. So Indians have voted with their feet.

            You are part of establishment who for your self interest want to keep India weak and backward in science, Industry and technology. people like you and Gopal Krishna Gandhi may want to live in garbage dump and talk of minority rights, human right etc. but bulk of Indians are not interested in that. They want India developed like west with Indian ideals.

        • “particularly human rights activists. Harsh Mander, like Mahatma Gandhi”

          There is no comparison between Harsh Mander & Mahatma Gandhi. H arsh Mander is an ungrateful refugee, who thought running away rather than fighting for human rights in Pakistan is better part of valor. We took pity and give him and some other ungrateful refugees like Ram Puniyani, Amaritya Sen, Burkha Dutt, Nilanjan Mukhopadyay, Mani shankar Aiyar etc. asylum. Where was their bravery in their in those Muslim dominated area. A refugee should behave like beast of burden, not lecture us.

          Mahatma Gandhi did not run away from South Africa. He fought against injustice there .he did not leave his supporter high and dry there. he left South Africa only after signing accord with Gen. Smuts. Unlike these guys he did not put his personal safety as his top priority.

        • What rubbish you are speaking than how china armed pakistan with nuclear weapons and US and other western countries turned nelson eyes

  3. Unlike Karan Thapar, Shekhar Gupta has always maintained his shallow mediocre standard and jumped into subjects which require expertise!

    • Unlike Karan Thapar, Shekhar Gupta has always maintained his shallow mediocre standard and jumped into subjects which require expertise!

      Of course. Because you want sycophantic journalists to further your cause. If he propagates you views then he has high standards, if he is against your views he is shallow. You are looking for ISIS approved journalists.

  4. It is how a religion is propagated and practiced that really matters. The idea that has to be accepted is that religion and what it teaches should make into s better human being. Compassion and tolerance means you do no go about forcing your views on others with attitude of “mine is better”. Religions have caused more savagery in humans than any other force. Time to take religion inwards as a private affair.

  5. ‘Defamation in the guise of criticism is Western Hypocrisy’

    There can be no doubt that the murder of middle-school teacher, Samuel Paty, in France earlier this month for displaying cartoons of Prophet Muhammad was an act of sickening brutality. But what makes it even more horrifying is the fact that it was committed in the name of a prophet who is honoured in the Quran (21:107) as Rahmatal Lil Aalameen (embodiment of universal compassion).

    Muslim Response

    In his New York Times article, Muslims and Islamophobia: Quran Has Many Verses That Command A Courteous Response to Even A Terrible Insult to Islam Islamic scholar Mustafa Akyol reminds Muslims that blasphemy laws were invented by medieval Muslim jurists to punish anyone who insulted their religion but Muslims “don’t have to blindly abide by medieval jurisprudence.” His plea was: “We can defend our faith not with the dictates of power, but the appeals of reason and virtue.”

    Muslims have every right to protest against condemnable attempts to defame the Prophet. But they must refrain from violence, for it is the very antithesis of the term Islam, which means peace. Any reaction in defence of the Prophet has to be in accordance with his exemplary conduct which was totally inspired by the Quran. The Quran took note of some of the offensive insinuations hurled at the Prophet by his detractors (25:41 & 38:4-5) but advised him saying, “Have patience with what they say, and distance yourself from them with noble dignity” (73:10). It did not advocate any kind of retaliation against the offenders.

    In fact, the Quran did not even criminalise blasphemy. It is the Old Testament which said that “…anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them.” (Leviticus 24:16)

    Even the idea of retributive justice (Lex Talionis) has its theological basis in the Hebrew Bible, not the Quran. The second book of the Torah states that in cases of serious injury “you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” (Exodus 21: 23-25). The third book goes further. It decrees: “Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death. Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution—life for life. Anyone who injures their neighbour is to be injured in the same manner: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury.” (Leviticus 24: 17-20).

    This crude kind of retributive proportionality was the temporal norm in ancient history. The Quran (2:178), however, tried to reform this law by removing the element of sublimated vengeance from it by saying, “O believers! Legal retribution (Qisas) is prescribed for you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. However, if the convicted person receives pardon from the aggrieved party, the prescribed rules of compensation must be followed accordingly. This is a compassionate concession from your Lord (Takhfeefun Min Rabbikum Wa Rahmah).”

    The notion of restorative justice, evident in the verse above, is found repeated in verse 41:34: “And not alike are the good and the evil. Repel (evil) with what is best, and he between whom and you was enmity would become as if he were a close friend.”

    The Prophet meticulously followed this divine instruction and did not allow cowardly insults or physical attacks to come in the way of his great mission.

    Once on a visit to Ta’if, a small town about 60 kilometres from Mecca, he was mocked and stoned to the extent that he started bleeding profusely. Yet he did nothing more than pray for the well-being of the people of Ta’if and express the hope that their next generation would accept his message.

    Even during the signing of the historic Treaty of Hudaybiya in 6 AH (628 CE) the Prophet displayed his characteristic tolerance and peaceableness when he agreed to all its conditions, including the Meccan demand to sign in his personal capacity and not as the Prophet. His companions were incensed and rejected the blasphemous exaction. But the Prophet in all humility, and in the larger interest of peace, endorsed the pact as “Mohammed, the son of Abdullah” thereby proving his greatness once again. It is no wonder that the Quran (68:4) praised him as the possessor of the most exalted standard of character (Khuluqin Azeem).

    The Hudaybiya treaty was such a success for the Muslims that the Quran (48:1) called a clear victory (Fathhan Mubeen). Within a period of two years, it paved the way for the re-capture of Mecca from those who had driven out the prophet. Here again, the Prophet proved true to his divine title Rahmatal Lil Aalameen by declaring a general amnesty after entering Mecca. Even his staunchest enemies who fought wars against him, such as Abu Sufyan and Ikrima ibn Abu Jahal, were forgiven. The result was, anti-Islam forces, having come to know of the peaceful nature of the religion, not only gave up their animosity but became its foremost promoters.

    There is a great lesson in this for Muslims whom the Quran (2:143) calls Ummatan Wasat (a moderate community). They must realise that vituperative attacks on the Prophet, apart from being the work of ignorant minds, is part of an attempt to project Muslims as religious extremists by eliciting violent reactions from them.

    The Greatness Of The Prophet

    One way of countering this would be to popularise the unimpeachable life history of the Prophet and ask those who seek to defame him through objectionable videos and cartoons to explain how distorting history and spreading lies about a non-vindictive, humane person constitutes artistic freedom.

    They must be told how John Davenport, a British scholar, unable to tolerate the demonisation of the Prophet, wrote a 182-page book in 1869 “to free the history of Mohammed from false accusations and illiberal imputations, and to vindicate his just claim to be regarded as one of the greatest benefactors of mankind.” Titled An Apology for Mohammed and the Koran the book, it must be said, was an extraordinarily honest endeavour to acknowledge Prophet Muhammad “as the very greatest man whom Asia can claim as her son, if not, one of the rarest and most transcendent geniuses the world itself ever produced.”

    In 1841, almost three decades before davenport, British polymath Thomas Carlyle in his classic work On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History had already recognised Prophet Muhammad as a true prophet. He wrote, “Our current hypothesis about Mahomet, that he was a scheming Impostor, a Falsehood incarnate, that his religion is a mere mass of quackery and fatuity, begins really to be now untenable to anyone. The lies, which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man, are disgraceful to ourselves only.”

    In his book The Humanity of Muhammad: A Christian View published earlier this year, Christian scholar Craig Considine advises his own community saying, “Muhammad’s pluralistic vision for his Ummah, and indeed the world at large, is timely considering the levels of extremism worldwide, particularly as they pertain to the persecution of Christians and other minority populations in Muslim-majority countries. Let me also remind Christian readers around the world that they would be wise to follow Muhammad’s pluralistic and civic ethos in terms of their relations with Muslims. Muhammad’s engagement with humanity can serve as a tool to counter our age of extremism.”

    Another Christian researcher Anna Bonta Moreland in her probing study published this year Muhammad Reconsidered: A Christian Perspective on Islamic Prophecy concludes that there is enough latitude in Christian theology to recognise Prophet Muhammad as a prophet of God. Her argument is, “… Christians have internal reasons from within their tradition to take seriously the revelations Muhammad received in Mecca and Medina. In fact, Christians need to take all the resources used to interpret the Bible—historical, anthropological, philological, and theological—and apply them to a Christian reading of the Qur’an.”

    Western Hypocrisy

    In the light of such dispassionate assessments by eminent scholars Muslims cannot be faulted if they suspect that there is something sinister about the regularity with which hate propaganda against the Prophet emanates from the West. That the mischief-mongers there are leaving no medium unexploited to arouse passions is evident from the sustained unprovoked campaign against the Prophet by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and French weekly Charlie Hebdo.

    In September 2005 Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons of the Prophet which led to widespread protests across the Muslim world. In 2006, Charlie Hebdo reprinted all 12 of the controversial Muhammad cartoons from Jyllands-Posten, adding a few more as an act of defiance. In November 2011 Charlie Hebdo once again mocked the Prophet by making him the imaginary guest editor of an edition named Charia Hebdo which the magazine claimed was intended to criticise the sharia.

    But the most despicably vindictive caricatures of the Prophet were published by Charlie Hebdo in September 2012 in support of the anti-Islamic video Innocence of Muslims which was uploaded to YouTube from within USA in July 2012. On September 1 this year the weekly republished the same cartoons to mark the start of the trial that week in the case pertaining to the violent attack on its offices in January 2015. The republication led to another attack on September 25 outside the weekly’s former headquarters in which two persons were seriously wounded. The attacker confessed that he had acted to avenge the republication of the cartoons.

    “It was in this cauldron of social and religious turmoil” reported the Wall Street Journal, “that Mr. [Samuel] Paty prepared to give his lesson in early October” on the “contours and limits of free speech.” (Demonstrations Pay Homage to French Teacher Beheaded After Lesson on Charlie Hebdo). From the statement attributed in the Wall Street Journal to Mr. Ricard, the anti-terrorism prosecutor, the two cartoons Paty showed the class were extremely offensive. Perhaps he did not realise that the idea of free speech can be explained without showing defamatory cartoons. Nonetheless, as argued above, Samuel Paty did not deserve to be killed for that. But the “contours and limits of free speech” that he wanted to teach need to be openly debated.

    Defamation Is Not Criticism

    Muslims would certainly like to understand why extreme anti-Islam acts come under the umbrella of free speech in countries where even genuine criticism of Zionism is considered an anathema amounting to anti-Semitism.

    In August 2012, around the time anti-Prophetic videos and cartoons were being published in the name of free speech, in a blatant attempt to circumvent the First Amendment, the California State Assembly passed a resolution titled HR 35 asking educational institutions to ensure that Jewish students were protected from anti-Semitic discourses on their campuses such as those that project Israel as a racist state “guilty of heinous crimes against humanity such as ethnic cleansing and genocide…” HR 35 also urged universities to neutralise “student-and faculty-sponsored boycott, divestment and sanction campaigns against Israel that are a means of demonising Israel…” (AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 28, 2012). This was vehemently opposed by the California Scholars for Academic Freedom (An Open Letter: From California Scholars for Academic Freedom).

    More recently, documents obtained by The Guardian last year showed how pro-Israel and conservative lobbyists in the US were encouraging state lawmakers to outlaw anti-Semitism in public education, from kindergarten through to graduate universities. The newspaper reported that the proposed definition of anti-Semitism is so wide that, in addition to standard protections against hate speech towards Jews, it would also prohibit debate about the human rights violations of the Israeli government (Revealed: rightwing push to suppress criticism of Israel on US campuses). A couple of days ago, Canada’s largest online news site, The Star, published a report highlighting the suppression of moderate voices criticizing Israel in Canadian Universities (Controversies at U of T Law, York University highlight escalating suppression of moderate voices criticizing Israel).

    One fails to understand why Western societies which otherwise, make no attempt to conceal their pro-Israel bias are so unwilling to differentiate between genuine criticism and defamation.

    Article 12 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to the protection of the law against arbitrary attacks upon his honour and reputation.

    Similarly, Article 19(3) of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights lays down that the right to freedom of expression is subject to certain restrictions to protect “the rights or reputation of others” and “for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals”. Article 10 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights inter alia states that freedom of expression “since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society…”

    Articles 32 of France’s own Law of 29 July 1881 on the Freedom of the Press defines defamation as any allegation or accusation of a fact that causes an attack on the honour or consideration of a person. When directed at private persons, defamation is punishable with a fine of €12,000. (Paragraph 3: Crimes against people. (Articles 29 to 35 quater) and Criminal Defamation

    If so much care requires to be taken to safeguard the reputation of living persons, are not dead people — who cannot defend themselves — entitled to equal if not more protection?

    Thankfully, Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) offers such a protection to the dead. Explanation 1 of this Section states: “It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.”

    Videos such as Innocence of Muslims and cartoons such as those published in Denmark and France do not represent a critique of Islam. They are a bundle of outrageous lies about the Prophet and therefore, cannot enjoy protection under free speech laws. One wonders why Western societies refuse to legally protect the reputation of Prophet Muhammad when at least 16 European countries have laws against Holocaust Denial to secure the honour of European Jews killed in the horrific Nazi genocide. It is time the West, especially an Emmanuel Macron-led “Christian” France, realised that a permanent state of conflict with Islam bodes ill for global peace.

    • Disclaimer: I respect all religions and believe it to be a very personal matter. Any public display in the name of religion should only be joyous celebration of life and nothing more.
      My Qs to all religions…
      1. Does the holy scriptures / religious teachings recognize other religions and allow embracing the varied cultures world wide?
      2. Does a religion provide any sort of freedom to its followers?
      3. Is religion more important than life?
      4. Is religion the primary requirement for living.

      My idea for peaceful co-existence: All religious leaders come on one platform (multiple times and as matter of routine) and proclaim in unison that “ your GOD is as good as mine” and ingrain this idea into young minds, we would have come a long way in maintaining communal harmony.

      All else are matters that don’t matter.

    • Are you giving the Friday sermon — this time to non-believers? Such a long troll. Do some honest introspection.

      Pause for a moment why so much violence in the name of your faith — and why so many Muslims kill Muslims. Forget the non-believers, who anyway are sanctioned for extinction.

      • Mr Mandal: Pot calling kettle back.

        Don’t Hindus kill and discriminate against Dalits ? Heard of the lynchings of innocent Muslims in the name of the cow and Hinduism?

        Religion is a force that not only makes you kill people who are not within your religion but also people within your religion !

        • “Heard of the lynchings of innocent Muslims in the name of the cow and Hinduism? ”

          They were not innocent. They were law-breakers. Cow slaughter ban exists in the state they were killing cows or carrying beef. Whether that law is right or wrong is not the issue.

          In contrast painting prophet’s cartoon is fully legal in France. So the teacher was not breaking any law of the land and therefore innocent.

          • Gaurakshak Harry: You need to get into that saffronised brain of yours that your Hindu gaurakshak friends are no less violent than the Islamist thugs we see in action in Europe. There are few differences between the Hindutva ideology that people like you, Babu Bajrangi, Maya Kodnani and other murderous thugs espouse and that of the Islamists who go about beheading innocent people in France. Your Hindutva fascist friends from the Bajrang Dal, VHP, RSS as well as the Islamists are wedded to the ideology of violence in the name of religion.

            The Muslim men who were lynched by your gaurakshak brethren were not carrying beef or killing cows. When Mohammad Akhlaq was lynched in Dadri, no beef was found in his house; when 15 year old Junaid Khan was killed in a train, he was not carrying or eating beef; when Mohammad Afrazul was hacked to death and burnt by Shambulal Regar in Rajasthan and the gruesome incident filmed, the victim was not carrying beef or killing cows; and when dairy farmer Pehlu Khan was lynched in Alwar, he was merely transporting cattle he had purchased. None of these men broke any laws. The lawbreakers and murderers were all your gaurakshak friends.

            It is only a completed bigoted idiot and a man filled with hate who would justify these attacks in the way you do. And even if they had been doing something illegal in that particular state such as slaughtering cows, your ilk believes that a violent death by a bunch of your thuggish friends is the way that infraction would need to be handled. That way of dispensing justice even dispenses with kangaroo courts.
            Worse still is the fact that all the accused in the murders of the persons I mentioned above, barring Shambulal Regar have been acquitted or given bail. I do not know whether these bastards were garlanded and given sweets by Union Minister Jayanth Sinha. But one notes that Shambulal Regar is likely to become a Lok Sabha MP – he has been given a ticket to contest from Agra. And likely to win. So Gaurakshak Harry saab: one of your murderous Hindutva friends will soon be your MP !

            Gaurakshak Harry: Educated people like you defending these bloodthirsty, cold-blooded killers who kill innocent human beings in the name of the cow or the Qur’an also have blood on their hands. You are complicit too.

            PS: In case you wish to know the reality of lynchings in UP, MP, Rajasthan, Haryana etc. take a look at the documentary “Lynch Nation”, available at: bit.ly/3eGX5IE

          • Gaurakshak Harry: The consumption of beef is perfectly legal in Kerala, Goa, Kashmir, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh,, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Sikkim and Manipur. Neither you, nor your fascist BJP friends have any right to decide what people should eat or not eat.

            I expect you to respect my right to eat beef or whatever else I like. Just as I fully respect your right to consume what comes out of the cow’s arsehole and its urinary bladder !

          • The consumption of beef is perfectly legal in Kerala, Goa, Kashmir, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh,, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Sikkim and Manipur.

            Were they carrying out the act in these states? Eating dog and cat meat is legal in China & East Asia. but illegal in west. So do you think Chinese should argue your way?

            One has to obey local law.

          • Kili If you and your assorted secus were showing as much concerns for dalit and tribal as you are for jihadis for last seventy years, India would been much better place to live. dalit, Tribal are indigenous unlike jihadis.

            Jihadis were a given 1/4 of land of India as homeland from which they kick out indigenous Hindus. So there is no reason why India should be put up with their nonsense. They should have gone to Pakistan or shown their willingness to Aryanise. It does not need to be overnight. Greeks, Scythians, Huns etc. came as invader but we don’t see them why? because they assimilated. British rule India. but we don’t see them why? because they left. same applies to Muslims.

            Otherwise India should adopt Arab model. Arab countries has taken far more Immigrants in proportional to their population. But they don’t have problem because they don’t give them same rights, as locals., and promptly deport troublesome immigrants. Therefore we don’t see Pakistani or Chechen killing Arab, however angry he may be for whatever the reason. Arabs don’t put up with nonsense of even other Muslim sects.

          • I expect you to respect my right to eat beef or whatever else I like.

            Kili, do you expect me your respect right to eat human flesh or marry a child younger than ten years also? cannibals eat human flesh, just as Muslims eat beef, Westerners eat pork, Chinese eat dogs.

          • Gaurakshak Harry: In my post above, I cited the examples of Mohammad Akhlaq, Junaid Khan, Pehlu Khan and Mohammad Afrazul. These were men who were lynched by your gaurakshak buddies and they were not consuming beef or slaughtering cows. They were killed in cold blood by your friends simply because they were Muslims, nothing else. Your Hindutva friends and fellow travellers who brutally murdered these innocent Indian citizens were the ones breaking the law, not the Muslim victims.

            With regard to the consumption of dog meat in the West, well, there is no law against that at all. There are laws that prohibit the slaughter of dogs and cats in many countries but there is no law against the consumption of dog or cat meat. Indeed, in Switzerland, roughly 3% of the population (ref: bit.ly/2IaWDGi) consumes dog and cat meat. Hence, if the Chinese want to eat dog meat, well, it is their business.

            Let me reiterate – the slaughter of cows and the consumption of beef is perfectly legal in the states I mentioned in India. Beef consumption is not prohibited in Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, Judaism and for that matter even in Hinduism. Beef is a regular part of the diet of Hindu castes and in certain regions of India. Hindutva thugs have no business telling others what to eat and not eat.
            Incidentally, your BJP friends themselves indulge in cow slaughter and even people like you are actually complicit in cow slaughter. Indeed, the PM himself promotes leather as a promising sector under his flagship Make in India campaign, see the website at : bit.ly/35aPDlX. So tell me Gaurakshak Harry saab: Can you get leather without slaughtering cows? Do you want to ban leather production also in the name of cow protection? And hand over this lucrative industry on a platter to Pakistan? You guys must be bloody traitors !

            And then don’t use leather shoes, belts, wallets etc. Gaurakshak Harry saab? And doesn’t your demand for leather not cause cow slaughter ?

            See the hypocrisy here Gaurakshak Harry?

          • Beef consumption is not prohibited in Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, Judaism and for that matter even in Hinduism.

            I AM LEAST CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT RELIGION ALLOW OR PROHIBIT.

            I consider myself at a higher moral plateau. I consider animals also have rights, not as much as human. So I don’t have much sympathy for those who kill animals or torture them or support those who do, even if they don’t do themselves. To me if these type of people are killed by their fellow human too bad so sad.

            After all it was conflict between exploiters, some far worse than others, in second world war that freed many countries from colonial rule. May be same thing is needed for nature, if bulk of people remain your type. May be evangelists wanting Armageddon are asking right thing for wrong reason.

          • VALID POINT. Kili does not want to address that issue, so he going after other faiths.

            This is typical secu attitude.

            Good example is triple Talaq bill. They don’t want to say triple Talaq is bad and law is needed to protect victim., They go after Hindus deserting his wives and so on. They don’t want to address that fact that with triple talaq a woman is thrown out of her house on street and not allowed to see even her children. Husband leaving house is OK. Nobody should be forced into staying in broken marriage.

      • FR,why are you quoting Islam in the first place. I have observed this phenomenon by Muslims everywhere.
        Maybe something is written or not written about violence launched by islamists. But there is something called independent argument and using your own head rather needless quoting from Islamic scriptures.
        Is it because Muslims are forbidden to read anything other than Quran because of religious compulsion,that is why you have to rely always on what is written in Quran?

    • Mr F.R. : Long, passionate and well argued explanations as to why the cartoons are offensive to Muslims. And more importantly, it is heartening to see you adroitly use the Qur’an and the actions of the Prophet himself to counter violence as a response to such provocations.

      Alas, the knee-jerk reaction of most of these hot-headed men – yes they are mostly men – is to resort to violence and nothing else. They are unlikely to immerse themselves in theological nuances of the type you prefer to turn to. Perhaps they even lack the intellectual and educational wherewithal to do so. Given this situation, is theology and more importantly, the defence of the Prophet’s honour

      Nonetheless, despite 99.99% of French Muslims distancing themselves – at least publicly – from these abhorrent acts of violence, the grim realities on the ground are:

      – Muslim extremists are the ones driving the agenda;
      – Muslim moderates are muzzled and dare not voice their concerns;
      – Radicalisation of Muslim youth takes place primarily through online channels and less through mosques, the latter generally being under surveillance and brought under state oversight – at least in France;
      – Muslims in almost all countries where they live as minorities face discrimination;
      – Many Muslims in Europe and the US (ref: pewrsr.ch/3oPTGf9 and ref: bit.ly/3mN5Un6) are leaving Islam altogether. And are threatened and ostracised by the wider family and Muslim communities when they do so, regardless of local European laws that allow freedom of religion;
      – Opportunistic, Islamophobic demagogues like Le Pen in France, Modi in India, Trump in the US, Viktor Orban in Hungary etc. etc. exploit and exacerbate hatred of Islam and Muslims for political advantage;

      As someone living in France and as one who has lived and worked in 3 other European countries, you see the same trends more or less everywhere. Indeed, in Europe, one notes that almost all other minorities, including more recent migrants such as Vietnamese, Chinese, Cambodians etc. swiftly overtake Muslim minorities. Given this backdrop, I am afraid that solely appealing to religious texts alone will not be sufficient for the erosion of Islam’s image and for the socio-economic upliftment of Muslims in Europe and the wider West.

      I do not have all the answers to what needs to be done for the community. Clearly, the British mosaic model where you could retain your identity and practise your religion has failed. Likewise, the French laïcité and assimilation approach whereby you were French first and pushed all overt symbols of religions and religiosity into the private sphere has also failed. Undoubtedly, state and private discrimination has played an important part in the marginalisation of Muslims more than other communities. But you cannot sweep under the carpet the fact that the religion itself needs to introspect on how it needs to adapt and modify its tenets when practised in non-Muslim countries such as W.Europe.

      Any thoughts Sir ?

      • TYPO IN COMMENT TO MR F.R.

        Last sentence of second paragraph should read:

        “Given this situation, is theology and more importantly, the defence of the Prophet’s honour the right tool to use and the right cause to focus on?

  6. Surah 9, Ayat 33 – Claims all religions except the Arabic one is false, particularly targeting the polytheists.
    Surah 8, Ayat 41 – guides the mercenary forces to loot all nations and keep 80% of the loot for themselves.
    Surah 9, Ayat 5 – guides the believers to Kill the Polytheist – whenever they find them.
    .
    Just to remind ourselves, No Indian Believers are allowed to marry Arab ladies, will never be allowed to be citizens in Arab countries, even after doing 50 Hajj. If people don’t like France, people leave France.
    .
    we are still waiting for Rohingyas to be accommodated by the superrich Arabs

    • Cherry picking verses in holy books is not going to help.
      In most religious books there is quite a bit of nonsense written. Including Hindu scriptures.
      Religions were formed hundreds or thousands of years ago , what they wrote or preached then is not entirely valid today. humanity has progressed since last 300-400 years due to scientific and industrial revolutions. But becoming a good, trustworthy person and recognising goodness or trustworthiness in others is an everlasting principle.

      Get educated, believe in humanity and become more scientific. That will stop the madness.

    • Here comes another one who has read Propaganda and knows nothing about Islam

      Surah 9, Ayat 33 – He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.
      Lie 1. You claim it says all religions except Arabic one is false…. the verse makes no such statement, and Muslims do not believe that either. Propagandists like you have no knowledge of Islam
      Lie 2. It particularly targets Polytheists, No Polytheists of Makkah had broken the treaty and killed unarmed Muslims going for pilgrimage to Makkah, this Surah is a declaration of war to Polytheists, of Makkah. There is no targetting here, they are the only audience as they are the ones who have killed Muslims and are going to get retribution for it.

      Surah 8, Ayat 41 – And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the messenger and for the kinsman (who hath need) and orphans and the needy and the wayfarer, if ye believe in Allah and that which We revealed unto Our slave on the Day of Discrimination, the day when the two armies met. And Allah is Able to do all things.
      This is talking about Ghanimah, there is a different thing called Fai. Someone who knew the difference between Ghanimah and Fai would have never made the statement you made, primarily because you do not know anything about Islam,. You go to Propaganda websites and digest all the shit they give. Tell me have actually ever read any book by renowned scholar of Islam

      Surah 9, Ayat 5 – Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
      Again your ignorance shines high in making the claim. The entire Muslim word understands it as only Mushriks of Makkah who had broken the treaty and killen unarmed Muslims going for pilgrimage in the sacred months of pilgrimage. Hence it is asking Muslims that do not steep down to the level of Musrikhs and let the sacred months pass, but after that you must take vengeance from those who broke their treaties and kill unarmed men women and children. You propagandist never look at what Polytheists of Makkah did to Muslims when they were in power, and only want to talk about retribution by Muslims, as if Muslims were the instigators.

      No Indians are allowed to marry Arab ladies! Where did you get that…. that happens all the time, there are many Hyerabadis who are citizens of SAudi Arabia, my own uncle was offered citizenship of Saudi Arabia. Yes they don’t have migration programs, but does India have one? NO. Infact India wants to disenfranchise its own Muslims citizens through combunation of NRC and CAB. Mr. Propagandist can only tell lies.

      Every Rohingya who reaches Saudi Arabia is granted a work Visa sponsored by the King, 6 times more Rohingyas live in Saudi Arabia than India. Next, under what moral argument are Hindus given refuge in India but not Muslims, India is afterall a secular country, isn’t it, Mr. Propagandists.

      • Thank you Ali Mustafa Khan for your clarifications.
        You can see clearly that BJP RSS followers are not able to distinguish propaganda from the truth.

        So also some seemingly liberal and well read Hindus like Shekhar Gupta who have absolutely a superficial understanding of Islamic culture and history. Many of us Hindus have been fed this propaganda from our school days especially from our upper caste school friends. And you know where our friends got it from? – their parents and their relatives.

        When leftists or academics (many of them Hindus) try to inform the truth as per historical evidence, these Vedic propagandists call them as distortionists of truth.

      • His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.

        THIS IS THE PROBLEM. THE REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THAT IDOLATERS OR PLYTHESISTS MAY HAVE TRUTH TOO.

        Your Allah’s truth is limited within his boundaries. . It is not universal. Allah is just one of more than 330 million Deva, equally large number of Asura, Yaksha, Raksha and other supernatural. he is not omnipotent & omnipresent.

        Only yesterday I was reading that science believes it may be possible that there may be 300 million or more earth like planets in universe.

        • Mr Harry:
          You have not understood the core of Hindu religion. Your mind is controlled into believing the superficial aspects around Hinduism and taking it too seriously. Just like Islamists or Christians or others. Superstitions, myths, beliefs and false stories intended to control people into following rather than to liberate.

          The core of all religions is to free one’s mind from all external knowledge and go within to experience the true knowledge that the mind itself is a delusion. Enjoy life every day as it comes. The politics of religion as it is followed (without questioning) can make our lives miserable.

          • It is not I it is you who has not understood the core of Hindu religion. Looks like you are influenced by Arya samajis like Agnivesh or Approvanada

            It will take pages and pages to explain the meaning. So I will summarize it.

            Unlike other faiths Hindus don’t believe world was created few thousand years ago. It believes world was created from Brahmh billions of years ago. Idea of true or false itself is delusion. it is like Blind men describing elephant. They are not wrong but their truth is not the whole truth and only truth.

            Polytheists are not wrong because they don’t believe in one god or believe in India that there is only one true path or there is last message.

            Secularists are trying to confuse Hindus in India.

          • Correction
            Polytheists are not wrong because they don’t believe in one god or believe in India that there is only one true path or there is last message.

            Should be:
            Polytheists are not wrong because they neither believe in one god nor the belief that there is is only one true path or there is a last message.

  7. I wish the author had a more in depth knowledge of world history, before attempting to explain such a topic. Very shallow and bias article in favor of western european supremacy over the rest of human creeds and cultures. Try researching the world prior to WW1 and realize how we arrived at this point, most of these countries you reference didn’t exist until after 1916 treaty of versailles. From the establishment of this current world order Muslims have been the target of political suppression by western powers. Understanding the spoils go to the victors we make no issue with such a outcome but only wait for the day when all things return full circle.

  8. Killing cows and eating beef hurts the sentiments of over a billion Hindus.

    So Gaurakshaks are heroes as per Islamist’ logic coz they are killing to protect the symbols of their own faith?

    Muslims actually suffer from a global inferiority complex. In Middle East, despite having a numeric superiority they are weaker and less developed than the Jews and way less developed than the Christian, white Europe in north. In South Asia they are poorer and less developed than the Hindus and a ‘Hindu India’ is way more powerful than Pakistan and Bangladesh put together.

  9. You stup*d secu.. it is support from guys like that Muslims have become progressively more fanatic in India. If Hijab, Niqab were prohibited in India like it was done in Turkey way back in early twenties and France now Muslims in India would have been progressive and Muslim women would have equal opportunities.

    I like the way France prohibited burkini and other nonsense. If Muslim wants burkinis then they should also allow Frenchmen in Mosque with only underwear like they do in beaches.

    • Gaurakshak Harry: Once again, in typical Adityanath fashion, you bray:

      “.. If Hijab, Niqab were prohibited in India like it was done in Turkey way back in early twenties and France now Muslims in India would have been progressive ..”

      Fact is, most Muslim women in Europe and in India do not wear the Hijab or the Niqab. The backwardness of Muslims in India has complex causes and the answers are to be found both in Islam and the discrimination they face in the countries they live in. They cannot be reduced to the wearing of a single item of clothing. Conversely, if Muslim women do not wear the hijab or the niqab, will they get better treatment in India and in Europe? The answer is a resounding no.

      Let me apply your “clothes are the cause” claim to Sikhs. Should Sikh men stop wearing the turban in India? Do they get discriminated in India because of their turbans. One might say much less than Muslims who wear their religious garb. Although Sikhs were easily picked and killed during the pogroms of 1984, by and large, Sikhs do not face the discrimination that Muslims in India face.

      Want to modify your theory Gaurakshak Harry? Perhaps you might wish to talk to your itchy-testicled gaurakshak friends and mentors like Babu Bajrangi, Praveen Togadia and others to redesign your theory.

      • Don’t make comments living in your Keralite Ivory tower. Go out and visits west and other part of India and see for yourself how many Muslim women wear Hijab & Niqab nd see how many Muslim men started keeping beards.

        A Muslim friend of mine, non-practicing one, also start keeping beard. I asked him whether had found faith. he laughed and said” I have to keep this to keep mullah happy. My sister’s wedding is coming soon and if I don’t keep beard, my Mullah will not come for ceremony”.

        This is the real secret. Unless law forces otherwise, Mullah’s will keep pressing Muslims to become more and more orthodox and later on radicalized enough to kill. One has to nip in bud. in 1940 Punjabi Mulslm did not look or behave differently, their Islam was superficial and one can see what is today.

        Surgery is needed to remove malignant tumor. Therefore Ataturk was one the right path and so is French government. You Indian secu monkeys know nothing and due to your mentally challenged condition can not learn anything from past or present and talk like broken record.

        • Gaurakshak Harry: You rail against Muslims keeping beards, cf. your ludicrous comment:

          “.. many Muslim men started keeping beards. .. A Muslim friend of mine, non-practicing one, also start keeping beard ..”

          Please tell me all knowing Gaurakshak saab and anti-beard Hindutvadi:

          Is there a law against keeping beards in the country ?

          Should Sikhs be allowed to keep beards ?

          Should one grow beards for the Sabarimala pilgrimage, something very popular in Kerala ?

          The “malignant tumour” you refer to in your puerile post is indeed in your Hindutva brain. So go get yourself lobotomised !

          • To keep beard or not is individual choice. he should not be forced by Mullahs or others. We don’t want Taliban state within Indian Muslim community.

          • Let us use your argument Harris and see how ridiculous it is.

            Sikhs keep beard and so do Ayatollahs. That does not mean Sikhs will appoint Ayatollah as granthi.

            The issue is a secular state should positively discourage overt sign of religiosity. The people who put religion above state should be encouraged to move to theocratic state.

            Exception should be made of indigenous faiths, because they have nowhere to go. Refugee can go back to his/ her place, which may be theocratic, to his taste if he does not like secular state norms.. That is what France is doing. That is the way for India to go.

      • Fact is, most Muslim women in Europe and in India do not wear the Hijab or the Niqab.

        Same is the case of female circumcision. Does that mean Europe or western countries should not prohibit female circumcision? because they only a few cases in Europe & India, but lots of cases in Egypt, Sudan & Somalia.

        • Gaurakshak Harry: Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is banned in most countries in W. Europe as well as the US & Canada. Indeed, in Europe, Germany & Iceland have also banned circumcision of male infants, something that has outraged Muslims and Jews.

          Under international law, female genital mutilation (FGM) is a human rights violation, torture, and an extreme form of violence and discrimination against girls and women. Additionally, the Council of Europe (www.coe.int) which counts 47 out of 49 European countries as members brought into effect in 2011 the “Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence” also known as the Istanbul Convention. Art. 38 of the Convention states:

          Article 38 – Female genital mutilation
          Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the following intentional conducts are criminalised:

          (a) excising, infibulating or performing any other mutilation to the whole or any part of a woman’s labia majora, labia minora or clitoris;
          (b) coercing or procuring a woman to undergo any of the acts listed in point a;
          (c) inciting, coercing or procuring a girl to undergo any of the acts listed in point a.

          FGM is nothing short of unmitigated terror on 5-7 year old girls and should be banned – no exceptions. Just as sati was banned…

          • “FGM is nothing short of unmitigated terror on 5-7 year old girls ‘

            But killing goats, cows etc. by Halal are not unmitigated terror on these helpless animals. Can you explain us scientifically how? Or are you going back to your pseudo-science?

  10. Democratic countries should be extremely careful to give asylum to Muslims. Muslims who fled from their own Muslim nations to save their lives and take asylum may not pose a threat themselves but there is no guarantee that their children who would be raised as Muslims would not be brainwashed by Kabilic ideas of Quran and become non-secular, anti democratic, irrational and finally terrorist.

    • ak.dev: You need to get your facts right before braying. But then I did not expect anything subtle or accurate from a man with the intellectual ability of a Babu Bajrangi !

      Fact is, most Muslims in Western Europe were people recruited after the 2nd World War to participate in the rebuilding of shattered European economies. Many of them came from former British colonies as people from the Indian sub-continent did to the UK, people from North Africaan colonies to France etc. Germany which lacked colonies, recruited actively in Turkey in the 50s and until the early 70s. The refugee phenomenon is of more recent origins and can in many ways be traced to wars that Europe & the USA conducted in the Middle-East, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. etc.

      And as regards your preposterous claim that Muslims would be :

      “.. brainwashed by Kabilic ideas of Quran and become non-secular, anti democratic, irrational and finally terrorist ..”,

      well facts speak otherwise. 99.99% of French Muslims do not seem to follow the trajectory you have outlined. You will find similar trends in other European countries as well.

      Indeed, there is more violence towards Muslims in India by your Nazi Hindutva friends and you need to put your won house in order before delivering sermons to others.

      • Well. Arab countries also imported large number of people including non-Arab Muslims in their countries. As a matter of fact Immigrants out number locals in many Arab countries. But in none of the Arab countries a Pakistani or Chechen has killed any local irrespective of how much angry he or she had become. Arab countries kick out troublesome immigrant or their children. it appears to be the only way to keep people unwilling to assimilate and have multi-cultural workforce.

        This is the central issue. Unless Immigrant leaves behind his or her culture and has shown willingness to mainstream, countries import problems. In west Muslims and Sikh bring their problems and therefore are no much popular in local people in general, barring politicians who have build base and apex of their political carries like Congress, RJD, Trinmool Congress etc. in India.

      • We reserve the right to comment on the issue simply because it is in our national interest to do so.
        France happens to be a reliable Indian ally.
        We will not sacrifice that relationship to appease insecure savages. At home or abroad.

    • What is your problem with Christians wanting to import Muslims. 99.99% of Muslims are good citizens in those Christian countries.

      Fact is Christians and Jews do not hate Muslims with same venom as many BJP Hindu supporters do here in India. Though Christians or Jews don’t agree with the Islamic faith, they always try to see the bigger picture and do not paint ordinary Muslims as villains.

      Focus on our country and make it a better place to live. Secularists in our country are being flogged as every year passes. Let our countrymen see a bigger picture.

      • Secularists in our country are being flogged as every year passes.

        Because they behave like monkeys. Observing Monkeys is entertainment. But people are not in mood of entertainment from journalists, activists or politicians. They would rather see movies.

        Question is not importing Muslims. Muslims like everybody need employment and want to improve their living standard. Arab way of conferring rights to imported workers is better way for host country. no Pakistani or Chechen has killed local in Arab country because he got mad for whatever the reason.

  11. Shekhar Gupta, a coward librandu has no spine to say that Quran is the main culprit to ensure that Islamist become non-secular, anti democratic, irrational beings and finally terrorists who wait to blow others and killed themselves to enjoy the company of 72 noors in Allah’s home in the sky. All islamists must be de-islamised like China is doing. Islamist beast doesn’t understand the human rights of others. Only hard measures are needed to reform Islam by rewriting Quran.

  12. I tried my best to extract some meaning out of this article, but failed miserably. Not because the author is uninformed or being haphazard, but the Islam that I had been taught all along, and being taught even today, at home, madrasa and through sermons, has been so all inclusive that I am unable to identify myself with all those things that are happening in the name of Islam today, which the author has pointed out in the article. I will not be even the last person to hurt anybody; but the act of self-defence, I will definitely engage into, which perhaps is the right of every individual, Islam or no Islam.

  13. If they are in majority they call for islamisation
    like Malasia
    If they are minority they want secularisam as pretext to majoritise Islam .Radicalisation of
    Islam and sanctioning of killing kafirs in the name of Islam making other religious thoughts
    more insecure to civilised society.There will
    be no remidy until Muslim society gets a social reformer.Now sympathy to secure votes to congress or leftist patries by journalist like Sekhar gupta is a half truth presentation.

  14. If they are in majority they call for islamisation
    like Malasia
    If they are minority they want secularisam as pretext to majoritise Islam .Radicalisation of
    Islam and sanctioning of killing kafirs in the name of Islam making other religious thoughts
    more insecure to civilised society.There will
    be no remidy until Muslim society gets a social reformer.Now sympathy to secure votes to congress or leftist patries by journalist like Sekhar gupta is a half truth presentation.

  15. Good analysis but with your phrase,, master,s master ,,you have admitted that the the kings and dictators of Muslim countries are protected by the champions of democracy for their multiple interests . And from West Asian countries people escape only fearing prosecution and to live life of peace and freedom. The rulers in Europe and America can not endanger their democracy but protect the autocrats, corrupts and murderous all over the world as long as they safeguard the master,s interests. In democracies like India Pakistan Mslysia Muslims protest in their own countries as well as in Europe if they migrate there but they don’t have chance in gulf countries and not only Muslims but even Christensen and Hindus are not able to protest.

    • do you think Gulf countries should invite all these turbulence in their countries.?

      The fact is until Muslims are de-Islamized like Christians in west are de-Christianized, middle eastern countries can not afford to open themselves as democracies unless they are self-destructive like Gorbachev. They have already seen what happens when they try to do. These see what happened in Egypt.

      Even great Champion of Arab spring Obama kept his mouth shut after military removed Muslim brotherhood from power.

      The issue is not only Muslims, Christians in Asia and Africa are equally fanatic and look down upon people with different faith or atheists.

  16. The Ummah is a spiritual concept ( all Muslims form one nation – if something affects one, it should be seen as affecting all – this is a part of the teaching of Islam. I believe the analysis is too superficial and simplistic. France has unfortunately seen a bad situation because of some radicalized individuals and not all French Muslims want to take law into their hands. It is also incorrect for Shekhar to call the current generation Muslims in Europe as migrants. In France, the Muslims have lived for many generations and can’t be legally called as migrants – this would constitute racism.

    Also it is not because these Muslims come from repressive regimes and this gives them some sort of licence to be angry and forcing their beliefs to other states. When I read this I feel Shekhar thinks there was a kind of collective psychological disease that he wants us to be aware of. Also even if these migrants come from repressive regimes – those regimes still don’t repress on Muslim religious matters i.e. defaming the prophet is disallowed even in hardcore Muslim religious regimes.

    Third generation Muslims in the west are generally angry because they find many of the western attitudes hypocritical. In France itself, inspite of the law guaranteeing equal opportunity discrimination is rife in their society ( it is well known and documented fact that someone with a Muslim name can’t get a job easily and so on). State holidays are only available on Christian festivals even in Secular France. Liberty of expression is allowed to all but certain topics are above that – for example – you can’t deny holocaust. You can’t share desecration of French Flag even if it was in private setting. Burka – which is in a way a symbol of liberty of expression is banned, one can’t even swim in modest clothing.

    In the din of all this – could Shekhar not understand that people can really get upset when the sole purpose of these cartoons is to link terrorism to the founder of Islam ( leaving aside the fact that drawing any images of the prophet is deemed immoral in Sunni Islam which is historically iconoclastic). Of course, Shekhar would also very conveniently forget that many people who promote these cartoons are not also very charitable towards Muslims in their own lands. Often, these are the parties that like the Indian BJP promote hatred and fear of Muslims. For example, Freedom Party in Holland or the AFD in Germany.

    Overall, I find Shekhar’s article a collection of numbers and facts but sewn together in absurd logic. This type of logic is generally very prevalent among those who think they stand on a higher moral ground without even understanding the depth of the matter. ( PS: Mahathir said he was quoted out of context and Macron also says today that he was quoted out of context. Don’t forget though that these cartoons were displayed on French government buildings – the Laiique state which is supposed not to meddle in anything religious.

    • I have yet to see sizable number of Muslims talking about others rights. Most Muslims always talk about their rights based on Quran, an outdated book written in Kabilic times. Muslims are allowing themselves to become slaves of Quranic ideas.
      Are there no brave Muslims who can tame islamic beast who is forcing them to live 6th century life.

    • Sorry the indisputable fact is Muslims will not integrate into the societies they forbears had chosen to migrate to.

      And the reason is to proclaim the supremacy of their faith. Therefore, Muslim taxi drivers refusing to carry passengers who have brought alcohol or sausages from the supermarket, elected Muslim officials refusing to shake hands with their female constituents, even Muslim lawyers refusing to stand up in court when the judge enters — on the pretext they cannot show that respect to lowly mortals, only to their god.

      Then demand no pubs…no ‘nude’ advertising in the areas they live….one school had a bizarre demand from a teacher — to teach primary school kids wearing a black veil. Thankfully the school refused — it would have scared the kids!!

      Just a litany of demands — all just to purposely stay apart.

      And then pull out that ever useful: victim card.

    • Islam needs internal re-formation, it cannot be done by outsiders and till now there is no space for such reformers in Islam, If something needs ot change that is the one. Non muslims are fully aware of he points listed by Shekar Gupta that is driving islamophobia, with no reformer or voice in sight, people are being to see it as truth. Don’t convince others there is nothing wrong, go reform and show it in a muslim majority community.

    • Excellent analysis. At the end of the day, Shekhar Gupta analysis may have been a bit too simplistic but the bottom line is that Islam is getting bad press, partly because of its own rigid actions and partly, it is not able to fit in with the rest of the world as fluidly as it should. Such counter opinions explain the position much better though not sure how many would understand it.

    • The right to criticize is a fundamental part of France and its culture. Don’t like it.
      Get out of it.
      There are n number of things ppl dislike abt islam. And the way Islam treats others around it.
      Islam is a glass house like any other

  17. Islam preaches that Gods as defined by other faiths are false and not just false but the people believing in them are sort of sub humans living in darkness.
    But spineless Shekhar Gupta and others like im will never call a spade a spade and beat about the bush.

    • How Ignorant, have you heard the phrase people of the book….

      Are you a liar or a propagandist, or just plain damn stupid.

      • have you heard the phrase people of the book….

        Yes. We have.

        People of books means only Jews and Christians, not Idolaters, Polytheists, Hindu, Buddhist, Jains, Taoist etc. The reason Jews & Christians are included is because Islam considers itself continuation of these faiths and consider Mohammed last prophet in that tradition.

      • The phrase people of the book is to make a compact with Jews and christians , not with polytheists , which the quran CLEARLY and unambiguously hates . Your days of claiming non-muslims dont know the hate preached in your quaran are long gone.

  18. Perhaps the politicisation of this religion was made easy by the two inherent weaknesses which this religion provides scope for:

    1. Treating non-believers differently: the motivation for this treatment (often resulting in violence and hatred against them) has its origins in the way the term ‘non-believers’ has been interpreted all along. In all probability the original reference should have been to those not believing in God generally as opposed to those not believing in Islamic faith. It would be incredibly naive if one were to accept that God would expect every one to follow the Islamic faith universally.

    Embedded into this belief system is another concept called jihad. Together they create a perfect recipe for disaster and flaming this mix helps enormously in fixing political targets. E.g. America and the birth of Taliban, ISIS etc

    2. Violence: a child born in to a Muslim household is introduced to physical violence early on in its life having to participate in animal sacrifice. Potentially this provides the necessary psychological grounding for a violent outlook later on in its life. Consequently, faced with the difficulties of daily life, it’s easy to be provoked and tolerance often goes for a toss.

    It has been proved time and again that modern education followed by economic prosperity alone provides the hope against this politicisation.

  19. one sided article. do some homework before writing this kind of article. Your points are not better than ghsf of RSS’s.
    how much you know about france’s brutality and US foreign policy?

  20. Discussion about what is happening in France is not complete without asking the simple question – is the freedom of speech equal to the freedom to offend? Regardless of being minority/ majority anyone will be offended if someone they revere is thought to be shown in a bad light. We have seen many instances in our own country. Free speech cannot be held equivalent to freedom offend/abuse…period.

    • Gaurakshak Harry: The right to blaspheme is enshrined in French law and if this right offends you, well tough luck.

      In February this year, a somewhat similar case cropped up in Lyon, France. A 16 year old girl, given the pseudonym “Mila” participated in an Instagram live chat where she talked of her homosexuality. That evoked an angry, vulgar response from a Muslim commentator and in turn Mila posted another video against Islam. This soon led to death threats and Mila had to change schools and her anonymity had to be protected. Clearly, the Muslims issuing death threats had forgotten that Mila was still a child.

      The Mila case soon had the whole of France discussing the issue and President Macron said the following:

      “.. In this debate we have lost sight of the fact that Mila is an adolescent. We owe her protection at school, in her daily life, in her movements .. The law is clear: we have the right to blaspheme, to criticise, to caricature religions. The republican order is not a moral order … what is outlawed is to incite hatred and attack dignity ..”

      Or to cite author Salman Rushdie:

      “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist”

      • Just chill kill .Using labels,aggression on your part shows you were outsmarted and outmaneuvered. Frankly its fun to see your rules and laws,arguments ,foe being used against you like they do in judo.There is no right or wrong if you win even your wrongs will be celebrated like in the case of muslims their mughal past is celebrated .

  21. Remarkable that after the cartoons were republished again last month,

    — a Pakistani asylum seeker first knifes three persons
    — then a Chechen refugee beheads a school teacher and last week
    — an asylum seeker/alien from Tunisia who had earlier spent a month in an Italian refugee camp comes to Nice and the first thing he does on French soil is kill three persons at a church for alleged blasphemy against his own faith!!

    Just too good. I demand asylum and I will dictate your policy and what beliefs you can have otherwise…..I will start screaming “Ola..Uber!” And start brutally hacking to death any kafir in sight!

    What were the chances that these three would have wonderfully integrated in the host country?

  22. I was doing some mild surfing before turning down for the night when I came across this article extraordinaire. Never in my life I had encountered such hilarity late at night that really made my day…say night! I nearly went off my rockers with laughter. Now here is the gem! Because you could not rebel against your government in your country and train to become a pilot since it was run asIislamic Shariat security state, you went to another country rebeled, trained to be a pilot and banged into world trade centre Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haah. Ohhh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha huh. Ohoo ho ho hoh ho ho hoh hoh ho!

    I had heard the Kwaja joke where he looks for his lost ring under the street light when it was actually lost in the desert and when asked replies that there is most light under the street light. But never knew it to be serious journalism. Ha ha ha ha ha ho ho ho hmmm ha hmmm! I give up! Hah ha ha ha ho ho hahah ha!

    Among the many, there is another hidden gem in the article. The Chechen muslim guy cut of the teacher’s head because he wanted his own Cartoonist and his own teacher Ha hah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ohooa ha ha ha ha ha. Ohh boy I am going to have abelly ache if I do not stop now. Ha ha ha oh haha ha! Again thanks for making my night! Ha ho ho ha. ha ha hah.

  23. You have been too restrained in speaking truth.
    Either it is fear or your training of Nehruvian Era.
    Calling spade a spade is not your USP.
    It feels that your justifying Muslim terror in a way.

  24. I read this article in the early morning in the Business Standard and waited for it to appear in the Print website. But now it seems to be too late to comment on it. That the article is excellent is to state the obvious. Islam has always been in crisis, but that is not the point. France is a sovereign country. It has its own culture, value system, history and political beliefs. Voltaire and Rousseau gave democratic ideas to the eighteenth century world. Now France itself is caught in a crisis of its own. It has allowed millions of immigrants to enter their country in good faith and belief that these immigrants would integrate themselves in the French culture and value systems. But this has not happened. France now has a crisis on hand and decide how to handle this crisis. This will strengthen the extreme right party FN headed by Le Pen. But I am sure the French would resolve this issue in a mature and democratic manner.

    • Agreed. Also I am surprised that they are not doing any protests and beheading in China. China is living peacefully. All in all Muslims get the motivation of radicalization from there holy book Quran. Now world has started to learn that they are not the kind of people worth to live in with in a large society. Wherever they go, they only follow Sharia. Constitution, common sense and humanity is nothing for them. It doesn’t matter how much analysis you put on going back in history. Right now what is happening matters the most. We know what are they upto.

  25. It is regularly said hat no rights are absolute. Right to free expression is OK, but it is not absolute. The supreme court also sad so a few days ago in connection with the protesting Muslim women at Shaheen Bagh. So how about being pragmatic, and voluntarily refrain from publishing cartoons caricatures involving Muhammad. the prophet, if they are offensive to 10% Muslim population in France? There are so many other objects they can publish cartoons of. But problems start when one insists to exercise his right at any cost, no matter what. French President Emmanuel Macron didn’t merely dared to say Islam is in crisis, he said a lot more. When the editors at Charlie Hebdo republished the same cartoons to mark the start of a long-awaited trial of alleged accomplices in the 2015 attack, president Macron in his high profile speech detailed his plans to combat Islamism, and the government’s widespread crackdown on what it described as Islamist individuals and organizations. But then a French expert on the Arab world said that the publication and the republication are not the same thing, the republication by Charlie Hebdo is seen as an obstinate will to continue humiliating the Muslims, that now there is the sense that France has a problem with Islam, whereas in 2015, France was the victim of terrorists.

    Now the leaders of France’s 13 regions have announced that they would publish a booklet for high school students featuring the Muhammad, to reinforce French secularism, known as laïcité, in public schools. caricatures.Thus secularism, laïcité, has become a religion in France, just as communism had become religion of the communists. Secularism, laïcité, at any cost, COME WHAT MAY! Doesn’t this sound like Islamist radicalism?

    There is some background to all this: In the tortured 14-year history of the cartoons in France, the response to the images there has undergone a profound transformation. Once denounced by the head of state for provoking and disrespecting Muslims, and later held at a cautious distance by other officials, the same drawings are today fully embraced across the political establishment — often conflated with France’s commitment to freedom of expression. One drawing depicts the Prophet Muhammad carrying a bomb in his turban. The Muslims simply feel insulted and provoked. In the US and other western countries people are more cautious, lest their speeches be offensive to racial, ethnic and religious minorities. But not in France, with its religion of secularism, aka laïcité!

    It is not only Muslims who feel insulted when their prophet is shown in a light that they consider blasphemous. Hindus feel the same way too! In America, the Hindus had objected when an image of a Hindu goddess was shown on sleepers. In another case it was an image of god Ganesh. Recently some Indian Americans have refused to vote for Biden-Kamala Harris ticket just because they think “Harris’ disdain in allowing a relative to desecrate Goddess Durga during auspicious Navratri fortnight has offended all Hindus and to add insult to injury has refrained from issuing an apology.” And we all know how the paintings of MF Hussain showing Hindu goddesses had provoked so many Hindus, who had filed hundreds of lawsuits against him. He had to leave India and go to Qatar, where he died in the end. In India, although a big majority, Hindus feel they were victimised by By Muslim mughals, and many are very willing going back centuries to dig up their mosques to build Hindu temples on the site! Ayodhya is done, now many want to do the same in Mathura and Varanasi.

      • Mr Ranjan: No, MF Hussain was not beheaded. But one of India’s most celebrated painters feared for his life, fled the country and died in exile. The paintings that “offended” the Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena activists who went on a rampage at his house and forced him to flee were not even seen by these thugs. Fatwas from Bal Thackeray and Bajrang Dal supremos were enough for the vast majority of Indians to turn on him.

        I polled several friends of mine – highly educated Indians with at least a Masters under their belt – and they all agreed that MF Hussain had hurt the feelings of Hindus and deserved what he got. A follow-up question on whether they had actually seen the allegedly offensive drawings, blanks stares were seen. Proving again my theory that both the educated and the lumpen elements of all societies are easily led by demagogues and questionable religious figures.

        An earlier Print article “How long till Modi’s Hindutva politics completely robs Brand India of its democracy bonus”, (ref:bit.ly/3ehkgsU) describes how Hindutva is gradually turning many ordinary, normally unflappable Indians into baying, screaming and intolerant bigots. There may be differences in reach and magnitude when it comes to Hindutva terror and Hindutva inspired pogroms. But, Hindus no longer occupy the moral high ground when it comes to castigating Muslim intolerance.

        • Recall the professor in Kerala, I think his name was TT Joseph, who had his hands chopped off by the followers of the peaceful religion for a question in an examination which so offended the peacefuls.

          • Mr Ramu: Recall PM Indira Gandhi and many innocent Hindus who were killed by Sikh extremists in the 80s and 90s? Recall the lynchings of Mohammad Akhlaq, Juanid Khan, Pehlu Khan, Afrazul, and many others who get lynched by your Hindi gaurakshak friends who heeded Adityanath’s call for violence? Recall the pogroms of 2002 under the watch of then CM and now PM Narendra Modi?

            I do not think any religion or at least adherents of any religion can claim that they are so bloody pure that they can cast the first stone.

          • Kili your lack of reasoning is getting more evident as you write. There is no comparison of killing Indira Gandhi and chopping hand of TT Joseph.

            If you want to bring Sikh example then you can say that killing of Baba Gurbachan Singh of Nirankari sect was comparable to TT joseph case.

            Indira was killed by her guards, not Sikh extremists.

    • ” Secularism, laïcité, at any cost, COME WHAT MAY! Doesn’t this sound like Islamist radicalism?’

      Well then don’t move to France. Go to Bengal and stay with Gopalkrishna Gandhi in filth of garbage dump with high thinking. This is what GOPALKRISHNA GANDHI WANTS CLEANING MENTAL FILTH BEFORE PHYSICAL FILTH, SO HE IS AGAINST SWACHCHH BHARAT ABHIYAN. .

      French would be happy to see your type of people moving out of France.

    • Dumb argument. One can be offended but cannot go around beheading others. Except Muslims nobody else be it Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Jews or any other religious group go around beheading others.

      • I remember a Bajrang Dal worker in Orissa in the late. nineties during the time BJP government was at the Centre.
        He burnt alive an Australian Christian missionary and his children aged 6 and 10.
        He also chopped the arms of a Muslim trader and burnt him alive.

        Burning children alive is the most abominable crime I can think of. More horrible than the beheading in France. Excessive and blind faith in any religion can make a man do unreasonable things. The Buddhists have done horrible things in Myanmar.

    • Muslim is not the only community getting offended, Hindus also get offended as you mentioned and it is true, But it is only Muslims who involve i beheading if offended Others react differently.

    • “And we all know how the paintings of MF Hussain showing Hindu goddesses had provoked so many Hindus, who had filed hundreds of lawsuits against him. ”

      Rohit Desai , Did Hussein painted his prophet wife’s naked picture? If not why? because he was undercover jihadi.

      French also make fun of their own faiths too. That is true secularism .A dumb jack Ass Hindu secularist like you have difficulty understanding that difference.

  26. Lets bring the arguments that the five points construct and small conclusion the writer has undertaken. While it is true that Muslims are angry and poor, dearth of democracy is there, but I believe this is not the crux of the argument. I think the fundamental progress in religious thought is lacking in Islam and this is easily applied to Hindus in India. Indians have a rag-tag democracy in that we see different faces. They have, at least in theory, the right to differ and hold protests. But can you imagine being seen eating beef or God-forbid saying shoo to a cow excreting in the middle of the street ! How do you explain the angry Hindu in the five points narrative?

    I hate the idea of having separate laws for a minority or a majority. IF you are truly equal, laws need to be fair and equitable.

    • Very apt comment. Democracy, freedom of speech and equality for all are Western concepts.

      Hindus have always been ruled by their own kings or later Mughals or British so we just imposed Western standards on ourselves which is obviously not natural to us. We are still struggling with it. We will be always a flawed democracy.

  27. Author’s attempt to highlight is appreciated however it’s deeply flawed assessment.

    1. Islam is an ideology with Quran and Hadith as its foundation. It is the ultimate truth and not open interpretation. This fundamental element put it in direct confrontation with a secular and democratic principles and society.
    2. Ummah is very much a fact. The distinction is made when the issues are between Muslims vs rest and among Muslims. This means Muslim will be always united against non Muslims but will settle scores among Muslims as per their convenience.
    3. Muslims can be largely divided into Arabs Turks Iranians and mawali/maskins. Arabs and Iranians are at loggerheads since 1000 years. While Turks through caliphate ruled the Muslims for almost half of millineal. Mawali/maskins were always slaves to Turks Arabs or Iranians.
    4. Muslims have always been ruled by someone so the concept of democracy is foreign to them. A sharia state will always be in direct conflict with democracy and secular fabric of any nation state. This is more about daar ul harab dar ul Islam. With history as witness Muslims have decimated and destroyed every known civilization Mesopotamia, Babylon, Persia in 50 years of its inception the only exception being the Indian civilization.
    5. Democratic deficit is due to inherent fundamental belief in ultimate and literal word of Quran Hadith and sharia. Any Muslim would bow to have sharia implemented and in a democracy when in minority they will use those means to get to their end goal of Muslim state.

    I had expected better, but the foundational premise of your article is actually radical Islam vs fundamental Islam. What we see in france is not radical Islam but fundamental Islam. All these years we were made to believe that such instances are radical and lone wolf attack. But the more you dig deep in Quran Hadith and sharia you will come to the same conclusion as me that it infact in fundamental Islam which was masquerading as radical Islam.

    It is because of this I am fearful of the mayhem and a civil war like situation across India in coming years. Who can forget mooplah, direct action, Kashmiri Hindu genocide,Mumbai blast, godhra, delhi and Bengaluru.

  28. “… in India Muslims were equal and voluntary partners in forming this new republic.”

    That is a lie Mr. Gupta and you know it. Indian Muslims did not want to live with Hindus, that’s why they demanded and got a separate country. Gupta is trying to burnish his secular credentials at the expense of truth. He should know that a society and nation built on lies is bound to collapse – people like Gupta will be responsible for it. Let’s honestly acknowledge the Muslim genocide against Hindus for a thousand years and the role of Muslims in breaking up India. Once you acknowledge the truth, then comes acceptance and reconciliation. After all, everybody wants to be friends with their fellow citizens. But you cannot build a fake comeraderie through lies and deception – as the Indian Muslims and secular types have been trying for many decades. Gupta and his secular friends will be responsible for leading to india to another civil war – merely because they lacked the moral courage and character to be truthful.

  29. Shekar, did you read my email group? You basically stole every word I wrote there… or may be not every word. Brilliant analysis and write up… Every once in a while a gem comes along. You could not have been more right.

  30. The problem faced by France for a few years now whereas INDIA has been facing similar attacks for the past 800 years.

    However the attacks are justified by anti HINDU activist and journalists . They defend rioters are innocent and blame victims as PERPETRATORS .

    FAKE HISTORY WRITERS under congrass rule imposed education in INDIA wherein Muslim invaders who were extremely violent and religious BIGOTS are painted in history books as some benign rulers .

    A hybrid war of religious activist , NGO’s and rented jhollawallas and journalists a combination of pro pakistan and china groups are together creating a belligerent narrative of hate.

    HINDUS believe in education and science and prosperity and must face those forces without fear and MODIJI is the right leader in today’s circumstances.

    Fortunately social media is exposing fake paid news propaganda by HINDU hating journalist.

  31. SG in this editorial has simply put out the seemingly complex issue of Islam threatening World peace. Human rights, the driving force that accepts desolate refugees, while addressing individuals does not address culture. Invasion of culture by Islam is the major issue in European and Western democracies. It is becoming an issue in India too. This fissure is exploited by terrorist organizations in the name of pan Islam.

    Over centuries, since the advent of Arab traders on the West coast, Arab culture and later Islamic culture permeated into the Indian society. During my school days this was very evident in my state Kerala. It worked both ways. Then, a woman in a burqua was rare and if we saw one we were sure she has arrived from Saudi Arabia. I left Kerala after School. For some reason things there are different today.

    The problem is not religion affecting politics….the problem is religion affecting cultures. As I always say, in India if all religious leaders come on one platform and proclaim in unison that “ your GOD is as good as mine” and ingrain this idea into young minds, we would have come a long way in maintaining communal harmony.

  32. Dear Shekhar Gupta,

    Thank you very much for your concern about Islam and the Muslims. I do not understand what caused you to write this article, because the French Muslim who carried out the act of terrorism was someone you did not know. I am sure you do know hundreds, if not thousands, of Muslims in your country in whom you find kindness and a disgust to such terrorists. I would have liked had you focused on such Muslims rather than joining the world hype against one particular religion and holding it responsible for what a cruel human being, who just happened to be a Muslim, did in France. It is also pertinent here to point out that such acts of brutality are not committed only by the Muslims, but when an uncivilized Muslim commits them, the media calls it terrorism; while it is called murder or lynching or anything but terrorism when a non-Muslim commits them.

    When you recount what Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Imran Khan, or Mahathir Mohamad say about the French act of terrorism, it is you who is making them representatives of Islam, not us. You need to ask other Chechens living in France about what they think about this atrocity.

    You say, “If tens of crores of Muslims across the world feel that they are victims of mass Islamophobia, it is a sense of siege and crisis.” Let me rephrase it in order to describe my side of what you call the many versions of this truth. I would say, “If tens of crores of Muslims across the world feel a sense of siege and crisis (because of a Chechen teenager who was hardly a university graduate, not to talk of him being a Muslim scholar), it is mass Islamophobia.”

    1. You say Islam is the most politicized religion of all. Probably ‘yes’ in the media, but not in reality. While you begin this article by referring to the many versions of the truth, you end up considering democracy and secularism utopic – which is certainly not the case around the world. I am sure, being a journalist, you know this fact better than I do. So, in summary, an absence of democracy and secularism cannot be a proof of a failed political state. Nor can their presence prove a just and fair political state.

    2. When you say that there is an unresolved tension among Muslim populations and nations between nationalism and pan-nationalism, you admit to the fact that the concept of Ummah has never arisen among the Muslims of the world. When there is not a single political entity called Islam or Muslims in the world, why on earth are you criticizing my faith and my identity because of the French terrorist? When you try to write off the crusades as past history, why even recall the wars fought among the Muslim nations? Even these wars are part of the past, albeit not so distant. In any case, these wars are hardly related with what has happened in France.

    3. If pan-Islamism has worked with Al-Qaeda or ISIS, why is it that I hear of them only through you, and no one in my contact is associated with these organizations? I would argue that pan-Islamism in me is a lesser reality than pan-anti-Islamism present in you.

    4. When you say, “They won’t distribute their wealth equally to the rest in the spirit of pan-Islamism,” do you want “them” to distribute the wealth equally and form a pan-Islamic political identity? I am not convinced that you do. If this be the case, why pick such a hole in Islam or Muslims that even if it is filled, you are not going to speak in favor of Islam or Muslims? Or is it that you feel that criticizing Islam is the easiest way to become a successful journalist?

    5. I am an Indian so I can only talk about India. Anyway, when you say that in Islamic countries you cannot protest, do you think that protest is possible in other countries? I am sure that you are better aware of the world’s current affairs than I am.

    “You can’t fight your masters, so why not punish the master’s masters?” So, you think that democracy is also about being a master? Is the US or the West, master of the Islamic countries, according to you? Anyway, I am not fighting my master or my master’s master. I am only trying to bring sanity in the thinking of a friend or a friend’s friend – i.e., Shekhar Gupta.

    Here is wishing you more success and longevity, in your career as a journalist, and your life as a human being.

    Best regards,
    Your friend or a friend’s friend.

    • From your friend or friend’s friend:-
      Not just Mr. Shekhar Gupta but everywhere across the world people seem to be thinking along these lines. Reason is the reaction of Muslims and leafers of Islamic nations to the attacks. Millions of Muslims are protesting against Mr. Macron – wishing death to him and his people, insulting his nation and society.
      However, this same rage was not visible when the dastardly attacks took place. In fact, most if not all, justified the barbaric attacks.
      You talk about India regarding the freedom to protest but the fact remains that no one was murdered or beheaded for the anti-CAA protests.
      Your disdain and contempt for political ideas like democracy and secularism easily gives you away and shows your true colours. The fact that you dont consider these to be the basic premises on which a nation and a society must be built – no matter the religion or any other affiliation of the masses – in a way shows your support for Islamist nations/societies which have never accepted and practiced these ideas. Am pretty sure you would prefer to live in an Islamic theocratic state compared to a secular democratic one.
      Also, Erdogan, Imran and Mahathir are/were elected/selected leaders of their predominantly Islamic nations. Hence, Mr. Gupta names them.

      • This. when idiot mullahs in Mumbai and bhopal took out massive rallies against macron.
        This lot can’t deal with fools of their own religion and now we have to deal with these pseudosecular semi educated types.

  33. Such a long prologue to sayt that Muslims are the true horrors in the present day world. Wherever Muslims are numerous enough they create a horror. Then they claim that they are being victimised. No sympathy for such cry babies.
    To the Muslims I would say, set your own house in order. Stop blaming others. The world is fed up of you and your misdeeds. If the Muslims of the world don’t start living in peace with everyone else then sooner or later some country is going to do what the Russians did to Chechens.

  34. The barbaric activities of Islamists worldwide are rooted in their book and their refusdl to reform. The points made by the author are at best pheripheral. There are umpteen number of dictats in the book seeki g to promote harred and violence.

    • Mr G Yagneswaran: The vast majority of Muslims, including Muslims whose mother tongue is Arabic do not – I reiterate do not – understand the Qur’an, written as it is in classical, ancient Arabic. This is especially true of Muslims from the Indian sub-continent, the majority of whom are barely literate and cannot read and write even in their own mother tongues. So I will posit that very Muslims have actually read the Qur’an. Just as very few Christians have read the Bible and very few Hindus have read the Gita or the Ramayana.

      However, demagogues, religious leaders and any notable with some following and power will be able to incite masses into participating in demonstrations and carry out needless, barbaric acts of violence. And that happens across the board and in all religions. Thus, you have Muslims carrying out acts of violence, reacting more to incendiary preachers in mosques, politicians or to online propaganda than to any in-depth reading of the Qur’an. Indeed, online propaganda is currently the most effective recruiting tool for getting jihadists to leave the safety of France, Germany, US or UK and fight in Syria. And then get to regret it and want to get back home to the safety and comfort of Europe – as Britain’s ISIS terrorist Shamima Begum now wants.

      Likewise, in India, lumpen elements respond to the clarion calls of Adityanath, Uma Bharti, Sakshi Maharaj and other Hindutva thugs and go on a rampage killing and lynching innocent Muslims. The mere allegation from these rabble-rousers that Hinduism is under threat from Islam will get these foot soldiers of Hindutva – in reality cannon fodder – to march for causes they know little about. Indeed, during the 2002 pogroms in Gujarat, these useful idiots who responded to VHP and RSS calls were quietly dumped by the VHP & the RSS and many now languish in jails. Clearly, these lumpen foot soldiers of Hindutva heed the calls of their political masters rather than any Hindu religious text.

      So Mr G Yagneswaran, please do not over-estimate the intellectual abilities of those who march for religious causes and certainly not those who kill for religious causes.

      • The Muslims book is replete with references to khafirs – derogatively refering to followers of other faiths. Any amount of word jugglery and lengthy explanation is not going to help. What is needed is introspection of the community as a whole.

      • Issue is Muslims are doing mayhem in places where they came a refugees.

        it is different story if they are doing it in middle east.

        Bulk of them are essentially illegal Immigrants, to use modern terms, in South Asia & Europe and have shown their total unwillingness to assimilate. People came from outside in past both in Europe and South Asia. People like Greeks, Scythians, Huns etc came to India & Europe but they assimilated. British came and gone. You don’t see Brits in India. So British colonization was plunder like done by Tamerlane & Nadir shah. But it has no lasting damage to local people.

        In South Asia , Muslims came as invaders, destroyed many temples robbed Indians of their wealth. The biggest nonsense propagated by Historians like Romila Thapper is that the rule by Delhi Sultanate was good. it is like South American Indians celebrating conquistadors as philanthropists in spite of stealing their land and killings. I like is description by Komireddi regarding behavior of people like Shashi Tharoor.

        “India’s ‘secularists’ furnished explanations of the kind Tharoor reheats here when he writes that the Islamic invaders who settled in India were different from British imperialists because they invested their loot in India. Reading this, I pictured Warangal as the Delhi Sultanate’s Muslim troops captured its Hindu king in the 14th century. I don’t think any native who witnessed that great city’s subsequent destruction thought to himself, ‘They are smashing our majestic temple, carting away its golden idols, slaughtering men and abducting children, but it’s all right: I hear they are investing the gold up in Delhi.”
        This is the history In spite of such violent history Muslims have refused be to assimilated into local culture. THAT IS THE REALITY that everybody sees. Your writing a book won’t change that perception and reality as seen by local people.

  35. That shows you and others who justify violence for expressing a view have no clue about French history and how sacred the principles of the French revolution is to the French people. Ever heard of Voltaire — and his famous exhortation:

    “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

  36. Many years ago I heard a little girl saying to her Bangladeshi Buddhist doctor father that if you are so concerned about your culture, you should not come to the west in the first place, and stay in your home country.

  37. I agree with only one point, i.e. all religions are political. Any discussion on why global Islam is in danger with practically no mention of American foreign policy in the middle east and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is meaningless. One could go on listing more reasons, but I’ll fall short of space here. You mention ex PM of Malaysia justifying mass killing of the French people for their crimes of the past. Indeed a horrendous statement. But compare it with the justification that Madeleine Albright (US secretary of state in the Clinton administration) of the (actual, not hypothetical) deaths of almost half a million Iraqis in the 90s due to American sanctions on Saddam. That is just one tiny example of how some lives are valued more than others (based on their socio economic status in the world).

    When fragile societies are hit with a sledgehammer, there are some natural consequences to it. Terrorism (which for me is killing of innocent people to advance political and ideological agenda, not some fancy one sided definition that a government came up with to make their people feel good), is one of those consequences. This is an explanation, and not a justification of terrorism. These debates on supposed free speech in France are a red herring. I don’t think that the world, largely western world, has any intention to have an honest conversation on the topic, because that would involve admitting to some horrendous crimes that they have committed over the past half century or so (the illegal invasion of Iraq is one such example).

    In short, we can all sit here and talk about how horrible is lung cancer (terrorism). That is an easy conversation to have. It will find an overwhelming consensus, but nothing useful is expected to come out of it. What is not easy is an honest discussion about its causes, namely smoking and pollution (read western interference in the Muslim world, and their continued support to anti-democratic forces which are hell bent upon crushing any kind of secular nationalism to develop in that part of the world).

    • This is called whataboutery. A textbook definition of the same.
      Your root causes theory is the same one invoked by Mr. Imran Khan to justify violence. Question is if you feel so strongly against the Western world and its injustices, why immigrate there? If you know that you would forever be incompatible with their society and uncomfortable with their values and principles, why do you migrate? Why dont you just stay in your own nation?
      The arguments that you have put out are specious to say the least.

    • Interesting whitewash Singhji !! Everything turns out to be the Westerners’ fault! Apparently, according to your logic, the westerners target only the Muslim nations; wonder why they are so much interested in only Islamic nations! The reality though is, the developed nations have no interest in any particular religion. They act only what is to their self-interest. The rest is a needless linking to religion, for the obvious fact that Islamic is a potent concoction of religio-politico-social movement, (not a religion per se).

  38. Before we discuss issues put forth in this article, one basic point we should debate is – how much freedom of speech is justified? Also, what may be palatable to one person may not be so to another and that person may express his reaction by becoming violent, as that may be the only thing he understands. So the Western democracies need to debate and settle about the sensitivity of others and have a robust common sense of how to responsibly enjoy one’s freedom of speech.

    • Would you put up this very same (and lame) defence of the violence which has scarred France if it were committed by Bajrang Dal members?
      Or are you just another commie who feels that he is duty bound to defend the Islamists and their barbaric acts?

    • Freedom of speech with restrictions is no, “Freedom”. There is no justification for violence because what someone has said is not palatable. It isn’t the Western democracies who need to debate and settle this. Those indulging in violence should do the debating.

  39. In point no.5 you seem to justify violence. no matter what, no religion should ever resort to violence whatever the compulsion. the whole world must unite to make this very very clear.

  40. People should really come out of the cocoons of religion, culture and be liberal to people of other religion or culture. In fact the level of a true Christian, true Musalman, true Hindu, etc. is much above the human level. It’s wrong to think that a person born from a parent who’s trying to follow a religious path is of that religion. Nobody becomes a Christian or Muslim or Hindu by birth. The guys who are perpetrating violence or hurt by words are in fact yet to become true humans, least of all they’re religious by any means.

  41. Author is forgetting that many Pakistanis actively participated in Chechnya war, supported by its military state.

    Overall the author is giving an impression that subcontinent muslims are less radical than middle eastern muslims. There are two flaws here: first is clubbing India, Pakistan, Bangladesh as subcontinent. Pakistan muslims have largely participated in terror activities, whereas Indian muslims didn’t. Second is author has failed to realises that the expression of radicalism depends on the their majority or minority status.

  42. It is stated in the above “Editorial” that all religions are political. I think it is wrong to say so. Religions purely and totally “personal” to be practised within the four walls of the respective followers’ house or place of worship / prayer. Religion is a means of connecting one with the God in the way the individuals prefer or believe. It is therefore, one’s personal wish or believe to follow a particular way of worship or prayer or any other pattern and it should interfere in one’s transactions/ interaction etc., with others in any way whatsoever. This was the practice in the past some centuries ago. There were absolutely no conflict of faith to the extent that would harm the society’s well being and safety. On the contrary, people used to respect others’ religion and religious practices. There were instances of one community helping the people from different community /ies for fulfilling their religious practices if needed. Complete harmony was overwhelming. However, when political leaders started interfering and misleading the gullible masses on the basis of religion, things took different turn, particularly for worse. Now situation of interfering has become so intertwined with religion, there is seems to be no matter of more importance for the leaders except exploiting the masses’ religious sentiments. This has become so much such that political existence /survivalof the leaders depends almost solely on this platform. Therefore, I think, the idea of “all religions are political ” has gained. weight. Leave the “Religion” to the individuals in the real sense, there will be peace, tranquility and harmony in the society. But this does not come without a cost. The cost is “Politicians survival as politicians” to be at stake. Who will exercise this option ? None except those minuscule politicians who have the welfare and well being of the society and humanity at the bottom of their heart..

  43. A fairly realistic and profound analysis of what limits the Muslim population across the world. To the extent that Islam is such a beautiful religion, but as SG says every religion is political, so is Islam and therefore it’s upon fellow Muslims to realise their religion will still be weighed down under political, economical and nationalistic barriers and until these are broken down, establishing something pan Islamic that is transcending is near to impossible.

    A very thought provoking and insightful peice by SG sir and makes a very good weekend read – kudos!

  44. Flawed Article , all my previous comments are deleted by The Print Liberal team ,who always talks about freedom of expression and freedom of speech , what a joke

  45. Khuran mandates the killing of non-Muslims and ex-muslims. Somehow if that one instruction can be deleted from Khuran, world would become a better place to live in.

  46. Why is the Congress party & its paid media like The Print silent about persecution of Muslims in China?
    Is it because your secularism is fake?

  47. A great clear headed article. But what about the growing asymmetry of terrorism where nationalism must stand up against not pan national organizations necessarily but against individual actors backed and supported by such organizations anywhere in the world?

  48. French president is right , secularism , freedom of speech must be taught to every person to keep away from radicalism . Radicalised and fundamentalists are a threat to world . These radicals are misguiding people in name of religion . Prophet mohammad was abused by others but in quran it is written to keep calm and ignore those people

  49. There is a key point to be made in some of Shekhar’s observations. The majority of Muslims do not subscribe to the various shortcomings listed. A majority of Muslim immigrants to liberal democracies do not subscribe to beheading of folks who insult Islam. Similarly, they don’t choose to be undemocratic nor would most push back against a democracy any more than North Koreans would. Given the fact that many societies are starting to condone violence and outright discrimination as a means of asserting a real/perceived loss of cultural identity, there is a great risk of further fanning Islamophobia if the point above is not also made, in articles like these.

  50. Where a book can be written, you have covered or tried to cover in an article! I appreciate that you have the courage to look for reasons for the situation we are in. Just as France has done. Muslims have got themselves to blame for the current situation because they justify their acts through their religion & its’ teachings. Those within the community who don’t agree that the religion doesn’t spew venom won’t speak up. If a sensible veteran like Mahathir Mohammed can speak this language, what do you expect from the Erdogans and Khans of the world!
    If Muslims want to reverse this situation, they need to assimilate themselves to the societies & countries where they belong. For that to happen, the educated people in Islam should come forward and speak up what their religion truly preaches, rather than leaving serious matters to the clerics.

  51. how did muslims contributed to formation of indian republic……immediately after indepence..they formed islamic pakistan…and still were they are in majority ..they create problem…the problems with journalist in india is they can not be brutally true …and this is the most important cause of social and communal tensions…were oppresrror is never called opprsessor in india…

  52. Pranam Gupta ji !! Please read Q and H with an open mind/ critical mind , m sure your understanding of the present situation will gain more clarity….. pan islamism or ummah nationalism crystallises and consolidates only if there is a “kaafir “ against them ,which you have conveniently ignored or forgotten……dhanyavad ??

  53. @smartchap – freedom of speech does not care about your feelings. People need to learn to be mature and not go on beheading others in the street.

  54. When in minority and living in democratic country, Muslims ask for more then equal treament and preach secualrism.
    When in majority, they convert the country into islamic state and convert or masaacre non-Muslims.
    This is the un-deniable fact. Offcourse there will alway be minuscle exceptions. But no need to sugar coat the brabaric nature of the followers all in the name of “peacefull” religion.

  55. Your article is completely biased. Let’s analyze. You have taken Pakistan’s corrupt political model (as their political leaders paint the colour of religion to everything under their hood) and applied globally. Firstly, everyone knows that the so called west were the first ones to start brutal killings, enslaved people and plundered many asian countries right from the 15th century. If you read history, you will know what gruesome and heinous crimes they committed.

    Now coming to Mr.Macron, he from the very day of becoming the leader, have made negative comments about Islam and have continued to do so. This means he is a core hate monger or a master politician who wants to polarize people for votes under the pretext that french values are in danger (BTW, this is what every other politician in so-called democracy do including countries such as India, Bangladesh, pakistan, Srilanka etc.).

    If Mr.Macron is a hate monger, he could do what the Mr. Trump does like limiting immigration, curb on muslim nations etc. Now, coming to the actual act, which is showing the cartoon of Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH) in bad light was a really insulting act to muslims globally. Now, people argue if the same is done to Jesus Christ or Moses (Jews) or Hindu/greek gods, people will note create such a mess as the muslims do. Arguably, yes! The reason is Muslims put Allah and his Messenger, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) above their own life, even more than their loved ones. The same is not seen in other religions because the they don’t love their gods/messiahs like the way muslims do. I am sure a non-Muslim will not understand this. For the non-Muslims sake, let me give an example. I am sure people, irrespective of their religions, love their parents, their children and siblings. Let’s assume Mr. Macron for that matter. If Charlie Hebdo/any other media draws a nude cartoon of Mr.Macroon’s mother and publish it all over their country, will Mr. Macron support the same act in the name of freedom of speech? He won’t! Likewise, no muslim would agree.

    Now, coming to the killings, I think muslims there need to learn tolerance. Never-ever a killing is justified in Islam. If Mr. Macron tries to portray Islam in bad light, let him do. End of the day, each and every person, no matters who he is, is measured by the deeds he/she commits, in the eyes of God. Muslims know this. They also know that God will punish the bad, reward the good. It’s a universal fact, irrespective of religion. Now if that chech immigrant had accepted this fact, he wouldn’t have killed Mr. Paty. If Mr.Macron was a genuine person, he would have nabbed the killer and closed the chapter. Instead, he chose to demean Islam under the pretext of freedom of speech. This is called as politicising the issue, which Mr.Macron seems to be best at. And to the French muslims, they should have condemned both the acts. The drawing as well as the killing.

    • Such acts of violence and intolerance are exclusive to the Muslim community.
      Question is why do the Muslims immigrate to nations like France knowing fully well that they will never ever be able to accept and accommodate the ethics and principles adhered dearly to by the society of that nation?

    • But Muslims insult other religions every day. They claim their is the only true religion and every-other is false

      – You insult me !

      Thanks

      Sincerely
      Sri Krishna

      • Dear Krish,

        I don’t want to go the right wing way and tell that people of your community Lynch muslims in the name of religion. I know know that majority of people don’t support that.
        However, the statement you mentioned that many muslims insult other religions is not true. Some do. I know. Because they feel that they are the saviours of the religion and they think they are superior. They are sick minded. Islam doesn’t teach that. The best person in Islam is the one who doesn’t hurt others even through his words. This is clearly mentioned. But I know some peope might like to glorify what they like and conceal what they don’t. That’s a fact across religions, not just Muslims.

      • Dear Krish,

        I don’t want to go the right wing way and tell that people of your community Lynch muslims in the name of religion. I know know that majority of people don’t support that.
        However, the statement you mentioned that many muslims insult other religions is not true. Some do. I know. Because they feel that they are the saviours of the religion and they think they are superior. They are sick minded. Islam doesn’t teach that. The best person in Islam is the one who doesn’t hurt others even through his words. This is clearly mentioned. But I know some peope might like to glorify what they like and conceal what they don’t. That’s a fact across religions, not just Muslims.

        Best,
        Sameer

      • Dear Krish,

        I don’t want to go the right wing way and tell that people of your community Lynch muslims in the name of religion. I know know that majority of people don’t support that.
        However, the statement you mentioned that many muslims insult other religions is not true. Some do. I know. Because they feel that they are the saviours of the religion and they think they are superior. They are sick minded. Islam doesn’t teach that. The best person in Islam is the one who doesn’t hurt others even through his words. This is clearly mentioned. But I know some peope might like to glorify what they like and conceal what they don’t. That’s a fact across religions, not just Muslims.

        Regards

      • Dear Mr.Krish,

        Some DOES NOT represent ALL! If that’s the case, I can attribute all the muslim lynchings that happened in India by right wing hindu workers to all Hindu community. As a sane person I won’t think like that.

        I hope you understand.

        Best,
        Sameer

        • Good point.
          Right wingers like to always generalize and paint a community with same brush rather than accept it as isolated acts of few people blinded by faith. They want an enemy so that they can unite all Hindus against an “enemy” dspite differences in their caste system and many different spoken languages.

          What do right wingers have to say about the Australian Christian priest who was burnt in Odisha? Should Christians then say all Hindus are violent?

  56. In France the freedom of speech is absolute and all citizens are bound by that. If someone does not like a prophet cartoon ,
    they are free to criticise, or produce counter cartoons to this. But they are not supposed to take to the knife or gun. Even Jesus Christ can be lampooned.
    The problem is that French citizens from Islamic nations have taken all advantage of the French economy , its freedoms etc but want to retain their old Islamic modes of thinking. Native French are now saying conform , or move out , which is fair enough.

  57. Sir, could you please ask your editorial staff to be just as reasonable & objective in their articles instead of choosing facts to justify their own prejudices? What your editorial staff follows is what modern educated Indians call pseudosecularism.
    Isn’t it arrogant on the part of your editorial staff to believe that, educated modern Indians who compete on the world stage & are accepted as highly intelligent & rational people all over the world, are no better than journalists?

    • Dr Mahesh Docherla: Amusing to read your preposterous claim:

      “.. educated modern Indians who compete on the world stage & are accepted as highly intelligent & rational people all over the world ..”

      Alas, Dr Docherla, the vast majority of Indians in the West as well as in the Middle-East do not fit your description and categorisation. Many work in the service sector doing menial jobs or jobs that the natives won’t take. Glowing adjectives such as “educated”, “modern”, “highly intelligent & rational” and so forth might apply to a few (some?) but certainly not to the vast majority.

      Fact is, most Indians do not make the news as the Sundar Pichais, Sathya Nadellas, Dr Sanjay Guptas, Nikki Haleys (Namrata Randhawa) and their ilk do. Unsung Indians, mostly blue collar workers toiling away, often out of sight of people like you are also part of the Indian diaspora.

      Indeed, India is one of the top exporters of clandestine immigrants to the US, UK and Western Europe. In the US alone, there are more than ½ a million (525,000) undocumented Indians (ref:pewrsr.ch/382RsmS). The figures for the UK are in the range of 1 million undocumented (ref: bit.ly/37WuCNA) Indians. And most of these Indians work in gruelling, back-breaking and dangerous jobs for less than minimum wages and with no healthcare or other social protections. Of course, your ilk would perhaps not like to read about this group of blue collar immigrants – a group which is extremely important to the Indian economy as they remit more money back home than documented migrants.

      You might also be surprised that Indians today function as de facto slaves in many Western countries. You ought to see the incisive Al Jazeera documentary “Italy’s Sikh Slaves” to get an idea of the level of exploitation. (ref: bit.ly/35QmJXq). But interestingly, most of the Sikhs in Italy are actually exploited by their own countrymen and co-religionists. Nonetheless, they would rather work in these inhuman conditions in Italy than go back to India. I guess they truly understand that Modi’s much ballyhooed “achche din” is a lot of tosh !

      The image of India outside the country is a lot more complex and nuanced than what your jingoism would lead you to believe Dr Mahesh Docherla.

      • Many work in the service sector doing menial jobs or jobs that the natives won’t take.

        That is true for bulk of Keralites in middle east.

  58. Muslims are not considered equal?

    We bend over backwards as a society to accommodate them. We give them the right to different personal laws, subsidize their religious pilgrimages, and have a vocal, though clueless, bunch of morons with quick fingers and Twitter accounts.

    As a professional engineer for the last 25+ years (IIT Grad), with a decade and a half in leadership positions, I challenge your premise. Never have I discriminated between any of my people, whether on religion, sex or any such measure that many use to divide people. Some of my best people have been Muslim. And many more were Female. All of them good , hard working, intelligent people. All they needed was a safe platform on which to perform. I gave them that – an equal playing field. My motto has always been – “Show me you can and go to the head of the class. No shortcuts. No Flags. Just your ability and willingness to work.”. Don’t take my word on that – ask those who worked with me in many different organizations.

    Nor do I discriminate against them in broader society.

    Please don’t paint us regular Indians, and Hindus, with a brush like that.

    It wont make much difference even if you do. For we will not change that which is good – humanity.

  59. Shekhar Gupta again demonstrates what quality journalism should be – simplify complex social/ economic/ political issue which is important and current. I wish he brings a second part. What are the possible solutions to this crisis. Draw lessons from the period when Christianity was somewhat similar to Islam of today. What elite muslims need to do? Why there is no moderate global islamic leadership?

  60. Why no responsibility on individuals to get integrated in the culture and ethos of the country where immigrants go ? If they dont like the secular state and its free speech why they should go to such a place ? Instead the Chechan and others like them go to Pakistan , Afghanistan !

  61. The concept of defending the right to expression, come what may, is liberating, even in concept. That President Macron is implementing it in verse is truly heroic. It is only hoped that France will defend the right to expression irrespective of which religion, society or country comes into play. But it is equally interesting to hear the Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, say that the terrorist attack in Nice was wrong but freedom of expression has limits. And he has a point.

    But then how do you implement it? A discussion between Macron and somebody from the Islamic religion? But which logical, progressive and modern leader does the Islamic world have that can make this happen? Food for thought.

  62. The problem of Muslims being insecure, divided, poor and oppressed in their own countries as Mr Gupta pointed out is only one part of the root cause analysis. The other part is the response of the multi-cultural societies to which Muslims belong. It is either brutal suppression like in the case of China, erstwhile Yugoslavia or even back home in Gujarat and Kashmir or laissez faire approach of the secular Europeans and Indian centerists and leftists. Why is it the European democracies do not insist that immigrant Muslims must put their children into state sponsored schools only for education and any religious education can wait until the child becomes an adult? Why is it that Mr Modi who has built his whole career on brainwashing Hindus into believing that all Muslims are fanatics did not push for secular education for all children in Gujarat while he was 3 term CM? Why does the PM not outlaw obvious religious symbols of expression in public all over India? He has pushed enough idiotic laws with his brute majority. I am sure that this can also be done. Why the same urgency has not been shown towards education as it has been towards building Mandir or outlawing beef or striking off 370? The brutal truth is that it is convenient for Mr Modi if Muslims remain ultra-religious, backward and susceptible to jihadist sympathies. Then he can tell Hindus “look your Muslim neighbour is a fanatic, vote for me to save you from him!”

  63. Shekhar Guptha, if you are scared to write truth about Islam, donot write , you will put an attractive head line to your story and when we start reading, we find out typical Leftist apologist writer in your article about Islam . So please stop white washing Islam.

  64. SG
    You are an absolute idiot with no knowledge of islamic history, caliphate
    Freedom of expression shouldn’t voilate others religious beliefs
    If u condemn killings ,you should have condemned blashpamous cartoons also
    We will rise again we will caliphate and sharia

  65. The 5 points point one truth..that the symptoms and cause lies within. There’s a saying when you point your one finger to another, three point towards you. Islamophobia is within Islam. Pan Islamic is a canvas to show it’s symptom. That takes us to need to closely examine and refine the Qaran. The rich class of mid East have no time for that, the majority middle class in Asian countries like India are muddled in day to day life and politics. Islam has no committed establishment like Christianity, nor its text a moderate one or one having only peaceful verses for teaching. The cancerous cells within Islam will ultimately decide it’s longevity. Like it or not. In the process ordinary Muslims will get sandwiched in their life for no reason. In that space, what Macron is taking a lead is laudable and will benefit French muslims atleast in the long run. Back home, Modi’s manifesto for Indian Muslim’s backed by RSS is also on the same lines. Give only cream of Islam to its Muslim citizens. Rest throw it in dustbin or burn it ruthlessly.

  66. In the wake of the firm stand taken by the French President (a secular GORA), suddenly the intellectuals are now quoting what has been obvious to many idiots in the past. The stronger religious or ideological affinity over the national affinity has been promoted as means of garbing power by the religious and communist groups, across the world. They have been successful in countries where the state repression was very heavy with rulers having everything. In countries with the history of peaceful transition of power, these groups will only remain fringe players.
    The freedom of views and expressions which do not directly encourage or lead to violence must be protected at all costs. Calling coukidar Chor and dande se marenge or state resembling POK is all part of that and OK.
    ANY THING THAT DOES NOT CHANGE IS DESTINED TO PERISH and that applies to IDEALOGIES.

  67. My two pence opinion. In my stay in KSA I have seen that they hate us because they realise that they have been left behind in progress. That is why they take to religion.

  68. Another paradox is the context of modern Islam when muslims are in a majority they seem to have found a kind of self destruct button and when they are in minority in a country they want to take every one down along with them just because their religious leaders keep on brainwashing them that the only way to be a true Muslim is by negating the culture of the place and by living as differently from them as possible.

  69. Mr. Gupta,
    Good analysis. You also could include the difference in treatment of Muslims from subcontinent by those from middle east. Subcontinent Muslims are not considered equal.

    • Muslims are not considered equal?

      We bend over backwards as a society to accommodate them. We give them the right to different personal laws, subsidize their religious pilgrimages, and have a vocal, though clueless, bunch of morons with quick fingers and Twitter accounts.

      As a professional engineer for the last 25+ years (IIT Grad), with a decade and a half in leadership positions, I challenge your premise. Never have I discriminated between any of my people, whether on religion, sex or any such measure that many use to divide people. Some of my best people have been Muslim. And many more were Female. All of them good , hard working, intelligent people. All they needed was a safe platform on which to perform. I gave them that – an equal playing field. My motto has always been – “Show me you can and go to the head of the class. No shortcuts. No Flags. Just your ability and willingness to work.”. Don’t take my word on that – ask those who worked with me in many different organizations.

      Nor do I discriminate against them in broader society.

      Please don’t paint us regular Indians, and Hindus, with a brush like that.

      It wont make much difference even if you do. For we will not change that which is good – humanity.

      • You misunderstood my comment. Subcontinent Muslims are not treated well or considered a proper Muslim by those from Arab countries. They feel that Muslims from subcontinent are those converted from Hindu religion.

    • ” You also could include the difference in treatment of Muslims from subcontinent by those from middle east. Subcontinent Muslims are not considered equal.”

      Of course not. why should they? beggars can’t be choosers.

      Sub-continental Muslims are there to better themselves, not to local people. As a matter of fact Arab countries are keeping smarter policies. Sub-continental Muslims has been fed the idea of entitlement by Hindu secularists. Middle-eastern countries have brought all these people as beast of burden, not fore their self -perceived entitlement. Because of these tough policies Middle-eastern countries are able to allow far larger percentage of outsiders compared to their local population.

      There are not may cases of immigrant Pakistani or Chechen killing local because he was angry, for whatever the reason. West’s problem arise from their willingness to accommodate fanatic Muslims coming to their country.

      Of course Hindu secularist like you don’t like that. You want Arabs to bend backward like Indians to accommodate fanatics and export your Chaos there.

  70. The beginning of the article itself is flawed. French president did not get into trouble because he said Islam is in crisis. He invited the wrath of all, because of justifying the insulting of prophet in the name of freedom of speech.

    • Ok,so beheading is justified according to your religion ? If that’s what you are telling me,time to ask NIA to keep an eye on radical Muslims like you.

      • Muslim rage does not emerge from respect for muhammad but from the knowledge that muhammad is a fraud & that their entire system of belief is a fraud that could never stand up to any scrutiny…!!!!!!
        If the world’s religions were paintings in a museum, Islam would be a child’s dirty smeared finger painting all in one color.

    • You imply that freedom of speech is qualified, no it isn’t . This is what the debate is all about. If some one expresses something deemed wrong by certain people, that person is not to punished by beheading. He has right to express, and live with that expression.

    • maybe you should check the chain of event. it started when he said Islam is in crisis. n defend the right to publish cartoon. he does not defend the cartoons but the right to publish them

    • Specifically in France , the cartooning of prophet is fine and everyone can do this. Maccron himself does not justify this, but he upholds others’ right to depict cartoons. If Islamic people want to retaliate they can produce counters to this in newspapers and magazines. But they cannot take up the knife or gun . It’s all a question of conforming to French laws and conventions and the migrants haven’t understood this.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here