Christian Subversion And Missionary Activities - 6

[Bharatvarsh2]

I suppose the more foolish among the Greeks and Roman's also thought that "it is like Christianity has to bend to the Greco-Roman traditions, values and customs" as the Christos were stealing their festivals and philosophy, well where are the Greeks and Romans now?



The modern day Greeks are Greeks only in name, instead of Zeus they worship Jeebus.



This is how Hindus will also end up if this THEFT is not stopped.



Also this RSS like obsession with "Indianization" is foolish. My problem with Xtianity is not its foreign origin but its truth claims and intolerant fanaticism inherent in this cult. If Xtian claims are true then what does it matter where it originated we should all convert to it, just as Newton's laws apply everywhere even if he himself discovered them in England. If they are false then we should reject it.

The term "indianization" implies that the problem with Islam is its un-Indianness. And this, in turn, would imply a nationalistically distorted view of religion: that a nation should only follow native traditions and shun foreign contributions in religion. By such standards, the adoption of Hinduism or Buddhism by the peoples of East and Southeast Asia would not be a matter of pride (as it seems to be for the Sangh) but a violation of the proper world order. The Khmers should have rejected Shiva and built their Angkor temple to some native deity; the Balinese should not enact the Ramayana but create an epic around a native hero instead. The "holyland" of many East-Asian Buddhists is not their own country, but India: the Mahabodhi temple was renovated in the 19th century by the king of Burma, and is now surrounded by guest-houses catering to many thousands of pilgrims from each Buddhist country every year. Should we deduce that these Thai or Japanese pilgrims are being "anti-national" by having such "extra-territorial" religious loyalty? And that the Mongolian and Chinese Communists were right to crack down on Buddhism? That would be the implication if we start reducing religions to their geographical provenance instead of studying their contents. In this case, patriotism is not the refuge of scoundrels, but of duffers.



This futile attempt to identify the Islam problem in terms of "Indian" vs. "foreign" implies a second similarity with certain undesirable xenophobic trends in the West. Semi-literate xenophobic ideologues in Europe identify Islam as "a foreign religion, fit for Asiatics but not for Europe". In their opinion, there is nothing wrong with Islam, as long as it remains in its country of origin. This is not too different from the applause given in Hindutva publications to Anwar Shaykh's thesis that "Islam is the Arab national movement". In his book Islam, the Arab National Movement, the Pakistan-born apostate author from Cardiff (with a death-warrant fatwa on his head since 1994) accurately documents how islamization has meant external arabization (names, clothes, script) for most converted populations, but wrongly infers that Islam is a form of Arab nationalism or Arab imperialism.



For the Sangh, this thesis was doubly welcome: it recast the Islam problem in the familiar, safely secular-sounding terms of nationalism, and it legitimized Islam ("See we're not against Islam?") all while limiting its legitimate geographical domain so as to exclude India from it. The implication is that Hinduism is Indian nationalism, and Islam is Arab nationalism. This is grossly unjust to the Arabs and the native Arab culture which Islam destroyed. There is nothing Arab about Islam, a doctrine confabulated by Mohammed from half-digested bits and pieces of Jewish and Christian lore, combined with his own extraordinary self-image and the hallucinations registered on his sensory nerves (the Quranic voice he "heard"). Except for a small minority of people attracted to Mohammed out of gullibility or lust for booty and power, the Arabs were only forced under the yoke of Islam after valiantly resisting it. For the sake of comparison, Communism was not the "Chinese national movement" just because Chairman Mao's Communists militarily wrested the country from the legitimate Nationalist Government of Chiang Kai-shek. The genuine Arab national movement was the so-called Ridda ("return" to god-pluralism) uprising against the Islamic state after Mohammed's death, in which the Arabs tried to restore their pluralistic culture.[7]



The review of Anwar Shaykh's work in Organiser was titled "Muslim proud of his Aryan heritage". This was, first of all, an untruthful statement. It is true that Anwar Shaykh has rediscovered the "Aryan" (i.e. Vedic) heritage which his great-grandfather had abandoned by converting to Islam.[8] But the consequence of this rediscovery was precisely the opposite of what the Organiser title suggests: he quit Islam, becoming a "non-Muslim proud of his Aryan heritage". Secondly, this title sent the wrong message to Indian Muslims. The message which Organiser sought to convey was that Indian Muslims should follow Anwar Shaykh's example: remain Muslim all while rediscovering their Aryan heritage (or with an older term, "indianizing" themselves). This was a replay of the Gandhian myth of the "nationalist Muslim" for whom Islam and Indianness are not incompatible.[9] But the case of Anwar Shaykh proved just the opposite: by rediscovering his Hindu heritage, a Muslim loses his Muslim identity. Islamic fanatics are wholly aware of this phenomenon, which is why they try to nip it in the bud, e.g. by forbidding Hindu religious music on Pakistani radio. The message of the Organiser should have been: "Indian Muslims, follow Anwar Shaykh's example, rediscover your Vedic heritage, and abandon Islam."



A similar case is that of BJP office-bearer Sikander Bakht. Mr. Bakht is a thorough gentleman, but his main value for the BJP is that he is a born Muslim. He is often shown off as the party's token Muslim, but just as often, angry Muslims write letters to the editor to explain that Mr. Bakht is not a Muslim at all. They say that he actually converted to Hinduism on the occasion of his marriage to a Hindu lady, and that his children were raised as Hindus. Now, when I am to choose between the BJP version and the Muslim version, I tend to attribute more credibility to the latter. If it is true that Mr. Bakht is a convert, I certainly applaud the BJP policy of giving due prominence to him. Only, they should have the sincerity and the wisdom to add the correct message, which is not: "We have Muslims as well", but: "We welcome Indian Muslims seeking the way out of Islam back into their ancestral culture."



http://www.bharatvani.org/books/bjp/section14.html