ORIGINAL WORK OF - NUPUR J SHARMA.

ORIGINAL CONTENT
AVAILABLE AT - https://www.opindia.com/2022/06/nupur-sharma-
comment-prophet-muhammad-unnecessary-hindus-wrong/ . Please
press ctrl and left click on mouse to follow the link if you are reading
in it MS-Word.

Rewritten by Sonu Ojha in easy words for more reach. Sonu Ojha do
not claim any credit for this writing. Title has been changed to suite
the content only. It does not mean to hurt anyone’s sentiments. All
credit goes to NUPUR J SHARMA and WWW.OPINDIA.COM.

Follow WWW.OPINIDA.COM for great Contents.

SPACE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

PLEASE HOVER DOWN
 AN ”UNECESSARY” SECULARISM
For the longest time, Indians, indeed in schools, have been fed
with platitudes about all religions being equal. It's a
commonplace that has made Indians, especially Hindus, rather
blind to reality and insufferably sanctimonious. One of the
reasons why certain Hindus believe that Nupur Sharma’s
commentary were “ unnecessary ” is because they truly believe
that all religions are fundamentally equal and it isn't fully
abnormal to be offended when remarks about one’s faith are
made. That argument isn't off the mark – it's natural to be a little
hurt – but it's clearly not the characteristic of every faith to give
calls to behead. What's also untrue is that all religions are equal.

The ‘ all religions are equal ’ claim stems from notions of religious
pluralism. Religious Pluralism basically says that firstly, all
religions must admit that certain truths exist in other religions as
well, thereby declaring that it isn't only their own religion that's
the ‘ only truth ’. Further, it says that all religions must admit
that every religion teaches basic universal truths that have been
taught since before the advent of religion itself.
When one delves into the principles of religious pluralism as a
construct that can enable religions to co-exist without narrow-
minded violence, it becomes important to ensure that all religions
are brought down to the same surface level and hence, the claim
that all religions are the same takes a brutal proportion where
cultural context is often lost. At the very outset, it suffices to say
that Islam lays out a doctrine for the humiliation of Kafirs.

When verses of the Quran ordain its followers to slay Kafirs and
Polytheists, one has to wonder how can a religion that's at odds
with Polytheism be equal and aspire for the same goals as that of
a Polytheistic religion? When Islam is at odds with Polytheism
and the religious textbooks explicitly mention the subjugation of
any Polytheist faith, how accurate is it to say that all religions are
exactly the same?
Thus, why it's “ necessary ” for Hindus to talk about, dissect and
analyse Islam openly and honestly is because it's a faith that
demands the sacrifice of Hindus. There's nothing ever similar in
Hindu textbooks that urge the Hindu community to annihilate
those who follow another religion. thus, for Nupur to crack back
at a Muslim panellist denigrating Hinduism by simply quoting
the Hadits is necessary. It's necessary because the Islamic
community needs to admit, at the very least, that their insult to
Hinduism comes from religious hate while the Hindus ’ comment
on Islam comes from a place of either self- defence or frustration
at being subjugated for centuries.

For aeons, we've been told that the onus of maintaining peace,
harmony and brotherhood rests on the shoulders of Hindus. And
those Hindus, who suppose simply the fact that Hindus do n’t
indulge in violence fulfils this responsibility of maintaining
brotherhood, are wrong. Hindus are expected to maintain
brotherhood by ceding everything they hold sacred and by giving
up large parts of their personal liberty. Hindus aren't supposed to
be offended when their faith is mocked, not supposed to utter a
word against Islam, understand that Islam is peaceful and all the
violence in the name of Islam doesn't represent Islam, die with a
smile on our faces if we're murdered by Islamists, shut our eyes
to facts, give up claims on our places of worship, accept that
we're devil worshippers and believe, deep in our heart, that
Islamists think of us as brothers and sisters while they hold a
sword to our neck.
This cast of mind is so set in the Hindu psyche that any
comment on Islam, even inoffensive ones, seems “ unnecessary ”
because it would lead to friction, violence and “ disruption of
harmony ” – a harmony that only existed because the victims of
Islamist violence and hate, the Hindus, had Stockholm Syndrome
and were beaten to believe that accepting that subjugation with a
smile on their face was their eternal responsibility.

It is, thus, not astonishing that one of the main criticisms of

Nupur Sharma is that her comments were fully “ unnecessary ”.
She, in order to maintain this mythical harmony, must give up
her rights, her hurt, her thoughts and basically, the damn truth
because one just never knows what might annoy the intolerant
minority off.
While Hindus do as Hindus were taught, this truism pushes us
down a slope where the slide will ensure that it pulls the entirety
of our civilisation down. Sita Ram Goel had said, “ To start with,
we want to take up what we consider to be its most important
contribution, namely, the unriddle of two behaviour patterns –
Muslim and National – which collaborated closely for years and
precipitated Partition in the final round. The Muslim behaviour
pattern was characterized by acrimony, accusations, complaints,
demands, condemnations, and street riots. The National
behaviour pattern, on the other hand, was characterized by
acquiescence, assent, persuasion, concessions, cowardice, self-
reproach, and surrender ”.
It has been decades since Goel wrote these words and to this
day, they hold true. You see, the Muslim community has an
insatiable appetite for concessions. You make one, they will
demand another. You concede, they will demand 10 further.
Soon, you'll realise that the Hindu community has given up
everything to placate the choleric minority and yet, has been met
with nothing but bitterness.

However, we believe that Nupur Sharma’s statement was “

unnecessary ” because it ended up provoking the Islamic
community, that's a needless concession that the Hindu
community is extending to the Islamists, If today. They've the
right to be hurt, but not the right to be riotous. The concession
accorded makes them believe that their hurt is justified to the
extent of giving calls to behead. Now once that concession is
extended, their insatiable appetite will raise its ugly head. Once
you accept their murderous sentiments, they will claim that your
places of worship, your mandirs, are an outrage to the Islamic
faith. Once you concede that, they will say that you can not
indeed supplicate in your home because according to the Islamic
community, there's no god but Allah and therefore, the fact that
you believe in another god and pray to him is hurting their
religious sentiments. The slide would end with them demanding
your head on a pike because the very existence of Kafirs offends
them.

We must remember that the very basis of the partition was their
demand for a ‘ land of the pure ” untarnished by the existence of
Kafirs. When Gandhi allowed the Islamic community to run riots
and murder Hindus, it validated their two- nation theory, enough
for them to demand the dismemberment of India. When
concessions were made to them about the Khilafat movement,
terming it a nationalist movement instead of an Islamic one( that
held allegiance to the Turkish Caliphate), MK Gandhi
emboldened them to set their barbarity in motion and massacre
Hindus in accordance with the Ummah they were fighting for.
Hindus today might believe that Nupur Sharma’s comment was “
unnecessary ”, but if there was a word of caution, it would be this
– tomorrow, they will say your very existence, the existence of the
dirty Kafir that they're theologically and viscerally meant to hate
is an slur to their faith. They wo n’t only claim this openly, but
they will make you guilt- ridden enough to truly believe that your
actuality is “ unnecessary ”, impeding their faith, and therefore,
you must die with a smile on your face when they come for you.

ORIGINAL WORK OF - NUPUR J SHARMA. ORIGINAL CONTENT AVAILABLE AT -

https://www.opindia.com/2022/06/nupur-sharma-comment-prophet-muhammad-unnecessary-
hindus-wrong/ . Please press ctrl and left click on mouse to follow the link if you are reading in it
MS-Word.

Rewritten by Sonu Ojha in easy words for more reach. Sonu Ojha do not claim any credit for this
writing. All credit goes to NUPUR J SHARMA and WWW.OPINDIA.COM.

FOLLOW WWW.OPINIDA.COM for great Contents.

 NUPUR J SHARMA

ORIGINAL CONTENT PROVIDED HERE FOR FURTHER READING.

On the 5th of June, BJP suspended the now-former spokesperson of the party,
Nupur Sharma, after certain Muslim countries started getting irate about
certain comments she had made during a debate (basically, quoting the Hadit).
The BJP claimed that Nupur had taken a stand contrary to theirs on several
occasions and therefore, an inquiry would be initiated against her pending
which she would stand suspended from the party – a party she had been
associated with for over 15 years.

The move led to widespread condemnation predominantly from those who

support and vote for the BJP since the move was seen as the party taking away
institutional support from her amidst death and rape threats by Islamists.
Those who prefer to support the party with utmost loyalty have theorised that
she is being given protection against the threats she has been receiving,
however, her suspension is in the national interest because India cannot afford
to dent its hard-won relationship with the Muslim world. I would not be getting
into that argument since it is beyond the scope of this article.

However, there were certain other arguments made to essentially justify the
suspension of Nupur Sharma. One of the most predominant ones relied on the
classic argument – ‘But it was unnecessary for Nupur to get into that argument’,
‘It was unnecessary for her to insult their faith’, ‘It was unnecessary for her to
lose her patience on national television? Does she not know they get violence
about perceived blasphemy?”.

The obvious problem with this argument is that it essentially blames the victim.
By saying this, even if it is said with reference to her suspension, one tacitly
ends up justifying the threats that she has been at the receiving end of. The
Islamists use exactly this argument to justify their calls for “Sar Tan Se Juda’.
They say, “Nupur Sharma should have known that if she comments on Prophet
Muhammad, we will get offended and demand her head”. The logical slide of
this argument is staggering. If the “She should have known better” argument is
to be accepted, every victim of every crime can be shamed using it. One
basically places far more value on someone’s whim than facts when one uses
this argument – Because Nupur Sharma chose to legitimately exercise her
freedom of expression, the calls to behead her are justified because she should
have known that her speech can lead to hurt feelings which can, in turn, lead to
her execution.

But beyond the logical slide of that argument, there is a civilisational aspect that
is far more concerning. First and foremost, we perhaps need to understand the
civilisational illiteracy from which this argument stems.

For the longest time, Indians, even in schools, have been fed with tropes about
all religions being equal. It is a trope that has made Indians, especially Hindus,
rather blind to reality and insufferably sanctimonious. One of the reasons why
certain Hindus believe that Nupur Sharma’s comments were “unnecessary” is
because they truly believe that all religions are fundamentally equal and it is not
completely abnormal to be offended when remarks about one’s faith are made.
That argument is not off the mark – it is natural to be a little hurt – but it is
certainly not the characteristic of every faith to give calls to behead. What is also
untrue is that all religions are equal.

The ‘all religions are equal’ claim stems from notions of religious pluralism.
Religious Pluralism essentially says that firstly, all religions must acknowledge
that certain truths exist in other religions as well, thereby declaring that it is not
only their own religion that is the ‘only truth’. Further, it says that all religions
must acknowledge that every religion teaches basic universal truths that have
been taught since before the advent of religion itself.

When one delves into the principles of religious pluralism as a construct that
can enable religions to co-exist without sectarian violence, it becomes
important to ensure that all religions are brought down to the same surface
level and hence, the claim that all religions are the same takes a beastly
proportion where cultural context is often lost. At the very outset, it suffices to
say that Islam lays out a doctrine for the humiliation of Kafirs.

When verses of the Quran ordain its followers to slay Kafirs and Polytheists, one
has to wonder how can a religion that is at odds with Polytheism be equal and
aspire for the same goals as that of a Polytheistic religion? When Islam is at
odds with Polytheism and the religious texts explicitly mention the subjugation
of any Polytheist faith, how accurate is it to say that all religions are exactly the
same?

Therefore, why it is “necessary” for Hindus to talk about, dissect and analyse
Islam openly and honestly is because it is a faith that demands the sacrifice of
Hindus. There is nothing remotely similar in Hindu texts that goad the Hindu
community to annihilate those who follow another religion. Therefore, for
Nupur to clap back at a Muslim panellist denigrating Hinduism by merely
quoting the Hadits is necessary. It is necessary because the Islamic community
needs to acknowledge, at the very least, that their insult to Hinduism comes
from religious hate while the Hindus’ comment on Islam comes from a place of
either self-defence or frustration at being subjugated for centuries.

For aeons, we have been told that the onus of maintaining peace, harmony and
brotherhood rests on the shoulders of Hindus. And those Hindus, who think
merely the fact that Hindus don’t indulge in violence fulfils this responsibility of
maintaining brotherhood, are wrong. Hindus are expected to maintain
brotherhood by ceding everything they hold sacred and by giving up large parts
of their personal liberty. Hindus are not supposed to be offended when their
faith is mocked, not supposed to utter a word against Islam, understand that
Islam is peaceful and all the violence in the name of Islam does not represent
Islam, die with a smile on our faces if we are murdered by Islamists, shut our
eyes to facts, give up claims on our places of worship, accept that we are devil
worshippers and believe, deep in our heart, that Islamists think of us as
brothers and sisters while they hold a sword to our neck.

This cast of mind is so set in the Hindu psyche that any comment on Islam, even
innocuous ones, seems “unnecessary” because it would lead to friction, violence
and “disruption of harmony” – a harmony that only existed because the victims
of Islamist violence and hate, the Hindus, had Stockholm Syndrome and were
beaten to believe that accepting that subjugation with a smile on their face was
their eternal responsibility.

It is, therefore, not surprising that one of the main criticisms of Nupur Sharma
is that her comments were completely “unnecessary”. She, in order to maintain
this mythical harmony, must give up her rights, her hurt, her thoughts and
essentially, the damn truth because one just never knows what might irk the
intolerant minority off.

While Hindus do as Hindus were taught, this trope pushes us down a slope
where the slide will ensure that it pulls the entirety of our civilisation down. Sita
Ram Goel had said, “To start with, we want to take up what we consider to be its
most important contribution, namely, the unravelling of two behaviour patterns
– Muslim and National – which collaborated closely for years and precipitated
Partition in the final round. The Muslim behaviour pattern was characterized by
acrimony, accusations, complaints, demands, denunciations, and street riots.
The National behaviour pattern, on the other hand, was characterized by
acquiescence, assent, cajolery, concessions, cowardice, self-reproach, and
surrender”.

It has been decades since Goel wrote these words and to this day, they hold
true. You see, the Muslim community has an insatiable appetite for
concessions. You make one, they will demand another. You concede, they will
demand 10 more. Soon, you will realise that the Hindu community has given up
everything to placate the petulant minority and yet, has been met with nothing
but acrimony.

If today, we believe that Nupur Sharma’s statement was “unnecessary” because

it ended up provoking the Islamic community, that is a needless concession that
the Hindu community is extending to the Islamists. They have the right to be
hurt, but not the right to be riotous. The concession accorded makes them
believe that their hurt is justified to the extent of giving calls to behead. Now
once that concession is extended, their insatiable appetite will raise its ugly
head. Once you accept their murderous sentiments, they will claim that your
places of worship, your mandirs, are an affront to the Islamic faith. Once you
concede that, they will say that you cannot even pray in your home because
according to the Islamic community, there is no god but Allah and therefore,
the fact that you believe in another god and pray to him is hurting their
religious sentiments. The slide would end with them demanding your head on a
pike because the very existence of Kafirs offends them.

We must remember that the very basis of the partition was their demand for a
‘land of the pure” untarnished by the existence of Kafirs. When Gandhi allowed
the Islamic community to run riots and murder Hindus, it validated their two-
nation theory, enough for them to demand the dismemberment of India. When
concessions were made to them about the Khilafat movement, terming it a
nationalist movement instead of an Islamic one (that held allegiance to the
Turkish Caliphate), MK Gandhi emboldened them to set their barbarity in
motion and massacre Hindus in accordance with the Ummah they were fighting
for.

Hindus today might believe that Nupur Sharma’s comment was “unnecessary”,
but if there was a word of caution, it would be this – tomorrow, they will say
your very existence, the existence of the dirty Kafir that they are theologically
and viscerally meant to hate is an affront to their faith. They won’t only claim
this openly, but they will make you guilt-ridden enough to truly believe that
your existence is “unnecessary”, impeding their faith, and therefore, you must
die with a smile on your face when they come for you.