Bharat Rakshak

For secularism to be fair in India, one must ask if secular Indian laws will remain secular and dominate and overrule religious laws.

Specifically will secular Indian laws invariably trump Islamic law? Can one object to a secular judgement because it hurts religious sentiment? It happens all the time in India. Hindu religious sentiment can be hurt willy nilly by people with Hindu names like Shinde simply because they know damn well that they will not be killed for cursing Hindus.

The secular Shinde would be afraid to say something similar about Muslims because Muslims in India are treated as honoured guests whom we must neither insult nor be open and frank if we have any reason to complain.

The Hindu who is open and frank about Muslims or Islam is called "communal" hiding the fact that it is the Shinde/Digvijay Singh model of secularism does not treat Muslims as full Indians with whom we can talk directly and frankly They are treated as guests who will riot or get upset if we are frank. It has been drilled into Indian heads that behaving as if Indian Muslims are guests and hiding our complaints and irritation from them even as we live with them is "secularism" . Hinsu who curse other Hindus are the biggest fraud seculars. they are making the biggest jackasses out of Muslims who are a great community to make jackasses of as long as some "secular Hindu" pretender says he is doing it for islam/Muslims.

I used to think that this Shinde/Digvijay brand of secularism was because they are afraid Muslims will riot. But that is not the only reason. Other reasons are vote banks where Muslims can be fooled into thinking that these secular Hindus actually hold Muslims in high regard - which they don't. This has been the congress model describes as secularism - which is a pack of lies because Hindus are simply branded communal for being Hindu while Muslims are treated as special guests. Hindus and Muslims in India are largely uneducated and can be made to look like jackasses. Secular parties have been taking them for a ride because it is easy to make jackasses out of illiterates.

shiv,

but the same blanketing also happens with common law drawn from consensus. most times it leads to satisfactory justice. sometimes even when the outcomes are unsatisfactory, the logic behind outcome is understandable.
most importantly law is amneble to reasoned change, to which many people can contribute.

procedures and protocols of the law also sometimes end up shielding malcontents.

that malcontents can also hide behind law is not a case to drop it.

shiv wrote: The question comes back: If you are a devout Muslim can you also be secular without facing the wrath of your religious leaders who have control over your family life?

If constitutionally guaranteed "religious freedom" is an individual prerogative/preference, then how/why could muslim religious leaders coerce Indian Muslim citizens? Aren't Mullahs punishable under Indian law for imposing their "religious" dictats on Indian citizens, Muslims or otherwise?

shiv wrote:So your nomenclature looks like
Hard Secular
Soft Secular
Weak Secular

All being secular, it allows Indian non secular secularists to hide behind a label that gives them an unfair advantage and screws everyone else - particularly Hindus. Hence I worry about your nomenclature. A minor point - but the fact is that a whole lot of Indian political groups cover themselves with a fake cloak of secularism and your nomenclature does nothing to uncloak them

shiv saar,

you are right.

With the above categories, I simply wished to point out that theoretically even if Bharat were unabashedly Hindu, claiming "Sanatan Dharma" as our national creed, we would theoretically still be able to claim being Weak Secular. It was a politico-philosophical point. We are however hardly going to do so in the near future, so the thing remains hypothetical and theoretic.

But India is still Weak Secular, because there is an unabashed state support for Islam and Christianism in India, even though at the level of services, the state may treat Hindus and Muslims alike.

So the Weak Secularism in India is a major problem and for that one would have to change the communal tendencies of the Nehruvian Secular apparatus.

The "Uncloaking" was not the aim through this nomenclature. In terms of uncloaking, I had proposed:

RajeshA wrote:I think the Hindu nationalists have played along with INC's mantra of secularism for too long. Basically there is no "secular platform" in India.

The ideological platforms available today in India are

1) Bharatiya Nationalist Platform (Hindus, RSS, BJP, Neo-Dharmists, ...)

2) Jaati-based Platform (BSP, SP, etc.)

3) Islamo-Christianist Platform ( Congress, Janta Party offsprings, Islamist parties, Christianist orgs)

4) Cultural Marxist Platform (Communist parties intent on destroying any culture of the majority)

5) Yuppie Platform (Indian Elite enamored by West, ignorant of Indian values, Economic progress above all else)

6) Macaulayite Platform (Congress, Media, ...)

These are the six ideological platforms. There is no "secular" platform. What we call "Secular" Platform is actually just a claim by the last four platforms together, and all these four platforms are in fact against Indian Civilization and Culture. The second platform based on "Jaati-Consciousness" is really the swing platform.

By rejecting any existence of any "Secular" platform, even in the form of "Pseudo-Secular", one gets to the reality of what is going on. So let's start using the correct terminology.

I think if some Nehruvian-secular, aka sickular, aka pseudo-secular uses "secular" in India, we should always call him "Islamo-Christianist". No need to hold back there. No need for political correctness there. Some tend to call them "anti-national" which is under the current international situation indeed "anti-national", but that becomes simply an abuse term and does not bring the truth to the fore. Also calling them communal, which they in fact are may not work, due to the term's current use. However "Islamo-Christianist" is a very direct term. And that provides full exposure to their operations in India.

RajeshA ji,

In India, secularism is made into a new "religion" altogether. The soft, moderate, hard and fundamentalist secularists are all there to see in open.

It is 5th incarnation of Abrahamism after Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Marxism.

RamaY wrote:It is 5th incarnation of Abrahamism after Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Marxism.

shiv wrote:

rsangram wrote: I think you are groping more and more in thin air. Despite agreeing with me on everything, you are being a typical "argumentative Indian", just looking for an argument where there is none. So, let me sum up your objection in one sentence. You just dont want me to "announce" to the world that a secular muslim is no longer a muslim.

sangramji your detailed analysis of my motives for questioning your posts may indicate some irritation - but they are unnecessary fluff as part of a reply to my question.

Are you saying that a Muslim cannot be secular, or that if he is secular he is not a Muslim? I am merely asking you whether or not a secular Muslim can be considered to have left Islam. If he has left Islam we must celebrate. If you say he has not left Islam it means that a Muslim can behave secular and still be Muslim. You did agree that it is possible to have religious beliefs and behave secular didn't you?

How would you explain the paradox your own argument has created without characterizing me as something or the other - because that constitutes sidestepping my question.

You don't need to love Islam or Muslims. Or even love me. Just explain the paradox your views have set up. Are you saying that Muslims leave Islam temporarily to behave secular and then rejoin Islam? But that is unIslamic too, isn't it. You have read the Quran and all.

Certainly, I will be happy to explain.

1) A muslim cannot be secular while still believing in the the Quoran literally.

2) In order to be secular, a muslim has to believe in some form of interpretation of Quoran which allows space to be secular (and by secular I mean 1) that it allows for the supremacy of civil laws which are fair to all religions and not derived from any one religion and 2) allows for co-existence among all religions that also believe in co-existence, let me encapsulate these two essentials of secularism as I define it in the word, "tolerance") . When and if a different interpretation of Quoran is undertaken (through some kind of reformation within Islamic world), then it has to be seen if the person who believes in such new interpretation/s still calls himself a muslim or not. If a person genuinely allows for secular space within his religion and calls it Islam, then who am I to argue that he is not a muslim. I will say, fine you are a muslim and you are secular. But if a person takes the same literal interpretation of Islam that most of the Islamic world, I believe, has taken today and has been taking by and large right through its existence, then I dont believe a follower of that fundamentalist and literal interpretation of Islam can be secular, not matter how loudly he proclaims it from the the rooftops. So, far from skirting the question, I have provided you a clear answer in my posts on this thread including this post. So, if a protestant chooses to call himself a Christian, as a Hindu, why should I not accept him a Christian, even if the Catholic Church doesnt recognize him as a Christian. And if that protestant chooses to be by and large secular, and if I am convinced that he is secular, than I will call him a secular Christian, regardless of whether the Pope calls him a Christian or not. It is not for me to define whether another person is a muslim or not. I will accept whatever he calls himself in terms of his religion. I do reserve the right to judge whether that person is tolerant of me or not ("tolerance" is my term which encapsulates the two essentials of secularism that I have outlined above and a short cut term, rather than spelling out the two precepts all the time). Heck, even if a Hindu totally believes in everything Hindu, but simply chooses to call himself Muslim and wants me to call him a Muslim, I will call him Muslim. But I will know the truth inside. I certainly will.

This reminds me of the first philosophy class that I took in college where we were discussing the question of identity and nature of things. You may be familiar with this mock problem. If a boat is made up of replaceable planks, let us say, 20 planks. If you keep replacing the planks, one at a time, at what point does that boat not remain the same boat ? After 1 plank ? 2 planks ? a majority, 11? or all of 20 ? or will it still stay the same boat after 20. My answer was, that it is not the number of planks, but the plank, whether it be the 1st or the 20th, that changes the essential nature of that boat, to where it is no longer a sail boat, but a kayak or has become a car instead, that is the point where it is no longer the same boat. Same thing with a muslim. Currently, I define a muslim as essentially a Quroan literalist. Doesnt mean that there are not any non-Quoran-literalists in the Muslims world at all. But in reality, genuine non_Quoran-literalist Muslims are very very few indeed. If they choose to cal themselves muslims, I will be glad to call them muslims. And if they exhibit secular tendencies, I will be glad to recognize them. I will be happy to call such people, "secular muslims", if that is what they want to be called. But I will also not hesitate to say that such people are part of a very small minority who are at odds with the dominant beliefs of the religion which THEY claim to be a part of. And yes, if I feel that these people might be in any danger by MY pointing out this fact, on second thoughts, just out of basic humanitarian considerations, I will refrain from making that point too loudly. But having granted you that, I think you are still missing the whole point.

You are again pre-supposing that this very small minority of people who call themselves muslim and are genuinely secular for the most part (let us not even put the burden on them to be totally secular as let us not expect perfection from anybody), are important in some way. I dont know why you think they are important as a group. They are by no means large enough to act as a pivot nor such a powerful minority having power and influence which is meaningful to us as Hindus. Yes, any ally is welcome, no matter how small or weak he is, but to my mind, we Hindus have so much more we can focus on, rather than this small group of seculars, who call themselves Muslim. Ok, I grant you, maybe 164th on our priority list, whenever we can, we should try to support them, be nice to them purely out of genuine humanitarian considerations, and not miss an opportunity to nurture them and protect them, so as to send a message out to the world that we are a haven for tolerant and humane people. But beyond that, I fail to understand why you are devoting so much time and attention to them. If you care to explain, I will be happy to listen.

To my simple mind, the issue is to be framed this way. We are in a never ending war as human beings with each other, one community against another, one religion against another, one region against another etc. This unfortunately is the nature of being human and some of us, very few of us try to overcome this base nature and rise above it. The more enlightened among us live with the hope that the enlightened human tendencies will win out in the end, but really, we all know, it is merely a hope and nothing more. Realistically, we know that our barbarian side will always win out, and we are doomed to live in a barbarian human society, until we destroy ourselves completely. Some of us, knowing this, still try to seek enlightenment and refrain from brutish behavior which may come naturally to us, because that is simply the way we are wired(wired differently from the regular brute) and despite our knowing that barbarism will win out, we still persist in following the path of truth, beauty and justice.

So, right now, Islam represents the biggest organized barbaric instincts of human nature. Not that these barbaric instincts are exclusively in the domain of Islam. We have it in plenty - look at the corruption amongst us non-Islamic Indians and the shabby way we treat each other. The West has its own brand of barbarism. But in relative terms, we Hindus have some redeeming civilizational memes that we still practice, at least some times, maybe even under the cover of darkness when no one is looking. The West too has some, but only some redeeming traits. And Islam also may do some good things sometimes, but by far, far less than others and far less often than others and indulges in some horrifically barbaric behavior on a routine basis. So, the battle right now, is between the more enlightened amongst the rest of us and Islam (minus the 8 or 9 true secularists who call themselves Muslim). Unfortunately, the odds are stacked against us and we face an uphill task, just like the enlightened humans throughout history have faced. Because we are so few in number, a large number of those that we consider our own (other Hindus) will not join us in that battle, as they are barbaric themselves (maybe slightly less so, and maybe in some other form(corruption), from the Islamists, but barbarian nevertheless).

So, now it is my turn to ask you the question, how do the enlightened fight this battle to win ?

[quote=""rsangram"]You are again pre-supposing that this very small minority of people who call themselves muslim and are genuinely secular for the most part (let us not even put the burden on them to be totally secular as let us not expect perfection from anybody), are important in some way. I dont know why you think they are important as a group.[/quote]

It is not at all clear to me why you see questions from me as suppositions. I ask questions for conundrums that I have had to think about. I am NOT pre supposing anything. I am asking you what you think about the issue. Not what you think about me. You read more into my questions and talk as though you are arguing with a secularist on whom you need to impart your wisdom about Islam. On BRF you are a latecomer to this subject that most of us have discussed to death years ago so I am requesting you not to make your already long posts much longer by doing a personality analysis of me based on my questions.

You say you have taken philosophy classes and you ask "how do the enlightened fight this battle to win ?"

Here I will presume that you consider yourself enlightened and you want to know how your ideas can win? Is that right?

Well then join the club. This is something that has been discussed here for ages. There is no guarantee that your viewpoint will win. As regards how I would answer your question - I have to first convince myself that I agree with you completely and why I agree. After that I might be able to take a call on winning and losing. Please don't imagine that not being sure of agreeing with you means that I disagree with you. Too many people reach that erroneous and simplistic conclusion. As far as I am concerned, I will think about what you have said, compare it with what I know and what others have said and decide whether you have framed the problem in a way that I believe is worth looking at. Knowing the problem and framing it in a manner that can be addressed are two different things.

Unfortunately you have brought nothing new or revolutionary to the forum. Everyone knows Islam is a problem. Everyone knows about the secularism issues you mention. They have been discussed here with great regularity for over a decade. No one has solved it yet. And if you too have no solutions, don't expect one from me.

^^^^

1) No expectations from you or anyone.

2) If and when you find yourself in alignment with the way I have framed the problem/s, feel free to re-engage with me. We dont have to engage bi-laterally until then.

3) I didnt claim to bring anything new or revolutionary to the forum. I didnt think that was a pre-requisite. And I wasnt merely here to engage only with you either. If others predominantly feel that I have not much to contribute, I will happily refrain from participating. Its no big deal at all !

RajeshA wrote: I think if some Nehruvian-secular, aka sickular, aka pseudo-secular uses "secular" in India, we should always call him "Islamo-Christianist". No need to hold back there. No need for political correctness there. Some tend to call them "anti-national" which is under the current international situation indeed "anti-national", but that becomes simply an abuse term and does not bring the truth to the fore. Also calling them communal, which they in fact are may not work, due to the term's current use. However "Islamo-Christianist" is a very direct term. And that provides full exposure to their operations in India.

I would prefer Islamo Christian Hindu. Many of these IslamoChristianists proudly strut about showing their own Hindu credentials/ancestry so they get the full weight of (silent) support from Islamists and Christianists when they choose to describe other Hindus as communal.

It is important not to "excommunicate" them from being Hindu. They are Hindu all right, but are dishonest fake liberal. They are happy to insult Hindus and say that they use insulting language about Hindus despite being Hindu themselves - using that as an excuse to place themselves on a pedestal higher than other "communal, right wing" Hindus. But they will never use that language about Muslims. This is the type of behavior one would expect from a fraud - one who does not consider Muslims as fully Indian - as people who are waiting to take umbrage and start supporting Pakistan. So they believe that they are "treading carefully" with Muslims and for these people "secularism" is treading carefully and saying nothing to insult Islam while loudly insulting Hindus. They are anti-national in a sense,because they fail to realise that when they insult Hindus selectively (while claiming to be Hindus themselves) there will be Hindus who will be open and insulting about Islam and Christianity. After all, once Hindus are insulted they need not give a damn about anyone's sensibilities.

Whatever they are these people, represented by the likes of Shinde and Digvijay Singh, are nowhere near secular. IslamoChristian Hindu would be OK IMO

One of the reasons why I question some beliefs and assumptions is that if they have (or appear to have) logical fallacies, they cannot be used to convince intelligent fence sitters. Of course one might take the attitude that fence sitters should be disregarded, but that is not an attitude that I like to take. Hence I will post my queries about what Sangramji has written

rsangram wrote: 1) A muslim cannot be secular while still believing in the the Quoran literally.

Fine. This much is easy to accept. But remember that you have also written that a person who does not believe in the Quran literally may not be Muslim at all. How do you judge whether a given Muslim believes in the Quran literally or not? It's your judgement because you reserve the right to pass this judgement.

It is the judgement of many people that Muslims are incapable of being secular. If I probe into this belief a lot of people (including yourself) have displayed irritation rather than an ability to explain. It is easier to dub me pseudosecular than to answer the question - but inability to answer is a failure of the argument. This is not the first time I have posed this question

I have heard people say (on this forum and off it) that a Muslim cannot be secular because of his beliefs. His beliefs do not allow him to reject religion. His attachment to his religion is so strong that he cannot tear himself away. You have already pointed out that
a. A Muslim who tears himself away is not a Muslim any more
b. You reserve the right to judge Muslims and feel that a Muslim who behaves secular cannot be trusted to really have left his religion behind - so powerful is the grip of his religion.

Don't you think that there must be something magically fascinating about Islam that grabs people and holds them with so much more firmness and loyalty than the Hindu religion manages. In terms of absolute attractiveness Islam seems to offer something that other religions cannot offer. You and I may not like it. You and I may not agree but Islam has strengths that (using your characterization that a Muslim can never be secular) make it a powerful and attractive religion that a man cannot leave.

So we have a powerful and attractive religion whose followers think they are right. You and I disagree, but there is no force on earth that will make them change.

Do you not agree that the only way to fight this unequal battle is to eliminate all Muslims and Islam?

{Deja vu we have done this before on BRF)

Moderated Muslims are who are in the control of Islam preachers such as Immams moulvis mullahs Ayatollahs, Sayadena's

Moderate Muslims are those who are ambivalent to orthodox umrah and can switch in seconds

shiv wrote:

RajeshA wrote: I think if some Nehruvian-secular, aka sickular, aka pseudo-secular uses "secular" in India, we should always call him "Islamo-Christianist". No need to hold back there. No need for political correctness there. Some tend to call them "anti-national" which is under the current international situation indeed "anti-national", but that becomes simply an abuse term and does not bring the truth to the fore. Also calling them communal, which they in fact are may not work, due to the term's current use. However "Islamo-Christianist" is a very direct term. And that provides full exposure to their operations in India.

I would prefer Islamo Christian Hindu. Many of these IslamoChristianists proudly strut about showing their own Hindu credentials/ancestry so they get the full weight of (silent) support from Islamists and Christianists when they choose to describe other Hindus as communal.

It is important not to "excommunicate" them from being Hindu. They are Hindu all right, but are dishonest fake liberal. They are happy to insult Hindus and say that they use insulting language about Hindus despite being Hindu themselves - using that as an excuse to place themselves on a pedestal higher than other "communal, right wing" Hindus.

1. Islamo-Christianism is a political ideology with the goal of furthering the group and civilizational interests of Islam and Christianism in a land.
2. Islamo-Christianism is not a religious ideology, since otherwise Muslims would not tend to support the Christianist part, nor would the Christians tend to support the Islamic part.
3. Since Islamo-Christianism is a ideology revolving around a convenient political pact, such an ideology would mostly be prevalent in non-Islamic non-Christian societies like India.
4. Anybody can be an adherent of an ideology. It is not confined to Muslims and Christians.
5. In India, there are many politically-active nominal Hindus, who belong to this Islamo-Christianism political ideology.
6. Since Islamo-Christianism is a political ideology trying to further the interests of Islam as well as Christianity in a non-Christian land, often they work by stealth, not disclosing its true nature.
7. For this reason, Hindus who are followers of this ideology, tend to retain their nominal Hindu status, as with this status they can further the interests of the ideology much more effectively.
8. In fact nominal Hindus are best placed to further these interests as being neither openly Muslims nor Christians, they can also receive support and confidence from both Islamics and Christianists.
9. Question is why would they do something like this, betraying their Hindu heritage? It is because that is their business model - to have their political and prosperity interests be financed by Islamic and Christianist lobbies, both internal and external, and their vote-banks.
10. In fact the Islamo-Christianist nominal Hindus make a virtue out of their sold-out allegiance, calling their communal support to Islamic and Christianist interests as a sign that they have risen above "narrow" considerations of religion, claiming for themselves the title "secular".

pentaiah wrote:Moderated Muslims are who are in the control of Islam preachers such as Immams moulvis mullahs Ayatollahs, Sayadena's

Moderate Muslims are those who are ambivalent to orthodox umrah and can switch in seconds

While Pentaiah writes in his usual serious-humorous style, this is IMO an important point.

It is rarely the individual Muslim who is being dealt with. It is a group, a community with interaction between key individuals living a a society that has been structured specifically to protect that structure. Long ago I had characterized that as an oil droplet in water structure where the inner oil droplet core consists of women and small children not exposed to the water, and a mullah. A mosque centered community within range of muezzin's call.

The men are allowed to interact with the outside world and they can lead double lives where they display kafir like behaviour and revert to proper Islamic behaviour back in the droplet.

In my opinion, it is far better to have Muslims who behave fully Islamic in public, with beard and burqa and dietary restrictions and all rather than a society of clean shaven guy who eats pork and hides his personality. He may be doing that simply because society is forcing him to behave in a way that society deems is secular, and not fundamentalist. Paradoxically people often react negatively to open display of Islamic behaviour and imagine that "secular" appearance with shaven beard is more acceptable.

RajeshA wrote: [*] Question is why would they do something like this, betraying their Hindu heritage? It is because that is their business model - to have their political and prosperity interests be financed by Islamic and Christianist lobbies, both internal and external, and their vote-banks.


[*] In fact the Islamo-Christianist nominal Hindus make a virtue out of their sold-out allegiance, calling their communal support to Islamic and Christianist interests as a sign that they have risen above "narrow" considerations of religion, claiming for themselves the title "secular".[/list]

Absolutely.

One question that arises here is why they do not simply convert.

The answer may be that their power and influence stems from being nominally Hindu while posing as people who are scathingly critical of all that is Hindu.

Deep down among at least a few members of this group is a sense of shame and embarrassment at Hindus and Hindu behavior stemming from an education that has taught them all that is bad about Hindus. That education, which inculcates the fundamental moral superiority of monotheistic IslmoChristian behavior and rubs in specific examples of "egregious Hindu traits" is embedded in our education system, inside the minds of Indians and is internalized by a very large number of Indians. Some unlearn all this but one goal should be to speed up unlearning so that "The embarrassment and shame of one's Hindu identity" reinforced by a constant barrage of examples of horrendous practices deemed to be Hindu, and not Islamic or Christian" can be removed. Some of the most erucite and educated English speaking Indians suffer from this malady and don't realise it.

Jātivadi Politicos in India are best suited to avail of this Islamo-Christianist political dividend. They have their own locked down vote-bank of some Jāti or Jāti-Coalitition, and think that with an additional vote-bank they would have sufficient votes to win elections. Jātivadi Politics in India is especially prone to the lure of Islamo-Christianism. Jātivadi Politicos really have only the assured support of their own Jātis for which they often work in a partisan way. Their whole agenda is to cut the state's resources cake in such a way, that their Jātis get the most of it. Beyond that they seldom have any program. If they try to bring too many other Jātis or people under their umbrella they would end up diluting the share of their committed Jātis so they have limited flexibility on this front. If they dilute too much, another more hardline Jātivadi politico could then prey on the politico's votebanks. In fact Jātivadi politicos secure their position by playing up the rivalry among the Jātis. However by adding an Islamo-Christianist vote-bank for example, they wouldn't have to dilute their share or their rivalry rhetoric as all the concessions would be for religious expansion and not economic. Muslim vote-banks usually are left high and dry as far as education, jobs, etc. are concerned or they get their funding from external charities, whereas Christians are either mostly somewhat better-off due to their education level or they too get their funding from abroad.

Then there are Founder-Squeezing Politicos in India who also indulge in this Islamo-Christianism. At some point in time some popular leader founded a political movement providing some form of liberation to an otherwise oppressed or subjugated people. As a mark of gratitude, many people would continue to vote for a party who uses his name and claims to carry on the founder's legacy. Progeny of the founder are often given automatic trust that they would carry on the founder's legacy, so they have a better chance to harness that historic gratitude, which leads to dynastic politics. Since the historic gratitude of a section of the people has been secured, these Founder-Squeezing Politicos think that by adding an additional vote-bank they too would have a good chance of winning elections.

Then there are Rebellion Politicos. These politicians often have a dedicated following based on an ideology running counter to that of the nation or the mainstream. Left-wing parties which are in open rebellion against Bharatiya interests, against interests of the majority and have been able to channelize the discontent and anger of the people into a rebellion against the nation, e.g. Marxists, Maoists, Naxalites, etc.. Often these rebels, e.g. Naxalites, tend not to vote but the leaders of this rebellion may indeed be interested to bring them into electoral politics, and make them into a dedicated vote-bank. This rebellion ideology also allows the politicos to align themselves with Islamo-Christianist interests and add another vote-bank to theirs, thus also securing for themselves a win in the elections.

As such Islamo-Christianist lobbies tend to support those politicos who can show their own dedicated vote-bank, either Jātivadi vote-bank or Founder-Gratitude vote-bank or Rebellion vote-bank and then by coming into power, they can further the Islamo-Chrisitanist interests.

• Jātivadi vote-banks - RJD, SP, BSP, JD(U)
• Founder-Gratitude vote-banks - INC, DMK, TDP
• Rebellion vote-banks - CPI-M, CPI

shiv wrote:One question that arises here is why they do not simply convert.

The answer may be that their power and influence stems from being nominally Hindu while posing as people who are scathingly critical of all that is Hindu.

Deep down among at least a few members of this group is a sense of shame and embarrassment at Hindus and Hindu behavior stemming from an education that has taught them all that is bad about Hindus. That education, which inculcates the fundamental moral superiority of monotheistic IslmoChristian behavior and rubs in specific examples of "egregious Hindu traits" is embedded in our education system, inside the minds of Indians and is internalized by a very large number of Indians. Some unlearn all this but one goal should be to speed up unlearning so that "The embarrassment and shame of one's Hindu identity" reinforced by a constant barrage of examples of horrendous practices deemed to be Hindu, and not Islamic or Christian" can be removed. Some of the most erucite and educated English speaking Indians suffer from this malady and don't realise it.

True.

The Islamo-Christianist nominal Hindu politicos are one group and they have of course their own interests in following Islamo-Christianism.

At the people level, there is less Islamo-Christianism, but much other muddled thinking arising out of brain-washing comes to the fore. One is that somehow majority automatically oppresses minority - a traditional cultural Marxist thought. Then there is this thinking that Hinduism should be ashamed of idol-worshiping, casteism, widow-treatment, killing of female fetuses, etc., that somehow our culture and civilization is responsible for all of this. That comes from Westerners hijacking Sanatan Dharma through the means of "Hinduism" itself and including in it anything they wanted included.

shiv wrote:

Fine. This much is easy to accept. But remember that you have also written that a person who does not believe in the Quran literally may not be Muslim at all. How do you judge whether a given Muslim believes in the Quran literally or not? It's your judgement because you reserve the right to pass this judgement.

It is the judgement of many people that Muslims are incapable of being secular. If I probe into this belief a lot of people (including yourself) have displayed irritation rather than an ability to explain. It is easier to dub me pseudosecular than to answer the question - but inability to answer is a failure of the argument. This is not the first time I have posed this question

I thought the answer to this question is rather obvious.

Yes, it is a matter of judgement that a majority of Muslims today either believe in the Quoran literally or are puppets in the hands of people who believe in Quoran literally and are willing to die at the behest of people who literally believe in Quoran. Therefore, I dont make much distinction between those that actually believe literally and those who merely follow the literal believers to death. This judgement is borne out by my interactions and experiences with the Muslims. If someone conducts a more scientific study and evidence is otherwise, I will admit I am wrong and frankly, I will be happy to be wrong on this.

Now, I never said that Muslims are incapable of being secular, even the literal believers. All I said that Muslims who are literals believers cannot be literal believers and secular at the same time. If the literal believers stop literal believing, which I think they are capable of, then they can be secular and there is no logical contradiction. But while they are literal believers, they cannot be secular in thought. Why ? This is not an issue of judgement. The Quoran literally says so. It says you cannot be secular. And a literal believer will believe that and therefore, he cannot be secular.

shiv wrote: I have heard people say (on this forum and off it) that a Muslim cannot be secular because of his beliefs. His beliefs do not allow him to reject religion. His attachment to his religion is so strong that he cannot tear himself away. You have already pointed out that
a. A Muslim who tears himself away is not a Muslim any more
b. You reserve the right to judge Muslims and feel that a Muslim who behaves secular cannot be trusted to really have left his religion behind - so powerful is the grip of his religion.

You should ask those people who you have heard saying the above things. I did not say that. I did not say that a Muslim is not capable of leaving all his beliefs behind, I did not even say that a Muslim is not capable of leaving his literal believing behind, which is a much lower bar than his leaving all his beliefs behind. It is not necessary for him to leave all his beliefs behind, just those that denigrate and advocate subjugation of people with other beliefs.

All I said was that I require some concrete evidence that a person has left literal belief in Quoran behind, before I personally will be convinced that he indeed has done so.

shiv wrote:
Don't you think that there must be something magically fascinating about Islam that grabs people and holds them with so much more firmness and loyalty than the Hindu religion manages. In terms of absolute attractiveness Islam seems to offer something that other religions cannot offer. You and I may not like it. You and I may not agree but Islam has strengths that (using your characterization that a Muslim can never be secular) make it a powerful and attractive religion that a man cannot leave.

So we have a powerful and attractive religion whose followers think they are right. You and I disagree, but there is no force on earth that will make them change.

Do you not agree that the only way to fight this unequal battle is to eliminate all Muslims and Islam?

Yes Islam does have a magical hold. The reason it does is that it creates homogeneity and has intolerance of others as part of its theology. This allows for the Mullahs to have a vise like grip on its people, because there are no counter forces around where the dissidents can coalesce or find sanctuary. Therefore, over a period of time, people in these societies develop a slave like mentality and they literally give up free thinking, as they are beaten into submission or there is tremendous fear of retribution. So people dont even think about it. Oppressive societies do tend to have this vise like grip on their people and their minds. North Koreans are not Islamic, but it almost feels like the Kim dynasty has a similar "magical hold" on its people. Jim Jones of Guyana and many cults tend to have the same characteristics. For a long time, it felt like Stalin and Mao have the same "magical" hold on their people. But given enough external pressure (military, political, social, cultural and other), the Soviet and the Maoist regimes disappeared. North Korea's days are probably numbered too. Islam will also crumble given enough external pressure. It is quite possible, that Islam requires greater external pressure than was required to dislodge Stalinism and Maoism, but given enough pressure, they will crumble too. The problem has not been so much the "magical hold" of Islam, the problem has been the inability of its adversaries to recognize that such external pressure is necessary and even when off and on in very inconsistent ways, non-Islamists do realize it for short periods, they have been unable for a variety of reasons to cobble up enough force to put sustained pressure against the Islamists for any significant length of time. The adversaries of Islam are either too confused, too stupid, too corrupt or not as well organized to have put enough pressure on Islam yet. If and when that happens, Islam will either reform or fall too, there is nothing more "magical" about Islam than that. When an entity has been single minded in its goal and succeeded for a long period of time, as in the case of Islamists, they begin to appear "magical"..........until they fall. The Soviet Union and Mao dont look terribly magical now, do they ? While I remember in their hey day of 1960s and 1970s, they seemed very "magical" too. And until the British empire fell, it appeared very "magical" too and so did the Romans and the Greeks and Napolean. I still believe that the Hindus alone can put tremendous pressure on Islam in general, even at this late stage, IF they get their act together rather quickly and become less corrupt. Of course, I am more fascinated by the question of how corruption has such "magical" hold among the Hindus than the question of what is so magical about the Muslims.

I do not agree that the only way to fight this unequal battle is to eliminate all Muslims and Islam. The preferred way to fight this unequal battle is to put enough pressure (military, political, social and other) on Islamists so that they undergo an internal reformation of Islam and purge the Quoran of those texts that deal with intolerance of others. This also implies that literal believing is exorcised from Islamic religious texts and their societies. If that doesnt work out, then the less preferred way is to eliminate, not Muslims and Islam, but those that steadfastly refuse to give up their intolerance of others. Yes, indeed, the violently intolerant have to be and must be eliminated, if the battle has to be won. They meet the classic definition of criminals, not just ordinary criminals but criminals against humanity.

rsangram wrote:
I do not agree that the only way to fight this unequal battle is to eliminate all Muslims and Islam. The preferred way to fight this unequal battle is to put enough pressure (military, political, social and other) on Islamists so that they undergo an internal reformation of Islam and purge the Quoran of those texts that deal with intolerance of others. This also implies that literal believing is exorcised from Islamic religious texts and their societies. If that doesnt work out, then the less preferred way is to eliminate, not Muslims and Islam, but those that steadfastly refuse to give up their intolerance of others. Yes, indeed, the violently intolerant have to be and must be eliminated, if the battle has to be won. They meet the classic definition of criminals, not just ordinary criminals but criminals against humanity.

Fair enough. You have made yourself clear.

^

As christianity and islam erased other native religions from the face of earth, they too can be removed from the earth. Afterall this is path these monotheistic faiths seek, complete domination or death.

Only "secularists" make the unncessary == between Death to Islam == Death to Muslims. Then they immediately drag the "Human Rights/Genocide" scare into the discussion as if the proselytization and blasphemy laws that these two faiths preach is not against "Human Rights" and is not Genocide.

i am fairly confident that atleast one participant (shiv) in this discussion is flying trial balloons.

the danger is shiv flies so many balloons, and deliberately walks the thin line between teacher and preacher so many times, that his balloons eclipse his point and provide a blanket and succor to knee-jerky, trigger happy mirror elements that he himself he wails about in his own posts.

for example:
Do you not agree that the only way to fight this unequal battle is to eliminate all Muslims and Islam?
{Deja vu we have done this before on BRF)

this immediately brings in rama to make a pointed distinction between islam and muslims. fukkin akkan the whole point of this wailing is that muslims cannot be dissasociated with their islamic moorings. how are you going to destroy islam without harming muslims? only one of the two things is accurate. islam can be dissociated from muslims, or islam overpowers the behavior of muslims.

in anycase, i'm not interested in muslims or islam. my immediate concerns. the tendency to label all criticism of hindusim as stemming from some deep seated brain-washing because of some underlying conspiracy of christiano/islamo/marxo idealogy is pernicious and detrimental. in this environment there is no scope for compassionate a fully local objections to the state of hinduism. even somebody like arya samaaj is problematic in this framework. when we criticize hindusim, why should we parallely criticize islam or christianity? i'm concerned about my circumstances, i'm not concerned about reforms and revelations in islam or christianity.

in any case, bulk of indians are exposed to the world outside them. there are no pure injuns. the problem with this uber-desi approach is it makes entire mass of injuns problematic. hardly an approach to problem solving this is. instead causes confusion, guilt or self-doubt. wasn't - let knowledge come from all directions, one of the much touted fundamentals? So, what if dialectics catches fancy of some injun and he applies to his own immediate circumstance? Unless we have pointed criticism of dialectics itself, i dont see much value in persecuting a person for applying dialectics.

shiv wrote: Don't you think that there must be something magically fascinating about Islam that grabs people and holds them with so much more firmness and loyalty than the Hindu religion manages. In terms of absolute attractiveness Islam seems to offer something that other religions cannot offer. You and I may not like it. You and I may not agree but Islam has strengths that (using your characterization that a Muslim can never be secular) make it a powerful and attractive religion that a man cannot leave.

So we have a powerful and attractive religion whose followers think they are right. You and I disagree, but there is no force on earth that will make them change.

Do you not agree that the only way to fight this unequal battle is to eliminate all Muslims and Islam?

{Deja vu we have done this before on BRF)

There is another question in the above. There are certain weaknesses in Hindu systems that allows the strengths of Islam to challenge it. These weaknesses have not been explored and dissected by our Hindutvadis, let alone being understood and amends being made to overcome them. Many Hindus hide these weaknesses in their heaps of curses on Islam as if by hurling those curses, these weaknesses will go away or life would be just ubber perfect, as if by some magic Islam and/or muslims are to disappear tomorrow. Our ancestors, who framed the constitution for us, chose to simply dump the "mess" of Hinduisum and "import" a foreign framework than do the hard work of real amelioration of Hindu ways, yet preserving its principles and values. Pains me every single time, our hindutvaadis prove Jinah right.

These weaknesses of Hindu systems have not been discussed thread bare on these forums and else where. What we have done is junked our principles as being worthless and adopted a foreign system wholesale. Hence, get into this debate of "secular" vs non-secular, when the real debate should be unity and integration and application of common rules for all.

Religion does not mean "Dharma"
Secularism does not mean "Sarva Dharma Sambhav"

Religion does mean "Mazhab" i.e. Sect

Dharma does not mean "Sect" it means "doing the right thing or the righteous deed"

Islam has a few strengths:

1. singularity of historical anchor (Muhammad), geographical anchor (Kaaba) and ideological anchor (Qu'ran)
2. formal egalitarianism resulting in a strong planet-wide brotherhood viz-a-viz the non-believers
3. preservation of tribal structures and genealogical lines within the brotherhood
4. cellular organization serving the virtual ideological framework
5. aggressive protection of its ideological integrity
6. aggressive expansion of religion's domain - demographically, geographically and over mind-space
7. competitive domination over the non-believers as a mark of religious fervor
8. common security against the non-believers at every level
9. zero compromise on claims
10. zero adherence to treaties with non-believers, only tactical compromises
11. use of lying as a tactical tool to make advances
12. unrepentant taking of advantage of other's weaknesses and benefits provided by others
13. context-dependent flexibility in politics
14. harnessing of mankind's primeval instincts in the cause of religion

Sanatan Dharma has only one weakness, which is albeit not originally part of it

1. Varna as social division

West's biggest weakness is

1. Problem solving through formulation of universalistic laws, rather than system evaluation of others

shardulaa garu,

you proved my point

Only "secularists" make the unncessary == between Death to Islam == Death to Muslims.

Is criticism of "Hinduism" is criticism of Hinduism or criticism of the protective-layers it developed over centuries to ward-off abrahamic aggression? Remove aggressive nature of Abrahamic faiths, you will remove the ash layers of Hindu fire.

The nature of Shiv is duality, obeying the principle of uncertainty

From Modinama Page 3

http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?arti ... pe=&pgno=3

After each riot, it is the same Hindus who help the rehabilitation of Muslims. I always say this, if the Gujarati Hindus were 100% communal, the Muslims would have been destroyed long ago.  It is because these Hindus are not communal that Muslims continue to prosper in Gujarat. 

Secularists, eat it!

When we talk too much of minorities, who has given minorities full rights? It is the Hindu majority. Who wrote the Constitution? Hindus. We must appreciate Hindus for this/give them credit."                                                                                                                                  

In my personal opinion you can hate Quran as much as you want but changing it or editing it and getting 1.2 billion people to believe your edited version is an idea that suffers from the drawback that 80% (my estimate) of Muslims get their knowledge from some human - father mother brother friend teacher, internet etc. Heck 80% of Muslims are illiterate. They can't read any damn shit. "The book" is as much orally transmitted as the Vedas and because it has no error correction any old crap can get transmitted to the extent that there are open conflicts (differences in ways of dealing with) kafirs between Quran, Hadiths and Sura. It is not just Quran. It is Quran, Hadith and Sura taken together. There was a beautiful article that showed how mercy to a Kafir and death to a kafir both have precedents in Islam and both are allowed depending on whether you look in Quran, Hadith or Sura

All that is needed is a change of behaviour (forced if necessary) that disallows killing, violence, cheating and lying in the name of Islam. Particularly the opposition to non Muslims and violence against them just for being non Muslims has to be arrested. Is that an anti Islamic suggestion? Of course it is. Am I an Islamophobe to say that Muslims should not be allowed to call for the killing, punishment or persecution of non Muslims? Yes.

RajeshA wrote:Islam has a few strengths:

1. singularity of historical anchor (Muhammad), geographical anchor (Kaaba) and ideological anchor (Qu'ran)
2. formal egalitarianism resulting in a strong planet-wide brotherhood viz-a-viz the non-believers
3. preservation of tribal structures and genealogical lines within the brotherhood
4. cellular organization serving the virtual ideological framework
5. aggressive protection of its ideological integrity
6. aggressive expansion of religion's domain - demographically, geographically and over mind-space
7. competitive domination over the non-believers as a mark of religious fervor
8. common security against the non-believers at every level
9. zero compromise on claims
10. zero adherence to treaties with non-believers, only tactical compromises
11. use of lying as a tactical tool to make advances
12. unrepentant taking of advantage of other's weaknesses and benefits provided by others
13. context-dependent flexibility in politics
14. harnessing of mankind's primeval instincts in the cause of religion

Sanatan Dharma has only one weakness, which is albeit not originally part of it

1. Varna as social division

West's biggest weakness is

1. Problem solving through formulation of universalistic laws, rather than system evaluation of others

Physical, emotional and legal control of women is another speciality in Islam protected by zero compromise'

I am now going to say something that might upset many people - especially "modern" humans who have been brought up to see men and women as equal.

No. I am not saying men and women should not be equal. I am saying that there are personality differences between men and women that make it easy for men to physically and emotionally control women. The number of examples one could give might fill a book, but a simple example is if a woman is offered the choice of suppressing her freedom or having her child punished, she will accept the suppression of freedom. This treatment is necessary only for the woman who is brought from outside, stolen/kidnapped/enslaved. The child is brought up in the cloistered confines of an oil droplet - always structured as women and children physically restricted inside oil droplet and behaviour controlled by men and at least one preacher. Once that child has learned the language and absorbed the beliefs, he too will know that he is a Muslim male with rights over women and kafirs and the resources of this world and everyone else is wrong. The girl child will know her duties and will know the punishment meted out to women who do not comply. If the mother is already a believer then no problem. She will stay on a leash and bring up kids exactly as demanded.

No secular academic is going to get funding to study Islamic society. 5000 universities in the US and not a single "Sociology and psychology of Islam" course. People will continuously come up with secular explanations for Tamerlanes and other jihadis. That is an error that needs to be addressed before anything serious can happen to reduce the scourge of terrorism from Islamic sources being explained away as freedom fight or reaction to persecution.

Ok, so I have been talking about putting enough military, cultural, political and social pressure on Islam from outside to "motivate" them to reform from within. Here is an example of how it works in a small way. At the very least this is an example of how the rhetoric has changed and even if this person is indulging in Taqquiya, he is being forced to indulge in Taquiyya rather than being on the offensive and spewing the normal nonsense that the muslims do peddle in the West, such as "dont be racists", "it is the drone attacks that are causing this backlash", etc.

Look at this news item reported just today.

http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-leader-is ... 29887.html

shaardula wrote:i am fairly confident that atleast one participant (shiv) in this discussion is flying trial balloons.

the danger is shiv flies so many balloons, and deliberately walks the thin line between teacher and preacher so many times, that his balloons eclipse his point and provide a blanket and succor to knee-jerky, trigger happy mirror elements that he himself he wails about in his own posts.

No that is a misreading of how my mind works. My "trial balloons" are questions to which I do not necessarily have an answer or my own answer makes me uncomfortable. I am simply able to express those thoughts in simple sentences. I throw up these thoughts as balloons to see what people say. Very often people do get caught up in my dilemmas and hate me for it, imagining that I have an answer. I often don't have an answer though I may have an opinion. I sometimes see an opinion that is expressed and see an opportunity to pick holes in it. I use the opportunity to test if the opinion holder has thought it through fully or not. This frequently causes irritation - the most irritating thing is for some asshole like me to ask you why you think the way you do. But the point is not to irritate but to reveal both great ideas and pitfalls.

When enough people are provoked into responding - some great ideas come out in the middle of same 'ol. This may seem unfair, but I end up learning more from such exchanges.

shiv wrote:Once that child has learned the language and absorbed the beliefs, he too will know that he is a Muslim male with rights over women and kafirs and the resources of this world and everyone else is wrong. The girl child will know her duties and will know the punishment meted out to women who do not comply. If the mother is already a believer then no problem. She will stay on a leash and bring up kids exactly as demanded.

IOW: Confirming to a stereo type. Stereo typical behaviors can be pervasive and extremely difficult to get red of, so much so, that even after years and decades of "positive" reinforcements, even the most liberal societies face these challenges. The linked article sheds light on the matter. http://www.npr.org/2012/07/12/156664337 ... ience-jobs

I personally feel what our species have adopted to over centuries of encoding will take time to readjust, as it should. I cannot help but comment that the issue is not one of being equal. We did be better off accepting that we are different yet, can do many things which are not be the exclusive domain of one sex. The areas of dominance in certain domains will change faster than some others. Each group will further have differing levels of acceptance of change. I also feel that that the modern issue of equality is a forced one and largely driven due to economic considerations. This undue consideration to economic parameters only can and has been detrimental to other aspects of societal well being. We need to find a better balance.

shiv wrote:In my personal opinion you can hate Quran as much as you want but changing it or editing it and getting 1.2 billion people to believe your edited version is an idea that suffers from the drawback that 80% (my estimate) of Muslims get their knowledge from some human - father mother brother friend teacher, internet etc. Heck 80% of Muslims are illiterate. They can't read any damn shit. "The book" is as much orally transmitted as the Vedas and because it has no error correction any old crap can get transmitted to the extent that there are open conflicts (differences in ways of dealing with) kafirs between Quran, Hadiths and Sura. It is not just Quran. It is Quran, Hadith and Sura taken together. There was a beautiful article that showed how mercy to a Kafir and death to a kafir both have precedents in Islam and both are allowed depending on whether you look in Quran, Hadith or Sura

All that is needed is a change of behaviour (forced if necessary) that disallows killing, violence, cheating and lying in the name of Islam. Particularly the opposition to non Muslims and violence against them just for being non Muslims has to be arrested. Is that an anti Islamic suggestion? Of course it is. Am I an Islamophobe to say that Muslims should not be allowed to call for the killing, punishment or persecution of non Muslims? Yes.

There is nothing UN-Islamic about killing Islam.

Jesus was not a devout Jew when he created Christianity, yet he was a successor of Abraham in the line of prophets. It was Christianity that did the most damage to Judaism.

Muhammed was not a devout Jew or Christian when he created Islam, yet he was a successor of Abraham and Jesus in the line of prophet. It is the Islam that did the most damage to Judaism and Christianity.

Similarly there is nothing UN-Islamic for a non-Muslim to be the Mehdi who releases Muslims from Islam.

Prophet says: ‘zaalim bhi bhai hai, zaalim ko uske zulm se mukt karaana is your farz, your duty. (Even the tyrant is your brother. Helping a tyrant get rid of his tyranny is also your duty).

Ummah needs to be liberated from its Zulm, that is Islam. Indian Muslims need to be liberated from the Zulm of Arabic Islam.

ShauryaT wrote: I personally feel what our species have adopted to over centuries of encoding will take time to readjust, as it should. I cannot help but comment that the issue is not one of being equal. We did be better off accepting that we are different yet, can do many things which are not be the exclusive domain of one sex. The areas of dominance in certain domains will change faster than some others. Each group will further have differing levels of acceptance of change. I also feel that that the modern issue of equality is a forced one and largely driven due to economic considerations. This undue consideration to economic parameters only can and has been detrimental to other aspects of societal well being. We need to find a better balance.

If the adoption happens over hundres or even thousands of years, then the Bharatiya gene (which is thousands or years old) should be stronger than Mughalistan gene, which is stronger than colonial gene, which is stronger than secular gene.

The Bharatiya gene in woman should be able to understand and recuperate from this Stockholm syndrome faster than we can give credit for, if it is given Bharatiya support system again.

shiv wrote:Physical, emotional and legal control of women is another speciality in Islam protected by zero compromise'

I am now going to say something that might upset many people - especially "modern" humans who have been brought up to see men and women as equal.

shiv saar,

This control over the women is a feature of Islam, but why do you think it gives Islam any strength?

Usually in traditional societies regardless of religion, women's role has been

• to give birth to the next generation,
• to inculcate the child with the initial values of the culture and
• to look after the household.

The level of dignity to the woman and the level of inclusion in decision-making viz-a-viz family affairs may differ from society to society, from culture to culture, but the responsibilities listed above usually remain.

So how does the control over the women in Islam contribute anything more than this to Islam's strength?

I am asking because I too would like to understand this better.

RajeshA wrote: Usually in traditional societies regardless of religion, women's role has been

• to give birth to the next generation,
• to inculcate the child with the initial values of the culture and
• to look after the household.

Additional requirements for women in Islam - over and above that in non Islamic societies

• 4. To avoid all contact with all men other than father, brothers, husband and sons. Even eye contact
  5. To avoid being seen outside with anyone other than the above first degree relatives
  6. To avoid exposure of most parts of the body other than hands, feet and face/eyes to anyone other than the men mentioned above. Even hair, wrists and ankles are not to be exposed
  7. To expect severe punishment for breaking the above rules

What this pans out to in practice is that women are confined to the home and exposed ONLY to other women or first degree men. That ensures that all their sons are in a controlled environment for the first 4 to 5 formative years of their lives. No outsiders. No threats. Only relatives and mullah and call to prayer 5 times a day.

During these formative years the son has great security because he is never far away from mum. It is a time of comfort. And during this time he is taught that he is a privileged person as a male Muslim, and that Allah has given him the right over the world and righteousness over and above all kafirs. He also learns that men can ask women to do something and their needs must be met. He is head honcho as a Muslim male.

This is the sort of child who gets exposed to the kafir world as he grows. The control of women ensures that the first 5 years of childhood are controlled better in Islam than most other societies.

In many non Islamic societies boys stay with mother till age five. But in no other society are they taught that they are superior to women and superior to followers of all other religions. The superiority of men over women is visible at home. This forms the first layer of knowledge" written into a child's mind, and it is written at a time when the child ALWAYS has a mother or other woman looking after his needs and security. It can happen only by control of women as rigidly as happens in Islam stopping them from going out most times and keeping them physically present at home with toddler son/s. This is a type of enslavement/jailing that is unique to Islam. In no other society is it so rigidly imposed. And it is imposed to ensure the second point you made

to inculcate the child with the initial values of the culture and

The Islamic values of superiority of Muslims over others and men over women and that the earth was made by Allah for Muslims are inculcated in an environment that totally excludes all else.

This is what creates the aggressive male who has a feeling of entitlement to everything, a sense of grievance that Islam is being opposed when he does not get it, and the man who dominates women and considers kafir women as objects that should be violated at will. The insecurity that comes from facing the outside world in later life makes the man yearn for the security of his childhood - surrounded by pious Muslims, all dressed properly and behaving properly Islamic - a time when he was very secure. Islam has done social engineering to a degree that academics now do not know and will not investigate because it would be unsecular

shiv saar,

thanks for the insightful post.

So the strength seems to be

- nurturing of the male child into an egotistical personality convinced of his privilege, entitlement and superiority. These personality characterics are first developed in relation to the other gender, and then cultivated further into a general attitude towards the non-believers.

RajeshA wrote:
So the strength seems to be

- nurturing of the male child into an egotistical personality convinced of his privilege, entitlement and superiority. These personality characterics are first developed in relation to the other gender, and then cultivated further into a general attitude towards the non-believers.

Yes that nurturing can be achieved only by control of the "natural" person whom the child will bond with and listen to in the first 4-5 years of life - momma. That is why the control of women and the "oil droplet" (mosque centered) structure of community are both critical to propagating the memes.

Oil droplets can be made to survive as a suspension in water using an agent called a surfactant. The surfactant coats the oil droplet. The inner part of the coating "likes" oil and repels water. The outer part "likes" water and repels oil. That means that inside the oil droplet you get a pure oil environment despite water (kafirs) all around.

The "surfactant" role is by "interface" Muslims who are able to show secular moderate behavior among kafirs and Islamic behavior among Muslims. Or else the surfactant is aided by a layer of dhimmis who are as good as "interface Muslims" in providing the coating that protects the oil droplet. The women and small children and the Mullah are confined to that oil droplet. So the ultimate human result is a combination of structure of society (oil droplet) and control of women(the stay within the droplet)

shiv saar,

it would be interesting to know what kind of special circumstances exist within the oil droplet, and how the psychology of the child is affected due to them, the various dynamics in the family

1. between male child and father
2. between male child and mother
3. between male child and elder brothers
4. between male child and younger brothers
5. between male child and elder sisters
6. between male child and younger sisters

I've looked for some studies, but not really found any. May be somebody in the know can provide with some anecdotal evidence.

RajeshA wrote:shiv saar,

it would be interesting to know what kind of special circumstances exist within the oil droplet, and how the psychology of the child is affected due to them, the various dynamics in the family

1. between male child and father
2. between male child and mother
3. between male child and elder brothers
4. between male child and younger brothers
5. between male child and elder sisters
6. between male child and younger sisters

I've looked for some studies, but not really found any. May be somebody in the know can provide with some anecdotal evidence.

There is a book that can throw a lot of light on this - if you can get it:
The Arab Mind - by Raphael Patai