Thursday, October 23, 2014

Is Christianity any different from Islam in Indian Context?

Is Christianity very different from Isalm?

The recent attack on Parliament in Ottawa came to remind the world again of the dangers Islam poses. The recent surge of Islamic terrorism in Middle East in the form of ISIS is another one of the dominant ones on everyone’s mind. There is a supposed link between the behavior of the Muslims in a society to the percentage of Muslim population to the total. It follows a narrative that Muslim population, once introduced into a non-Islamic society, grows disproportionately.  Current statistics says followers of Islam constitute about 23% of the world population and Islam is the second largest religion in the world.
According to the same popular narrative, the behaviour of the followers of Islam becomes less flexible as their proportion in total population increases. You can read more about it here.
The conclusion is, once you let Islam into a society, it overwhelms the rest of the religions and the original           inhabitants are cut off from their cultural roots, forever changed to the consuming religion. History is replete with instances to support this description; Indonesia as a country and Kashmir as a state.The Arabic influence in North Africa is proof of guilt of Islam while the rest of the world for Christianity.
There are about 50 countries in the world where the percentage of Muslims to that of the total is over 50%. And if the Muslims form majority, the country, more often than not, changes the politics from democracy to shades of Sharia barring exceptions.
On the other hand, there are about 122 countries with Christian population of 50% or more. Many of those countries in Africa and Asia are erstwhile colonies of Christian nations, their populace converted to Christianity while being under ‘undue influence’ of the rulers. In common law, it would have been set aside, but when the rulers were also dispensing ‘Governance’ there is little resistance the local populace could have put up. Countries that were ravaged by exploitative wars were easy prey to the Christian evangelists for soul harvesting, as a wounded animal to predator. The innocence of the Asian and African people have been immorally exploited by Evangelical Christianity, which moved into the colonies to rule with money, lure and fear of Christian God. The rulers brainwashed their subjects that their culture and past are despicable and offered Christianity as the only salvation. In countries like India, the indigenous egalitarian education system was destroyed to provide monopoly to Christian education that created a privileged class within the harvested and outsiders.  The famous quote of Archbishop Tutu, “I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights” only points to the slow realization of the exploited, after they had been completely soul harvested by a brutal religious regimes with a kind face. Yet not all of them chose to put on a smiley. 
While the Christian nations point the finger at Islam as brutal enemies, we tend to think of religious exploitation as something only adherents of one religion practice. When the Christians charge Islam, the charges are true to a large extent. But Christians are able to hide that they also are guilty of same crime while we get distracted by the accusation.
The two siblings of Abrahamic religions are rivals and not enemies. The religions are monotheist in nature and philosophical equivalents. Both religions are based on pedestrian premises that are beyond questioning, and both religions are aware of such shortcomings. That also makes them dogmatic belief systems.
They discourage the premises from being questioned. Both stem from the belief that the believers should not challenge, that God created the world and set rules, for if those are questioned, the answers will only lead to large scale desertion of the cult. “In the beginning, there was a God”, is the fragile premise the whole paper edifice of religions are built on. For every question, the answer is found written in the book and not what timeless truth can defend and explain.
In the middle ages Christians burnt those who had the temerity to question the premises.  Islamic prophet saw this as a systemic gap and built in a proviso in the tenet that made doubting the premise in itself (munafiq, which meant a hypocrite, literally) a sin- that is punishable by death. Suddenly the followers got cured of ‘doubt’. It was evil as it was genius. If killing is a sin, this particular one was an exemption. It put enormous power in the hands of the religious leader as well.
Both religions suffer from a false belief that it is competition that is the real enemy, running counter to ‘thermodynamic’ analogy. In this, they only reveal the mundane core of their respective belief systems. In their false belief that lack of competition will make them Monopolists, both religions imposed a duty on the believers to convert the ‘others’. Both religions divide people, one against another. Both religions propagate that God will take his revenge if you do not choose to pray to him in this world. It never crossed their minds that they made a Stalinist God in the process.
Both provide privilege to one’s own tribe and describe the other as inferior, defective and with deficiency which can only be corrected only after they embrace either Christianity or Islam, depending on who is the proselytizer. While Christianity in current era, inherently less violent than Islam, threaten the people that they will burn in hell if they do not accept Christianity, Islam, through the divine messenger, decrees to solve the problem right here. The ‘others’ can be killed, their women (wealth to create a culture) stolen, possessed in force, those who cannot be killed can always be made to bear additional unbearable liabilities (Jizya) the discharge of which is arranged if the defaulter agrees to convert.
In essence, both religions share similar goals but follow different approaches. Christianity today uses the brutal power of wealth to keep the gullible people seduced by a non-existent salvation. Islam just takes the sword. And M-16s dropped by US military. Christianity relies on the inherent human quality to show gratitude to those who helped us to corrode the souls.
When Christians come to India, they make fun of the local culture, provide education and medical assistance and in return seek religious allegiance. The rampant misuse of NGOs who get foreign funds to abet the Evangelical soul harvesters under the guise of ‘Social organization’ is another symptom of the same disease.
Conversion End, Help just means
From the Hindu perspective, let us understand that these two are here to destroy our culture and impose their own through money and force. Both are spiritually bankrupt and religiously immature in comparison to the broadminded Hindu tenets. Both are aggressively competitive and both seem to suffer from an inadequacy as a fulfilling religious experience. Hence both try to put away the one that reminds them of their deficiencies.
Not for a moment I believe that Islam is evil and Christianity is not. I am aware, in every living breath, both religions are evil; former is capable of causing mortal danger over and above the dangers latter poses. Christianity makes life hell for the indigenous people by dividing the people, one against another. Islam does the same but with brutal force.
As for as the East Asian cultures are concerned, both Abrahamic religions are enemies to their own cultures. They both attempt to overpower the local culture, establish their own as superior one. Both try to create a society which will always look outside the geographical boundaries for their masters, thus creating a weakness in the countries. Both ridicule the rich and subtly superior indigenous culture, based out of ignorance, greed, lack of humility and intolerance. Both destroy society and create Us Vs Them mind-set. Both divide the people by falsely professing that somehow those who follow their Gods are superior and selected to be saved while the others are doomed. Both put an onus, a hypocritical one, on the believers, to salvage the supposedly doomed. All these things are not based out of rational basis but because of what is written in a Book that these two groups consider divine.
From a national perspective, both are like cancer, which will kill the entity called Nation. Let us be vigilant to defeat these two enemies imported from across the border, as a nationalistic act, if not a religious one. From a Hindu point of view, following Hindu religion is compatible with Nationalism. Can the others say it without sufficient caveats as crutches?

No comments:

Post a Comment