Friday, July 25, 2008

Bangalore blasts, inhuman act

Men become great not just by carefully avoiding disastrous situations but by reacting in the right spirit when faced by one. The same is true for the greatest manifestation of a group of people --- a nation.
When terror strikes, when buildings are burnt down, people killed, children orphaned, the surviver of the attack have a much bigger responsibility than hurling blames on one another. A person who commits a crime is a criminal, and only that. It is a shame to qualify a criminal as a muslim/hindu/christian/sikh/etc. It is wrong to glorify the life and acts of such individuals by associating them with such great religions.
When bombs are hurled at places of worship or when people are massacred in cold blood on the streets filled with cries of babies dying and women being raped or when innocent commuters become victims of death traps in railway stations, the person behind these acts has already steered away from being human and hence unworthy of belonging to any religion of the world. The muslim who joins the forces of terror in no longer a muslim, the hindu who brings down national heritages in no longer a hindu, the sikh who loses his patience and commits a crime has lost confidence in Guru Granth Saheb.
Criminals should never be identified with religious leaders/followers. A worshiper of arms/murder/impatience knows only pagan worship and is a criminal of humanity.

PS: The incidents like the Bangalore blasts that took place today are heinous acts done by individuals and groups living on the brinks of the civilized world. The people involved in such crimes are a disgrace to humanity. Such individuals/groups do not belong to any religion of the world.


Deepak Marla said...

ALl these inhuman acts are carried out in the name of 'Jihad'. Who coined this word?
We, the secularists, declare terrorism as not a part of Islam. But you cannot run away from certain facts. The fact that 'all muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims' is enough to vindicate that the root of this bloodshed is in this religion itself.
Now a days, after Islamic-Terror attack, the muslims clamor in the streets declaring terrorism as not a part of Islam. But what have they done to solve the problem created by their own brethren. I firmly believe that terrorism is firmly rooted in Islam. This has been happening since ages, if you read the history. They have carried out gruesome acts in the name of allah, forcibly converting everyone. This is just the continuation of that....

Prasoon Joshi said...

The Islamic history actually speaks of a lot of things that are missing in the modern day (Wahabism) interpretation of Islam.
It speaks about the "Liberation of women" as it was "Hajar", the mother of "Ishmael", who can be called the "mother of Islam" (since Ishmael, the son of Abraham, is considered the first Muslim). Then talking about the 'last Prophet' of Islam, Prophet Mohammad, his teachings were heavily inspired by his wife, a woman working alone as the chief of her business (something that is prohibited by the Saudi interpretations of Islam today).
And if you talk about "gruesome acts in the name of ...." there have been such acts done by Christians as well (this also includes conversions without the will of an individual). We can even talk about "the rage with which a whole city of 'Lanka' was burnt down by 'Hanuman' over the dispute of the authority over the wife of a king 'Ram'" (this could have been quoted in the history books if the old religion and historical content would have been preserved). I speak of 'Sanatan Dharm' when I ask people to think rationally and respect the religious practices of others.
I'm a proud Hindu but acts like those undertaken by 'Shiv Sainiks' (I really hope they start calling themselves something else, cuz 'Bhole baba' wud never agree to such acts) when they slap loving couples in parks around cities, or kill people in the name of Gods who want peace in this 'Devbhoomi' I feel ashamed a bit.

Prasoon Joshi said...

The mistake that the Islamic terror groups are doing is that they are quoting (mis-quoting rather) historical references to solve their modern day economic, social, cultural problems. Are we going to return the favor by "telling them" that 'yes this is how all of you are supposed to be', 'this has always been in your religion', 'you, as the second-biggest-religion of the world are a lot which can only mean trouble to the whole world'. All this when we need to think rationally and understand that no one can wipe-out' such a big 'clan' from the face of the earth. I'd rather not act like Mr. Bush and prove to the world that I'm stupid.

ujwala said...

Hey nice blog... I totally agree with u on the part that v shud not label all terrorists with their religion coz i'm sure none of the religions actually ask them to be/do the irrational things they are/doing. Sorry for pointing out but i think u might want to rethink abt the usage of the word "pagan" there. I know there are a lot of definitions prevailing for the word but it actually refers to all religion that are old and have many gods.. I'm not good at explaing it but if you wanna clarify why don't you just do a wiki on it.

Prasoon Joshi said...

First, it is not necessary for a critic to start with 'sorry for pointing out but...'.
Now about 'pagan' and 'pagan worship'. This most definitely is not a 'language reference' so this explanation is not essential but the way you describe it, "it actually refers to all religion that are old and have many gods..", the fate and justification of the whole article pivots around the word 'pagan' now so I may as well clarify.
Pagan or pagan worship refers to 'any' religious practice that lies outside the religion being discussed. So, when we talk about Islam, paganism would refer to Christianity, Hinduism, etc. Similarly, if we are talking in the context of Christianity, pagan worship would include Islam, Hinduism and any other religion that may not be 'Christian' (even the protestants at times were considered 'pagans'). So, pagan (as referred to in the article) includes and points to people who are 'outside' the discussed religions.

PS: Thanks for pointing it out, wikipedia is a splendid thing! If anyone else reading this decides to wiki about this discussion please search for 'pagan' and not 'paganism' as the later is not a complete article yet and may be misleading (and also don't stop with just the introduction to the word as it would make you conclude that it refers to 'old religions with many gods', read the whole thing and you would be surprised, I was!

Asalie said...

People should read this.