Curious Case Of Identity
India that is Bharat
SATIRICUS and Socrates don’t see eye to eye. So without apologies to that learned logician of ancient ages, Satiricus says his silly syllogisms make no secular sense. Take terrorism. Terrorists have no religion. Terrorists are not Muslims. Muslims are not terrorists. Everybody says so, so Satiricus is sure it must be so. As sure, for instance, as Messrs Geelani and Owaisi. For when Yakub was hanged, Geelani said he was hanged because he was a Muslim. Owaisi said exactly the same thing in the same words. What does that mean? Simple. It means if Yakub was hanged because he was a Muslim it clearly proves that he was not hanged because he was a terrorist. That in turn means he was a Muslim, he was not a terrorist.
Water-tight logic, says Satiricus.—And there are other excellent examples of this unassailable argument. Hafiz Saeed, internationally acclaimed as a terrorist, goes on record as saying he wants to transform Hindu India into three Muslim states. What does that say about him? It says he says so only because he is abundantly Muslim, not a triple terrorist. Then there is ISIS. It says that its seemingly-savage violence is simply meant for reviving Sharia, the pious core of Muslimness. How can its magnificent mission of making the whole world Muslim bear the taint of terrorism? If ISIS says—as per a recent newspaper headline—“we shall behead every infidel”, that is because that is the only way it can manage to save the infidel from himself. It is all a matter of management of Muslimness. For in The Management of Sauagery that an influential Islamic (or Islamist, as the case may be) ideologue wrote in 2004, he wrote : “Those who have not boldly entered into wars during their lifetimes do not understand the role of violence and coarseness against the infidels in combat. If we are not violent in our Jihad and if softness seizes us, that will be a major factor in the loss of the element of strength.” This should make it clear to Satiricus—had he not been a non-Muslim nitwit and a doubly-damned dunce to boot—that ISIS savages are actually Muslims par excellence—and non-terrorists equally par excellence.
Then again, if ISIS’s (only apparent) savagery is for the revival of Sharia, does that mean their apparent terrorism is enjoined by the Quran? Being a Hindu ignoramus, Satiricus does not know, but a na-pak ex-Pak Muslim, Anwar Shaikh, thought he did. For in his book, contrarily titled Islam and Terrorism, he gives a couple of curious quotes : 1. “Why the Lord inspired the angels (saying) I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will strike with terror the hearts of those who did not believe. Then smite the necks and smite their fingers.” (Spoils of War : 8-12). 2. “—And those of the people of the Book who aided them—Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) some ye slew, and some ye made captives.” (Confederates, 33:26-27.) 3. “We (Allah) will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers.” (House of Imran, 3:142-145.) To cap it all, not content with these and similar other quotes, Shaikh crassly concludes on page 26 : “ Here we can clearly see that a Muslim is a committed terrorist by faith.” Secular Satiricus is stunned. Had this pernicious pen-friend of his been alive, he would surely have deserved being beheaded by ISIS as an infidel, as a notorious non-Muslim. For ISIS is an organisation of Muslims. ISIS is not an organisation of terrorists.