Another 'Hindu' temple desecrated in Pakistan.
An important term that JNU/Shaheen Bagh jihadi Sharjeel Imam used in his poisonous speech was 'Mushrikeen'.
('Mushrikeen' is the plural of 'Mushrik' which is derived from Arabic-Islamic root word 'Shirk'.)
For a better understanding of 'Shirk' and 'Mushrik', read yet another excerpt from my unfinished/unpublished series of articles on Islam.
--------------
Naila Inayat नायलाइनायत
The reality that the trope of Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb (i.e. Ganga-Jamuni civilization) covers up is, however, so ugly that no discussion of it is allowed in academia and mainstream media in India and anyone pointing towards it is certain to be branded an anti-Muslim ‘communalist’ or even ‘hate-monger’.
An important term that JNU/Shaheen Bagh jihadi Sharjeel Imam used in his poisonous speech was 'Mushrikeen'.
('Mushrikeen' is the plural of 'Mushrik' which is derived from Arabic-Islamic root word 'Shirk'.)
For a better understanding of 'Shirk' and 'Mushrik', read yet another excerpt from my unfinished/unpublished series of articles on Islam.
--------------
Naila Inayat नायलाइनायत
@nailainayat
Yet another Hindu temple vandalised in Sindh. The statue and holy scriptures desecrated as a mob attacked the temple of Mata Rani Bhatiyani in Chachro, Tharparkar.
12:28 AM · Jan 27, 2020
-----------------Yet another Hindu temple vandalised in Sindh. The statue and holy scriptures desecrated as a mob attacked the temple of Mata Rani Bhatiyani in Chachro, Tharparkar.
12:28 AM · Jan 27, 2020
The reality that the trope of Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb (i.e. Ganga-Jamuni civilization) covers up is, however, so ugly that no discussion of it is allowed in academia and mainstream media in India and anyone pointing towards it is certain to be branded an anti-Muslim ‘communalist’ or even ‘hate-monger’.
This reality is the Quranic concept of ‘Shirk’ – meaning violation of the unique domain of Allah by including in it figures other than Allah as worthy of reverence – which is used as Islam’s primary weapon of destruction to attack cultural autonomy and syncretism, and to turn ‘Muslims’ against their own culture.
The best-known thing that Islam anathematizes as ‘Shirk’ is ‘but parasti’ or ‘idolatry’ – the unforgiveable sin that it associates primarily with all those people, communities and cultures that are labelled ‘Hindu’.
Chroniclers commissioned by ‘Muslim’ rulers in India rhapsodized about the destruction their employers caused to ‘infidelity’ by destroying idols and temples, and killing ‘idol worshipers’.
Hasan Nizami, who lived in the 12th and 13th centuries, for instance, described the rise of Qutb-ud-Din Aibak (1150-1210), the founder of the Mamluk dynasty and the first sultan of the Delhi Sultanate, in the following words (as cited by H.M. Elliot in his works that were published posthumously in the 19th century as The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians).
“He purged by his sword the land of Hind from the filth of infidelity and vice, and freed the whole of that country from the thorn of God-plurality, and the impurity of idol-worship, and by his royal vigour and intrepidity, left not one temple standing.”
However, what Islam deems ‘Shirk’ is not limited to ‘idol worship’.
Anything from Yoga or a devotional song or a festival (such as Vasant Panchami) to an entire culture can be judged ‘Mushrikana’ – i.e. consisting in the unforgivable sin of ‘Shirk’ – and be used as a means to leave a chilling effect on the natural participation of ‘Muslims’ in their own culture.
The opposite of ‘Shirk’ in the lexicon of Islam is ‘Tawheed’ which means ‘belief in one and only Allah through his messenger Muhammad’.
‘Tawheed’ is expressed in ‘Shahada’ (or ‘Kalma’), the statement in Arabic declaring belief in Islam, whose shortest form is, lā ʾilāha ʾillā llāh muḥammadun rasūlu llāh, meaning: ‘There is no god but Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah’.
In his book ‘Mirror of Realization: God is a Precept, the Universe is a Concept,’ Mashhad Al-Allaf of the American University of Ras Al-Khaima (UAE) describes Shahada as one of the five pillars of Islam and explains it in terms of ‘Tawheed’ and ‘Shirk’.
“The opposite of Tawheed is called Shirk, which means associating other gods or powers with Allah, which is absolutely prohibited in Islam because it nullifies the belief in Allah as The Only God and Ultimate Reality. By Shirk a person shifts the submission from One God to many, which is contradictory to the meaning of Islam itself. By Shirk a person becomes an infidel (Kafer). Thus, associating anything with Allah is Kufr or infidelity. Shirk is the worst of sins and is unforgivable,” writes Al-Allaf.
Thus, Islam presents ‘Tawheed’ – or rejection of anything that it deems ‘Shirk’ – as absolutely central to its being, which, by the way, takes everything that does not directly flow from Allah’s Quran and Muhammad’s Sunnah, including the so called ‘Sufism,’ outside the pale of Islam!
The concept of ‘Shirk’ is used not merely to help ‘Muslims’ avoid whatever is condemned as ‘polytheism’ in Islam as is generally made out, but it represents full-scale ethnocidal weaponry against any culture that is sought to be undermined or subordinated to Arab-Islamic supremacism.
‘Shirk’ is the Islamic equivalent of ‘syncretism’; just as Christianity inveighs against syncretism inherent in all human cultures in its mad quest to undermine and colonize them, Islam batters all cultures with the bludgeon of ‘Shirk’.
(Thus, both Christianity and Islam not only reject ‘syncretism,’ they work hard to undermine it, even as they cunningly and hypocritically take full advantage of the ‘syncretism’ of the targeted culture to expand their totalitarian empires.)
While Christianity problematizes the syncretism of the targeted culture to create conditions for implanting the absolutist myth of Jesus in the minds of the people belonging to that culture, Islam targets a cultural practice, value or mode of thinking by branding is as ‘Mushrikana’.
Such branding or stigmatizing, reinforced by Mullahs’ sermonizing (not to mention the ultimate threat of being declared a Kafir), is often enough to manipulate ‘Muslims’ into professing aversion for the targeted cultural practice, value or mode of thinking.
That is because avoidance of ‘Shirk’ is the precondition of becoming a ‘Muslim’. In other words, you are ‘Muslim’ only because you forswore ‘Shirk’ as defined in the books of Islam by declaring all exclusive faith in Allah through his Rasool or messenger (i.e. Muhammad).
In the world of Islam, ‘Muslim’ and ‘Mushrik’ (i.e. one who lives in the sin of ‘Shirk’) are thus antithesis of each other. (So, ‘othering’ is absolutely fundamental to Islam, not to mention the use of the ‘obligatory’ aversion to ‘Shirk’ to mobilize hatred for the ‘other’ as and when required.)
It’s intuitive to realize that in Islam ‘Shirk’ is an open register that has always been receiving, and will continue to receive, ever new entries, be it a devotional song, a form of greeting, an item of adornment/clothing/food, or more substantial elements of culture and community life.
The ‘Abrahamic’ hatred for ‘Shirk’ and ‘syncretism’ is part of the colonial legacy of the State of India, which ensures that all manifestations of Bharatiyata (i.e. Indic cultural matrix) continue to be subordinated to the alien and ethnocidal construct of ‘religion’.
The legislative, executive, and the judicial branches of the State of India have no choice but to continue to reaffirm and reinforce the Abrahamic imperium over the autonomy, diversity, syncretism and creativity of the Indic cultural matrix.
Thus, ‘Shirk’ cannot be understood simply with reference to the ridiculously unperceptive binary of ‘monotheism-polytheism,’ which is no more than a fig leaf. Behind this fig leaf lies Islam’s totalitarian quest for subjugation of all non-Arab-Islamic cultures.
It’s important to understand that Islam does not content itself with leaving ‘Shirk’ merely as a concept, but insists on viewing it as embodied in the lives of non-Muslim quams.
Islamic preachers unabashedly and frequently name Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc., as making up these non-Muslim (or ‘Mushrik’) quams, thus directing the institutionalized loathing for ‘Shirk’ to the people viewed as embodying ‘Shirk’.
(‘Quam’ is another fraudulent – and pernicious – concept of Islam, especially when used informally as a synonym for ‘Ummah,’ which is the imaginary, single, worldwide community of ‘Muslims’. This false postulate of ‘quam’ used in the meaning of ‘Ummah’ gives rise to similarly false postulates of Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc. as making up separate non-Muslim ‘quams’. Another term that’s used as an informal synonym for ‘Ummah’ is ‘Millat’.)
Thus, hatred for not just what is deemed to be ‘Shirk,’ but also what is deemed to be embodiment of ‘Shirk’ (i.e. people, communities and cultures deemed ‘Mushrik’) is inherent in Islam; the domain of ‘Muslimhood’ cannot be conceived without simultaneously conceiving the domain of ‘Mushrikhood’.
In the Indian Subcontinent, ‘Shirk,’ ‘Mushrik’ and ‘Mushrikana’ – some of the dirtiest words, along with ‘Kufr’ and ‘Kafir’, in the lexicon of Islam and its core book Quran – are synonymous with and used by the ‘Muslims’ primarily for the ‘Hindus’.
This institutionalized – indeed obligatory – abuse, vilification, and hatred that Islam directs at ‘Hindus’ is fully protected by India’s constitution and laws under the rubric of ‘freedom of religion’.
----------------
