Do Indian Atheists Avoid Criticism of Islam?
Here’s a comment from a Hindu apologist on Facebook:
“A strange place these atheists and their groups and discussions…..they flaunt their language and persuasion and knowledge and reason.. But they fear and tremble before fundamentalist religions like Islam….they don’t even mention it’s name and their prophet…they treat all religions as same and hate them as ‘religion’ and not by their names and specific beliefs… consciously evading the fact that religions and beliefs can be analysed objectively..and some beliefs can be more dangerous and with far reaching consequences than the others…they fear the believers…fearing someone might take offence and retaliate, retaliate not with words but with force. They take pot shots at only those people of religion who they know would not fight back and who would only, at the most, talk back… they criticize the tame magicians who with their cheap tricks spread humanity… they fight the tolerant believers and censor and isolate those who blaspheme the fundamentalists…such is your creed…such is your Atheism.. cheap entertainment and nothing more.”
There’s nothing new about these false arguments; most of them are hurled at us at a regular frequency, and dismissing them has become almost boring, to the point where many of us find it easier to simply link to an earlier shredding of the same flawed reasoning. But in this case I’ll give it an undeserved response in the hope of stalling the zombie apocalypse for a while.
I’ll present a line by line response.
“But they fear and tremble before fundamentalist religions like Islam”
Firstly, all religions have fundamentalist and moderate versions, so this is a false premise. But if you really think that we Indian Atheists are afraid of fundamentalist Islam, you are just plain stupid.
“they don’t even mention it’s na’me and their prophet”
Interestingly, it is this person who fails to mention the pedophile Mohammad. While we’re on the subject, it has come to my attention that this aforementioned pedophile allegedly had a thing for camels. I said ‘allegedly’, don’t quote me on that.
The plain truth is that this moron making the argument doesn’t really care whether we criticize Islam or not, because if he really did he would have searched on our site and found more than 40 articles that are critical of Islam, and he would have known that Nirmukta is probably the only Indian organization that organized and celebrated Everybody Draw Mohammad day last year. What he actually cares about is all the criticism that we heap on his chosen set of stone-age ideas that go under the label Hinduism, and he uses distractions such as the one above to deflect criticism of his beliefs.
“they treat all religions as same and hate them as ‘religion’ and not by their names and specific beliefs”
We have plenty of articles attacking each specific religion that we have turned our focus on. But notice a pattern? It is this accuser who doesn’t name a single Atheist or Atheist/Freethought group, and instead engages in a drive-by-shooting of innocent passers-by, and yet without any self-awareness accuses others of what he is guilty of!
“consciously evading the fact that religions and beliefs can be analysed objectively”
Nirmukta’s stated objective is to objectively analyze “religions and beliefs”. There are plenty of articles on Nirmukta that do just that. This is more drive-by-shooting. Patently absurd argument from an apologist.
“and some beliefs can be more dangerous and with far reaching consequences than the others”
Duh.
“They take pot shots at only those people of religion who they know would not fight back and who would only, at the most, talk back”
I ask anyone who thinks that this is what Indian Atheists do to please be specific. Who is “they”? Who are these “people of religion” that “they” don’t take pot shots at? If these Hindu apologists would be a little less mysterious and be a little specific perhaps we can actually criticize all these religions that we have apparently been ignoring.
“they criticize the tame magicians who with their cheap tricks spread humanity”
Firstly, “magicians” are legitimate and sometimes even beloved members of the skeptics community, because they do not claim supernatural powers. Magicians are conjurers who entertain- people who use tricks and make no bones about it. In fact, the greatest magicians in the world (for example, James Randi, P.C. Sorcar, Darren Brown, and years ago, Harry Houdini) are/were famous for criticizing the type of people that this Hindu apologist is defending- the conmen. What we’re opposed to are these conmen, the godmen and babas who rip off the gullible and line their pockets (and Swiss bank accounts) while using a small portion of their ill-gotten wealth for charity, which then serves as propaganda.
“they fight the tolerant believers and censor and isolate those who blaspheme the fundamentalists”
We fight the tolerant believers? What do these apologists consider “fighting”? Debate? Discourse? Well, in that case, guilty as charged. But of course, that’s a twisted definition of the word “fight”. Religious people use such mis-characterizations because they are so insecure in their beliefs that any criticism is perceived of as an affront on their very existence. This is a pathetic excuse of an argument.
Such is the irrational reactionary attitude cultivated among those who have been subjected to religious indoctrination, that many of these believers are incapable of seeing “outsiders” through unbiased eyes. They fail to address the actual arguments of the atheists and freethinkers, and redefine our existence through the cultural narrative that best fits their twisted worldview, dismissing all of moral progress, scientific enlightenment and humanistic activism as “cheap entertainment”.
The conclusion? Religion turns people into mindless drones.
Note: There are plenty of very good reasons why Indian Atheists criticize Hinduism more than they do Islam or Christianity. This is akin to why Atheists in Italy criticize the Catholic church more than they do Hinduism.
Here are a couple of articles on why Indian Atheists criticize Hinduism more:
http://nirmukta.com/2008/09/30/why-i-criticize-hinduism-the-most/
http://nirmukta.com/2008/11/15/further-thoughts-on-why-i-criticize-hinduism/
If you personally would like more criticism of Islam, then do your research and put some effort into writing a coherent article that would appeal to those of us active in the movement towards reason and rationality. Attacking others because the focus of their much needed activism differs from yours, is childish behavior. To those who engage in such behavior, grow the f*^! up.
Satish, 
Anirudh, 
Arvind Iyer and 10 others are discussing. 
bijay, 
aragorn and 7 others are discussing. 
Satish 2:02 PM on June 4, 2011 Permalink |
Right on, Ajita! These hindu apologists are so blinded by their hatred of Islam that they can’t see that the criticisms of Islam they so very “bravely” and “valiantly” levy, at “great risk”, also apply to the beliefs they hold.
abrahim 2:10 PM on June 4, 2011 Permalink |
its is but natural to fear violent consequences when one uses the free-speech on things like religion. in my understanding its just the natural law of ‘taking the path of least resistance’ . . but more importantly since majority of religions have similar fundamental foolishness at their base, by discrediting one it becomes easier to go for the next in line. so if moses is discredited as a ‘messenger of god’ then case against christianity and islam becomes stronger . .
and since the atheist movement isn’t a dictatorship or something enforced using brute force, but something which propagates through exchange of ideas it is best to adopt an approach/route which allows us to first engage with those who can ‘listen & talk’ , not those who ‘listen and then kill’ ! ! !
but be rest assured . . . sooner or later , reason always prevails
Ajita Kamal 2:38 PM on June 4, 2011 Permalink |
Actually there is plenty of criticism of Islam in general, and more than its share in India given the % of Muslims in India. So I don’t think the “taking the path of least resistance” applies to our activism. Indeed, at every turn we seem to be taking the path that leads to direct confrontation with the beliefs of those most entrenched in religion!
Also, its a false premise that atheist activism requires the believers to listen to us. There are many other rational and humane solutions to the issues that concern us, including legal means and provoking thought through shame and cultural exclusion. We need a pluralistic approach when dealing with religion.
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/5414-is-richard-dawkins-arrogant-ridicule-passion-and-the-new-atheists
Charvak 1:27 AM on June 5, 2011 Permalink |
Neat Job Ajita! I like it.
Dr.H.N.Patwari 3:55 AM on June 5, 2011 Permalink |
Excellent article!I believe that Nirmukta/Indian atheists are honest and sincere and their credentials,practice and perception about all religions are logical.They are genuinly secular.Since Hindu religion happens to be major religion in India,it is quite logical that in comparison ,there is more writeup against Hinduism.Anyhow as for as ground situation is concerned,there are pseudo secularists who can be classified into two groups.”Hindu secularists”who are in forefront to condemn and criticize Islamic fundamentalism only and “Muslim secularists”who leave no stone unturned to offer their criticizm against Hindu fundamentalism.So called communists are classified example of second brand of secularists,who present their best rhetoric against ‘U.S.imperialism’ and ‘reactionary-communal-fundamentalist’ forces,yet they never speak against Bin ladinism.They did not accord permission to Taslima Nasreen for her temporary stay in West Bengal.Their publications testify and reflect their regressive mindset.Your contribution in this regard is appreciable.Keep it up.
Likhesh 6:11 AM on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
It is quite strange that my first post in Delhi freethinkers is in opposition of Ajita Kamal though i myself is part of freethinking movement in Bangalore (particularly IISc); but i justify it because one this is first active thread i encountered on the page and reply by Ajita has serious flaws in it
Let me start with this
1)
//The plain truth is that this moron making the argument doesn’t really care whether we criticize Islam or not, because if he really did he would have searched on our site and found more than 40 articles that are critical of Islam//
Really laughable and sad comment, because if you follow the “more than 40 articles” links (which is just the tag search for Islam on Nirmukta website) and just see what appears you would realize that among these “more than 40 articles” only 3-4 actually criticize Islam.
in fact in this search you will find this article also
http://nirmukta.com/2009/04/08/how-intolerant-is-islam/
which is shamelessly apologetic for Islam
2)
Another interesting feature of the article by Ajita is choice of words (rather gems) for example
//you are just plain stupid//
, //this moron making the argument//,
//yours, is childish behavior//.
//To those who engage in such behavior, grow the f*^! up.//
though there is nothing wrong in calling people names, use of invectives and abusing them(freedom of speech) but in rational discussion one would expect a justification for the remarks.
3)
Now about the “good reasons why Indian Atheists criticize Hinduism more ”, first the apparent self-contradiction, the whole article of Ajita goes on to give impression that Indian atheist are as much critical of Islam as much are they of Hinduism and in the end shoots himself in the foot by accepting that //Indian Atheists criticize Hinduism more than they do Islam or Christianity// and not only that goes on with flawed analogy of Italy (dear sir in Italy Christian are 92% and hindus 0.2% ratio of 1:460 while in India Hindus to Muslim ratio is 1:6 i.e two orders of magnitude more); heights of irrationality!
4)
Also if we examine why “Indian Atheists criticize Hinduism more than they do Islam or Christianity”
in comment section of the referred article somebody named Kafir has posted an excellent criticism.
//Kaafir says:
April 2, 2009 at 7:25 pm
More than 80% of the Indian population is Hindu. Naturally, more than 80% of our criticism would also be directed against the belief system of Hindus.
=>
A more rational/logical explanation should be the negative impact, damage and number of disruptive events in the society/world caused by adherents of a particular religion. Missing the forest for the trees isn’t helpful.
=>
Second is my familiarity with the religion I was born into. I am more familiar with the beliefs, tenets, rituals, and practices of Hinduism than that of any other religion, and hence I am more confident in criticizing it.
=>
With so much diversity in tenets, beliefs and rituals of Hinduism as well as so many different schools of philosophy which would take some considerable time and effort to study and understand, your familiarity only applies to a very small section of the population. Besides, in my experience, what I’ve found is that most people “rejected” Hinduism based only on their personal negative experience, or because they were forced by their elders to do certain rituals. Extending your specific knowledge to the entire population of Indian Hindus is not rational or logical, and is fraught with inaccuracy.
=>
Third, there is a possibility that the liberalization or secularization of the religion of the majority in a country has a positive impact on the religion of the minority itself.
=>
History does not bear this out completely, given that both Islam and Christianity have been in India for centuries. Yes, Sufism can be cited as an example, but today, even that is being threatened by the Wahabbi strain from outside – we don’t exist in a bubble. Besides, wasn’t it the secular and pluralistic nature of Hinduism that allowed people of different religions to find shelter in India and continue practicing their religion (Parsis, Jews, Syrian Christians, Dalai Lama), as well as allowed different philosophical schools within Hinduism to flourish and co-exist?
=>
Fourth, the criticism coming from within a community is much more effective than those coming from people outside the fold.
=>
=>
There is some merit to this argument, assuming that the community is open to criticism from inside, and there’s no concept like ‘fitna’ to prevent community members from speaking out and implementing progressive changes. Yet, if you are a Hindu (given that you are part of that community), what’s the basis of your Hindu identity, if not religion? If you consider yourself an Indian and an atheist, then it shouldn’t matter whether you criticize Hindus, Muslims, Baha’is or Sikhs – all are fair game since they’re all Indians, and with access to the internet, lack of knowledge about their tenets or customs or beliefs is not a valid excuse anymore. And if someone could write “Rangeela Rasool” decades ago when there was no internet…
The fifth and most important reason is the brutal fact that the Hindu fundamentalist forces (RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, Durga Vahini, etc) have been on the rise since the late 1970s.
=>
Correct. But have you given some thought to the conditions that made it possible for their ascendancy, and who created those conditions, and whether those conditions still exist or not? If you did, it’s not evident in your post. (Hint: so-called “secularism” that was added to the constitution during Emergency as well as its perverted application by all political parties, with Congress showing the path – yet your post doesn’t even mention Congress. Is that rational? Do you by any chance vote for Congress or are sympathetic to it?)
An atheist is an atheist – you seem to be making categories of atheists based on religion.
=>
Are you sure that you didn’t leave out some very obvious reasons (”elephant in the living room,” as they say) for why you don’t criticize Muslims in India and only stick to Hindus?
Do you consider Muslims as Indians? If you do, then you should build some partnerships with like-minded Indian Muslims, because we cannot leave one community behind while we move the rest ahead. Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta.
Are you afraid of your physical safety if you criticize Islam?
Are you concerned that given the current “liberal/progressive” environment, if you criticize Islam, you would be labeled as a Hindu fanatic or an Islamophobe? That is indeed the most effective tactic used to prevent people from speaking out and leads to self-censoring.
Here’s what I think:
1. Universal application of the concept of secularism needs to happen. Currently, its meaning as well as application is nothing but perverted, with all political parties indulging in it.
2. Law-and-order situation needs to change and become stricter.
3. Better journalistic standards – readers jump to conclusions based on faulty and biased reporting.
Once these three are in order, you won’t need to write a post justifying why you only criticize Hinduism, and will be free to criticize any religion//
5)
Finally, to clarify i am not a Islam basher by hobby or any religion basher for that matter; personally i think it is too boring and too easy. But being a scientist and rationalist, bad arguments just piss me off irrespective of who so ever makes them or in whatever context they appear.
Ajita Kamal 9:00 AM on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
“ just see what appears you would realize that among these “more than 40 articles” only 3-4 actually criticize Islam. ”
Wrong, there are actually 50 articles in the link I posted, because these articles are under the tag Islam. Like I say in the article, over 40 of those are critical of Islam. Going from 40 to 3-4 shows your willingness to distort the truth.
“in fact in this search you will find this article also
http://nirmukta.com/2009/04/08/how-intolerant-is-islam/
which is shamelessly apologetic for Islam ”
Really? There are quotes from the article:
“The unprecedented rise of Islamist fundamentalism in today’s world is a fact. ”
“The Islamic theology do inspire these Islamic terrorists in unleashing homicidal attacks against innocents (not only non-Muslims, but even Muslims who do not share their barbarian views) ”
“It is true, Islam’s holy-book, the Koran, contains verses intolerant of other points of view, which are being selectively used by the peddlers of violence. “
This is what you Likesh consider being shamelessly apologetic of Islam? That one article you pointed out has as defending islam attacks Islam more than you have done in your post. But there is someone else being a shameless apologist here. It is you.
So it seems you are not really concerned that the article doesn’t criticize Islam, because it clearly does. What you’re interpreting as “shamelessly apologetic for Islam ” is the fact that the article says also criticizes Hinduism and Christianity. So you are essentially a Hindu apologist.
“though there is nothing wrong in calling people names, use of invectives and abusing them(freedom of speech) but in rational discussion one would expect a justification for the remarks. ”
Rational discussion? Do you see any names mentioned? This article wasn’t rational discussion. It was ridicule, made with the intention of having a laugh at some stupid arguments.
“ the whole article of Ajita goes on to give impression that Indian atheist are as much critical of Islam as much are they of Hinduism ”
Nope. All I’m arguing is that we are critical of Islam. No equivalence is necessary. You are creating a straw man by. There is much more need to criticize Hinduism in India today. The stupid and ignorant argument I was responding to was that we DO NOT criticize Islam.
“flawed analogy of Italy ” “(dear sir in Italy Christian are 92% and hindus 0.2% ratio of 1:460 while in India Hindus to Muslim ratio is 1:6 i.e two orders of magnitude more); heights of irrationality! ”
This is just ignorance. I think you are not aware of what an analogy is. The point is to convey the relationship, not the exact values involved. Indian Atheists criticize Islam orders of magnitude more than Italian Atheists criticize Hinduism. How is it that you do not factor that in? But your willingness to bring up this false argument instead of seeing the analogy for what it is clearly marks you as a Hindu apologist.
The comments of someone else to some other article I will ignore. If you’re interested in taking it up with whoever wrote those article, go ahead. I’m not wasting my time responding to arguments made against someone else’s comments.
“Do you consider Muslims as Indians?”
Not all Muslims are Indians, I’m pretty sure.
“If you do, then you should build some partnerships with like-minded Indian Muslims, because we cannot leave one community behind while we move the rest ahead.”
Who the hell are you to tell me what I SHOULD do? Why the hell do you assume we are leaving any community7 behind? I know, because you read an article critical of Islam like above. but ignore all the criticism of Islam and only see the criticism of Hinduism. Have you built any such partnerships?
“Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta.”
Nirmukta does not feature religious writers. What we may feature is ex-religious persons. But I know where you’re coming from. You can’t help but differentiate between ex-Muslim atheists and yourself. In any case, you get some ex-Muslim writers to join Nirmukta. Go ahead, don’t let us stop you. Why is it that you are responding so aggressively to criticism of Hinduism but are not actually doing anything that would add value?
“Are you afraid of your physical safety if you criticize Islam?”
Did you read the article? Because you’re repeating something that was laughed at.
“Are you concerned that given the current “liberal/progressive” environment, if you criticize Islam, you would be labeled as a Hindu fanatic or an Islamophobe?”
No. As we have made clear multiple times on Nirmukta, if you were really interested in anything except defending Hinduism, you’d know that we are constantly stressing on the distinction between people and ideas. We criticize ideas, but never attack people as a whole. Now, of course we attack individuals. For example, like in these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACCPWVS967Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Mkfm25ID-U
“1. Universal application of the concept of secularism needs to happen. Currently, its meaning as well as application is nothing but perverted, with all political parties indulging in it.”
Sure, but I don’t see how you are doing that. I have, on the other hand, argued flatly against religion and have written many articles that present a flat criticism of all of religion. Please do something and point to it before assuming that others haven’t done anything in that regard.
“2. Law-and-order situation needs to change and become stricter.”
No doubt.
“3. Better journalistic standards – readers jump to conclusions based on faulty and biased reporting.”
This is very true.
“Once these three are in order, you won’t need to write a post justifying why you only criticize Hinduism, and will be free to criticize any religion”
Straw man. Even after reading the entire article you seem to think it is about “justifying why you only criticize Hinduism”. This clearly points to the fact that you are identifying with the Hindu religion and are being an apologist for it. The entire point of the article was to point out that Islam gets its fair share of the criticism. Yet you still see it as Hindu bashing. You need to see why you are biased first. I am not biased in any way for form. In fact, when I started out with Nirmukta I was more critical of Islam than Hinduism, but it is the pseudo-secularists like you who have showed me that there needs to be a lot more criticis of Hinduism.
“5) Finally, to clarify i am not a Islam basher by hobby or any religion basher for that matter;”
Really, you could have fooled me. It seems that all you are interested in is bashing Islam and excusing Hinduism.
“But being a scientist and rationalist, bad arguments just piss me off irrespective of who so ever makes them or in whatever context they appear.”
So I guess you should read back your own comment objectively, because not only is it filled with bad arguments, it is pathetically biased.
Likhesh 1:54 AM on June 9, 2011 Permalink |
1. //Wrong, there are actually 50 articles in the link I posted, because these articles are under the tag Islam. Like I say in the article, over 40 of those are critical of Islam. Going from 40 to 3-4 shows your willingness to distort the truth.//
Below, I simply sample articles from the first page of your link. See for yourself how many of them are critical of Islam (in fact, I am bewildered how they were even tagged with the label ‘’Islam” with such titles):
An Alternative To Lokpal System To Deal With Corruption
Stress, The Mind, Belief Systems And Mental Blocks
A New Belief System For The Young Men And Women Of India
Delhi Freethinkers’ Meet – Sunday, March 27, 2011
Zakir Naik Doesn’t Understand Atheism
Managing Life Without God and Religion In The Twenty First Century – Prologue
Buddha, The Sensible Rationalist!
The Great Hero Who Conquered Karma
Keeping The Spotlight On
Philosophy With Selvi #2 – Understanding Logic
2. //This is what you Likesh consider being shamelessly apologetic of Islam? That one article you pointed out has as defending islam attacks Islam more than you have done in your post.//
Instead of quote mining from Manoj’s article as you did, I present paragraph-by-paragraph conclusions from it:
a) First paragraph: Rise of Islamism & Hindutva/Imperialist US is equivalent
b) The second paragraph: period of Islamic violence is relatively recent
c) The third paragraph: Koran is of little importance in explaining Islamism
d) Fourth, fifth, and sixth (excluding quotes): Arabia and Islam had a glorious past
e) The second-last paragraph is the meatiest of all: fundamentalism is ‘just a phase’
f) The author tut-tuts us to be more tolerant
To sum up, the article feigns equivalence between Islamism and other ideologies, harps on the glories of past and downplays the role of Koran in inspiring violence (don’t forget the breath-taking assertion that the “US trained the Taliban”). If you don’t think that is apologist, you are either very bad at inferential reasoning (i.e., comprehension), or don’t know what the word apologist means, or both.
3. //What you’re interpreting as “shamelessly apologetic for Islam ” is the fact that the article says also criticizes Hinduism and Christianity. So you are essentially a Hindu apologist.//
Is that who an apologist is?
4. //This is just ignorance. I think you are not aware of what an analogy is. The point is to convey the relationship, not the exact values involved. **Indian Atheists criticize Islam orders of magnitude more than Italian Atheists criticize Hinduism**.//
The last sentence is supposed to be proving the closeness of your analogy?
5. //The comments of someone else to some other article I will ignore. If you’re interested in taking it up with whoever wrote those article, go ahead. I’m not wasting my time responding to arguments made against someone else’s comments.//
And yet you go ahead replying to those very comments. You obviously missed the, “//Kaafir says:
April 2, 2009 at 7:25 pm” in my post above. That shows me what a careful reader you are. Little wonder about your comprehension skills then.
6. In response to the following suggestion (by Kaafir’s misattributed to me): “…you should build some partnerships with like-minded Indian Muslims, because we cannot leave one community behind while we move the rest ahead.”
You garbled:
//Why the hell do you assume we are leaving any community7 behind? I know, because you read an article critical of Islam like above. but ignore all the criticism of Islam and only see the criticism of Hinduism.//
So according to you, I was worried that you were leaving Muslims behind because you wrote an article critical of Islam. That should make me a Muslim sympathiser, shouldn’t it? At the same time, I am a Hindu fanatic because I ignored all that worrying criticism. You accuse me of far greater split-brained feats than your multiple-personality responses in #7 show you to be.
7. The difference in your answers when (you thought) you replied to me and when you replied to Kaafir speaks volumes about your state of mind. For example, in response to Kaafir’s suggestion to “Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta”, you replied initially (to him):
//I specifically targeted ex-Muslims and women writers in order to create a balance, even if it was to be a contrived balance.//
You replied to me:
//Nirmukta does not feature religious writers. What we may feature is ex-religious persons.//
In the previous case, you assumed that the referent for the word “Muslim” is ex-Muslims. In the later comment you show no such charity while ranting like a schoolmarm.
8. //…if you were really interested in anything except defending Hinduism.//
Please quote any sentence where I have even remotely defended Hinduism. No wonder you think I am an apologist (on second thought, I am attributing to much knowledge to you; I don’t think you really know the technical meaning of apologetics as is clear in item. #3).
9. //It seems that all you are interested in is bashing Islam and excusing Hinduism.//
Again, where have I bashed Islam? Quote me one sentence. Even if I am interested in bashing Islam, to say that I am excusing Hinduism, is nothing but conjunction fallacy. Finally, it proves the irony of your comment:
//…you should read back your own comment objectively, because not only is it filled with bad arguments, it is pathetically biased.//
Ajita Kamal 2:53 AM on June 9, 2011 Permalink |
OK, I finally have some time to reply to your comment properly. Here goes.
1. “Below, I simply sample articles from the first page of your link. See for yourself how many of them are critical of Islam (in fact, I am bewildered how they were even tagged with the label ‘’Islam” with such titles)”
So you just read titles and make up your mind. Makes sense why your arguments are nonsensical and biased. Read the damn articles. By the way, are you the Hindu apologist who posted the stupid comments that are being criticized in the article? Because in the article I didn’t say the posts on Nirmukta are tagged with Islam, but I mistakenly did that when initially responding to the comments on Facebook. If you are, then I understand why you entered this conversation attacking me personally, as though the article was a personal attack on you. It still makes you a Hindu apologist. In fact a bigger one, going by the comments I was responding to in the article. But I won’t assume. I just think it odd that you think the articles were tagged with Islam, especially when the top of the page says “Search Results | ‘islam’”.
The fact is, the articles are actually not tagged with ‘Islam’. As I said in the article, if you search on the site you’ll find these articles. And about 40 of them criticize Islam. Of course, not all of them are written with the explicit point of criticism Islam only. Criticism of Islam may be made in passing, but criticism of Islam is made.
And if you had bothered to read the articles instead of making assumptions from the titles, you’d know if Islam is actually mentioned and/or criticized in all of them. And around 40 of them are critical of Islam. There are a few more on this site, Indianatheists.com. Here are the ones from the first page, that you claim to be bewildered by without bother to read.
1. http://nirmukta.com/2011/04/30/an-alternative-to-lokpal-system-to-deal-with-corruption/
“We read elsewhere how the enormous ill-gotten wealth in some of those temple-casinos invited Islamic invaders from Afghanistan to India. No one questioned why their gods did not protect them when Islamic invaders chopped off heads of thousands of Brahmins and hundreds of thousands of civilians; looted and destroyed their temple-casinos, and hauled off enormous wealth to their own countries.”
2. http://nirmukta.com/2011/04/10/stress-the-mind-belief-systems-and-mental-blocks/
This one criticizes contemporary Hindu fundamentalists, for their hatred of Muslims because of past Islamic atrocities. Of course, this is not criticism of Islam directly, but somehow very appropriate here…wonder why.
“The real reason is that they want to wreak vengeance against Muslims for the misdeeds of Islamic kings centuries ago, such as Ala-ud-Din Khilji (ruled 1296- 1316) and Aurangzeb (ruled 1658-1707).”
3. http://nirmukta.com/2011/03/25/a-new-belief-system-for-the-young-men-and-women-of-india/
“We read in my articles on the Gita how during the medieval times temples in places such as Somanath and Mathura amassed enormous wealth, which attracted Islamic invaders from Northwest. This led to a thousand years of foreign rule, and devastation, decimation and destitution of India.”
4. http://nirmukta.com/2011/03/14/delhi-freethinkers-meet-sunday-march-27-2011/
(This one mentioned Islam as part of an address, so let’s exclude it)
5. http://nirmukta.com/2011/02/19/zakir-naik-doesnt-understand-atheism/
This one is obvious. I posted this and another video of Naik that I made, both of which are extremely critical of Islam.
6. http://nirmukta.com/2011/02/09/managing-life-without-religion-in-the-twenty-first-century/
This one is critical of 3 major religions, but of course you will only see the criticism of Hinduism.
“Swamis and Gurus of Hinduism, Ulamas and Mullahs of Islam, and Priests and Pastors of Christianity have diligently taught their followers various rituals, and reinforced them over the centuries, because they are profitable for them and their institutions.”
7. http://nirmukta.com/2011/01/26/buddha-the-sensible-rationalist/
“the rise of Islamic kingdoms” mentioned as one of the causes of the demise of Buddhism in India. And yes, we have also been critical of Buddhism.
“Islamic invasion of India was instigated by the enormous wealth accumulated by various temples. Ghazni and Ghori kings came to India to loot only because Brahmins told people to donate wealth to those temples. Waves after waves of invaders came to India lured by the illicit wealth of temples. 8 centuries of Islamic rule, and devastation followed.”
“Our abhorrence of the machinations of dominant social leadership, whether it be Brahmin, Christian or Islamic has its rightful place in argument and analysis.”
8. http://nirmukta.com/2010/12/07/the-great-hero-who-conquered-karma/
(Excluded- This one is not critical of Islam)
9. http://nirmukta.com/2010/10/24/keeping-the-spotlight-on/
(Excluded- This one is not critical of Islam)
10. http://nirmukta.com/2010/10/06/philosophy-with-selvi-understanding-logic/
The comic strip satirizes Islamic apologists, pointing out Islamic’s terrible history of misogyny.
So, that’s 7 out of the first 10 articles of a total of 50 that are critical of Islam, and if you extrapolate to 50 and count the ones here that’s around 40 articles critical of Islam. Of course you can be pedantic on this point and spend your time going through all articles. I’m done. The point has been made. We criticize Islam. You haven’t done so yourself, and yet find fauly with us for not doing it more. I never intended to go into each article, because I know we’re not biased in our criticism of religion. And now having wasted my time on this nonsense, I am going to move on.
And don’t accuse me of quote mining the above articles. See below for why you’d be wrong.
2. “Instead of quote mining from Manoj’s article as you did, I present paragraph-by-paragraph conclusions from it”
Do you know the meaning of “quote mining”? It is not quote mining to present points from an article that were alleged to not be there. That is, I am responding to an argument that says there is no criticism of Islam. All I need to do is pick a quote to show that there indeed is criticism of Islam.
Like all religious apologists, you are twisting the context to defend your chosen religious identity. Your criticism of Manoj’s article was that it doesn’t “actually criticize Islam”. I presented points from the article that clearly do criticize Islam. And then you summarize each paragraph to exclude the criticism of Islam. Now who is being disingenuous?
3. “Is that who an apologist is?”
Look it up.
4. “The last sentence is supposed to be proving the closeness of your analogy?”
No, it is meant to show your bias. Again, the point of the analogy is clear to anyone who is not biased.
5. “That shows me what a careful reader you are.”
I know not all Hindu apologists are incapable of understanding that one can selectively respond to some irrelevant nonsense, but obviously some are.
6. “That should make me a Muslim sympathiser, shouldn’t it?”
Nope.
“At the same time, I am a Hindu fanatic.”
I didn’t say that. You seem to think apologist means fanatic. Quoting you, “That shows me what a careful reader you are.”
7. “The difference in your answers when (you thought) you replied to me and when you replied to Kaafir speaks volumes about your state of mind. For example, in response to Kaafir’s suggestion to “Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta”, you replied initially (to him):
//I specifically targeted ex-Muslims and women writers in order to create a balance, even if it was to be a contrived balance.//
You replied to me:
//Nirmukta does not feature religious writers. What we may feature is ex-religious persons.//”
Firstly, Kaafir wasn’t responding to an article that clearly demonstrated that we were critical of Islam. He was also a Hindu apologist like you, but he was commenting on our site during its early days, before I had heard that argument a hundred times from you Hindu apologists. My patience hadn’t worn thin at that time.
But what’s amusing is that your argument seems to be “you’re being harsher to me than to that other guy”. Perhaps because you deserve it more because of the context?
There is no inconsistency in content here either. You want me to use the same answer every time? The concept is the same. I point out that we feature ex-religious persons, not religious persons. Both you and Kafir show that you are incapable of looking at ex-Muslims objectively as atheists. To you they will always be the “other”, because you are prejudiced against them.
8. “Please quote any sentence where I have even remotely defended Hinduism.”
Did I say you defended Hinduism explicitly? This is a false argument- I have to point you to a case where you explicitly defended Hinduism- I am not allowed to make a logical inference from the facts.
Are you so incapable of self-analysis to the point where you are blind to the implicit defense of Hinduism throughout your comments? I have made it amply clear that I am opposed to Islam, and that Hindu apologists often say we aren’t. And you are here attacking me for somehow not attacking Islam. Why? Is it not obvious to you that the reason you are here is to defend Hinduism implicitly and nothing else? Why else are you commenting here? And don’t fool yourself into thinking its because you’re logical scientific mind simply cannot stand to see an illogical argument. Even if my arguments are illogical, which they are not, there is plenty of much more illogical nonsense that you could be spending your valuable time coming up with fallacious arguments to. The only reason you are here is because you are a Hindu apoligist and seem to be unable to take criticism of Hinduism.
“No wonder you think I am an apologist.”
No wonder.
As I mentioned before, you are free to actually construct a coherent argument against any particular religion. Despite the fact that I have had Hinduism pushed in my face all the time, and that personally I have been negatively affected a lot more because of Hindu beliefs, I am objective enough to criticize Islam a lot. I have written articles and made videos criticizing Islam. What have you done criticizing Islam, other than attack other atheists who do criticize Islam?
When the article clearly points out so many instances of criticizing Islam, actually goes much farther than the quoted comments that it was referring to by actually criticizing the “prophet” of the Muslims and satirizing him without the fear that the comment smeared all atheists with, and even goes so far as to offer a platform for those who present coherent and reasoned criticism of Islam, you see us attacking Hinduism and not attacking Islam. This is being a Hindu apologist in context. You are clearly defending Hinduism implicitly, and using a lot of deception to pretend as though you’re not and that your interests are objective and fair. Bullshit.
9. “Again, where have I bashed Islam?”
I said you are interested in bashing Islam, not that you have bashed Islam (even though anyone can see that you are implicitly bashing Islam). But why are you scared of bashing Islam explicitly? Even now when I bring it up, you run. Are you a coward, scared to criticize Islam, while being a hypocrite and Hindu apologist attacking others who criticize Islam by saying that they do not and that they just attack Hinduism?
I am all for Islam bashing. What you are doing is saying that I should do it more, and that I’m not doing it enough. What I’m saying is that I bash Islam and I bash Hinduism. I bash all religious systems.
“to say that I am excusing Hinduism, is nothing but conjunction fallacy.”
Wrong again. Please do a little more reading before you go around misapplying fallacies to logical inferences. There is clear (even if only implied) evidence that your presence here is solely motivated by your desire to defend Hinduism. But even if it wasn’t, the conjunction fallacy would be irrelevant because the fallacy applies to making the claim that the likelihood of two events is greater than that of either one of them. Your invocation of the fallacy is a false conclusion, making your statement a non sequitur.
Finally, a little note on personal attacks.
My article was shrill and confrontational. But it wasn’t directed at you. No people were names. No one was personally attacked.
You on the other hand, entered the conversation with an extremely confrontational set of personal attacks, and have continued spewing them in your second comment. Too bad that your ego is so delicate that it can’t take a bit of logical refutation. But I’m done talking with you.
Anirudh 2:18 AM on April 16, 2012 Permalink
//What you’re interpreting as “shamelessly apologetic for Islam ” is the fact that the article says also criticizes Hinduism and Christianity. //
I don’t think that’s what he finds wrong. The title of the article says it all. This is an article aimed at explaining to people the author sees as “Hindu apologists” why he criticizes Hinduism the most. The tone of the article is : Yes Islam has its problems, but look it had it’s period of glory and it’s no worse than your religion is.
I will leave it to viewers with an objective mind to judge whether the above looks like something written by a critic or an apologist of Islam.
Ajita Kamal 9:12 AM on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
The point is this. We are actually equally critical of all religious ideologies. But it is you Hindu apologists who are in our face the most. There wouldn’t have been a need to write this article if you weren’t, and there wouldn’t have been a need to respond to your apologetic comments if you were capable of being objective and actually contributing to the conversation. Like I said in the article, if you want to see criticism of Islam, write an article after doing your research. Don’t simply defend Hinduism by labeling all our actions as only attacking Hinduism. If you keep defending Hinduism, we will have no choice but to keep attacking Hinduism. This is the simple truth.
Satish 12:20 PM on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
http://nirmukta.com/2009/04/08/how-intolerant-is-islam/
which is shamelessly apologetic for Islam
So what criticism do you consider as not shamelessly apologetic for Islam? Narendra Modi’s kind of criticism?
though there is nothing wrong in calling people names, use of invectives and abusing them(freedom of speech) but in rational discussion one would expect a justification for the remarks.
Yes there is nothing wrong in calling people names, especially when the premise of the article is ridicule.
first the apparent self-contradiction, the whole article of Ajita goes on to give impression that Indian atheist are as much critical of Islam as much are they of Hinduism
Pray tell us from where did you got that idea. The article was a response to “Teh atheists are afraid of criticizing of Islam”. It doesn’t say it criticizes Islam in the same amount that it does Hinduism.
As to Kaafirs comment,
Do you consider Muslims as Indians? If you do, then you should build some partnerships with like-minded Indian Muslims, because we cannot leave one community behind while we move the rest ahead. Get some Muslim writers to join Nirmukta.
Nirmukta community has some parallels to the open source communities. For example somebody who uses Linux, but doesn’t contribute anything to the community feels so entitled that he wants the community to do what he wants. At that point the community bluntly tells him to STFU and be the change he wants to be. Kaafir reminds me of such a person.
Are you afraid of your physical safety if you criticize Islam?
Too bad Kaafir didn’t stick around to see this. I wonder if he would have done the same. Put up his real name publicly and post those images.
Are you concerned that given the current “liberal/progressive” environment, if you criticize Islam, you would be labeled as a Hindu fanatic or an Islamophobe? That is indeed the most effective tactic used to prevent people from speaking out and leads to self-censoring.
Again, the sense of entitlement. Who’s stopping Kaafir from posting his criticisms of Islam?
But being a scientist and rationalist, bad arguments just piss me off irrespective of who so ever makes them or in whatever context they appear.
By your own admission, you are new to group. You did not understand the context of the article, did not want to ask other members, but went straight ahead and did the very same thing the hindu apologist did i.e. misrepresent what this community does.
abrahim 1:40 PM on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
after reading all these mail exchanges i am not sure if i am sitting in the right group. Atheism to me is a very personal matter which allows me to view things for what they are and allows me to be fair, rational and also do justice to my degrees in science.
What folks on this platform seem to be fighting abt is the social aspect of religion and associated communities.
I dont have anything against any religion till it tries to influence the day-to-day life of individuals in a way that rational thinking takes a bak foot. the problems associated with religions are those which stem from ‘communities’ . . for example talking about islam. . i can guarantee that no follower of sufi islam will ever harm anybdy in the name of jihad or simillar bullshit. all the crooks u see blasting their way around are the ‘wahabis’ or those who are follower of that tribal social system in the middle east which saw the birth of this religion. Sufis dont even advocate or make it cmplsry tht a person follows the so called prophet or any religious practices for tht matter. wahabis on the other hand will try to dictate EVERYTHING in your life , from the size and nature of ur garment to the length of ur beard ! ! and FYI there are no ‘kafirs’ in Sufism . . .
similarly i am yet to come across any violent buddhist for tht matter. the fighting in srilanka was not between buddhism and hinduism . but the srilankan community and the tamil community . . so lets be clear on whts religion and whats community.
also I believe that there is no good gained by name calling and the worst thing you can do to the rational cause is call names to the central figures associated with religions which will guarantee not only instant backlash in form of violence from hot-heads but may also land you in legal troubles.
Instead what i do is confront the practices associated with religions that are pure nonsense by the scientific/critical evaluation. things like horoscopes, astrology, muhurats, vaastu, eating habits, kosher etc etc are weakest points of religions and i dont let go of any chance to blast these at the first opportunity. i agree it may not turn ppl into atheists over night but at least there will be a chance that i wont find the barber’s shop closed on a tuesday ! !
I also question practices like ‘marriage within religion’ , naming a child on basis of parent’s religion, eating veg/non-veg in the name of religion, jhatka/halaal etc .. the list is quite long.
there is no point in trying to discredit mohd or christ or moses or any other person as you will never have sufficient data or authority to carry it thru. What you can do is question the practices and beliefs with reference to todays realities and needs. So I dont claim that full veil for women as introduced in tribal arab region about 1500yrs ago was a bad idea at that time . . .but i do say is that idea has dfnlty become a BAD idea in the 21st century and shud be scrapped/outlawed.
Judging and debating the creation of practices and ideas thousands of years back is a futile exercise, what should be done instead is to evaluate those against the needs of today an then condemn them.
And please forget about ‘demanding’ or even raising the point of equal blasting of diff religions by atheists . . yes, i am an atheist but i cannot disregard my personal safety cause of tht. Atheism decides on wht i believe in , and NOT whom i will lambaste. projecting my ideas infront of others is also governed by limits of decency, manners, laws and consideration for the feelings of others. A person who (may not be christian but has) had a life saving operation free of cost in a mother Teresa sponsored hospital will defntly NOt listen to any criticism of the catholics. . .
As i said I am an atheist but not at the cost of my social life or my physical well being. a dead man cannot be an atheist and the same is true for a socially dead individual. I voice my opinion in a way that the target audience listens to me and identify me as a thinker with a rationalistic mindset. Whether they agree with me or follow me is a secondary consideration.
Ajita Kamal 2:04 PM on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
“Atheism to me is a very personal matter which allows me to view things for what they are and allows me to be fair, rational and also do justice to my degrees in science.”
That is compeltely fine. It is your personal preference. For me, Atheism can have a different personal significance. But I’m more than just an atheist. I am a freethinker, a humanist, a feminist, a naturalist, an Indian, and much much more.
Regarding your views on moderate religion, of course we are all capable of seeing nuance. But the arguments you make are not unanswered. There is a lot of material on the subject. So-called moderate religion prevents much progressive change and moral upliftment form happening. It perpetuates ignorance and forms the cauldron from which fundamentalists emerge and gain strength. Instead of looking upwards into the light it encourages us as a species to be blind to the wonders of the universe revealed to us through reason. Most importantly, Nirmukta doesn’t have a black/white view on religion as you seem to think. We have a nuanced perspective. Just as you see me argue against all religion, I have at various times argued against other atheists that we need to recognize that religions indeed have social benefits. Do not judge anyone by reading one article.
For example, here I argue about the social benefits that religion has conveyed on people, and that freethinkers should develop cultural alternatives to satify those emotional urges that bind us and make us find life worth living.
http://nirmukta.com/2009/04/01/sacred-reason-reconciling-science-and-emotion/
Please read the section titled “Can Science Afford to Leave the Emotional Dimension to Religion?” to see that my understanding of facts are not very different from your own, except in a few small ways. I just believe that we can over time reduce the suffering caused by irrational superstitious beliefs.
And you are also mistaken in thinking that my position is that only ridicule is appropriate when dealing with religion. Ridicule is one of the ways in which you raise consciousness, in certain situations. This is a fact. Please read this article in which I argue for a pluralistic strategy in promoting reason.
http://nirmukta.com/2010/04/10/is-richard-dawkins-arrogant-ridicule-passion-and-the-new-atheists/
“What kinds of strategies should we take up when promoting science, critical thinking, naturalism and atheism? I submit that we must adopt a pluralistic strategy. Any single advocate for atheism cannot influence every type of individual who believes in the supernatural. This is obvious if you take into account how vastly different people are in their thinking.”
Finally, Nirmukta’s official position on religion is here:
http://indianatheists.com/religion/
“There is no doubt that some of the qualities that religions have conferred on humanity have served useful evolutionary functions in the past. But today, in almost every aspect of human culture that religion once held monopoly over, there lies the possibility of better, more effective and ethical alternatives that are the product of reason and compassion. Modern Freethought groups seek out these alternatives. Modern philosophies such as secular Humanism and certain socio-political forms of Naturalistic thought offer the most promising alternatives to religion today.
Some of the most essential functions that religions have traditionally provided involve social organization. Although today we seek out secular alternatives to these social roles filled previously by religion, creating social cohesion through celebration of secular culture remains the greatest challenge that we face going forward.
Building effective systems of thought to replace religious systems that are in place is an extremely complicated process. Between the ancient enlightenment periods in the East and the West, and the more modern and universal scientific enlightenment, it has taken a considerable amount of time and effort by the greatest minds that lived, for the ideas generated by reason and compassion to overcome some of the many religious ideas that served us during our primitive superstitious past. The designation of special status to religions has been a stifling impediment to the evolution of reason-based alternatives to any remaining beneficial properties that religions may have traditionally contained. As we fight these impediments, let us remember that there are great rewards to be found in providing replacements to religion. At a personal scale, these replacements provide Atheists and Freethinkers with social systems that bring them together and give them community- something that they have lacked in any meaningful form for much of human existence. The big picture view is that replacing religions with reason-based alternatives is the only way forward if we humans are to co-exist in a scientifically-literate future.”
Ajita Kamal 2:14 PM on June 7, 2011 Permalink |
Also, in response to this statement:
“Instead what i do is confront the practices associated with religions that are pure nonsense by the scientific/critical evaluation. things like horoscopes, astrology, muhurats, vaastu, eating habits, kosher etc etc are weakest points of religions and i dont let go of any chance to blast these at the first opportunity.”
That is exactly what we have been doing as a team. Are you aware that this website is part of an organization promoting science and freethought in India? http://nirmukta.com
Are you aware that we have been working with professor Narendra Nayak, president of the federation of Indian Rationalist Associations for the past 2 and half years? Let me assure you, we are not unaware of these things, and have in fact written a lot about those things that you say that you criticize. Look at all of prof. Nayak’s blog posts, debunking frauds, astrology, quackery, godmen and all kinds of tricks used to con people. Look at all the articles we have written on superstitious beliefs and pseudoscientific nonsense. Look at our About-Us page.
And read this statement about who we are:
http://nirmukta.com/what-is-nirmukta-and-what-do-we-plan-to-do/
astrokid.nj 4:21 AM on June 16, 2011 Permalink |
I am glad that you are satisfied by getting the barber’s shop open on Tuesday, but some of us are after different goals. Atheism is just a stepping stone for me (at least), and there are lots of social evils and injustices that large segments of population are subjected to, and its that I am more interested in and passionately fighting for. Some atheistic groups dont mind legal troubles either, and in fact we are happy to fight battles legally as well.
As Ajita has mentioned in his reply, there is a plurality of approaches, and you will find some of us more passionate and into it. Dont let name calling put you off (what do you think, one has never been a moron about anything in life?), you need to see through it and look at the arguments. http://larianlequella.blogspot.com/2010/04/goldenmanes-third-rule-of-public.shtml
Arvind Iyer 6:18 AM on June 9, 2011 Permalink |
This post and its preceding one make an interesting juxtaposition that speaks to the unclear priorities in liberal public discourse. While pages and pages are being filled here, I present for the consideration of the commenters here a news item, which incidentally seems to be one of many,many issues we would rather expend our energies in:
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/now-papalal-faces-heat-from-the-neighbours-110878
Hindus obsessing over what a true Hindu should be seem to suggest that adopting an orphan born in a different faith is un-Hindu. How about speaking out against this?
Muslims obsessing over how Muslim a four-year old (FOUR YEAR OLD!) should be seem to suggest that an adoption on humanitarian grounds regardless of faith is somehow unislamic. How about speaking out against this?
While we could well have been speaking out against any of this, here we are….
Atheists obsessing over how vocally atheistic one should be and what particular brand of delusion one must appear to criticize to be certified a genuine atheist! Wouldn’t it be great if the certificate-demanders here were equally voluble fairness-demanders in the public square?
Fiyenyaa 1:13 AM on July 21, 2011 Permalink |
I find this extremely interesting, because here in the UK where I live, we have exactly the same comments from Christians: “you only criticise Christianity, why don’t you criticise Islam? You must be picking on us because we’re so nice and Muslims are so horrible”.
Frankly, I tend to all-but ignore this argument because it really doesn’t address any issues: it is nothing more than a form of obfuscation from either discussion of immorality within their own religion, or an attempt to try and throw you from the debate you are having.
This kind of tactic certainly wouldn’t work in a court of law: “Well yes your honour, I did steal that money, but I know someone who committed murder!” The crimes (real or imagined) of Islam are irrelevant if you are discussing something else.