Thoughts on economics and liberty

Hindu! First go and fix Hinduism, THEN complain to me about Mohammed and Islam

I have no religion so I can exercise a TOTALLY OBJECTIVE judgement over all religions. I find, invariably, that the founders of various religions had good intentions, even said good things. Not everything they did was good or respect worthy, but they tried.

However, their religion almost always became a CURSE on mankind, with political people (who LUST for power and money) taking command and driving the followers of religions into committing the most heinous crimes in the name of God.

Therefore, from the age of 12 when I gave up religion (and have never gone back to it, although I'm no longer an atheist but an agnostic) I have been even handed in my critiques of religion. Some good, some bad.

I don't take sides, nor mince words. I praise the good and condemn the evil.

BUT those who are religious believers don't take such an approach. They OUTRIGHT condemn others. To one such person I had this to say today:

Re: the 3 statements you made (against Mohammed/ Islam), you did not contextualise. When I praise Jefferson I also know that he kept slaves. So did Washington.

Civilisation moves on, in fits and starts. What was OK at one time is looked down upon in the future. Slavery is a classic case, being found in ALL civilisations.

And re: child marriage, the less said about Hinduism the better. And Sati.

If I were to call Hindus in this manner:

– those in whose religion old men marry little girls (and many of them: polygamy was common in Hinduism – and is practiced even today)

– those in whose religion Dalits are not just shunned but regularly killed

– those in whose religion women are BURNT ALIVE along with their husbands

– those in whose religion widows are treated with UTMOST CRUELTY (have you seen Water?)

– those in whose religion marriage to another caste will lead to death by stoning in a village assembly

– those in whose religion the village 'boss' sleeps with the wife of EVERY newly married person (this STILL happens in many UP villages) [Proof]

then would that help?

My point is that you have failed to demonstrate HUMILITY about your own religion (don't throw stones at others if you live in a glass house), failed to contextualise (Mohammed WAS a reformer – that is absolutely clear), grossly exaggerated and made things appear to be 'black and white', and attributed Ghazni's depredations to the TEACHINGS of Islam. In doing so you have ignored the GREED of Ghazni, the fact that he used mercenaries from YOUR religion (yes, Hindus are happy to destroy temples if paid to do so – and have done so repeatedly – MOST Buddhist constructions in India were DESTROYED by Hindus, and Buddhists literally driven out of India).

Mohammed would have been SHOCKED at the state of Islam today. It is the exact opposite of what he wanted/preached. Likewise Lord Krishna and Lord Rama would have been shocked at the state of Hinduism.

Oppressions are PART of ALL religions. It is easy to use the name of religion to justify one's oppressions. Christianity has been the world's most intolerant and detestable religion. But now (political) Islam is coming close.

That doesn't mean one can broadly paint any religion (particularly its founder) with a black brush. There is a lot of good, even as there is a lot of bad.

So my suggestion: before you criticise Islam FIX Hinduism. Then come to me.

I have no religion, so I take a balanced approach and criticise all religions equally (even as I PRAISE the good, where I find it – and there is plenty of good).


"our collective inability as people committed to the annihilation of caste, to make any difference in a context where caste atrocity is at best a spectacle for consumption and speculation; where images of children who have been brutally assaulted and murdered are traded by the media in ­unthinkable ways and their experience negated by the rogue state. Where does one begin to roll this back?"


Please follow and like us:

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
12 thoughts on “Hindu! First go and fix Hinduism, THEN complain to me about Mohammed and Islam
  1. Alex C.

    And you’ve lapsed into the Whataboutism practiced by Muslim apologists. The answer to Hindu Whatboutism IS NOT Muslim Whataboutism. If you cook shitty food, I DO NOT have to be a haute chef to be able to tell you that you suck at cooking.

  2. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Sorry, Alex, I have a clear message for EVERYONE who complains about other religions. Go get your house in order. You really have no business pointing out others’ flaws if you haven’t FULLY identified yours, first, and fixed them.

    Don’t know your religion (presumably Christian?), but if you are religious, this would apply to you, too.

  3. Alex C.

    Then we disagree on this. I do not believe that without harsh criticism and the necessary social shaming (in the same way as Saint Kabirdas), there will be any movement in the stagnant, filthy minds of India’s deeply communal population. I believe that the only valid restriction on any criticism (howsoever “dangerous”/defamatory), is that it should strive for the truth. TRUTH is the supreme defence.

    Apologists of any religion are to be met with condemnation of that religion, not by apologising for other religions. The PIMPS of religion must be thrown out from ALL religions. When ALL houses are of glass, we have to break them all before building a stone edifice that can protect us and last. Any GODS SHOULD PROTECT US, rather than the other way round.

    I have a Greek name, but I’m not Christian, similarly as you have a Sanskrit name, but are not Hindu (or so you claim). Please go through my other comments re: Christian Church and its role in the throwback of Europe (indeed, humanity!) by two thousand years. If Jesus would really come on Judgment Day (which is highly unlikely), I would not like to be in the shoes of the Christian religious leaders or their patrons while facing him.

  4. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Sandeep Bansal
    What a stupid logic, until Hindu problem is solved ,Muslim will not be touched!!!

    And I was mistaken into thinking that u stood for Individual rights.

    Sanjeev Sabhlok
    I stand for the rule of law, Sandeep Bansal – and UNIFORMLY demand insistence on non-violence. And punishment for criminals. But you have a tendency to paint violence by Muslims as ISLAMIC, totally ignoring violence by your co-religionists. I’m sorry, you MUST first condemn all Hindu violence before you criticise other violence as Islamic.

    I have no religion and can equally criticise all violence, but you can’t label ONE TYPE OF violence (as Muslim) and keep quiet when violence is committed by your fellow-religionists.

    When you count numbers, you’ll soon realise that “Hindu” violence is at least as extensive (if not more) and its oppression far more comprehensive than “Muslim” violence or oppression. This includes the mass-killing of Muslims in communal riots since independence, including by the Police. These numbers are widely documented in Judicial Commission reports.

    In my view ALL violence is terrible, but in your view only “Muslim” violence seems to invite your attention, at which you smear the entire Muslim religion.

    In an average year, how many Muslims in India have you seen do anything to harm India?

    I’m not defending anyone, but you need to look in the mirror. Why do you “pick on” Muslim violence? And why do you muddle up Indians political history (which was also supported by Hindu mercenaries) with an alleged interpretation of Mohammed’s “message”?

    I request you to let history be studied by historians; not pick Islamic violence alone, to criticise, and to insist on RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and the rule of law. We have enough hatred in India, as it is, without taking sides with any religion. Let all criminals TODAY be punished regardless of what their religion states – and as for the true nature of history, let historians and experts in comparative religion tell us about such things.

  5. Sanjeev Sabhlok


    Sandeep Bansal
    Dear Sanjeev Sabhlok , you perhaps belong to the category of Children of Maculay. This so-called Marxist Nehruvian Idea of India says that Only Muslims can speak for Muslims, Only dalits can speaks for Dalits, Only women can speak for women and so on.

    I refuse to accept this distorted idea of India. I believe in individual rights and rule of law. I criticize all including my co-religion. If you stand for rule of law and individual rights, then there cannot be any pre-condition. By dividing it along religion, by saying that first solve Hindu problem, it is quite clear how objective you really are.

    And on population problem, again I would go back to individual rights. Do women have the right over their bodies, whether they would like to bear more children?

    And please compare the violence across the world by Muslims and compare that to Hindus.

    Sanjeev Sabhlok
    “please compare the violence across the world by Muslims and compare that to Hindus”

    Sorry – that’s just the kind of problem I have with your approach, Sandeep.

    WHY should India consider such things (“across the world”). We should consider the EXTREME violence by Hindus IN INDIA (in whatever form or shape – largely against women and lower castes, but also through Police firings – and communal riots, against Muslims) and put an end to it.

    India has never made its Muslim fellow citizens welcome, and such statements that hold Indian Muslims as being accountable for the actions of non-Indian Muslims are plain wrong.

    By all means comment against various religions in a theoretical manner, but remember that (particularly if you continue to be a Hindu/ Christian, etc.) you must not forget to look in the mirror, as well.

    What I sense from the Hindutva brigade is that they PRETEND that they are innocent and above board, and that Indian Muslims are to blame for all evils in India. They, on the other hand, PRECIPITATED the partition of India and are the cause – through their bigotry – of the continuing alienation of hundreds of millions of Indian Muslims.

    Let criminal INDIVIDUALS – from any religion – be caught and punished, but you can’t smear an entire group of Indians.

    Second, your criticism of Islam is so deeply biased and ill-informed, it is plain bigoted. A balanced academic discussion would be fine, but that’s not what you are doing. I asked you to prove your wild assertions against Islam but you have avoided doing so, since you DON’T have the depth of knowledge to outline the nuances, the contextualisation, the complexity involved.

    So, instead of hitting out at shadows (Islam) and being bigoted, try to both fix your own religion and ENCOURAGE those Muslims who are trying to reform Islam. There are many of them.

    Vivekananda saw both the good and bad in various religions. You ought to learn that lesson (of scholarly research) as well. Religions take CENTURIES to reform. Allow Islam time to reform. Don’t alienate people who may be trying to reform.

  6. Sanjeev Sabhlok


    Sandeep Bansal
    Here is what BR Ambedkar, a liberal and learned man said the following on Islam and Muslims:

    “While Hindus too have their share of social evils, some Hindus at least acknowledged them and a few others militated against them. The Muslims, on the other hand, do not realise that they are evils, and consequently do not agitate for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in their existing practices”

    “Every Musalman in India feels that he is a Muslim first and Indian afterwards. It is this sentiment which explains why the Indian Muslim has taken so small a part in the advancement of India but has spent himself to exhaustion by taking up the cause of Muslim countries and why Muslim countries occupy the first place and India occupies a second place in his thoughts. This desire to be part of a greater Dar-ul-Islam is the basis of pan-Islamism. ”

    Sanjeev Sabhlok
    Sandeep, I have noted a LOT of Muslim reformers, and Ambedkar is definitely very, very wrong. Islam is a very difficult religion to reform since Koran is taken as the direct word of God, unlike Bible which is an interpretation by the son of God, or Hindu scriptures which were reportedly dictated by the gods to saints. In the case of Hindu scriptures their sheer number makes them compete with each other. In the case of the Bible, the various competing ‘testaments’ reduce the ‘potency’ of the religious argument. In the case of Islam it is extremely difficult to rebut or debate anything. On the other hand, instead of debating the Koran, Muslims tend to MODERNISE and behave in a modern manner – ignoring at least some of the ‘prescribed’ norms (like Jihhah did).

    I can assure you that 99 per cent of Muslims are extremely decent people. Or at least that’s been my experience. Far more civilised than many “high” status Hindus.

    I review the history of Islam and find much that was good, even as much of it is bad (by our modern standards).

    Therefore I believe that INDIAN Muslims – some of relatively more free Muslims of the world – should lead in the reform of Islam.

    I’d appreciate a less bigoted approach from you. As Tony Abott, the PM of Australia (which is facing the problem of jihadis who are fighting in Syria) said today: “He cautioned against “demonising” ethnic and religious minorities, stressing his government’s fight was with “extremism, illegality and violence”, not Islam.”

  7. Alex C.


    You should have refrained from contradicting Ambedkar ji’s observation without giving the issue deep thought. Just like generalising pan-Islamism over the entire Indian Muslim community is wrong, similarly your DENIAL of pan-Islamism is EQUALLY WRONG. There definitely are A LOT of pan-Islamic Muslims in India. For instance, there is this in today’s paper, about educated (Indian?) Shias clamouring to go to Iraq to fight against ISIL: They call it their “religious duty.” How is this different or less reprehensible from VHP’s Karsewa?

  8. Sanjeev Sabhlok


    Vivek Aggarwal ‏@vkg1978
    @sabhlok there is no central authority in Hinduism so no relevance of fixing unlike centralized religions

    My respnose:
    @vkg1978 Nice excuse, Hindu man, to escape from the evil actions of your fellow co-religionists. This excuse doesn’t work with me, though.

  9. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    This is what Ambedkar said: “Every Musalman in India feels that he is a Muslim first and Indian afterward”.


    This means that the thousands of Muslim policemen, soldiers, and others who have died for INDIA and INDIANS in the course of their duty were not Muslim?

    Before you accuse me of “not giving this issue deep thought” please read what Ambedkar reportedly said. I totally DISMISS this kind of nonsense.

    Indian Muslims have assimilated into India for over 1000 years. Some of our greatest monuments and works of art are Islamic works. Our poets. Even the song: SARE JAHAAN SE ACHHA – by a Muslim.

    Giving a dog a bad name – as they say – can CREATE a bad dog. Self-fulling prophesy if you smear ALL Indian Muslims. That’s what I objected to in the case of Sandeep Bansal, and object about Ambedkar (and you).

    If you can’t take a balanced and nuanced approach to the truth, don’t get involved in such discussions.

  10. Alex C.


    > ”Every Musalman in India feels that he is a Muslim first and Indian afterward”.

    I said myself that broad generalisation of pan-Islamism is wrong, so we, in principle, agree on this. No need to discuss Ambedkarji’s WRONG views.
    However, I oppose WHITEWASHING the entire Muslim community that you seem to be doing. There are indeed pan-Islamists in India—and a lot of them.

    > This means that the thousands of Muslim policemen, soldiers, and others who have died for INDIA and INDIANS in the course of their duty were not Muslim?

    Are they the ones clamouring to go to Iraq for “religious duty” now? Why do you even bring up patriotic Indians (who happen to be Muslim) into a discussion about bigots? OF COURSE PATRIOTIC MUSLIMS EXIST IN GREAT NUMBERS! This, however, does not make Islam or its BIGOTED, obscurantist followers (as opposed to its middle-path adherents) immune to criticism.

    To conclude, I don’t understand the issue you are debating. My understanding is:
    1. There are Muslim patriots and there are Hindu patriots. They must be commended and held up as role models.
    > True. I agree completely.

    2. There are reprehensible Hindu bigots following a militant creed of “Hindutva.” They and their poisonous creed must be severely condemned.
    > I agree here too.

    3. There are reprehensible Muslim bigots following a militant creed of worldwide Al-Jihad or pan-Islamism.
    Do you claim: There are no such people (in large numbers), and their creed must not be criticised for fear of offending Category 1 Muslims?
    In that case, I’m staunchly opposed to your discriminatory criticism.
    I feel: You did not hesitate to criticise where it’s due in the past, and used to call yourself an equal opportunity critic. Please explain yourself now.

  11. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    I oppose all religions on many grounds, including fundamental grounds of lack of proof and bigotry of their followers. If you had read DOF and my STINGING criticisms of the actions of various “religious” people you’d not waste my time on this.

    At the same time I will VEHEMENTLY fight for the right of all people to be religious, if they so wish, including follwing Islam – SO LONG AS THEY DON’T HARM OTHERS.

    I am even handed, not blind. Ideally, I’d like ALL people to abjure religion like they abjure poison, but if they wish to drink poison they are welcome to it, so long as they don’t harm others. I CAN’T AND DON’T defend criminals in any guise.

    But I don’t BLANKET criticise ALL Muslims nor question their patriotism.

    Let’s move on since you don’t know me nor care to read what I write but belabour an irrelevant point. That SOME Muslims in India are to be condemned (even imprisoned for their crimes) is not in dispute. That ALL Muslims harbour ill-feelings for India is such a terrible smear I can’t imagine any civilised human being, leave alone a liberal like Ambedkar saying such things.

  12. Alex C.

    > I CAN’T AND DON’T defend criminals in any guise.
    > But I don’t BLANKET criticise ALL Muslims nor question their patriotism.

    This is enough for me. We don’t need to be arguing about this at all, since we share this opinion. I don’t intend to “blanket” criticise ALL Muslims either. However, I will defend my (and yours) right to criticise any and all follies I see in any religion, including Islam. Even Bansalji’s, who could have made a good post had he been less vitriolic.

    As far as DOF is concerned, I have a solid excuse—no time! In a couple of years, I’ll read it.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial