The Mathrubhoomi controversy and the dangerous silence of secularists - How did social media play an important role?

India is no stranger to religious controversies. It happened when M.F Hussain drew a painting of the Hindu goddess Saraswathi or when Kamal Hassan made the movie 'Viswaroopam' or when Sanal Edamaruku debunked the 'miracle' at a catholic church in Mumbai. This shows that radical believers do exist in all religions.

I am a rationalist and an atheist. I personally support positive criticism, sarcasm and benign ridicule of any ideology. I also support the caricature of a person's iniquitous or unscrupulous act. I do not support the kind of trolling that target a person who is denied of social justice or has been a victim of inhuman atrocities committed against them. So, by that logic it is not fare to troll a homosexual person if they protest for LGBT rights. It is not fare to mock a Dalit when they protest for entry to the temple. They deserve a natural justice that they have been denied for a very long period of time.

Having established the disclaimer, let me talk about the recent controversy that took place in Kerala, a South Indian state known for it's high literacy rate and a commendable sex ratio which is not observed in other Indian states. Mathrubhoomi is the second most popular daily in Kerala. They published a quote from the social media which essentially says that the Prophet married Aisha(one of his many wives) when she was 6 and consummated their relationship when she was 9. Now, this fact has been acknowledged by many Islamist scholars and it is a well known fact that the Prophet had19 wives including 4 concubines or slaves. If it is a reiteration of a historical fact, what is the point of protesting against it?If you are offended by something, the correct procedure to show your demurral is to approach the court. 

The newspaper published an apology and sent a letter to the Samastha (a strong Islamic organization in the state) seeking pardon. Of course, the determination of the newspaper not even remotely close to that shown by Charlie Hedbo. Apologizing for publishing something that falls under the purview of the freedom of expression shows how malleable, pliant and weak-kneed the editors of the newspaper are.

What annoyed me the most in this row is how the secular society responded to this controversy. It is saddening to see most of the social critics being quiet about this issue. To top that all, a few of them were in support for religious beliefs rather than the freedom of expression. Sebastian Paul, one of the famous left leaning personalities in the state stated that one should not hurt religious sentiments in the name of the freedom of expression. I remember his view on the M.F Hussain controversy. When a group of Hindus and Hindutva demanded his exile, socialist secular folks in Kerala named the protestors are fascists. While I support M.F Hussain's right to express his artistic prowess, what baffles me is the attitude of socialist secular folks including many rationalists including Sebastian Paul, V.T. Balram and Adv. Jayashankar. I think the most important reason for their silence is the fear of mutilation or death. Politicians such as Pinarayi Vijayan and V.S Achuthanandan, who often make caustic remarks about the right-wing Hindu groups, are also quiet about this issue. This might possibly be because of the fear of losing minority votes in the upcoming elections.

One of the many reasons why I strongly dislike the ideology of Islam is it's tricky way of declaring that the Prophet is the last messenger of God and Islam is the final word of God. If I admire and follow another so-called messenger of God, I technically broke the laws of Islam and I am punishable if I were a Muslim living in an Islamic country. Another reason is the barbaric punishments issued for crimes. When we live in  a civilized society that opposes corporal punishments, it is unacceptable to hear that people are subject to outdated and archaic punishment for offenses. While I support the fact that a felony should be treated with the appropriate amount of stringency it demands, corporal punishments are something we should have buried in one of the past centuries. Although the corporal and capital punishments of Judaism and the Bible are far more outrageous and monstrous than that in the Quran, the followers of Judaism and Christianity have left them behind and moved on. The problem with Islam is that the inhumane and disgraceful punishments mentioned in the Islamic jurisdiction as per the Shariah law is still enforced in many countries. It is true that the political situation of the countries influence the extent to which this is enforced but we can not turn a blind eye to the fact that even in a country like India which boasts of its secularism we have seen waves of it. The hand chopping of Professor Joseph for quoting someone else's sentence is a direct establishment of the Islamic verdict for blasphemy. It is evident that Islamic preachers have failed to come up with a timely revision of the religious policies, unlike Jews and Christians.. To borrow from Christopher Hitchens, if were living in the 1930's we could call Christianity as the worst religion in the world but when it comes to the 21st century that award goes to Islam. And we can clearly see the reasons why.

There is a famous quote by Kevin Alfred Strom "To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize". This quote is applicable in this situation with an alteration. "To find out who is intolerant and obnoxious, simply find who you are not allowed to criticize. In the 21st century, it seems that jokes, lampoons, burlesque, raillery, good-natured banter, cartoons, caricature and satire are acceptable when it comes to almost all religions except Islam. Most of the believers are fine with comical representation of their Gods or messengers. However, Islam doesn't give the freedom to draw the painting of their God even if it is a perfectly nice painting. This is the best proof that Islam withholds the freedom of expression. 

Perhaps, the depraved acts done by radical Islamist groups might be making the secular people fret about their lives. The problem here is how the followers of Islam deal with it. They can sit down quietly when radical groups carry out such pernicious acts. Or they can come out as a mass and isolate such people and proclaim them as evil and boycott them from Islam. This does not happen at all. The moderate groups and Islamic scholars might conduct protests if somebody "offends" Islam or Allah. They take it to the street with an impetuous vigor. Unfortunately, this zeal is absent when an Islamic militant blows up a building in the name of God, or when they chop someone's hand to obey the orders of their God. If moderate Muslims had taken a strong stance against radical Muslims by boycotting and ostracizing them or if an Imam had issued a fatwa against the Islamic terrorists for quoting stanzas from the Qur'an while exercising savagely cruel deeds I am sure Islam would not have been treated as the worst religion of the 21st century. 

This is part of the reason why there is a wide-spread hatred against Islam and Muslims. The so-called Islamophobia is not only because of Islamic terrorists playing havoc with the lives of people belonging to other religion. It is also because there a not as many moderate muslims from around the world who speaks against it as there are people from other religions who vitriolically criticize the ill-doings of radical believers. 9/11 set open two things - Islamophobia and the license to criticize Islam. Islamophoiba is a term that needs to be understood clearly. If you stop talking to a muslims because you think Islam is a bad religion, that is Islamophobia. If you refuse to buy a house just because you don't want a Muslim to be your neighbor, it is Islamophobia. If you a security officer and you frisk just Muslims, it shows Islamophobia. However, if you say Islam is the worst religion in the world, that is NOT Islamophobia. If you criticize or mock Islam, that is not Islamophobia. Unfortunately, this fancy term has been used widely in an attempt to shut down people who fiercely criticize Islam. 

Before, 9/11 people dared not write books against Islam. They did not have the courage to make fun of the horrible things in Qur'an, such as the male supremacy, suppression of women's rights, anti-scientific theories, anti-feminine laws, misogyny and the tyranny of a warlord. Things have changed now. If I like one good thing about trolling sites, it is that under the cover of anonymity that internet gives them, they can criticize all horrible things happening around the world. People ask, why do you hurt someone's feelings? Religion is a matter of personal belief. Do you think you can change them by mocking their beliefs? I am not quite sure if it can change the current generations. That is because when they were children, they were sent to madrassas. Before edifying their childhood with the scientifically proven theories behind the worldly wonders, they were loaded with what is mentioned in an antique book that teaches unscientific and immoral things from a less than qualified tutor. It is often the case that they tend to indoctrinate the kids with their personal beliefs when it comes to strictly religious matters. And most of the madrassas are moderated by Wahhabis who hold radical thoughts. So, it is no wonder when a kid talks about Pakistan and Palastein when they don't even realize the true story behind it and all they know is what their Ustad taught them. If a kid knows of Yassar Arafat before they get to know Charles Darwin, there is a problem with the choice we make for our kids. If they are intelligent enough, they might realize that the story of God creating the universe in 6 days was utter bullshit, after attending the classes about evolution and the big bang theory. However, there is no easy way to disprove the immoral lessons they have imbibed from their Ustad, since there are no classes where "reasoning" and "critical thinking" are taught. They lack the power to think for themselves. For everything under the sun, instead of thinking critically, they resort to their book. It is extremely hard to wipe off such beliefs when it is ingrained into their brains at a young age. Moreover, people of this generations have not been exposed to any kind of criticism of Islam because people didn't use to criticize Islam before the 9/11, as audaciously as they did thenceforth. In other words, people who criticized Islam were very few in number and they had to face hard fates and only a few backed them and they were portrayed as bad people by the mainstream Islamic society. This changed as the sheer number of people criticizing and mocking the religion increased after the 9/11. Before that, no one dared draw the Phophet or Allah. No one dared talk about the Prophet's 19 wives including his concubines. No one dared say that it is wrong to beat your wife. No one dared ask "If you can marry four women, why can't you wife marry four men?". No one dared question the imposition of the burqa by asking "If seeing a women creates bad thoughts in your mind, instead of covering her up, maybe you should blindfold yourself". Thanks to the Youtube videos that criticize Islam and the trolling sites that satirically present the malicious things happening in the religion, kids of this century are exposed to all of the above. At least a few of them might give it a thought and their innocent mind might raise questions and concerns. That is what we want. Against the bullshit ideas taught to them, we need a platform that exposes them to the exact opposite of what they have been taught. That state of confusion should aid them to think for themselves. And I am sure when a few think for themselves, and it spreads from one to the next generations, the world will be a better place to live in.