Bangladesh shows again: the claim that ‘it was political, not religious’ is absurd when it comes to Islamic jihad

Islam is inherently political. Islamic apologists and leaders in the West have done their best to obscure it. Foreign policy analysts and Islam “experts” relentlessly ignore it. But it is playing out all over the world.

“‘It was political, not religious’ – absurdity of this claim when it comes to Islamic aggression,” by Rahul Roushan, OpIndia, August 9, 2024:

Whenever any Islamic extremist or mob goes on a rampage, the Pavlovian response of the global left, which has decided to be a loyal servant of the Islamists for some decades now, is to deny it, or dilute it if outright denial is not possible.

The same is being observed as Islamic mobs hunt for Hindus in Bangladesh after the nation went into another phase of anarchy with Sheikh Hasina, the then Prime Minister of Bangladesh, being forced to resign from her post and flee the country. That happened on Monday, and today is Friday, when things could get even worse after mobs assemble for communal prayers….

In case of the ongoing slaughter of Hindus in Bangladesh, the old set narrative of “it is political, not religious” has been employed after denial of atrocities and dilutions via fact-checks and “human chains” did not appear to be working….

It has come to this point because Islam has been the closest to how it was when it was founded. It has ways to protect that nature. Anyone trying to “reform” Islam ends up being declared a non-Muslim or brought dead on arrival. Someone like Ambedkar in an Islamic society would be dead the second day or a fugitive in a far-off country where he finally loses an eye after a few decades.

Various preachers of Islam have taken pride in the fact that it is a “complete religion” – much like what Marxists believe about their ideology, which must impact every aspect of their lives. The reason you have a “Halal economy” is precisely because of this – because economics, like politics, is also just a derivative of the parent faith – but again, we still have millions of Hindus who think Halal is some food choice or way of cooking/slaughtering, and not a virtual parallel economic system driven by religious considerations.

This is why the questions that could appear mundane and routine to Hindus end up being subject of various fatwas (Islamic opinion). Is playing games on mobile phone allowed in Isam? Should I date that girl who wears jeans? Should my sister take up the job of air hostess? And there are so many more. Forget Bangladesh, just search on Deoband’s website back home. A Hindu might find such things funny, but they are closer home than what you think.

Not just Islamic preachers, even an average Muslim takes pride in Islam being a complete and perfect religion. Hindus on the other hand take pride in Hinduism being a religion where nothing is mandatory, that it is a just a way of life, where you can pick and choose as per your convenience – this claim is seen with both despise and derision from an Islamic eye.

In short, politics or the thoughts and beliefs around how people should manage their affairs as collective, is very much part of Islam. Why else do you think every mass of land becomes an Islamic nation i.e. the constitution and laws become derivative of Quran and Hadiths, as soon as Muslims in that area become a majority? Forget Islamic nations, back in India itself you have examples of how Fridays have been declared a holiday (a ‘political’ decision by the way, where local administration decides) in institutions falling in areas with substantial Muslim population.

These things happen because politics and religion are not separate things in Islam. Politics is supposed to be subservient to the faith. This is not a bug, but a feature of Islam. It’s not criticism, but actually a praise of Islam (form the Islamic point of view itself).

Thus, the entire argument, that it was motivated by politics and not religion, when it comes to Islam, goes for a toss especially when you are dealing with their treatment of non-Muslims. You can make this argument only if you want to obfuscate the facts of the matter. You can make this argument only if you are dishonest or sinister, or both.

Any reportage, historical account, or analytical piece that makes this as the central argument – whether in context of Aurangzeb, Kashmir, Bangladesh, or anywhere – should be confined to the dustbin, forever.