The law of the nature, by default, sanctions two or more shades of almost everything, from its basic elements of life like air, water, climate to its complex creations like animals and humans. Both of the parts of the same creation work hand-in-hand with each other to maintain a balance suitable for life, sustainability and eventually development. And no one can object to this very basic character and majestic power of nature – of creation and destruction – as both are equally important and needed.
But the acceptance of that element and its multiple shades is only possible until the element’s multiple shades are compatible with life and are prudent enough for the collective betterment of everything. The moment the element’s dark shade swallows its brighter one, it become incompatible with the nature; in other words it becomes unacceptable in the natural society. The nature is mighty enough to immediately recognise this morphing of the element into a darker one and it exterminates that element – permanently.
Same multiple shades are present in the human society and there is a mandal of shades within shades. Humans too have always acknowledged this natural multifariousness; but only until it was in line with the laws of nature. The day any section of society morphs into a dark and dangerous one, humans have galloped to exterminate that section – most of the time.
But history tells us that many of them, though, were either not fortune enough or were not intelligent enough, to recognise that certain section’s transformation into dark hegemonic one; and hence they fell. The reason why they fell might vary, but there are some which stays predominantly in all of those situations – banality, vapidity and unrealism. Part of their unrealism can be attributed to their intelligence deficiency and partly to the opponents brilliancy.
When the darker section – who was the predator – managed to create a realm of delusion around the prey section; it made it incredibly easy for it to hunt.
No amount of denial can change the fact that it is indeed a brilliant strategy of the predator. Today, we face the same challenges posed by a section of society which uses the same brilliant strategy of deluding the prey before eventually defeating it. On one hand, we have the radical extremists Muslims who uses the tool of extreme violence in forms of killings, massacres and genocides to eventually snuff out its prey religion – the kafirs (non-Muslims). In case of any other religion, a radical might be someone espousing a radical view, opinion or ideology. But in this case if we use the same stick of ideology to measure the extremism, we will end up finding almost everyone of that particular section of society as the some kind of radicals.
Hence, we up the bar and denote anyone who actively uses violence as a tool as radical. They use violence and terrorism as a ladder to climb up to their dreams of establishing caliphate (Muslim rule) – where there should be no other religion than Islam and no other god than theirs – and they’ve been absolutely ruthless, unapologetic, unwavering in this quest of theirs.
And then we have the moderates in the same section. Moderates try to portray or project themselves as truly secular, inclusive and progressive ones, as someone unrelated to or against the radicals. They make others believe that they put peace and ethics of humanity over barbarism and Islamic state. But the reality is in sharp contrast to what they delineate.
To a less equipped mind, speaking of radicals and moderates of the Muslim society in one breath might seem like taking lemon juice with milkshake. But people familiar with ummah’s functionality know that distinctions between moderates and radicals are nothing but delusions. Both of them, ultimately, aim to reach the same summit of Islamic state, just that their ladders of climbing are different.
Recently the distinction was dehazed once again after the brutal killing of Hindu Samaj Party chief Kamlesh Tiwari. The radicals horrendously murdered him, slitting his throat ISIS style and eventually gunning him down at his Lucknow residence on 18th of October for allegedly insulting their prophet (thus accounting to blasphemy).
Moderates rather than condemning the terror incident, they resided to use the incident to subtly push the warning that whosoever ‘insults’ their prophet will meet the same fate. We had plethora of Muslims – some of whom were considered secular earlier – openly cheering and celebrating what their radical companions did. We had political analysts refusing to condemn the incident stating that Kamlesh Tiwari ‘deserved this fate’ .
But the more disturbing part was, those moderates who were completely numb – as if cat got their tongue – at the killing of Kamlesh Tiwari, were the earliest to jump the ship when Hindus started peacefully protesting against the evil blasphemy killings on social media. They very consciously spurred the momentum against the Hindus – by blaming them for inciting violence through their social media posts – while putting the case of brutal killing by their fellow radicals under the carpet.
Moderates, out of the blue, barged the gates to do a overtime of highlighting ‘good teachings’ of prophet and Islam. The fact that they were tongue-tied earlier when almost a lakh Muslims gathered and even rioted demanding Kamlesh Tiwari’s beheading, and now after his killing; but they were quick to jump out for moderating their prophet’s image just when Hindus started exposing them, speaks volumes about their supposed moderate behaviour.
They not only tried to counter mourning Hindus, while eerily justifying a blasphemy killing, they tried every brick and trick from the book of taqqaiya to put the blame upon the Hindus. We had statements callings Hindus fascists, people shamelessly accusing Hindus of hurting country’s supposed secular fabric, journalists dancing in the ring to get Hindu netizens arrested for social media posts and people writing threads underlying throwing a judgement that what radicals did was because of what Kamlesh Tiwari said, so the blame must be on Mr Tiwari himself, as if the killer just went there to babysit secularism.
Added salt to injury was that they were doing all this on the body of a Hindu murdered by their fellow pals. The way moderate Muslims tried to spin the case in favour of their radical buddies, putting everything bad upon the victims shows how tenebrous and evil creature they, in reality, are.
It startles me to see that despite unpleasant reality’s tandav at the doorsteps, some Hindus do tend to believe the moderate Muslims’ preposterous agenda. Moderate Muslims artfully hijacks the truth, manipulates the reality and spin the course to ultimately somehow put the blame on Hindus. And their this tantra of delusion do works on some Hindus – who boastingly identify themselves as liberals – spawning the same situation of brilliant predator and deluded prey which I described earlier.
Did you find this article useful? We’re a non-profit. Make a donation and help pay for our journalism.
