Liberals like Umar Khalid – Islamic terrorists in disguise.

Umar is quite right in saying how the RW digital army mobilised to spew venom upon Muslims, post the murder-the hashtag of boycott all Muslims is rather despicable one. I would not fault Umar for being alarmed about the hashtag and the deeper malaise that it points.
However, I do find a glaring fault in rest of his article. No, he is not obligated to reveal his religious beliefs. Those are personal to him and he is at liberty to keep them just that. What I do have a problem with is that he claimed to be an atheist. That’s just lying. I wouldn’t care what his religious beliefs was, if he had kept them private as he claims to want to do. However, you can’t be atheist of convenience. Atheists haven’t been very forgiving of the Hindu atheists, and call them out for their bullshit. So why does Umar Khalid expect that he should not be called out for his.
While Umar is quite right in saying that the hashtag, ‘Boycott all Muslims’ ought to be strongly opposed, it would be astounding if not for the obvious answer, that the best counter for that was Prophet Of Compasion. The reason I do not find it surprising, but pitiable, lies in my observation about a general tendency for prioritizing religion over humanity. The disturbing part about the Boycott hashtag was not that it targeted Islam, but that it targeted a group of people for belonging to some religion. Those countering it with prophet of compassion were concerned more with the religion than with humans. It’s not surprising when the first response after terror attacks, where the perpetrator happens to be a Muslim, is not the lives lost, but rather how it would cast a shadow on the religion, or how peace should not blame the religion for actions of the perpetrators or some version of these. Mind you, the concern is not that innocent Muslims would face backlash, but that Islam would. Even in his article, what Umar laments about is the abuse bestowed upon Islam and the prophet. And their counter is to try and whitewash the image of prophet. Therein lies my problem with Umar. That, while he claims to be an atheist, he is involved in that exercise.
Worship of cow is often mocked, which generally occurs as form of backlash for cow lynching. If that is acceptable, then why is prophet out of bounds? Has innocent cow hurt anyone? For all we know, the true worshippers of cow have never harmed anyone. Those who lynch in name of cow are just hate-mongers using cow as an excuse. Then why is it acceptable to mock cow-worship? Why has Umar never stood-up for cow? Listed out the virtues of a cow. I am pretty sure, that a cow is far more virtuous. Why is Umar not outraged when posts about beef are made to oppose cow-lynching . Does that not humiliate the cow-worshippers?
Let us not forget that the first suspicion in case of Kamlesh Tiwari, went the way it went, because thousands of Muslims stepped out on street demanding his head for disrespecting prophet. If Umar wants to preach the prophets compassion to anyone, preach it to those who were on street demanding Tiwari’s head. Preach it to those who chased out 3 young students for AMU for disrespecting religion. Umar, however, remained silent back then.
That there is the problem of fake atheists like Umar.

Post Author: maxyogi

Leave a Reply

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