Getting the global Left to be apologists for Islam is the single biggest coup that Islamists have pulled off in the West. Using their own resources to target them.
Like having lambs carry the swords for their own slaughter. The Left are the #JihadCoolies.
Of course, Hindu "secular Left" in India are equally complicit #JihadCoolies as well.
It is worth recalling what happened to the Iranian Left after they collaborated in the Islamic takeover of Iran. The Leftists leaders were tortured and forced to publicly "confess" on TV.
The Islamic Regime of Iran tortured and forced the Leftists leaders (who'd helped in the "Islamic revolution") to "confess" and recant their ideology publically, because "The regime considered Marxism the main ideological rival of Islam." Marxism was akin to a religious rival.
"Kianuri was an Iranian Leftist, dubbed the 'Communist Ayatollah' ...he had often appeared on television praising the Islamic Republic as the best bulwark against U.S. imperialism."
This communist later recanted on TV...how Marxism was a foreign ideology which betrayed Iranians.
The Islamic Regime had turned on the Left soon after the Revolution, because the Left had started criticizing the regime for their persecution of the Bahai and of women. (note to "feminist" apologists for Islam).
You cannot ride the tiger of Islamism with the hope to "tame" it.
While out of power both Islamists and Communists attack "nationalism" they both become fiercely nationalist when in power. Both China and Iran are hyper-nationalist.
China considers Islam a "mental illness" and Iran executed or imprisoned Marxists after the Islamic Revolution.
Each totalitarian ideology, right-wing Christianity, Islamism and Marxism, knows how to deal with the other.
Plural indigenous societies don't understand the nature of totalitarianisms which seek to erase all others, so are at a loss to deal with them.
Marxism parallels religion was considered a "rival" by the Islamic regime—"Unlike liberalism, nationalism, and monarchism, it challenged religious metaphysics, held out a utopian future, and offered a comprehensive view of the past and the present."
By a combination of 1. Having a home team. There are plenty of Islamic universities in the world, unlike in India where the state destroyed Hindu scholarship. 2. Huge State funding to Western academia 3. Creating victim narrative
China systematically demolished narratives of Islam and Christianity in China. It declared Islam a mental illness and made sure it controlled all Churches and Church appointments, only authorized sermons could be taught.
It colonized Tibet, inter-married, indoctrinated a Chinese-nationalist Tibetan generation.
India fanned separatism. It allowed false histories in Kashmir, separatism of language, promotion of Urdu and Persian script. It allowed mosques to preach hate and separatism. If it were acting like China, it would have outlawed Persian script and controlled every mosque and sermon. It would have taught the history of Islamic conquest and barbarity to every child. China can promote false narratives in Tibet for integration; India cannot even promote true narratives for what was always part of us.
Similarly in Punjab, India treated Khalistan as a law-and-order problem rather than a narrative war. It allowed fake separatist narratives to flourish. Rather than promoting scholars and narratives which show the unity of Sikhs and Hindus it allowed separatist narratives to flourish. What would China have done?
Same story in the North East. India gave a free reign to Baptist missionaries who converted the indigenous people and taught them to hate India. Separatism come downstream of that. There was no attempt by India to reverse the narrative.
The narrative soft war and the hard war must go together. If you ignore the soft war, you get stuck with constantly fighting the hard war. And the hard war victory will only be temporary tell the false narrative is overturned.
Absolutely, Dravidianism is another false narrative.
All great civilizations were bound by a common narrative. "Secularism" is not a narrative that can bind anything. Minoritism and appeasement create centrifugal forces which split the nation apart.
China's new set of XUAR Religious Affairs Regulations, 2024.
In this it is required that religions promote content for social harmony and interpret religious teaching and rules in line with China's requirements for development and "in line with traditional Chinese culture."
What if India said, mosques and Churches can only teach and promote what is in line with traditional Hindu culture of pluralism and teaching hate and separatism is a cognizable offence?
Reading the book "Hindu polity" and remembering that India has tried, experimented with, and forgotten more forms of governments than the West can remember.
And yet we think "democracy" was this great Western innovation to civilize us.
The A-rajak are non-ruled states. There is a Western fantasy of "egalitarian" society where all are equals with no rulers. (It's a fantasy because nowhere in the world it exists).
Well India tried it a few times. It doesn't work. It's where the word "arajakta" comes from.
The "Arajaka" state with the "rule of law" rather than of a person was a subject of derision, because it inevitably failed. But what evidence did we crown it as the best?
Reading "Two Centuries of Silence"—the lament of the Persians in having the barbaric Arab Muslims impose their religion and culture on the advanced Persian Civilization.
We are not the only ones with this lament. This happened across the world. We are the ones who survived.
There was really nothing much of value in Arab lands, and the little that was useful was ruled by the Persians who were looked up to by the Arabs.
This is the environment in which Islam emerges from.
"These Bedouin tribes led predatory lives and on their minds there was nothing but greed, profit worship, and what satisfied their most primitive desire...their life’s sole interests were lust, wine, and fighting."