1/5 Sharjeel Imam has given an interview detailing his Islamist manifesto. Surprisingly, no storm has been kicked up over pronouncements that are so unapologetically anti-liberal, anti-secular, anti-democracy, anti-Constitution—in a word, anti-national.
2/5 He openly calls the Constitution fascist, labels secularism a trap, and denounces democracy as a contrivance to deny Muslims their political rights.
3/5 The piece is a litany of indictments against the liberal class. Imam rejects any difference between liberals and Hindutvadis. In his essentialist worldview, all Hindus are the same, unanimous in denying Muslims political power they claim as a divine right.
4/5 Inadvertently, Sharjeel has recognised something that liberals have been fighting shy of acknowledging: that Hindutva’s idea of India is anchored in the same “overarching nationalist framework”— that Muslims are Indians above all else.
5/5 For more, read this Opinion article by Ibn Khaldun Bharati, who looks at Islam from an Indian perspective:
Sharjeel Imam’s Islamist manifesto will be forgotten. The silence of liberals will not
https://t.co/UzbkRLx9tA
Someone once said to me that Ravish was India's Bob Woodward. My BP never recovered from that but this my friend's is writing. I wish we all could write like Bob Woodward.
https://t.co/3gtLYxVdTU
The whole situation is fascinating.
10 years ago, Anojan would’ve been done for. Even now Sri Lanka is not some major ally or associate of Saudi.
Feels like they backed off for 2 major reasons:
1. Public outcry & antipathy towards Islam it would’ve generated
2. Speculative, but I feel like India got involved on behalf of Anojan/Sri Lanka.
Now regarding the Bangladeshis, it’s wild as Bangladeshis are a much more relevant partner & minority in Saudi. Apparently the couple simply kissed at the mosque. So you’d assume more leeway.
But at the end of the day, enough Arabs view Bangladeshis & South Asian Muslims at large as Mawalis & are almost embarrassed that this mass of people are Muslim. They will always be seen as less than in the eyes of the original.