Why my site was banned in India: Dr. Shackleford

[Guest guest]

Why my site was banned in India: Dr. Rusty Shackleford, Arlen, Texas

Posted by: "k" kalyan97 kalyan97 Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:18 pm (PST) Why my website was banned in India

 

Posted: July 22, 2006

1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Rusty Shackleford

© 2006

 

Two days after the Mumbai bombings last week that killed more than

180, the government of India issued a directive banning 17 websites.

These websites were singled out because, according to the Indian

government, they might incite religious violence. The nine American

websites banned by India are all critical of the Islamist movement.

Not a single website of Islamic extremists justifying and even

celebrating the Mumbai bombings has been banned.

Why did India ban these websites? And what is the larger meaning of

this action? As proprietor of one of the banned websites, I am in a

unique position to answer those questions.

 

The short answer to the first question is that we offended Islamists,

and India is afraid of its own Muslim citizens. The short answer to

the second question is that liberty may not be able to exist where

there are large populations of Muslims.

Some time ago, a false story began to be circulated in the mainstream

press that a detainee's Quran had been put in a toilet at Guantanamo

Bay. Some Muslims reacted by protesting, some rioted, and some were

killed as a result.

This reaction was a clarifying moment for many of us. Islam, as

understood by many Muslims, is not a tolerant religion.

 

The very definition of tolerance is to allow that which we do not

agree with. The moment Muslims demand that their governments punish

those who say, write or depict things they find offensive, they reveal

their intolerance.

So, the reaction of our websites was to make fun of this overreaction.

Oddly, mocking the intolerant is now considered a form of intolerance

by many in the world.

 

The specific reason for India's ban was that our reactions to the

Quran-flushing story could cause religious violence. Since it was only

websites deemed offensive to Muslims that were banned, we know

precisely who it is that India fears.

India's banning of our websites is completely rational. It is based on

the real fear of real people who do real violence.

 

I understand India's reason for banning our websites, but certainly

don't condone it.

Giving in to violent threats is not, in my book, a winning strategy

for defeating the very people who are threatening you. Appeasement

only works if your goal is appeasement.

 

Further, banning religiously offensive speech kills two freedoms at

once. A nation cannot truly have freedom of religion if that religion

is immune from public criticism. A nation cannot truly have freedom of

speech if blasphemy becomes a criminal act.

 

India's actions lead us to suspect that it will not just be Islamic

states where religious oppression is the norm, but that any country

with a sizeable and vocal Muslim minority might also be forced, for

the sake of domestic tranquility, to ban blasphemy. And we believe

that our fears are founded on more than this one case.

While many Muslim countries in the post-Bush Doctrine era are moving

toward more liberalization, many non-Muslim countries are moving the

wrong way. Some criminalize religiously offensive speech, and nearly

all of their leaders bend over backwards to never say anything that

could possible be construed as critical of Islam.

 

If India and other countries hope that condemning speech critical of

Islam will appease their Muslim populations, they have greatly

miscalculated. What offends Islamists is not what we or others say, it

is that they are not in power to stop us from saying it.

 

Their ultimate goal is the creation of a state based on Islamic law.

It is only then, when it is Muslims who decide what needs banning,

that they will be happy. The real gripe Muslims have in non-Muslim

countries is about power.

India, of all countries, should understand this. Both Pakistan and

Bangladesh were states founded because Muslims refused to be part of

the secular Indian state. India has fought wars over this. That war

continues today in Kashmir and on the streets of Mumbai.

 

India is said to be a secular state with aspirations of greatness. Its

recent actions show that it is neither completely secular nor ready

for its proper place on the world stage. This is all doubly sad

because India is also a natural ally against the cancer of Islamic

fundamentalism.

 

It is India, not the U.S., which has bloody borders with Islam. Mumbai

should be a reminder to India who its real friends are and who are its

enemies.

The move towards religious censorship by India is a mistake. A nation

does not cement its alliances by adopting the values of its enemies

and rejecting those of its allies.

 

Despite this slap in the face by India, I will continue to wish her

continued progress and prosperity. A wealthy India is an India better

able to stave off the attacks of the barbarians who are our common

enemies at her gates.

 

India may have turned its back on us, but we should not be so petty as

to completely turn our backs on her.

 

Related special offer:

"Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad"

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=897

 

Dr. Rusty Shackleford runs the website The Jawa Report.

http://www.pkblogs.com/mypetjawa

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51177