Vandalism by the Islamic Extremists

How much longer will the Muslim extremists in Bangladesh continue to oppress Hindus?

Ever since I became aware of the world around me in Bangladesh, I’ve witnessed violence against people of the Sanatan (Hindu) faith, often justified by accusations of insulting Islam – especially its Prophet Muhammad. Physical assaults, the burning and destruction of homes, and widespread chaos have been common. Though these incidents were once less frequent and intense, they’ve escalated dramatically over the past two decades. One major driver is the rampant spread of militant Islamic ideologies – in mass gatherings, in open fields, on streets, Facebook, YouTube, and other public forums. In truth, this aggressive form of Islam is the real Islam. The so-called peaceful version presented to the public is hypocrisy. Genuine Islam, at its core, is militant. It offers no honorable place to dissenters, followers of other religions, free thinkers, artists, writers, poets, scientists, women, or people of the third gender.

In Bangladesh, free thinkers and followers of Hinduism, Buddhism, or any alternative beliefs are easy targets. They have no strong platform to protest, and Islamist perpetrators know they won’t face punishment. So, with every spark, they kill Sanatan believers, burn them alive, arrest them, torture them, hack them to pieces, destroy their homes, loot their property, seize their land, jail them, deny them bail, and keep them imprisoned for years. This is the fate of minorities in a country dominated by frenzied Islamists. It’s been this way for generations. Yet, everyone speaks of Islam as a religion of peace, of Bangladesh as a peaceful and harmonious nation. But as the saying goes – ‘A tree is known by its fruit.’ How can the fruit of a poisonous tree ever bring joy? With 101 reasons for their physical and psychological suffering still present, people dare ask why Sanatan believers are leaving the country.

Islam has no neutral sources beyond its own narratives. You can study Greek civilization from historians of other nations, and learn about Egypt’s Pharaohs from European travelers. But Islam’s Prophet and origins are recorded only by Islamic authors. The sole sources are the Quran, Hadith, and Sirat – each accompanied by commentaries and interpretations like Tafsir. Who wrote the Quran? Prophet Muhammad. It was then edited by Caliphs over time, with sections removed and additions made. Who wrote the Hadith? They were compiled centuries after the Prophet’s death, based on oral stories and legends, often by Persian scholars. The Sirats were authored by the same individuals. These are Islam’s only historical sources.

History is written by the victors, and they always glorify themselves. Their misdeeds are never recorded. If you were to write your own autobiography, would you include a list of your wrongdoings? And yet, even when one reads the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sirat, they’re filled with dozens of contradictions, acts of inhumanity, deceit, treachery, murder, rape, superstition, vulgarity, pseudo-scientific claims, and fabricated stories. If you’re a person of conscience, you’ll see all of this plainly if you read the Qur’an, Hadith translations, and their commentaries yourself. But if someone points these things out, is that automatically blasphemy against Islam, Allah, or the Prophet? There’s no need to invent or insult – just citing content from these sources is enough for Islamists to label it defamation. If so, why don’t they remove these verses and tales from their scriptures?”

According to today’s civil standards, if a 53-year-old man marries a 6-year-old girl and consummates that marriage when she turns 9, that’s rape. Killing all the men of a defeated army, enslaving their children and women, and then having sex with the enslaved women – what else is that but rape? If you massacre the children of a tribe because you think they might oppose you in the future, isn’t that genocide? By the classic definition of genocide, the Prophet Muhammad is a perpetrator of mass killing and crimes against humanity. If someone writes a poem against you and you send assassins to kill them, shouldn’t people be allowed to call you a murderer, a savage? If you decree that non-Muslims must live as second-class citizens, pay more taxes, and suffer humiliation – shouldn’t people be allowed to call that barbaric and unjust?

If someone spends the night at their cousin’s home while her husband is away, and later fabricates stories or spiritual visions to explain the situation, isn’t it reasonable for rational individuals to question their motives? If a person desires their daughter-in-law, compels their own son to divorce her, and then marries her themselves, is it unreasonable for others to perceive such behavior as immoral or driven by lust? Similarly, if one declares that apostates must be killed, or that even minor criticism warrants death, can they truly be surprised when the world views such actions as tyrannical or barbaric? These types of rulings have often fueled the ideological justifications behind militant attacks on lives, homes, and property.

If you dip disease-ridden flies in milk and drink it, or store your own urine under your bed and have your blind followers drink it – claiming it’s the sweetest thing they’ve ever tasted – shouldn’t people be allowed to call that filthy behavior?

Your scriptures contain hundreds of examples proving that Islam is incompatible with modern civilization. Prophet Muhammad was not an ideal figure – not in his time, and certainly not now. Even if child marriage existed back then, it cannot be the hallmark of a universally exemplary human being. He lacked even the basic humanitarian ideals that you hold today. Yet you present Islam as a religion of peace and Muhammad as the greatest figure of all time. How can civilized, educated, and empathetic people accept that?

Any ideology that refuses to tolerate criticism – responding with violence, arson, threats, and riots – is incompatible with today’s world. Regardless of how many followers it has, it must be rejected. No one should be forced to see it as a role model.

I don’t know what the young Sanatan believer said or wrote, but everyone has the right to criticize anyone. Allah, God, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna – none of them are beyond critique. As long as someone hasn’t violated another’s rights or physically harmed anyone, no one has the right to harm them or their community. If a state can’t guarantee this right, it’s a failed state – where only Islamists are safe. Not everyone can just emigrate, but given the opportunity, why would anyone choose to stay in such a place?

And if anyone says I’ve made all this up, they’re welcome to read the essay with an open mind and moral conscience. All the references are there.
Was Prophet Muhammad truly the greatest human of all time?