In the wonderlands of ‘pseudos’, when ‘Rizvi’ goes for the toss! Part-5

Articles series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7, 8, 9, 10 (Neither the 1’st nor the last, Includes table of content)  

In comparison to pseudos like Sayema, Puniyani & Et. al., above Abbas Tyrewala’ quote, so also Najmul Hoda later quoted in next article, while do make genuine efforts of introspection remain modest in their critic, do not adequately analyse or account for trials and tribulations faced by Non-ABCD in this real world over last 1400 years or so. For Non-pseudo Hindu too have been missing a few points to look into, to put up and protest issues, where necessary, more systematically and effectively from Hindu side.

At first it sounds interesting, at it’s good part is that it asks to take knowledge from non-believers too. Though part of the above quote smacks with a peculiar ABCD supremacist attitude since it is not asking ABCD to take knowledge from nonbelievers respectfully but asking to consider the same as your own lost property! The first lesson of wisdom to learn from non-ABCD, especially Hinduism, is to respect everybody.

• Compulsive binary: Non-Image ABCD Monotheism Vs. all other forms were and are just supposed to be ideological debates, Like ‘shastrartha‘ among Indian Pundits if Abrahamics would have limited issues to ideological debates there would not have been any problem. Shastrartha after discarding one’s own shadripu is better than compulsive community Vs community binary is the best wisdom Hinduism has to offer it’s ABCD counterparts.
• But unfortunate vocabulary of words, ‘Pagan’; ‘heathen’, ‘Fallen angel’, ‘idolator’, ‘Shaitan’ Mushrik, Kafir creates perpetual othering of us Vs them.
• These words do not restraint debates to theological level; but convert into community Vs community; nor even limit at threshold of attempt to monopolise the truth but goes on to monopolize even victim hood on basis of thousand year old mythology and preach insult, hate, revenge, subjugation, persecution, conflict upon rejection of invitation to religion, inquisition, persecution of who so ever do not subscribe to claims of monopolies over the truth.

Misinformation to Cover up & shifting the goal post in Puniyani & Et al.’s wonderland     

Puniyani is just one example of today’s flawed pseudos, one (October, 2020) OpIndia article deconstructs similar deception by a new generation confused pseudo, a radio jockey, Sayema Rahman (Sept.19) with facts, about how classical ABCD theology classifies Non-ABCD as Kafir contrary to deceptions of pseudos.

Sayema says, only those who do not believe in God are Kafir. So does she support denigration and threats to atheists and apostates? and again atheists and apostates are non-ABCD or not? Puniyani is playing a little safe in his above quoted statement, look carefully & you can find contrast in position of two pseudos positioning.

Sayema’s argument comes very close to the arguments of Alice with that of Humpty.

• Alice: Humpty is “exactly like an egg,”
• Humpty: This is “very provoking.”
• Alice: He looks like an egg, not that he is one.

We extend the skit:

• ABCD Tomcat1: If Sayema Alice does Kufr she can be Kafir, Non-ABCD always do Kufr so always like Kafir
• Common Lotus (concerned): S. Alice, Your brother is calling us, Non-ABCD, as Kafir ?
• S. Alice: No no, he is not calling Non-ABCD as Kafir, he calling Kafir to only those Who hides the truth by not bringing Imaan (loyalty) over to ‘[*MB1?] God’ [*MB2]. [*MB1?=Muted bracket to denote words ‘the ABCD’]; I said we are not calling you an egg, but you are just like an egg! Because you hide the truth within the shell of the egg!
• Tomcat1: S Alice, so the word in the muted bracket ‘the ABCD’ are applicable or inapplicable?
• Atheist Humpty: S Alice, That is a good effort towards watering down but Sayema Alice you said, ‘Hiding the truth does not make an untruth, a truth’. So what is the status of those who indulge in any shirk or don’t bring ‘Imaan’ over to God (ABCD or Not)? Secondly wondering which all camps you are in, Taqiya or Zindīq or both at the same time?
• S. Alice: Atheist Humpty & Lotus Pundit, why are you asking me this question?
• Atheist Humpty: We are curious, Was your father a linguist to teach you to claim etymological dictionary meanings are meanings and popular slurs do not carry meanings?
• S. Alice: We are telling just the [etymological] dictionary meaning
• Language Pundit: Alice this is an interesting dictionary reading, ‘Dal’ means uncooked ‘dal’ but not cooked ‘dal’.
• Lotus Pundit: Yes Alice & Puniyani this is very interesting, similarly why don’t you share true dictionary meaning of ‘Hindutva’ is just ‘Hinduness’ and it contests only bigoted parts of ABCD wherever they apply undue breaks on unbounded positivity.
• S. Alice: There we mean political Hindutva
• Lotus Pundit: Asking you the same, ‘political’ is the latter’s struggle to preserve cultural and religious Hinduness; cultural and religious Hinduness have a valid age old existence of itself, so why do pseudos hiding the original meaning and positive purpose of Hindutva?
• S. Alice: ‘Hindutva’ hates ABCD
• Lotus Pundit: Alice, this just plain lie and sheer victim blaming and condoning the real culprits who look at our Hindu freedom of conscience with contempt with slur words like Kafir, Pagan, Heathen, Mushrik. Why on earth Hindutva will hate anyone or anything at all? It is simple Hindutva believes in unbounded positivity with least breaks and contests the unreasonable breaks on unbounded positivity. If God is alone in Abrahamic theologies, why do they need to perpetuate insecurity, throw unreasonable spanners of negativity, hate and inquisition towards other kinds of religious polytheists and idolaters practices?
• Tomcat 2 (part moderate): See S. Alice forgot to mention *MB2 = Even after receiving an invitation to join ABCD or even after knowing/studying ABCD if one does not accept ABCD religion then only s/he would be called Kafir.
• Lotus Pundit: So you mean to say every Non-ABCD who took information/ studied ABCD including Non-ABCD scholars of ABCD and every one who has been invited to the religion ABCD but did not join stands to become Kafir at the minimum level, is that right?
• Tomcat3 (another part moderate): So it applies to those ABCDs who do not send information/ invitation to Non-ABCD because they are the ones hiding the truth.
• Lotus Pundit: Unfortunately Tomcat3’s goal post move does not take into account ABCD theology’s approval of opening an ABCD offensive against non-ABCD who did not accept ABCD invitation. So Tomcat3 is ending up helping orthodox in their own community rather than the moderate.
• Z. Noik: What is the problem in calling Non-ABCD as Kafir. Why word Kafir can not be used as synonym of Non-ABCD
• Lotus Pundit: First of all word Kafir is presumptuous and judgemental
• Lotus Pundit : Second, Clear meaning of the intentionally abusive and hateful word ‘Kafir’ is ‘the liar’.
• Lotus Pundit: Third, Words get meanings by usage and intention of usage. Some new poetic usage seen is ‘Kafir ke Pyar me Kafir Ho gaye’ (‘became Kafir in love of a Kafir’) here though negative meaning of ‘Kafir’ is being retained, status of being Kafir is being appreciated; since intention is not to insult or hate so less of a concern exceptional being use. But referring to this usage in slur related debate amounts to shifting of the goal post.
• Lotus Pundit: Fourth, main issue comes when a word is being loaded with othering, hate and insult to the least; supremacism, threat and violence to the worst side and word Kafir traditionally has been used as a hate slur throughout history.
• Z. Noik: But the ABCD text does not recommend violence against Kafir in non conflict situation and no conflicts until peace contracts are breached
• Lotus Pundit: Filters to avoid conflicts are too weak in case of ABCD. Declaration of contract not meeting the ABCD text requirements is too easy for any individual. If ABCD had always played defensive in conflicts sans any offensive they would not have been beyond one Arabic town. Any simple conflict between two ABCD and Non-ABCD individuals or between groups too is automatically translated in the unhealthy Non Kafir Vs Kafir binary created by ABCD. And once a conflict begins all is fair and free for ABCD. (We have discussed this point further after Lala Lajpat Rai quote in next article of this series)
• Tomcat1: We are very peaceful, we don’t always break the shells if they accept the truth by committing Imaan (loyalty) over to ‘[ABCD] God’, the founders of ABCD faith and principles there in, or else at times, oh ya, not always but just at times, we need to break shells to make the eggs understand our [the ABCD] kind of truth!
• S. Alice and pseudos in chorus: Yes very much breaking of shells is just at times, not at all always, others too keep breaking egg shells. What’s wrong if ABCD too breaks some egg shells? Don’t be ABCD-phobic, they break just shells, ABCD handles content inside eggs tactfully only to emancipate (read exploit) further!
• Z. Noik: What is the problem in having a religious binary ? ABCD are ABCD and Non-ABCD are non ABCD
• Lotus Pundit: ABCD’ binary claims monopoly over truth from ABCD side, Binary converts ideological battle to human Vs Human, community Vs. community battle hence the ‘non-Kafir Vs. Kafir’ binary is communal. ABCD gets compulsively habitual to view most things most times through binary and . ii) The binary brainwashes ABCD to view non-ABCD as lesser beings and asks not to be befriend with Kafirs, treat Kafirs like enemies, for always, that is very communal.
• [Tomcat1: S. Alice’s orthodox ABCD brother; Tomcat2/3: S.Alice part moderate brothers Z.Noik S. Alice’s ABCD preacher brother; Common Lotus : a common Hindu fellow; Lotus Pundit: a Hindu Pundit; All names in the skit are imaginary do not correspond to any real life personalities. Pl. do excuse us for any co-incidental.]
• -Refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Logical fallacies in pseudos’ wonderlands

As earlier said, in his quote Puniyani & Et al. is deflecting to cover up untruth, here Puniyani is employing the etymological fallacy for ‘definitional retreat‘ by referring to different meanings. Anywhere in the world etymology does not necessarily equals ≠ to later different full usage and all meanings of a word. ‘The person Puniyani’ or ‘Puniyani & Et al. ‘would not mean ≠ “Etymology of  ‘Puniyani’ “. Usages which develop after etymology usages remain valid. ABCD apologists deploy the following 3 kinds of logical fallacies one after the other to deflect by moving the goalposts.

i) If (K=SM+NM+OM)* is not supposed to mean K=SM or K=OM only. One can not say since SM or OM is K so NM is not included in K; attempting to say so is deflecting, goal post shifting.

• * (K=SM+NM+OM), Here K = Kafir, SM = Muslims who indulged in shirk or kufr; NM=NonMuslims ; OM = some other meanings

The fallacy lies in concluding that one disjunct (NM) must be false because the other disjunct (SM & OM) are true. In this case fact is all three of the disjuncts are true ii) Have you heard of the Motte-and-bailey fallacy? here it will make an interesting read. iii) If the first two are exposed, the use Whataboutery is too frequent.

The whole pseudo game of shifting the goal post, saying word ‘Kafir’ has other meanings and associated other slurs like infidel, mushrik, and so on and moving ahead to shirk and takfir; does not stop inclusion of non-ABCD nor it stops huge amount of hate generation towards non-ABCD.

May be ‘pseudo Et al.’s intentions of white washing and window dressing in hope of goal post shifting may have positive aspects that present narratives in the form of a positive story so the new reader will behave anyway positively. Providing positive narratives no doubt a great idea sans intellectual honesty which denies holocaust of Non-ABCD, does not stand scrutiny when some other well read comes to question the denial. Such deceptive stances lose credibility as noted in detail in the next article in this series.

Pl. Continued to (6)