The Songbird’s Beard – Akshat Choudhary
terror /ˈtɛrə/ noun
the use of extreme fear to intimidate people
terrorism /ˈtɛrərɪzəm/ noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
beard /bɪəd/ verb
boldly confront or challenge (someone formidable)
Nowhere in the standard definitions of terror or terrorism, religion has ever been mentioned. So, how is it that one specific religion has widely been recognised as the symbol of terrorism? Well, the definition of terrorism suggests the pursuit of political aims; now that you look closely, it always has been the political leaders of the world that continuously keep on pointing it out to Islam being the centre of terrorism and bending the idea of morality of the general public. However, only a minority of the people belonging to this already minority of a faith system are actually associated with terrorism. But, thanks to these politicians accusing the whole religion of being terroristic, there have been unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against Islamic civilians causing the loss of life and property, mostly carried out by anyone but Muslims recently. So, doesn’t this make them terrorists too? I am talking not just about the people carrying the heinous acts out, but also the politicians (primarily the politicians actually).
Jainism, another minority religion, self-proclaimed to be the most truthful, just and pacified belief-system; their peacefulness has a good reason to be — karma! Yes, their karma-system is so broad that even gods cannot escape it, so us puny humans can not even think about it, because they have a punishment for thinking about it too — in this life or the next ones to come, thee shall pay!
Someone recently pointed out to me that they didn’t like Muslims at all because they are all terrorists. Instinctively, I had to ask, if a small fraction of a large group is wrong, does that make the whole group worthy of this senseless shame you put them through? In a free country, you are in a sense, denying the right to life — one of the sweetest, most important, rigid, and basic fundamental right — to a whole section of our society, which is a criminal offence. Also, purportedly, one of the chair members of the largest integrated meat processing complex in Asia is a Jain. So, by this rule of yours, does every Jain in the world evidently become the owner of a slaughterhouse? It’s your rule after all. But Jains have always been and still continue to be the epitome of non-violence and peace, and I hope they continue to be.
On the same note, another concern of mine is, why do I have to be a Sikh, or a Muslim, or a terrorist, or a combination of these to fashion a beard in a free country? The law sets me free so why is the society not letting me be? I highly doubt that the society is above the law. And to the organisations who hide behind the constitutional fundamental of secularism and therefore not allowing people with a beard and such into jobs, let me put out another definition:
secular /ˈsɛkjʊlə/ adjective
not connected with religious or spiritual matters
Secular is a faith neutral word, misconstrued to be xenophobic and/or racist. Educate yourself, you literate fools! And work towards a neutral society, and this society should be international.
THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF EQUALITY.
P.S.: Treat others how you would want to be treated, I beard (verb) you, this world will be better. Try it.