BNET ran a Times of India article dated April 17, '10, which reports that India's Supreme Court ruled in favor of banning a book titled "Islam A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims".
Upon further research, I found that the article heralds the finalization of a ruling issued earlier this year. I also discovered two resources which should prove to be of inestimable value in the search for truth.
- Mark Humphrys posted this link to the text of Islam, a concept of political world invasion by Muslims by R.V. Bhasin (2003) .
- V. Sundaram uttered and published a seven page analysis of the injustice performed by the Supreme Court of India in this case.
After examining the second listed chapter, I find that the quotes are sufficiently full and accurate to convey their meaning. I also find this among the concluding paragraphs. It speaks directly to the issue involved in the ban.
Whereas there are yet many more Ayats that go on to speak against the non-believers in Islam. India having declared itself a secular country believes also in guarding the religious feelings of the minority communities, The Constitution of India and many laws made thereunder are specially enacted to keep the internal atmosphere within the country free of communal tensions. 1 have therefore laboured to keep away many of of the positively provocative Ayats to which all Muslims must owe their allegiance. Hence, while it is possible to add to the above number of 16 Ayats, material declared in Quaran as binding to the Muslims yet it may not be conducive for a non-Muslim writing this book to state more than what 1 have done. Indeed, It is possible for many critics to draw my own chosen path not to have included them in this publication for the reason that such further inclusion could cause bitterness in the society comprising of Hindus and Muslims living in India.
I find in chapter 16 that 18:22 is mis-cited. Other than that, the quotes are reasonably accurate. I find further that my guess that the author was influenced by the Calcutta Qur'an Petition appears to be vindicated. I presume that the book was written in another language and translated into English.
I can not dispute such of the author's conclusions as I have encountered in my brief survey of a few chapters. I am more convinced that the book was banned unjustly; the ban should have been reversed on appeal.
The rough translation and selection of background and foreground colors make the book difficult to read. In my opinion, it is well worth reading and ought to receive a wide audience.
DNA reports that the Bombay High Court upheld a state ban on the publication of Islam — A concept of Political World Invasion by RV Bhasin.
Freedom of expression granted by the Constitution, the bench said, should not be used to trigger “senseless destruction of lives and property and breach of public order”.
If a book describing Islamic doctrines and practices is judged to trigger violence, then what about the Qur'an, which sanctifies and mandates genocidal terrorism? The Calcutta Qur'an Petition was arbitrarily dismissed,. yet this case upholds this book banning. Which is worse, a book which perpetuates an order to engage in aggressive warfare or a book which describes its effects? It is obvious that the wrong book was banned.