The Principal of a school in Alleppey, Kerala, was recently suspended over the row created by a transfer certificate issued by the school to a Muslim student. However, the father of the girl student, a Muslim clergy, who claimed that the school did not permit his daughter to wear a headscarf to school is not satisfied.

The father has taken the matter to court. He wants to the former Principal of the school to be jailed on criminal charges. It is highly probable that the parent’s motives are suspect. If his intention was to get justice for his daughter, he would have welcomed the school’s gesture and re-admitted his daughter there. He, however, wishes to wreck vengeance and make a mountain out of a mole hill. This suspicion is all the more strengthened because there are Muslim girls in the school who wear a headscarf. The school’s claim that it does not have a rule against head scarves seems to have fallen on deaf years.

All that matters now is the “reason” written on the Transfer Certificate: “The school does not permit the wearing of headscarf.” How did this ridiculous “reason” get on the TC if there is no such rule? The school management had earlier contended, as it appeared in newspapers, that it was the girl’s father who forced the Principal to write such a statement! Some thing is fishy here! A parent who threatens and forces a Principal to write a ridiculous reason and then sues her on religious grounds! Of course, the Principal has paid for her folly. Neither the district administration nor the press was inclined to dig further into this matter – probably due to a fear of Muslim backlash.

That’s what happened in Pathanamthitta. One Mr. Sam had written a book titled ‘Chinvat Paalam’ (Chinvat Bridge) as an apologetic against Islamic claims. He was advised by his Muslim friends, it seems, about a potentially dangerous reaction against this book from those closed-minded Muslims who are unaware of the teachings of their own holy book. Therefore, he chose to get it publish it after his death. The book was released on the day of his funeral. There was widespread outrage against the book. Even the author’s brothers who came there for his funeral were arrested! They, along with a couple of pastors who had nothing to do with the book, and the author’s son are now lodged in the Pathanamthitta sub-jail. The Kerala government worked hard even to get their bail cancelled.

It seems that Chinvat Bridge was written as an answer to another book, written by a Muslim, against the Christian gospel. We are now living in perilous times when Muslims are allowed to write or preach anything against Jesus Christ and His gospel while Christians or Hindus are not allowed any freedom to criticize Islam, their holy book, or their prophet Muhammad. Any criticism is torpedoed by a medieval law that says that we Indians are not allowed to hurt the “religious sentiments” of others. Thus, we have become a nation that is governed by ill-defined “sentiments” instead of being governed by well-defined logic and reason. The proverbial camel that sought a little space in an Arab's tent knows all too well how to make use of this silly law on "religious sentiments" and to walk away with the tent.

Tune in to ‘Peace TV’ and listen for a few minutes. You will surely come across acid remarks against the Christian faith and against Jesus Christ. Walk into any Islamic book store and you can lay hands on several subsidized books that hurt the “religious sentiments” of Christians. If criticisms against the prophet Muhammad are intolerable, how much more intolerable should be comments or arguments against Jesus Christ, the Son of God? Certainly, Christians place Jesus Christ far higher than any prophet. The Christian “sentiment” has to be honoured. But not in this land!

Books written by Ahmend Deedat are available across India. Deedat claims that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross. Thus, he rubbishes the Christian faith in the resurrected Christ. What business has Deedat, or any Muslim for that matter, to attack the Christian faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

If the relatives and pastors or friends of the author of Chinvat Bridge should be arrested and jailed on criminal charges, how much more should Ahmad Deedat, his publishers in India, owners of Islamic book stores and anyone associated with the production and distribution of such corrupt books be arrested and jailed? (Christian leaders in Kerala who have smartly washed their hands off their brethren in jail should ask themselves why they are not filing cases against the publishers and distributors of these Islamic books?)

Leaders of Islamic countries are thronging to join International Human Rights organizations. Yet, these Islamic countries that have deplorable human rights record should be first asked to set their own record straight before they recommend human rights to other countries. Leaders of such Islamic countries are crusading to promote the “anti-blasphemy” law in as many countries as possible through their influence in such human rights organisations.

Muslims in the West make use of every “human rights” law to get their way and to make their life comfortable. Yet, they would not practice these human rights principles in their own homes or communities. Muslims buy churches in England and convert them to mosques; yet, they will not allow a church in Saudi Arabia or other strict Islamic countries. Politicians in the West work hard to get Islamic study centres founded in their cities – with generous funding from Islamic countries – without asking for a Christian University in Islamic countries. Similarly, several political leaders in Kerala (and India) are very eager to please the Muslim community without taking into account the less-than-holy intentions in some minds.

There are Muslims who lead honourable lives. They respect other religions and religious-cultural diversity of India. Their influence in their own community has to increase and thus they should be able to quell the voices of intolerance and Islamic religio-political expansionism. The governments in our land and our courts should exercise sufficient discernment to dismiss silly claims or complaints on the basis of a nebulous and ill-defined “hurt religious sentiments.”