‘Liberals’ name Sooryavanshi Islamophobic: Here’s how they defend Islamism and radicalization

Akshay Kumar and Katrina Kaif starrer Sooryavanshi was just lately launched in theatres across the nation. Directed by Rohit Shetty, the film scripted a comeback of Bollywood on the box-office after lengthy Covid lockdowns, but it surely additionally managed to attract the ire of liberals, who’ve accused the film of being Islamophobic.
Though the film’s storyline just isn’t fully novel, it highlights the prevailing menace of Islamic terrorism tormenting the Indian society and the way a conscientious policeman, performed by Akshay Kumar, makes it the aim of his life to cease the Islamic terrorists from fulfilling their nefarious designs and finishing up assaults in India. 
As the film’s plot revolves across the scourge of Islamic terrorism, it was however apparent that the terrorists or villains depicted within the film can be proven as puritanical Muslims who have been brainwashed and radicalized to hold out terror assaults towards harmless individuals. As varied terror assaults in India have proved, this isn’t a fiction that Rohit Shetty weaved in his film however a sordid actuality. 
But the portrayal of threats that Islamic terrorism poses to society has ruffled fairly just a few feathers, inflicting the ‘liberals’ to model the movie as Islamophobic. The depiction of Muslims in detrimental roles has raised the hackles of the liberals, who’re most likely outraged as a result of the film makes an attempt to attract consideration in the direction of the grim actuality of Islamic radicalization and terrorism in India.
‘Liberals’ take offence over detrimental portrayal of Muslim characters in films and sequence
Rana Ayyub, one of many main luminaries of India’s left intelligentsia, and a recurring faux information peddler took offense on the portrayal of Muslims within the film. She was visibly upset with the film and made no bones about it on her Twitter account. 
Lambasting on the film, Rana tweeted, “Muslims offer namaz before acts of terror, Muslims need to be taught patriotism, love jihad, terrorism wiped out after 370 revoked, Muslims ungrateful and the trope of good Muslim versus bad Muslim(decided by an upper-caste Hindu). This is the film Sooryavanshi in a nutshell.”
Source: TwitterNicely, this isn’t the primary time that ‘liberals’ had taken offense to the portrayal of Islamic terrorism in India. Earlier this yr, Manoj Bajpayee-starrer Family Man 2 was launched on the OTT platform Amazon Prime. The second quantity of the much-popular sequence confirmed how Islamic terrorists from Pakistan colluded with Sri Lankan terrorists to hold out an assault towards India’s Prime Minister. 
The sequence additionally confirmed a Muslim boy posing as a Hindu to entrap Manoj Bajpayee’s daughter in a love relationship, solely to carry her captive and achieve leverage over her father, who labored as an intelligence officer accountable for thwarting terror assaults in India. It was a delicate depiction of how love jihad labored within the society, the place unsuspecting Hindu ladies are lured into relationships by Muslim males portraying themselves as Hindus and later forcibly transformed into Islam. 
And on anticipated traces, liberals have been offended with the sequence, accusing it of exhibiting “deep-seated Islamophobia” and validating the prevalence of affection jihad. Rana Ayyub had in June 2021 expressed her disapproval of the fictional sequence. Although she didn’t identify the sequence, the references made to Bajpayee’s Family Man 2 in her tweet have been unmistakable. 
Source: TwitterAlthough Sooryavanshi offers with the pervasive concern of Islamic terrorism and radicalization present within the nation, it’s in any case a fictional film. However, even then, liberals consider that Muslims shouldn’t be proven taking part in detrimental characters. They even need incidents similar to love jihad, which has a transparent non secular connotation connected to it, to be swept below the rug because the lives of the victims are of lesser significance as in comparison with preserving the “secular” material of the nation. 
Sooryavanshi pins the blame of India’s partition on Hindus, depicts Muslim terrorists as ‘victims’ of atrocities dedicated by Hindus
In addition to this, the film ‘Sooryavanshi’ or for that matter the Amazon Prime sequence ‘Family Man 2’ can’t be categorized as creations that perpetuate Islamophobia, not by a protracted shot. Rather, the makers of those films have intentionally tried to water down the menace of Islamic terrorism by gratuitously giving a ‘secular’ context to their depravity. 
For instance, within the film, Jackie Shroff, who performs the character of Lashkar terror chief rationalizes his resolution of taking over terrorism by blaming Hindus for the nation’s partition. He says his father was beheaded, his sister was raped in entrance of him when he was 5-years-old and that they have been thrown out of their home in 1947. 
This is the opening scene of the film During identify casting. Following this sequence, a caption seems on the display that reads: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”. It is tough to overlook that Hindus are painted as aggressors by means of this caption by depicting that the partition violence was attributable to them and that Islamic terrorism was one of many fallouts of the bloody partition. The partition of India occurred as a result of an awesome variety of Muslims needed an Islamic nation, however that unhappy actuality has been conveniently ignored.
“They beheaded my father, raped my sister in front me when I was 5 year old. Kicked us out of our own home & country in 1947”– Lashkar Chief(@bindasbhidu) explains how he turned terrorist#Sooryavanashi by @akshaykumar & Rohit Shetty blames H for partition & beginning terrorism— Gems of Bollywood (@GemsOfBollywood) November 9, 2021
The hundreds of Hindus who have been slaughtered in Bengal to meet Jinnah’s Direct Action Day command have been ignored too.
Through Jackie Shroff’s lament, the makers of Sooryanvashi attempt to insinuate that Hindus have been accountable for the nation’s partition and for pushing Shroff into terrorism whereas in actuality, it was the Muslim League and their bigoted supporters who wreaked havoc and introduced concerning the partition of the nation into India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. The partition noticed widespread violence that was touched off by provocateurs in chief of the Muslim League, most notably MA Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, and different Muslims who believed within the supremacy of Islam over different religions.
Liberals taking offence over a Hindu distinguishing between an excellent and a nasty Muslim is nothing however a manifestation of two-nation idea
The supremacist perception was additionally mirrored in Rana Ayyub’s tweet the place she highlights that an upper-caste Hindu distinguishes between an excellent and a nasty Muslim. Ayyub’s disapproval with this notion that Hindus have the company to distinguish between who’s a righteous Muslim and who has gone awry is starkly just like the Muslim League’s perception that Hindu representatives can not characterize the curiosity of Muslims. Venkat Dhulipalla in his seminal work ‘Creating a New Medina‘ highlighted how Muslim League had demanded separate citizens for the Muslim inhabitants as a result of they have been deeply distrustful of Hindu representatives. 
Therefore, Ayyub and liberals’ objection to a Hindu police officer distinguishing between an excellent and dangerous Muslim is one other manifestation of the two-nation idea, a speculation peddled by the Muslim League to argue that Muslims and Hindus are essentially irreconcilable and that the one means for the 2 to exist is the partition of the nation in Hindu majority and Muslim majority nations. Of course, India rejected the notion and assimilated individuals from all walks of life whereas Pakistan handled Muslims as first amongst equals and discriminated towards individuals belonging to the minorities. As has been evident by numerous incidents prior to now, the liberals have their affinity in the direction of Pakistan whereas their obsession with preserving secularism is only a charade to whitewash Islamic terrorism. 
In one other preposterous try to understate the menace of Islamic terrorism, the film goes on to offer justifications for why a terrorist named Bilal Ahmed embraced terrorism. The film reveals Ahmed’s slide to terrorism came about after his household was burnt to dying by a communally charged-up mob. Then the film tries to attract a distinction between an excellent and a nasty Muslim, exhibiting how Allah helps an upright Muslim officer in nabbing the dreaded terrorist. 
Bilal Ahmed is infamous terrorist But1 He turned terrorist ONLY as a result of his household was burnt to dying for communal reasons2 He received tracked ONLY as a result of Allah helped a sachcha Muslim police officer see Bilal whereas doing Ibadat!#sooryavanshi by @akshaykumar and Rohit Shetty— Gems of Bollywood (@GemsOfBollywood) November 9, 2021
The pusillanimity of Indian movie makers in exhibiting how terrorists draw inspirations from Islamic non secular texts
This is one more perversion that not solely tries to attract a veil over the menace of “Islamism” that drives its adherents to wage unspeakable atrocities towards non-Muslims within the identify of waging ‘jihad’, but it surely additionally tries to color Hindus because the troublemakers who compelled the in any other case ‘righteous’ Muslims to stroll down the trail of extremism. Hardly any film maker demonstrates the braveness of exhibiting the fact of Islamism as it’s. They would dare not spotlight how terrorists draw inspiration to assault non-Muslims by means of Islamic non secular texts and Hadiths that endorse utilizing violence as a software to subjugate non-believers, particularly idolators(idol-worshippers).
As towards this reluctance to indicate the fact of Islamism, filmmakers present outstanding braveness and liberty in citing obscure Hindu texts to claim that Hindus justify social inequities similar to caste discrimination, untouchability, and others. In truth, the film makers go on to defend vile distortions of their films by hiding behind the veneer of “artistic freedom” to justify the warped flip of occasions and twisted details depicted of their creations. Recently, a film named Jai Bhim, which was touted to be based mostly on a real incident, confirmed the villain from the Vanniyar neighborhood although in actuality the villain was an individual named Anthony Sami. Similar distortions have been witnessed in varied films, the place detrimental Muslim characters are glorified similar to SRK’s Raees, or a Hindu character is depicted as Muslim to indicate India is Islamophobic as within the case of SRK’s Chak De India.
While Sooryavanshi reveals Muslims turned to terrorism after atrocities meted out on them by Hindus, Indian Muslims in Kerala becoming a member of ISIS is a main instance of how Muslims should not have to be victims of atrocities or persecution to affix the fear ranks. When ISIS was at its peak just a few years in the past, numerous Indians from Kerala had travelled to Syria with the goal of becoming a member of the Islamic Caliphate and bringing the world below one Ummah. They weren’t persecuted or brutalized in India to have escaped to the Middle East and be part of ISIS. Rather, they have been impressed by the supremacist ideology of radical Islam and brutal methods adopted by ISIS to determine their rule. It is the ideology of radical Islam that calls upon trustworthy Muslims to always wage a warfare towards the non-believers(Kafirs) and apostates and produce them below the fold of Islamic rule. 
However, hardly any film dares to enterprise into these troubled waters. Filmmakers consciously chorus from showcasing how it’s the Islamic texts advocating the supremacy of Islam over different religions and Islamic edicts calling for the persecution of non-Muslims that contribute massively in the direction of Muslims embracing the trail of extremism and violence. Instead, Muslims are branded as victims of some atrocity to rationalize their resolution of embracing violence and extremism. This is how films are ‘secularised’ so that there’s all the time a justifiable motive for Muslims to take up arms whereas Hindus are invariably vilified as a bigoted neighborhood, actions of which had pushed the Muslim antagonists to the abyss of Islamic terrorism. 
The evangelical zeal displayed by liberals in whitewashing Islamic terrorism
If even this grotesque perversion is labeled as Islamophobia, then it’s fairly clear that liberals are averse to the very thought of Muslim characters taking part in detrimental roles. They need filmmakers to not solely gloss over the unvarnished actuality of Islamic texts and scriptures encouraging Muslims to bask in ‘jihad’ and perform terror assaults towards non-Muslims, but additionally to painting Muslim characters all the time in a constructive mild. Any film that fails to adjust to this liberal diktat is summarily rejected as Islamophobic and anti-Muslim. 
Scores of liberals then take to denouncing the film or sequence as Islamophobic, simply because it could have showcased some detrimental characters as Muslims and picturized real-life incidents like many Islamist assaults carried out in India and even harsh realities such because the prevalence of affection jihad. They have made it their cri de cœur to oppose and resist any film or creative creation, even when they’re rooted in fiction in the event that they understand them exhibiting Muslims in a nasty mild. Apparently, the trope of “artistic freedom” exists just for Hindus who protest towards unwarranted bastardization of details to painting them as detrimental. When a movie maker workout routines his creative freedom in as far as to only painting villains as Muslims, the liberal ecosystem springs into motion, slamming the film as “Islamophobic” and accusing the maker of harboring pathological hatred towards Muslims.
As we’ve seen with Sooryavanshi, the place Islamic terrorism was downplayed and to an extent justified as a consequence of perceived atrocities dedicated by Hindus, the liberals however are nonetheless rattled with the film and have proven missionary zeal in denigrating it as Islamophobic. This is an ideal instance of how whitewashing of Islamism is carried out—take offense on essentially the most trivial aspects of flicks similar to a Muslim character being the dangerous individual and depiction of real-life occasions similar to love jihad in order that filmmakers are discouraged from calling consideration in the direction of extra critical points similar to maximalist doctrines and non secular scriptures that kind the cornerstone of Islamic terrorism or Islamism.