What's new

Indian Muslims fight the radicalism of Zakir Naik with their liberal ethos

No, not genetic, not at all; it's the same genes on both sides of the Radcliffe Line, after all. But not entirely religious either, unless the outpouring of support for Zakir Naik has just made a monkey out of me.

My take on things is that some Muslims have accepted that Pakistan was all that they aspired to, and it is all that they can aspire to, and it is fit and appropriate to go there to lead the lives of fully fulfilled Muslims. What has happened to the land in reality is quite another, terribly mundane question, which has nothing to do with the higher purposes of life.

Other Muslims have not, and they are the ones vulnerable to ISIS allure, as well as to a theocratic view of statehood.

That is why some of the people of the Valley have this theocratic view point. They have had a 'romance' created for them, by their well-wishers across the border, and, over time, actually come to think of all this as reality. I will send you the six points of the 'romance' some other way.

You are getting to the meat of the issue, I am happy to note.
 
You are getting to the meat of the issue, I am happy to note.

I don't think anyone understands my point of view. It is this:
  1. The Muslim League was forced to ask for Pakistan because of Nehru's intransigence. Jinnah should have remembered: choosing enemies is as important as choosing friends.
  2. Now that Pakistan is in existence, and has been for nearly seventy years, the original reasons, faulty though they were, are no longer important. That the people of Pakistan are willing to live as one nation is good enough, and nobody needs to justify their nationhood further.
  3. Moderate, liberal Pakistanis and moderate, liberal Indians have almost everything in common, although we may differ; there is certainly a huge gap and our respective fundos.
  4. The theocratic element in both camps are idiots and should be shut out of the national discourse legally.
  5. The Pakistan Army has to give up authority to civilian rule, for any kind of peace to prevail.
  6. Pakistani soldiers up to field rank are just as good as ours, and deserve the same respect as ours; it is their general officers who are the roots of all trouble.
  7. The Pakistan Air Force is fearfully good if allowed to be, and we need to work very hard to dominate them.
 
Dont understand this all of a sudden propaganda against Dr Naik? Could there be an intel link to Dhaka bombing to discredit him? No conspiracy but such games are played by intel agencies all the time.

I m still not clear what will interest ISIS in Bangladesh? Its a remote country and has no history of visible radical Islam.

I am from a place where it was found that 20 young educated people joined ISIS a week ago....... and according to their own family members, most of them were followers of Zakir Naik......
 
@Joe Shearer

Fascinating as it is to read your opinions of the Pakistanis, I am more interested in our own Muslims and the why and how of them being from the same stock but so different.

I'd like to hear your views on that.

What caused this.

Or

Are they really all that different in the first place?

I'd be entirely satisfied with whatever position you take.
 
@Joe Shearer

Fascinating as it is to read your opinions of the Pakistanis, I am more interested in our own Muslims and the why and how of them being from the same stock but so different.

I'd like to hear your views on that.

What caused this.

Or

Are they really all that different in the first place?

I'd be entirely satisfied with whatever position you take.

I thought I'd made the point.

Pakistani Muslims are the ones who believe in the Two Nation Theory and cling on to it, and retain a vision of a world where they have parity with India, which was the root of the Muslim League demand for homelands, later an independent country.

Indian Muslims, or Muslim Indians, a usage I prefer, are no longer encouraged or enthused by that vision, and have accepted that this is a multi-polar country, where parity for Muslims is not achievable, except at individual level. So what do you do in those circumstances? You get on with things, and stop worrying about the fluff. This is why the Muslim Indian identifies with secular democracy; that's the only game in town.

And that is precisely why we need to stop some other Indians from pissing them off. As long as the Muslim Indian thinks it's the only game in town, we are all OK with each other. Once it becomes we are all equal in India, but some are more equal than others, it's all over. That is why I think that the Sangh Parivar is the worst news for India.
 
Joe, sandwiched between your first two paras and your last one is the meat.

And the cheese.

Thank you. Take rest man.

Remember. Dont sweat the small stuff.
 
No, not genetic, not at all; it's the same genes on both sides of the Radcliffe Line, after all. But not entirely religious either, unless the outpouring of support for Zakir Naik has just made a monkey out of me.

My take on things is that some Muslims have accepted that Pakistan was all that they aspired to, and it is all that they can aspire to, and it is fit and appropriate to go there to lead the lives of fully fulfilled Muslims. What has happened to the land in reality is quite another, terribly mundane question, which has nothing to do with the higher purposes of life.

Other Muslims have not, and they are the ones vulnerable to ISIS allure, as well as to a theocratic view of statehood.

That is why some of the people of the Valley have this theocratic view point. They have had a 'romance' created for them, by their well-wishers across the border, and, over time, actually come to think of all this as reality. I will send you the six points of the 'romance' some other way.

Wow so eloquently put. Big thumbs up!
 
Actually seen most of the Muslims are supporting ban of Zakir in India.You people disillusioned by your Islamic media..

They are supporting their sect, thats it. You may be right because "ahle hadith"are less in numbers. Demand of ban is not based on any fact or on moral grounds. They just can't see each others and wont miss a single chance to defame. Muslims are in real mess.
 
These calls to ban him are actually to protect turf. Which in this case is turning out to be good for everyone. UP's mullahs have long detested him. Shias never liked a wahabi. So this outcry to ban him was sure to come.
 
They are supporting their sect, thats it. You may be right because "ahle hadith"are less in numbers. Demand of ban is not based on any fact or on moral grounds. They just can't see each others and wont miss a single chance to defame. Muslims are in real mess.

I've never got this right - what IS the difference between the ahl-e-hadith and the Tabligh-i-Jamaat? I know that the ahl-e-hadith believe in the Koran Sharif and in the hadith, and nothing beyond; I know that the Tabligh is responsible for preaching, especially to Muslims who have deviated. Are they overlapping sets? That is, any compliant Muslim may join the Tabligh; he may or may not be ahl-e-hadith. Please explain.
 
I talked to 6 Indians I knew, all of them watch and support Naik. And if you have seen the crowds and views Naik gathers, it's insane. I am fairly certain most Indian Muslim's support him, as well as Bangladeshi and Pakistani Muslim's.

Maybe they need to have their heads examined then. Only complete morons with IQ in the single digits would support maggots like zakir naik.
 
I've never got this right - what IS the difference between the ahl-e-hadith and the Tabligh-i-Jamaat? I know that the ahl-e-hadith believe in the Koran Sharif and in the hadith, and nothing beyond; I know that the Tabligh is responsible for preaching, especially to Muslims who have deviated. Are they overlapping sets? That is, any compliant Muslim may join the Tabligh; he may or may not be ahl-e-hadith. Please explain.

Those who do not follow any school of thought in particular (Hanafi, Maliki, Hambali and Hanafi) are Ahle hadith or Wahabi. They do not want to be called Wahabi but the people who want to taunt them call them Wahabi because of the ideology of Abdul Wahab Najadi.

Tableeghi Jamat beleongs to Hanafi school of thought. In their beliefs they are closer to Ahle hadith. Brelvi and Tableeghi both are hanafi.. Bralvis are hanafi barelvi while tableeghis are hanafi deobandi. The dispute starts with the teachings of Ahmed Raza Khan bralvi of Bareli and Ashraf Ali Thanvi of deobandi sect.
 
Those who do not follow any school of thought in particular (Hanafi, Maliki, Hambali and Hanafi) are Ahle hadith or Wahabi. They do not want to be called Wahabi but the people who want to taunt them call them Wahabi because of the ideology of Abdul Wahab Najadi.

Tableeghi Jamat beleongs to Hanafi school of thought. In their beliefs they are closer to Ahle hadith. Brelvi and Tableeghi both are hanafi.. Bralvis are hanafi barelvi while tableeghis are hanafi deobandi. The dispute starts with the teachings of Ahmed Raza Khan bralvi of Bareli and Ashraf Ali Thanvi of deobandi sect.

Much appreciated. All is clear. I should have read a little more, I suppose, but this is very useful.

This is trivial, but just for the record: you mentioned hanafi barelvi and hanafi deobandi; does that imply that Tabligh-i-Jamaat are exclusively Deobandi? I had no idea! This illuminates much.
 
I am from a place where it was found that 20 young educated people joined ISIS a week ago....... and according to their own family members, most of them were followers of Zakir Naik......
how can one be a follower of Zakir Naik. even i listen tio him and I am pakistan and sunni. not exactly the sect zakir naik preach . Now i listen to him because i like his reasoning, religious knowledge, peaceful nature and logic.

so tomorrow if i do something stupid is zakir naik has to be blamed.
moreover RSS guys support modhi. so for all their activities will modhi be arrested ?
 
Back
Top Bottom