What's new

HINDU CASE AGAINST PAKISTAN

LASER1

BANNED
Jan 13, 2018
1,621
-13
971
Country
India
Location
India

@LASER


HAhahah so another cartoon here to divert the issue. I'm talking about Indian embassy school in Saudi Arabia unfortunately btw can you answer the question your Hindu Yuva VAhini or ABVP colleague refused to answer.

IS it justified for hindu mobs to kill 20000-40000 Muslims in 'counter reaction' ?
Lol! I was given a thread ban so, I'll give the answer in this thread, it's rather appropriate to be here.
Now you claim the school is in Saudi:lol:. It follows CBSE syllabus, and like I said, they don't teach about Jinnah until highschool. Class 5 student learning about Jinnah is your own imagination and outright lies. Typical.

And I don't justify any killings, be it Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, neither I'm a spokesperson of any organization.
The direct action day which was ordered by Jinnah and Muslim league and the reaction across the border is all condemnable. But Jinnah never regretted his actions, did he? It was Gandhi who went on hunger strike to call off the violence and again it was Gandhi who asked Indian government to pay Pakistan some Rs.50+crores which was withheld after Pakistan invaded Kashmir. (The reason why Godse killed Gandhi)

@Rusty Again, go read some history. Ashoka converted to Buddhism after the war, he didn't start war for conversion. Stop wasting time if you don't read history.
 

HalfMoon

SENIOR MEMBER
Nov 21, 2018
3,011
0
3,895
Country
India
Location
India
Muslims made up 20% of the British Raj's population, and formed 32% of its military
Both Muslims and Hindus were/are natives of the subcontinent. My response was to Hindus and Muslims who are self hating. I say let's take pride in our history & achievements rather than slavishly attributing all credits to the invaders and ills to our native forefathers.
 

A.A. Khan

FULL MEMBER
Nov 17, 2016
1,273
4
1,718
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Lol! I was given a thread ban so, I'll give the answer in this thread, it's rather appropriate to be here.
Now you claim the school is in Saudi:lol:. It follows CBSE syllabus, and like I said, they don't teach about Jinnah until highschool. Class 5 student learning about Jinnah is your own imagination and outright lies. Typical.

And I don't justify any killings, be it Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, neither I'm a spokesperson of any organization.
The direct action day which was ordered by Jinnah and Muslim league and the reaction across the border is all condemnable. But Jinnah never regretted his actions, did he? It was Gandhi who went on hunger strike to call off the violence and again it was Gandhi who asked Indian government to pay Pakistan some Rs.50+crores which was withheld after Pakistan invaded Kashmir. (The reason why Godse killed Gandhi)

@Rusty Again, go read some history. Ashoka converted to Buddhism after the war, he didn't start war for conversion. Stop wasting time if you don't read history.



:rofl::rofl:

Well you are justifying killing by mentioning your cooked up stories from 400-500 years ago whereas I don't need to mention anything outside of documentary evidence of hindu mob violence outside 80 years.
Indian Govt. has provided support to them.
PAkistan Army never entered the present Indian Occupied Kashmir even after they entered May 1948 to secure Sialkot area.
Indian Army fought with Tribals and Gilgit scouts, after which Nehru ran to the UN and promised to hold plebiscite.
To this day you can't keep even part of Kashmir Valley and still doing BS.

Don't care to read your version of history.
 

Flash_Ninja

SENIOR MEMBER
May 16, 2013
3,463
0
4,262
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Both Muslims and Hindus were/are natives of the subcontinent. My response was to Hindus and Muslims who are self hating. I say let's take pride in our history & achievements rather than slavishly attributing all credits to the invaders and ills to our native forefathers.
Pakistani culture is very martial, people dont dare disrespect their forefathers service. If Indians are giving credit to the British over their own people then that is their problem.
 

LASER1

BANNED
Jan 13, 2018
1,621
-13
971
Country
India
Location
India
Well you are justifying killing by mentioning your cooked up stories from 400-500 years ago whereas I don't need to mention anything outside of documentary evidence of hindu mob violence outside 80 years.
The consequences and details of direct action day is mentioned in British Library archives Link

Indian Govt. has provided support to them.
Because you say so. So many facts from a Pakistani without supporting evidence.

PAkistan Army never entered the present Indian Occupied Kashmir even after they entered May 1948 to secure Sialkot area.
No you didn't, but then Pakistan army never entered Kargil in 99. Of course, you didn't enter until the tribals finished off people along the villages and riot broke out in the region. I think this story has been discussed to death in this forum.

Indian Army fought with Tribals and Gilgit scouts, after which Nehru ran to the UN and promised to hold plebiscite.
Another Myth, the promise to hold plebiscite was after the resolution. Without which there is no point in a plebiscite.

Don't care to read your version of history.
You must have learned it in the Indian school, Riyadh. Or did you drop out after class 5?:D
 

A.A. Khan

FULL MEMBER
Nov 17, 2016
1,273
4
1,718
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
@LASER

Btw I don't give an f*** so better not argue with me I'll try to do a lot better the thing your're doing and failing badly. Cos I believe you do support hindu mob violence and you're just doing draamaybaazi. And please don't post10000 word copy/paste essays. Many don't read them. You stupid propaganda has failed to stop bloodshed in Kashmir and your pathetic ignorance of the bloodshed trying to prove a stupid point in favor of India shows why we made separate state from Hindus.
 

PakSarzameen5823

FULL MEMBER
Nov 19, 2018
559
0
698
Country
Pakistan
Location
Albania
Those Hindus, who maintain the affirmative, rely chiefly upon the fact that the areas which the Muslims want to be separated from India have always been a part of India. Historically this is, no doubt, true.
No, this is false. The Republic of India came about the same time Pakistan did. What Indians are doing is conflating being part of the Indian sub-continent with being part of India, which isn't the case. Not only that, but Gilgit Baltistan, KPK, FATA and Balochistan have often been associated with Afghanistan rather than India. That's more than half of Pakistan's land mass, and many Pakistanis are either from those regions or have ancestral ties to them.

Apart from other consequences which have flowed from them these invasions have, in my opinion, so profoundly altered the culture and character of the northern areas, which it is now proposed to be included in a Pakistan, that there is not only no unity between that area and the rest of India but that there is as a matter of fact a real antipathy between the two.
Agreed, Jinnah realised this and mentioned it in his speeches:

"The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state"

https://twonationtheory.weebly.com/jinnah.html

After his conquest of Northern India, Muhammad of Ghazni detached it from India and ruled it
Ghazni and Lahore both acted as the capitals on rotation (Lahore during the colder months, and Ghazni during the hotter ones).

When Mahommed Ghori came in the field as a conqueror, he again attached it to India and ruled it from Lahore and then from Delhi.
Just like Ghaznavi, he also used Ghazni and Lahore as the capitals on rotation. Delhi only became important during the era of the Delhi Sultanate.

The methods adopted by the invaders have left behind them their aftermath. One aftermath is the bitterness between the Hindus and the Muslims which they have caused. This bitterness between the two is so deep-seated that a century of political life has neither succeeded in assuaging it, nor in making people forget it. As the invasions were accompanied with. destruction of temples and forced conversions, with spoliation of property, with slaughter,, enslavement and abasement of men, women and children, what wonder if the memory of these invasions has ever remained green, as a source of pride to the Muslims and as a source of shame to the Hindus? But these things apart, this north-west corner of India has been a theatre in which a stern drama has been played. Muslim hordes, in wave after wave, have surged down into this area and from thence scattered themselves in spray over the rest of India. These reached the rest of India in thin currents. In time, they also receded from their farthest limits; while they lasted, they left a deep deposit of Islamic culture over the original Aryan culture in this north-west corner of India which has given it a totally different colour, both in religious and political outlook.
Agreed, however, Pakistan doesn't just have Indo-Aryans. We also have Tibetan (Gilgit Baltistanis), Iranic (Pashtuns and Balochis), Mongolian (Hazaras) and African (Sheedis) people in our country. Also, to paint all Indo-Aryans with one brush is rather odd. E.g, Dardic people definitely stand out from other Indo-Aryan communities in Pakistan.

The Muslim invaders, no doubt, came to India singing a hymn of hate against the Hindus. But, they did not merely sing their hymn of hate and go back burning a few temples on the way. That would have been a blessing. They were not content with so negative a result. They did a positive act, namely, to plant the seed of Islam. The growth of this plant is remarkable. It is not a summer sapling. It is as great and as strong as an oak. Its growth is the thickest in Northern India. The successive invasions have deposited their 'silt' more there than anywhere else, and have served as watering exercises of devoted gardeners. Its growth is so thick in Northern India that the remnants of Hindu and Buddhist culture are just shrubs. Even the Sikh axe could not fell this oak. Sikhs, no doubt, became the political masters of Northern India, but they did not gain back Northern India to that spiritual and cultural unity by which it was bound to the rest of India before Hsuan Tsang. The Sikhs coupled it back to India.
The Muslim invaders (mostly) fought for personal gain as well as the for the benefit of Muslims/Islam as a whole. Did they commit atrocities? Yes, but they only did what was considered normal at the time.

Judged in the light of these considerations, the unity between Pakistan and Hindustan is a myth. Indeed, there is more spiritual unity between Hindustan and Burma than there is between Pakistan and Hindustan. And if the Hindus did not object to the severance of Burma from India, it is difficult to understand how the Hindus can object to the severance of an area like Pakistan, which, to repeat, is politically detachable from, socially hostile and spiritually alien to, the rest of India.
Agreed.

This was a good read.
 

Indus Pakistan

ELITE MEMBER
May 7, 2012
17,857
179
51,180
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
No, this is false. The Republic of India came about the same time Pakistan did. What Indians are doing is conflating being part of the Indian sub-continent with being part of India, which isn't the case. Not only that, but Gilgit Baltistan, KPK, FATA and Balochistan have often been associated with Afghanistan rather than India. That's more than half of Pakistan's land mass, and many Pakistanis are either from those regions or have ancestral ties to them.



Agreed, Jinnah realised this and mentioned it in his speeches:

"The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state"

https://twonationtheory.weebly.com/jinnah.html



Ghazni and Lahore both acted as the capitals on rotation (Lahore during the colder months, and Ghazni during the hotter ones).



Just like Ghaznavi, he also used Ghazni and Lahore as the capitals on rotation. Delhi only became important during the era of the Delhi Sultanate.



Agreed, however, Pakistan doesn't just have Indo-Aryans. We also have Tibetan (Gilgit Baltistanis), Iranic (Pashtuns and Balochis), Mongolian (Hazaras) and African (Sheedis) people in our country. Also, to paint all Indo-Aryans with one brush is rather odd. E.g, Dardic people definitely stand out from other Indo-Aryan communities in Pakistan.



The Muslim invaders (mostly) fought for personal gain as well as the for the benefit of Muslims/Islam as a whole. Did they commit atrocities? Yes, but they only did what was considered normal at the time.



Agreed.

This was a good read.
Great post. Bullseye -

The Republic of India came about the same time Pakistan did. What Indians are doing is conflating being part of the Indian sub-continent with being part of India, which isn't the case.
Gilgit Baltistan, KPK, FATA and Balochistan have often been associated with Afghanistan rather than India.
For some deluded, weird reason Bharati's actually think that what existed before 1947 was them. I have used the analogy before and I will use it again to highlight their weird delusion as such. Imagine John Senior has three sons. David, Peter and John Junior. After the demise of the parent John Sr. the younger sibling John Jr begins to delude that he is John Sr and all the estate is his and the his other brothers David, Peter do not have claim on the estate. And all because he happens to share his parents name John.

And this is what happened. Before 1947. British colony



Post 1947

 

PakSarzameen5823

FULL MEMBER
Nov 19, 2018
559
0
698
Country
Pakistan
Location
Albania
Firstly, it is said the Muslim Law does not fix any age for marriage, and recognizes the right of a girl to marry any time.
The age for sexual relationships in Islam is when puberty has been reached by the individual and the society considers it socially acceptable to engage in sexual actions at such an age. These are the two pieces of criteria that must be met, otherwise it can carry a hefty punishment (e.g being stoned to death, and I'm not talking about Marijuana).

Secondly, it is held out that marriage among the Musalmans is a contract. Being a contract, the husband has a right to divorce his wife, and the Muslim Law has provided ample safeguards for the wife which, if availed of, would place the Muslim wife on the same footing as the husband in the matter of divorce. For it is claimed that the wife under the Muslim Law can, at the time of the marriage, or even thereafter in some cases, enter into a contract by which she may under certain circumstances obtain a divorce.

Thirdly, the Mahomedan Law requires that a wife can claim from her husband, by way of consideration for the surrender of her person, a sum of money or other property—known as her "dower." The dower may be fixed even after marriage, and if no amount is fixed, the wife is entitled to proper dower. The amount of dower is usually split into two parts, one is called "prompt," which is payable on demand, and the other "deferred," which is payable on dissolution of marriage by death or divorce. Her claim for dower will be treated as a debt against the husband's estate. She has complete dominion over her dower, which is intended to give her economic independence. She can remit it, or she can appropriate the income of it as she pleases.

Granting all these provisions of law in her favour, the Muslim woman is the most helpless person in the world.
You managed to refute the highlighted text before you even wrote it. I don't recall ever seeing such a situation occur until today...

No Muslim girl has the courage to repudiate her marriage, although it may be open to her on the ground that she was a child and that it was brought about by persons other than her parents. No Muslim wife will think it proper to have a clause entered into her marriage contract reserving her the right to divorce. In that event, her fate is "once married, always married." She cannot escape the marriage tie, however irksome it may be. While she cannot repudiate the marriage, the husband can always do it, without having to show any cause. Utter the word "Tallak" and observe continence for three weeks, and the woman is cast away. The only restraint on his caprice is the obligation to pay dower. If the dower has already been remitted, his right to divorce is a matter of his sweet will.
This latitude in the matter of divorce destroys that sense of security which is so fundamental for a full, free and happy life for a woman.
If a woman feels her husband is divorcing her on unfair grounds, she can get the court to intevene and discuss the matter. However, the husband cannot be forced to stay married to her, since divorce is makruh rather than haram (and forcing someone to remain married to an individual they don't love is a rather fruitless exercise that will only promote sin). The court can only attempt to persuade him to do otherwise.

If a woman wants a divorce and her husband won't give it to her, she can also get the court to intervene. In this instance, the court will force the husband to give it to her if any issues they have cannot be resolved.

This is how a hypothetical sharia state would handle such an issue. It's pretty easy.

is greatly augmented by the right of polygamy and concubinage, which the Muslim Law gives to the husband.
Both acts allow for a man to satisfy his sexual desires, which generally speaking are often greater than that of a woman's. Not only that, but if a man wants to practice polygamy or have sexual relations with his female slaves, he must be able to treat all these individuals fairly, and his wife can put it in the marriage contract that she doesn't want such a thing to ever occur (and if such a term is breached, divorce is coming that man's way). The man must also obtain permission from his slaves for sexual intercourse. He cannot rape them (as a matter of fact, he can't rape anyone, such a crime carries a heavy punishment in Sharia).

Also, slavery in Islam is NOT the same as what people generally think of when they hear the word 'slave'. You are not permitted to physically harm the slaves, overburdern them with work, cloth/feed them poorly, etc. It's more like having a butler/maid who instead of getting paid with currency, is paid with material benefit (e.g good food, shelter, clothing, etc). Not only that, but slaves can only be obtained via POW's taken from war, and freeing them is greatly encouraged as well as required from an individual if they commit certain sins (so long as they actually have slaves). Many Muslim scholars have also stated that slavery is no longer permissible because all Muslim countries have agreed to the Geneva conventions and other such contracts that make them obliged to discontinue to practice the institution of slavery.

The Superintendent of the Census for 1901 for the Province of Bengal records the following interesting facts regarding the Muslims of Bengal :—"The conventional division of the Mahomedans into four tribes— Sheikh, Saiad, Moghul and Pathan—has very little application to this Province (Bengal). The Mahomedans themselves recognize two main social divisions, (1) Ashraf or Sharaf and (2) Ajlaf. Ashraf means 'noble' and includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts from high caste Hindus. All other Mahomedans including the occupational groups and all converts of lower ranks, are known by the contemptuous terms, 'Ajlaf ,' 'wretches' or 'mean people': they are also called Kamina or Itar, 'base' or Rasil, a corruption of Rizal, 'worthless.' In some places a third class, called Arzal or 'lowest of all,' is added. With them no other Mahomedan would associate, and they are forbidden to enter the mosque to use the public burial ground.
"Within these groups there are castes with social precedence of exactly the same nature as one finds among the Hindus.

I. Ashraf or better class Mahomedans.

(1) Saiads.
(2) Sheikhs.
(3) Pathans.
(4) Moghul.
(5) Mallik.
(6) Mirza.II. Ajlaf or lower class Mahomedans.(1) Cultivating Sheikhs, and others who were originally Hindus but who do not belong to any functional group, and have not gained admittance to the Ashraf Community, e.g. Pirali and Thakrai.
(2) Darzi, Jolaha, Fakir, and Rangrez.
(3) Barhi, Bhalhiara, Chik, Churihar, Dai, Dhawa, Dhunia, Gaddi, Kalal, Kasai, Kula Kunjara, Laheri, Mahifarosh, Mallah, Naliya, Nikari.
(4) Abdal, Bako, Bediya, Bhal, Chamba, Dafali, Dhobi, Hajjam, Mucho, Nagarchi, Nal,Panwaria, Madaria, Tunlia.III. Arzal or degraded class.Bhanar, Halalkhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi, Maugta, Mehtar." The Census Superintendent mentions another feature of the Muslim social system, namely, the prevalence of the "panchayat system." He states :—"The authority of the panchayat extends to social as well as trade matters and. . .marriage with people of' other communities is one of the offences of which the governing body takes cognizance. The result is that these groups are often as strictly endogamous as Hindu castes. The prohibition on inter-marriage extends to higher as well as to lower castes, and a Dhuma, for example, may marry no one but a Dhuma. If this rule is transgressed, the offender is at once hauled up before the panchayat and ejected ignominiously from his community. A member of one such group cannot ordinarily gain admission to another, and he retains the designation of the community in which he was born even if he abandons its distinctive occupation and takes to other means of livelihood. . . .thousands of Jolahas are butchers, yet they are still known as Jolahas." Similar facts from other Provinces of India could be gathered from their respective Census Reports, and those who are curious may refer to them. But the facts for Bengal are enough to show that the Mahomedans observe not only caste but also untouchability.
A caste system is strictly against Islamic teachings. Not only that, but among (most) Muslims in South Asia, such a system rarely holds any relevance outside of choosing who is suitable for marriage, and even then, Ashrafs and Ajlafs have regularly intermarried with one another (hence why they both have minor quantities of ancestry from the Muslim conquerors, and mostly native ancestry). This has also typically been the case historically (but some have unsuccessfully tried to change it).

s a consequence of the purdah system, a segregation of the Muslim women is brought about. The ladies are not expected to visit the outer rooms, verandahs, or gardens; their quarters are in the back-yard. All of them, young and old, are confined in the same room. No male servant can work in their presence. A woman is allowed to see only her sons, brothers, father, uncles, and husband, or any other near relation who may be admitted to a position of trust. She cannot go even to the mosque to pray, and must wear burka (veil) whenever she has to go out. These burka women walking in the streets is one of the most hideous sights one can witness in India. Such seclusion cannot but have its deteriorating effects upon the physical constitution of Muslim women. They are usually victims to anaemia, tuberculosis, and pyorrhoea. Their bodies are deformed, with their backs bent, bones protruded, hands and feet crooked. Ribs, joints and nearly all their bones ache. Heart palpitation is very often present in them. The result of this pelvic deformity is untimely death at the time of delivery. Purdah deprives Muslim women of mental and moral nourishment. Being deprived of healthy social life, the process of moral degeneration must and does set in. Being completely secluded from the outer world, they engage their minds in petty family quarrels, with the result that they become narrow and restricted in their outlook.

They lag behind their sisters from other communities, cannot take part in any outdoor activity and are weighed down by a slavish mentality and an inferiority complex. They have no desire for knowledge, because they are taught not to be interested in anything outside the four walls of the house. Purdah women in particular become helpless, timid, and unfit for any fight in life. Considering the large number of purdah women among Muslims in India, one can easily understand the vastness and seriousness of the problem of purdah./4/]

The physical and intellectual effects of purdah are nothing as compared with its effects on morals. The origin of purdah lies of course in the deep-rooted suspicion of sexual appetites in both sexe,s and the purpose is to check them by segregating the sexes. But far from achieving the purpose, purdah has adversely affected the morals of Muslim men. Owing to purdah, a Muslim has no contact with any woman outside those who belong to his own household. Even with them his contact extends only to occasional conversation. For a male there is no company of, and no commingling with, the females, except those who are children or aged. This isolation of the males from females is sure to produce bad effects on the morals of men. It requires no psychoanalyst to say that a social system which cuts off all contact between the two sexes produces an unhealthy tendency towards sexual excesses and unnatural and other morbid habits and ways.

The evil consequences of purdah are not confined to the Muslim community only. It is responsible for the social segregation of Hindus from Muslims which is the bane of public life in India. This argument may appear far-fetched, and one is inclined to attribute this segregation to the unsociability of the Hindus rather than to purdah among the Muslims. But the Hindus are right when they say that it is not possible to establish social contact between Hindus and Muslims, because such contact can only mean contact between women from one side and men from the other./5/

Not that purdah and the evils consequent thereon are not to be found among certain sections of the Hindus in certain parts of the country. But the point of distinction is that among the Muslims, purdah has a religious sanctity which it has not with the Hindus. Purdah has deeper roots among the Muslims than it has among the Hindus, and can only be removed by facing the inevitable conflict between religious injunctions and social needs. The problem of purdah is a real problem with the Muslims—apart from its origin—which it is not with the Hindus. Of any attempt by the Muslims to do away with it, there is no evidence.
The purdah system has more to do with culture rather than Islam. Also, the claim that gender segregation is the source of so many social woes for Muslims is laughable. This has been a common practice throughout human history, and remains so today in many socities which are most certainly not crumbling because of it. Not only that, but in cases of necessity (e.g life or death situations), it does not apply.

And almost nobody in South Asia still enforces such a system.

There is thus a stagnation not only in the social life but also in the political life of the Muslim community of India. The Muslims have no interest in politics as such. Their predominant interest is religion. This can be easily seen by the terms and conditions that a Muslim constituency makes for its support to a candidate fighting for a seat. The Muslim constituency does not care to examine the programme of the candidate. All that the constituency wants from the candidate is that he should agree to replace the old lamps of the masjid by supplying new ones at his cost, to provide a new carpet for the masjid because the old one is torn, or to repair the masjid because it has become dilapidated. In some places a Muslim constituency is quite satisfied if the candidate agrees to give a sumptuous feast, and in other if he agrees to buy votes for so much apiece. With the Muslims, election is a mere matter of money, and is very seldom a matter of [a] social programme of general improvement. Muslim politics takes no note of purely secular categories of life, namely, the differences between rich and poor, capital and labour, landlord and tenant, priest and layman, reason and superstition. Muslim politics is essentially clerical and recognizes only one difference, namely, that existing between Hindus and Muslims. None of the secular categories of life have any place in the politics of the Muslim community; and if they do find a place—and they must, because they are irrepressible—they are subordinated to one and the only governing principle of the Muslim political universe, namely, religion.

/6/:—"Islam is a close union of the spiritual and the temporal; it is the reign of a dogma, it is the heaviest chain that humanity has ever borne. . . .Islam has its beauties as a religion; . . . .But to the human reason Islamism has only been injurious. The minds that it has shut from the light were, no doubt, already closed in their own internal limits; but it has persecuted free thought, I shall not say more violently than other religions, but more effectually. It has made of the countries that it has conquered a closed field to the rational culture of the mind. What is, in fact essentially distinctive of the Musalman is his hatred of science, his persuasion that research is useless, frivolous, almost impious—the natural sciences, because they are attempts at rivalry with God; the historical sciences, because they apply to times anterior to Islam, they may revive ancient heresies. . . ." Renan concludes by saying:—"Islam, in treating science as an enemy, is only consistent, but it is a dangerous thing to be consistent. To its own misfortune Islam has been successful. By slaying science it has slain itself; and is condemned in the world to a complete inferiority." This answer, though obvious, cannot be the true answer. If it were the true answer, how are we to account for the stir and ferment that is going on in all Muslim countries outside India, where the spirit of inquiry, the spirit of change and the desire to reform are noticeable in every walk of life? Indeed, the social reforms which have taken place in Turkey have been of the most revolutionary character. If Islam has not come in the way of the Muslims of these countries, why should it come in the way of the Muslims of India? There must be some special reason for the social and political stagnation of the Muslim community in India.
What can that special reason be? It seems to me that the reason for the absence of the spirit of change in the Indian Musalman is to be sought in the peculiar position he occupies in India. He is placed in a social environment which is predominantly Hindu. That Hindu environment is always silently but surely encroaching upon him. He feels that it is de-musalmanizing him. As a protection against this gradual weaning away, he is led to insist on preserving everything that is Islamic without caring to examine whether it is helpful or harmful to his society. Secondly, the Muslims in India are placed in a political environment which is also predominantly Hindu. He feels that he will be suppressed and that political suppression will make the Muslims a depressed class. It is this consciousness that he has to save himself from being submerged by the Hindus socially and-politically, which to my mind is the primary cause why the Indian Muslims as compared with their fellows outside are backward in the matter of social reform. Their energies are directed to maintaining a constant struggle against the Hindus for seats and posts, in which there is no time, no thought and no room for questions relating to social reform. And if there is any, it is all overweighed and suppressed by the desire, generated by pressure of communal tension, to close the ranks and offer a united front to the menace of the Hindus and Hinduism by maintaining their socio-religious unity at any cost.

The same is the explanation of the political stagnation in the Muslim community of India. Muslim politicians do not recognize secular categories of life as the basis of their politics because to them it means the weakening of the community in its fight against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the poor Hindus to get justice from the rich. Muslim tenants will not join Hindu tenants to prevent the tyranny of the landlord. Muslim labourers will not join Hindu labourers in the fight of labour against capital. Why ? The answer is simple. The poor Muslim sees that if he joins in the fight of the poor against the rich, he may be fighting against a rich Muslim. The Muslim tenant feels that if he joins in the campaign against the landlord, he may have to fight against a Muslim landlord. A Muslim labourer feels that if he joins in the onslaught of labour against capital, he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is conscious that any injury to a rich Muslim, to a Muslim landlord or to a Muslim mill-owner, is a disservice to the Muslim community, for it is thereby weakened in its struggle against the Hindu community.

How Muslim politics has become perverted is shown by the attitude of the Muslim leaders to the political reforms in the Indian States. The Muslims and their leaders carried on a great agitation for the introduction of representative government in the Hindu State of Kashmir. The same Muslims and their leaders are deadly opposed to the introduction of representative governments in other Muslim States. The reason for this strange attitude is quite simple. In all matters, the determining question with the Muslims is how it will affect the Muslims vis-a-vis the Hindus. If representative government can help the Muslims, they will demand it, and fight for it. In the State of Kashmir the ruler is a Hindu, but the majority of the subjects are Muslims. The Muslims fought for representative government in Kashmir, because representative government in Kashmir meant the transfer of power from a Hindu king to the Muslim masses. In other Muslim States, the ruler is a Muslim but the majority of his subjects are Hindus. In such States representative government means the transfer of power from a Muslim ruler to the Hindu masses, and that is why the Muslims support the introduction of representative government in one case and oppose it in the other. The dominating consideration with the Muslims is not democracy. The dominating consideration is how democracy with majority rule will affect the Muslims in their struggle against the Hindus. Will it strengthen them, or will it weaken them? If democracy weakens them, they will not have democracy. They will prefer the rotten state to continue in the Muslim States, rather than weaken the Muslim ruler in his hold upon his Hindu subjects.

The political and social stagnation in the Muslim community can be explained by one and only one reason. The Muslims think that the Hindus and Muslims must perpetually struggle; the Hindus to establish their dominance over the Muslims, and the Muslims to establish their historical position as the ruling community—that in this struggle the strong will win, and to ensure strength they must suppress or put in cold storage everything which causes dissension in their ranks.

If the Muslims in other countries have undertaken the task of reforming their society and the Muslims of India have refused to do so, it is because the former are free from communal and political clashes with rival communities, while the latter are not.
Most Muslims in India are pretty secular, their political decadence is primarily caused by the fact that many Indians won't vote for "Babur ke bacha" and because India is, as a state, openly anti-Muslim in many aspects that have been elaborated on by many others before me, and will be further elaborated on by others after me. This gives many Muslims in India a sense of exclusion, which results in them either trying to compensate by becoming hyper-nationalists or by simply distancing themselves from other Indians as much as possible (I've observed both, but primarly the former).

Also, religious Muslims in India really don't bother anyone unless provoked. They're pretty much like Amish people, but less technologically impaired and more genetically diverse (this can be said for most religious Muslims worldwide).

This law was annulled by Act VIII of 1939, section 4 of which reads as follows:—

"The renunciation of Islam by a married Muslim woman or her conversion to a faith other than Islam shall not by itself operate to dissolve her marriage:
Provided that after such renunciation or conversion the woman shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of marriage on any of the grounds mentioned in section 2:

Provided further that the provision of this section shall not apply to a woman converted to Islam from some other faith who re-embraces her former faith."

According to this Act, the marriage of a married Muslim woman is not dissolved by reason of her conversion to another religion. All that she gets is a right of divorce. It is very intriguing to find that section 2 does not refer to conversion or apostasy as a ground for divorce. The effect of the law is that a married Muslim woman has no liberty of conscience and is tied for ever to her husband, whose religious faith may be quite abhorrent to her.
The grounds urged in support of this change are well worth attention.
Such a system is, yet again, based on culture rather than Islam. Are you starting to notice a pattern here?

Another illustration would be the attitude of the Muslims towards the problem of the Untouchables. The Muslims have always been looking at the Depressed Classes with a sense of longing, and much of the jealousy between Hindus and Muslims arises out of the fear of the latter that the former might become stronger by assimilating the Depressed Classes.
Not our problem if untouchables start preferring Islam to Hinduism.

Both Muslims and Hindus were/are natives of the subcontinent.
Are? Yes. Were? No. The earliest members of each community came from outside of the region, and the members of both communities have ancestry from these foreign migrants/conquerors (especially Muslims from the north-west of the sub-continent and the upper caste Hindus).
 

Fawadqasim1

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 24, 2017
4,220
1
3,320
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Four lines down and it's all over. What India? This is British Indian Empire or the Raj he is talking about which was unified by British soldiers over period of 200 years. Therefore the entire premise of this article is false as it begans on disingenous note. So there is no Hindu case.

I reiterate it was British Raj before 1947.

View attachment 521918
Bullseye sir
 

Vikki

FULL MEMBER
Jan 31, 2018
1,048
-28
803
Country
India
Location
India
Muslims and Indic religion followerstories t co exist. Partition is incomplete.
My blood boiled while reading the atrocities committed by muslim hordes on Hindus in that chapter..shameless liberals and congress bstrds try to cover the history by reiinterpreting it...all the atrocities were recorded by Muslim historians themselves..they were not stories conjured up by Hindus..I am a teacher and have recently decided to inform all my students to tell about the atrocities and cruelty the Muslim invaders have shown on Hindus...I will continue to do so for my whole life...every Indian should know how barbaric these Muslim rulers were and how we were tortured and killed.
 

Nilu Pule

BANNED
Mar 23, 2018
3,981
-22
2,397
Country
India
Location
India
My blood boiled while reading the atrocities committed by muslim hordes on Hindus in that chapter..shameless liberals and congress bstrds try to cover the history by reiinterpreting it...all the atrocities were recorded by Muslim historians themselves..they were not stories conjured up by Hindus..I am a teacher and have recently decided to inform all my students to tell about the atrocities and cruelty the Muslim invaders have shown on Hindus...I will continue to do so for my whole life...every Indian should know how barbaric these Muslim rulers were and how we were tortured and killed.
Muslims will kill you
 

LASER1

BANNED
Jan 13, 2018
1,621
-13
971
Country
India
Location
India
@LASER

Btw I don't give an f*** so better not argue with me I'll try to do a lot better the thing your're doing and failing badly. Cos I believe you do support hindu mob violence and you're just doing draamaybaazi. And please don't post10000 word copy/paste essays. Many don't read them. You stupid propaganda has failed to stop bloodshed in Kashmir and your pathetic ignorance of the bloodshed trying to prove a stupid point in favor of India shows why we made separate state from Hindus.
Lol! More internet threat. Go to school and complete 5th grade. Then you'll learn a little bit more.

If you can't produce a logical argument then go cry elsewhere. I'm not answering any more of your squealing. Pissoff.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom