A Homeland for Indian Muslims

[Naofumi]

Babri Masjid the Hindus did what Zoroastrians will in Iran. With a lot less hesitation and democracy. That's probably the racial difference. Otherwise the morality remains the same.

But to demolish it violently? And even then Muslims accepted the Ram Mandir and moved on, are we still not secular?

What else?

I heard economy played a big role in Modi's election, you say Muslims did. I want to confirm if you stick to your statement.

 

[padamchen]

But to demolish it violently? And even then Muslims accepted the Ram Mandir and moved on, are we still not secular?

I heard economy played a big role in Modi's election, you say Muslims did. I want to confirm if you stick to your statement.

Those were violent times. That decade. India burned. Indians bled and burned. I don't know how old you are. I was fresh out of college. It was an inflection point decade in India's history.

Modi won two elections.

You will need to be clearer about which one.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

How is Shariah (It is Law) worse compared to the current laws? What are your intellectual arguments against it?

Evidence of two women is equal to one man.

Gay people have to be given death penalty.

Muslim is not allowed to leave his religion.

Non-Muslim should always convert if he marries a Muslim.

Evidence of two women is equal to one man.

Gay people have to be given death penalty.

Muslim is not allowed to leave his religion.

Non-Muslim should always convert if he marries a Muslim.

I know religious discussion is not allowed. But I have just answered a question.

Also, I'm not going to engage in a religious debate with you. This would not be the correct forum to dissect anything.

 

[Naofumi]

Those were violent times. That decade. India burned. Indians bled and burned. I don't know how old you are. I was fresh out of college. It was an inflection point decade in India's history.

I am saying did it happened because Muslims were not Secular but Hindus were? I am 20 but have read enough.

Modi won two elections.

"Rise of Modi", you said. I guess rise refers to the first one.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

They spread far and wide and have populations everywhere

We have the youngest median age of all major faiths in prime child bearing age



We have the people to soak up the pressure and push back

As I said, numbers doesn't mean anything. Majority people believed in kingship just a few years ago. Now, majority people don't. Simple.

 

[padamchen]

I am saying did it happened because Muslims were not Secular but Hindus were? I am 20 but have read enough.

"Rise of Modi", you said. I guess rise refers to the first one.

First one I voted for him.

Second one I did not.

Two completely different elections.

First one we wanted economy and troublesome Muslims to be controlled.

Second one was clearly on ideological lines. Zero economy. And he still won.

Many point to Pulwama. I don't believe we are stupid.

P.S. If you are 20, I'm taking you on as a personal project.

P.P.S. Add security to the first one in addition to economy and Muslims.

I believe that is the ONLY one he has delivered on.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

??
Joe is being polite, and engaging in debate, which is why this forum exists. I don't see anything wrong here.

That is just the dishonest Pakistani in you speaking, which sees Indian Muslims as no different than disbelievers.

Open your eyes man and see what being attempted here. Ofcourse it is better for us that these trolls speak their own true language, I have no qualms about it.

It is important for us to understand the mindset.

 

[hussain0216]

As I said, numbers doesn't mean anything. Majority people believed in kingship just a few years ago. Now, majority people don't. Simple.

Of course numbers mean something



Take the Palestinians for example, at the moment they are completely subdued, without a military, weapons or anything

But they are young and they have numbers

Israel is now 20%+ Muslim/Arab

Across Gaza/Israel and the west bank
Muslim/Arabs outnumber the Jews and it will only increase as the years go by

The Palestinians are suffering now, but soak up the pressure and wait


That's the advantage of numbers



Even in India as a minority, 200million plus Indian Muslims with the state against them and hindutva extremism everywhere
Have the numbers to say we must do something to defend Indian Muslims

 

[Naofumi]

First one we wanted economy and troublesome Muslims to be controlled.

So, you stick to "Rise of Modi is due to Muslims" or not? I mean if Muslims were perfectly secular (whatever that means), Modi would have won in the "first place"?

I don't believe we are stupid.

Who's "we"? You and me? Or Indians in general?

 

[hussain0216]

Zoroastrians will in Iran.

Aaaahhhh the millennium old dream

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Of course numbers mean something



Take the Palestinians for example, at the moment they are completely subdued, without a military, weapons or anything

But they are young and they have numbers

Israel is now 20%+ Muslim/Arab

Across Gaza/Israel and the west bank
Muslim/Arabs outnumber the Jews and it will only increase as the years go by

The Palestinians are suffering now, but soak up the pressure and wait


That's the advantage of numbers



Even in India as a minority, 200million plus Indian Muslims with the state against them and hindutva extremism everywhere
Have the numbers to say we must do something to defend Indian Muslims

Apparently, you didn't read what I wrote about the transition from kingship to democracy. Or from almost no rights of women to rights of women. Or from keeping slaves to illegality of slaves.

You would be surprised if you even get a glimpse of the future world. All your supposed supremacy will come shattering down. Actually, not surprised but completely different. Difficult for me to describe. Just like if we bring a person from Stone Age to the current world, he might have a heart attack. The person from a stone age has his own primitive definitions of right and wrong which may not be followed in say the present world.

Science has replaced the traditional strongholds of organized religion. Organized religion is ceding more and more ground to the onslaught of science as we speak.

Wasted a lot of time already. Won't be replying to you @hussain0216 .

 

[AfrazulMandal]

Evidence of two women is equal to one man.

Gay people have to be given death penalty.

Muslim is not allowed to leave his religion.

Non-Muslim should always convert if he marries a Muslim.



I know religious discussion is not allowed. But I have just answered a question.

Also, I'm not going to engage in a religious debate with you. This would not be the correct forum to dissect anything.

Great.

So you have signed off saying that you will not engage in discussing these.

Then why did you provide those cherry picked terms?

@xeuss

 

[Joe Shearer]

Who are these?

I will list them.

And what is wrong with that? You currently have Anglo Saxon law in place. How is Shariah (It is Law) worse compared to the current laws? What are your intellectual arguments against it?

LOL. Most people equate sharia law with amputations, stoning to death and other such violent measures; they have no idea, first, about the judicial process itself, and its dependence on precedent, apart from a judge's judgement based on equity, second, about the scholarly theory that English Common Law itself was derived from sharia law. This was due to the despatch of a party of clergymen by the Plantagenet rulers of England after the Norman Conquest to their kinsmen the de Hautevilles who ruled Sicily (they gave the Holy Roman Empire that incredible personality Frederick II, stupor mundi). As it happened, Sicily had been ruled by the rulers in the Maghreb, and Arabic law, essentially modified sharia law, was used over there, intermingled with customary law. Quote this when you can, and watch people's jaws drop.

@The_Showstopper There are numerous instances.

We don't own the world.
We do believe our Deen is the right path. Don't you? If not, why do you follow it?

 

[masterchief_mirza]

You could not be more mistaken - more sadly mistaken. The British are in the habit of saying with a condescending smirk that Indians (and Pakistanis) almost get it right. That is the fallacy into which you have fallen.

@padamchen and I differ on this matter. For starters, clubbing us together shows how very poorly you have understood two disparate, sometimes even opposing points of view. I cannot speak - ought not to speak - for @padamchen, and what I have to say, therefore, defines my position alone.

My position is very simple and requires no PhD to understand, only an open mind and a refusal to follow the herd and bleat out the party line.

It is that we are perfectly entitled, all communities in the country of India, to live as equals in India, perhaps losing out over a period of time some of our regressive personal laws and the legal disabilities of individuals due to a failure of policy on the part of the government. It is that our constitutional positions have been eroded by radical Hindus, who believe neither in the rule of law, nor in moving the entire country along on any path. It is therefore the duty of all liberal citizens to oppose this monstrosity before all Indian society is consumed in these violent disagreements.

We should look for support from whomsoever offers it. However, in seeking support, we need to check the motives of our supporters. That brings us to the reason for your post, and the reasons for sadly dismissing it as mistaken at the core.

We were supported in a really cynical way by those who sought to make the basis of their support a shared religion. However, this support, this basis was paper-thin; the moment this was challenged, it was thrown away and the true motives came out: it was then apparent, in the words of the challenged person himself, that the support offered was purely a tactical gesture, and that underlying all the talk of religious unity was a deep and abiding contempt of the Muslim Indian, for daring to be Indian as well as Muslim. That was the rankest hypocrisy, and it was classed as such. Your mistake was to assume that I was warning them against any external support;I was warning them, but it was against the false and spurious support intended to use them as agents to demolish any corporate spirit among Indians, with no interest in anything further.



What was there in the second part of your post that you thought antithetical to my position? I would be interested to know.

Hang on a minute. You're clearly conflicted. In the first part of the post, I explained the underlying reality that most Pakistanis (obviously I don't speak for all and it would be foolish for you to generalise on the "cynicism of Pakistanis" based on a minority of posters) have made it clear that hindutva is the common enemy. Muslims who align with hindutva will be targeted as much as Hindus who do so. Likewise, Hindus who resist hindutva will be supported just as Muslims who resist hindutva will. To refer to this struggle as a Bhai-Bhai ummah job is inaccurate and misleading based on the above point. India as a republic cannot be sustained as hindutva has - as predicted - come to the fore.

Our forefathers knew this 72 years ago.

In my opinion, this is a failure of genuine moderational forces such as yourself, who have simply ignored this hindutva foundation of Indian society lurking just below the surface for 72 years.

What you call a democratic opposition party (now the ruling party of course) is quite simply a banned extremist party in any normal functioning democratic nation. Having the BJP as the second main party is not an illustration of a functional vibrant democracy. It illustrates an existential crisis that has persisted for decades and recently worsened.

It's admittedly difficult with India because it's hard to find Hindu majority nations with which to compare, but on the surface, Nepal (but it's a poor analogy due to different government types) hasn't been through such anti-muslim upheavals as far as I can establish. In other words, whatever has failed with the Indian national experiment is a catastrophic failure of its people, not just something that can be ironed out over a couple of generations. The fixed, false beliefs that underpin BJP/RSS ideology are delusional and incite hatred and violence based on that hatred. As I already said, Muslims are bang in the firing line. To avert genocidal bloodshed, a drastic solution is required. Either BJP needs to be removed altogether and a new moderate opposition created, or India needs another partition.

Now you and other "moderates" may call that cynical coming from a Pakistani. That's your opinion and it doesn't alter the facts of the matter prima facie. The litmus test is simply, if Pakistan and its supposed inherent bias did not exist, would Indian Muslims still feel threatened and subdued by the history-denying, mosque-razing, cow-lynching realities of the secular republic you live in?

To both you and @padamchen , that some "escaped" Indian Muslims actively rail against these realities of the nation they fled is damming evidence of the voluntary self-censoring they had to engage whilst in India in order to not draw ire simply for demanding their rights. Like SRK and others, Indian Muslims have to overcompensate in abrogating their own rights instead of demanding fulfilment of these rights. This is precisely what Jinnah meant when he said Indian Muslims would spend the rest of their lives proving their loyalty to India. I know Indian Muslims in UK and they're not going back to India any time soon. Indian Christians in UK tend to stay quiet so as to avoid drawing flak but you won't find them at the "howdy Modi" events either. They refer to themselves as malayalam or Tamil and that's about it. Every non-Hindu in this failing state will have to go to extraordinary lengths to prove fealty to the state while living there simply to preserve their lives and livelihoods. We have seen what hindutva types drunk with power do in the middle east when dealing with their fellow Indian Muslims, let alone how they treat them in the safety of India itself.

@padamchen may well dismiss such individuals as simple traitors but in reality, such simple denial of their true situation is a damming affirmation of India's intolerance. If India ignores such voices, it will disintegrate, and Pakistanis, myself included, will say "I told you so" and "Jinnah was right".

 

[AfrazulMandal]

it's hard to find Hindu majority nations with which to compare, but on the surface, Nepal (but it's a poor analogy due to different government types) hasn't been through such anti-muslim upheavals as far as I can establish.

Because there are no Muslims to hate to speak of!

Not anything else.