A Homeland for Indian Muslims

[TheGreatMaratha]

I think it's borderline theological discussion.

If it's, we can stop it here itself. I had to defend my case.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

That's of course not the whole explanation; as in independent India, there was no Muslim led party to begin with.
But as a historical fact, Muslim league and Khilafat movement precedes the main organisations and works of Hindutva, maybe someone more history-literate can add to this.

Why is it relevant? Your point is that hindutva is reactionary. To what, may I ask?

Ambedkar implies it is a reaction to the Muslim League and its "paranoia" as per the text you posted, and you infer further that it is a reaction to the khilafat movement overall.

Others on some of these threads still will argue hindutva is a reaction to centuries of Mughal rule. Aurangzeb is to blame I guess, and every Muslim in south Asia is culpable by extension unless they all stay silent and not mention their "rights"?

How far back shall we go?

Islam's very presence in India is apparently a justification for hindutva's existence.

This is a dangerous line of reactionary thought, which is a major trigger for irreversible delusions of historical disenfranchisement that compound the hateful mantra of such entities as hindutva.

If you don't believe me when I say victims shouldn't be blamed for the crimes and policies of extremist movements, just ask the Jews if they could go back in time and create a Jewish state for European Jews in 1935.

Hindutva can only be undone or reformed by the majority Hindus themselves. The alternative is destroying it by the hands of external forces. Either solution would relieve Indian muslims of their current state of loss.

Sooner or later, a situation needs to arise wherein south Asia's Muslims are not regarded as alien invaders with malevolent intent. They have the same rights, privileges and culpabilities as anyone else who contributed to this region's development. Many Indians won't like those harsh truths - hence BJP persists for now.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

You, young Sir, need to do your homework. It isn't good enough at the moment.

Please answer the questions that I had asked in the end. If my homework is not done properly, feel free to correct me.

 

[xeuss]

More broadly, Pakistanis that care about the Kashmir cause see India's intransigence on resolving the dispute, it's military occupation & the violence there in very clear black and white terms, and they see the lack of visible public support from Indian Muslims (especially the sarkari ones) for a clear black and white moral issue, as damning. It's not so much about being deceptive or manipulative, but a sense of betrayal. What @xeuss said about many Jews in the US supporting Palestine and opposing Israeli policies - Pakistanis tend to have the same expectations from Indian Muslims (and in fact Muslims globally) about the Jammu & Kashmir dispute.

Every Indian Muslim that I have met, has always been supportive and sympathetic to the Kashmiri plight. There has been no exception to this. No one has supported what India has done, or is doing to them.

The difference has been whether Indian Muslims have supported their call for independence or not. Some have, some have not. Those that have not, their reasons have been very simplistic. They do not want to lose their Muslim brothers to another country, like they did to Pakistan and Bangladesh.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

Oh really? The jaded Sanghi line? Is that the best the IT cell could think up? What exactly should have been done? Partition Bombay down the middle? Produce little enclaves in Poona? Maybe hand over all of Kutch to the Junagadh state?

Or were you thinking of more ambitious measures, like, oh, split the Punjab, split Bengal, something crazy like that?

What a cheap shot, Doc, considering we lost all touch with our ancestral legacy, and you continue to loll around without shedding a drop of blood.

The Partition was a mistake IMO. Except for of course saving SOME muslims from hindus. Otherwise the whole South Asia would have suffered under Hindu domination.

On the other hand, a Jinnah led united India would have made short work of the terrorists like RSS, Jan Sangh, Hindutva historians and etc. Hindu political consolidation would never have happened and we should see a rebirth of Muslim political thought all over the country.

But why are 2 women witnesses equal to 1 man witness? Why should non-Muslims convert to Islam to marry a Muslim?

Why are husbands allowed to beat women?

Also, why don't all Muslim countries follow the Sharia laws in their entirety? Isn't everything perfect and sacrosanct?

But many people here still haven't understood the point I'm alluding to. There are certain things which cannot be allowed in the present modern world.

Because we have something we consider divine and irrefutable.
We do not make these rules. And the human intellect that you are using to examine these laws has its limitations.

There's a variety of opinions in Pakistan with respect to Indian Muslims. You're going to see the predominantly nationalistic (from Pakistan's perspective) view on this forum, where Indian Muslims are going to be 'generalized' & judged based on the perceptions created by the actions/words of what we refer to as 'Sarkari Muslims' in India.

More broadly, Pakistanis that care about the Kashmir cause see India's intransigence on resolving the dispute, it's military occupation & the violence there in very clear black and white terms, and they see the lack of visible public support from Indian Muslims (especially the sarkari ones) for a clear black and white moral issue, as damning. It's not so much about being deceptive or manipulative, but a sense of betrayal. What @xeuss said about many Jews in the US supporting Palestine and opposing Israeli policies - Pakistanis tend to have the same expectations from Indian Muslims (and in fact Muslims globally) about the Jammu & Kashmir dispute.

So, unfortunately, it is the Indian Muslims that seem to catch flak from both sides. For a community pushed to prove their loyalty just because they're Muslims in a predominantly Hindu India struggling with it's 'historical' sense of shame and insecurity over being conquered & ruled by 'Muslims', I understand how opposition to India's policies on J&K is a bridge too far.

You make a dangerous assumption that is based on ignorance.

I understand that Hindus may tell you that Muslim Indians support the State against Kashmiris.

But that is not the case. ALL of us that I personally know of, without exception, disapprove of the Indian State's conduct in Jammu and Kashmir. Probably a majority wants it to be free from Hindutva domination as well. But we do not want to lose them like we lost families in BD and Pak.

Bottomline, even if we do not agree on many points and may oppose total freedom and secession, we do support Kashmiris and not the oppressive Indian state fighting against innocent Muslims.

 

[SIPRA]

Why is it relevant? Your point is that hindutva is reactionary. To what, may I ask?

Ambedkar implies it is a reaction to the Muslim League and its "paranoia" as per the text you posted, and you infer further that it is a reaction to the khilafat movement overall.

Others on some of these threads still will argue hindutva is a reaction to centuries of Mughal rule. Aurangzeb is to blame I guess, and every Muslim in south Asia is culpable by extension unless they all stay silent and not mention their "rights"?

How far back shall we go?

Islam's very presence in India is apparently a justification for hindutva's existence.

This is a dangerous line of reactionary thought, which is a major trigger for irreversible delusions of historical disenfranchisement that compound the hateful mantra of such entities as hindutva.

If you don't believe me when I say victims shouldn't be blamed for the crimes and policies of extremist movements, just ask the Jews if they could go back in time and create a Jewish state for European Jews in 1935.

Hindutva can only be undone or reformed by the majority Hindus themselves. The alternative is destroying it by the hands of external forces. Either solution would relieve Indian muslims of their current state of loss.

Sooner or later, a situation needs to arise wherein south Asia's Muslims are not regarded as alien invaders with malevolent intent. They have the same rights, privileges and culpabilities as anyone else who contributed to this region's development. Many Indians won't like those harsh truths - hence BJP persists for now.

Excellent and extraordinary post.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Because we have something we consider divine and irrefutable.
We do not make these rules. And the human intellect that you are using to examine these laws has its limitations.

That's what the Church told Galileo when he proposed that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around. In those times, I'm sure you wouldn't have hesitated the least in giving the death penalty to Galileo if you were part of the Church.

Won't be replying to you.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I will answer once, just to preclude your claiming that you asked questions and nobody bothered to answer them. Your deficiencies will be mentioned as we go along.

I think @dharmi somewhere between gave a good answer about the inadequacies of Sharia Law. I haven't researched on how European Laws were, maybe Sharia Laws might have been good for 7th century Arabia. But laws e keep changing to adjust to the present society and thus some laws no longer can be used in the present context.

In case nobody told you, sharia law, like EVERY other legal system, changes with the times. What everyone talks about is the original set of penalties for crimes that formed the foundation. The strictest interpretation - every country has its own interpretation, and these are not carved in stone - is supposed to be Saudi; you then need to read up on current changes and modifications. You will be surprised at how much has changed to reflect current times and current thinking.

I will always go in for laws that are good for the present times. You talked something about Hindu laws about joint families or something like that.

Your point should be to find out, not to come here and vapour on. I mentioned specifics; have you found out about them? If not, why are you posting?

My point is: if any law is bad, it's bad. Doesn't matter if it's Hindu/Muslim/Christian. We all should come to terms with the present world.

Who defines bad? What is bad, and what is good? The criminal law varies in each of the 50 states of the United States. Which do you support?

That's from where we get the phrase: Be in present.

I have no patience with pomposity or with platitudes. Fact or silence.

But tell me, do you think the Shariah Law is perfect in the present scenario? And why aren't Pakistanis themselves following it through? Or some other Muslim countries as well?

Shariah law is a template. You use it and modify it as you think fit. Simple precise answer, so stop being clever. If you seriously want to know about Pakistani legal systems, ask @saiyan0321. But if you want to posture about it, don't bother.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

There's a contrary view too -
View attachment 629621

Ambedkar had his plus points and highlighted the evils of Hinduism.

but his bigotry towards Islam was also not a secret.

 

[Naofumi]

Ambedkar had his plus points and highlighted the evils of Hinduism.

but his bigotry towards Islam was also not a secret.

I posted it as a contrary view; I am not adamant about this.

 

[AfrazulMandal]

That's what the Church told Galileo when he proposed that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around. In those times, I'm sure you wouldn't have hesitated the least in giving the death penalty to Galileo if you were part of the Church.

Won't be replying to you.

Shariah is the best legal system in the world.

And in time, eventually, it will come in force all over it.

'Won't be replying to you.'

I posted it as a contrary view; I am not adamant about this.

Of course, I am not blaming you for putting it forth. Just making my observation.

 

[Andhadhun]

No one said anything about surrendering.

But going to the enemy (regardless of your personal view to the contrary) is as good as declaring war on your nation.

Which is what Afrazul has clearly said in so many posts of his.

And Xeuss is flirting on the border with ... for now.

You've gone dark again buddy.

It's Burhan Wani once again.

He was always that person.

You were the one refusing to see it.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

In case nobody told you, sharia law, like EVERY other legal system, changes with the times. What everyone talks about is the original set of penalties for crimes that formed the foundation. The strictest interpretation - every country has its own interpretation, and these are not carved in stone - is supposed to be Saudi; you then need to read up on current changes and modifications. You will be surprised at how much has changed to reflect current times and current thinking.

If it changes with times, it's a good thing. It's just like any other law. No problem with that. Nothing special about it.

Your point should be to find out, not to come here and vapour on. I mentioned specifics; have you found out about them? If not, why are you posting?

Still don't understand why brought up Hindu laws when we are speaking of Sharia laws. I've earlier clearly said that I am against Hindu laws which are unjust. For example, I'm against Manusmriti.

Who defines bad? What is bad, and what is good? The criminal law varies in each of the 50 states of the United States. Which do you support?

Ok, for example, don't you think that husbands should not be allowed to beat up women? Or is that just a good thing?

I have no patience with pomposity or with platitudes. Fact or silence.

How is being in present a platitude? I'm just saying that any law should fit the present time. I can't go on talking about every other law.

Shariah law is a template. You use it and modify it as you think fit. Simple precise answer, so stop being clever. If you seriously want to know about Pakistani legal systems, ask @saiyan0312. But if you want to posture about it, don't bother.

My question is still unanswered. I asked your personal opinion on Sharia law. And I also asked why certain Muslim countries are not following it?

Sharia law is misused by Pakistan for conversions. Once a non-Muslim has been converted, the non-Muslim is not allowed to convert back. Hindu/Christian girls are abducted, married and converted.

https://www.france24.com/en/20190403-facts-about-sharia-law-around-world

Ambedkar had his plus points and highlighted the evils of Hinduism.

but his bigotry towards Islam was also not a secret.

Ambedkar was a revolutionary person. People in India admire him.

 

[Sharma Ji]

They greatly underestimate just how much support Modi's movement has in Bharat among the 'non Hindus/Dharmis', and even among the Shia, Bohras/Ahemedis etc..

The game in India is now all about the hardcore religious Sunnis vs virtually everyone else

and the Sunnis are going down, they have like 1 wicket left on a minefield of a pitch on a game that will play out at least another 3 years, electorally speaking... much longer otherwise.

eventually everyone will shake hands (or namaste) and India moves on to being a true secular India.. Hindus, Muslims (of all hues), the lot of them...

no big bloodletting fests, nothing of the sort.

 

[Joe Shearer]

If it changes with times, it's a good thing. It's just like any other law. No problem with that. Nothing special about it.

I am delighted you finally get the point.

Still don't understand why brought up Hindu laws when we are speaking of Sharia laws. I've earlier clearly said that I am against Hindu laws which are unjust. For example, I'm against Manusmriti.

Manusmriti is not the only Hindu legal system. I told you about Hindu laws because I mentioned that law is divided into three sections. If there were objections to one part of the three, there should be objections about this aberration across all systems.

If you don't pay attention, is it my fault?

Ok, for example, don't you think that husbands should not be allowed to beat up women? Or is that just a good thing?

Is that part of the law? Or was it an advisory? Learn the difference!

How is being in present a platitude? I'm just saying that any law should fit the present time. I can't go on talking about every other law.

It is a platitude because it is the equivalent of saying laws should be good.

My question is still unanswered. I asked your personal opinion on Sharia law.

I don't have personal opinions about legal systems. These are established facts, existing bodies of work. People who do are dunderheads.

And I also asked why certain Muslim countries are not following it?

What does a template mean to you?

Sharia law is misused by Pakistan for conversions. Once a non-Muslim has been converted, the non-Muslim is not allowed to convert back. Hindu/Christian girls are abducted, married and converted.

Check with the Pakistanis present on the forum, and don't purvey half-baked information.

https://www.france24.com/en/20190403-facts-about-sharia-law-around-world

Ambedkar was a revolutionary person. People in India admire him.

<gasp!> Really? Thank you, thank you ever so much for informing me.