Can a Muslim be an Indian?

[indushek]

I was talking more about secularism than democracy. I don't doubt that democracy is defended fiercely in India, but secularism can be subverted by promoting religious agendas in a cultural garb.

That could be but will always hit that three cornerstones. Judiciary, legislature and executive. Even if one is manipulated the others will definitely save the day. I could have considered media, but we don't have a watch dog exactly now.

 

[Kaniska]

Thanks again for a wonderful post....I agree with your assessment.

India has been under foreign domination for centuries and the liberation and rise of India coincides with people's pride in Indian history and culture. As I mentioned, this is perfectly legitimate and pride in Hindu culture is also reasonable.
Agree with your assessment.

My only concern is that this pride might get hijacked by extremist elements who want to purge India of all colonial influences. The prime target for these groups tends to be, not so much the British legacy, but the Islamic one, and Indian Muslims are held hostage to this centuries old simmering resentment.

Your argument is valid..I have some answer about what i think about myself...i do not know any body else will agree to it.....Think from a pure human psycology....Your question is very valid...if we are against Islamic invaders then why not British because at the end of the day, British are also outsiders to us....My answer is that for british we do not grudge so much because, we have been felt and or assured that our equation with british is equal. That means, they colonized us and at the end of the day we defeated them and kicked them away...Again this is what is being fed to us...So there is no sense of victimhood for us because we have paid back to them in same way...But for Islamic rule, it is an unfinished bussiness, Islamic rulers are not defeated by any of the Hindu king or Hindu per se...after they conquered India...And to inflame all the passions, islamic rules and few of them not all of course, have left a legacy which reminds us about how they have destroyed Hindu culture and temples...So in our mindset, equal amount of retribution is still open...And on top of that partition has happened and a nation was created for Muslims and not for Hindu's..Think rationally without being a Pakistan mind..Is it not enough reason to have a anguish and anger to the Islamic culture in its pure form?......
Now coming to the point about what can done for it...See...i feel at least in India...we need to address the histroy...No one in India, even the most hardcore Hindu nationalist would like to throw away the Muslims,...This is not idea or nor it should be...But what we want...let us accept the fact, that this is land of Hindus and its offshoots religion...Let us respect the land and culture where does it belong to...We can not have a puritarian version of Islam in India...Indian Muslim has to create and adopt to a Islam which has an appeal to Pan Indian Mindset....What India needs is that we the Hindus can be a less Hindus for sake of my nation but in return...Muslims should have to be a less Muslim too.....And as long as this Pan Indian Islam is not created...conflict will be still there..And that is where the clash of mindset comes to the people...

The question, then, becomes to what extent the extremist agenda will infiltrate the legitimate celebration of Hindu culture.
The extreme ones want to convert all non-Hindus to Hinduism -- or to expel them from India.

Expelling them is not an option but converting them will be ideal option but again..that should happen without any use of force..

I believe their end game is India = Hinduism and being Indian = being Hindu.

Some might tolerate offshoots of Hinduism (Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, etc.) initially, or they may not.

In any case, their main anger is against Muslims because of the historical conquests.

PS. Please note that I am not criticizing the concept of India as a "Hindu" or Dharmic country. It is a legitimate statement, in the same way as saying that the US is based on Judeo-Christian culture. The problem comes with trying to "reconvert" people of other faiths.[/quote]

Agian..if you ask with the context of BJP win, the end game is completely different....As i said before, BJP will slowly move away from religion think as in India...religion does not bring you vote...BJP used religion plank as a subtle way to come to power....But it will focous very much on economic development...It will not do anything harm to Muslim but not it will do anything extra for them as long as Musims starts alligned with a concept that this is a Hindustan culture where Hindu and Muslims cooesist with each other..I think accpetance of Hindustan culture will be end game for RSS but not necessarily BJP...

I fully accept the fact that many people -- Hindu and non-Hindu -- voted for BJP for governance, not anti-Muslim agenda.

However, my comment applies irrespective of BJP.

India has been under foreign domination for centuries and the liberation and rise of India coincides with people's pride in Indian history and culture. As I mentioned, this is perfectly legitimate and pride in Hindu culture is also reasonable.

My only concern is that this pride might get hijacked by extremist elements who want to purge India of all colonial influences. The prime target for these groups tends to be, not so much the British legacy, but the Islamic one, and Indian Muslims are held hostage to this centuries old simmering resentment.

The question, then, becomes to what extent the extremist agenda will infiltrate the legitimate celebration of Hindu culture.
The extreme ones want to convert all non-Hindus to Hinduism -- or to expel them from India.

I believe their end game is India = Hinduism and being Indian = being Hindu.

Some might tolerate offshoots of Hinduism (Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, etc.) initially, or they may not.

In any case, their main anger is against Muslims because of the historical conquests.

PS. Please note that I am not criticizing the concept of India as a "Hindu" or Dharmic country. It is a legitimate statement, in the same way as saying that the US is based on Judeo-Christian culture. The problem comes with trying to "reconvert" people of other faiths.

Well you proved my point. Apparently religion does matter.

Do you think that if one day India has a Muslim population of 30-40%, they will demand Sharia law, as they have done everywhere else?

India already has Sharia courts for example.

Of course...there is no doubt about that....Wherever Muslim population is majority in any specific area, there are instances where Mullahs decide based on Sharia law...

 

[Abingdonboy]

And in that gauge we have new and rather sinister campaign against some imaginary "love Jihad" and other aspects that seem to have no other purpose than to demonize this minority.

I don't know about "sinister" but are you really trying to claim this isn't a problem in the Muslim/Pakistani community the world over? You live in the UK correct sir? Surely you've heard this term or of the existence of such things in your time here? I know that the first time I heard this term "love jihad" was on the BBC news many years back talking about such issues in the Pakistani community here in the UK, now is the UK trying to demonise Muslims?


@Topic, this is a pretty easy answer- of course a Muslim can be Indian, India was founded as a secular state, there are no barriers based on religion to be found in India, that is why Muslims in India can be seen to be billionaires, beloved actors, Presidents, Inteligence Agency Chaifs, Chief Justices etc etc . Of course one could argue this is merely on paper and the reality is different, but I would say this is not a religious thing but social-economic in origin. Most of the Muslims that left to go to Pakistan were the Muslim elites, the ones left behind were relatively uneducated and poor. It will take a long long time for these communities to uplift themselves but I am more than confident they will be able to as India itself prospers and the fruits of such prosperity trickle down to all its citizens.

I can tell you from personal experiences that Indians inevitably put their country before their religious identity, no matter what it is. That says it all, really.

Very true and this is what allows India to remain united despite the myriad of differences in culture, language and religion (for which Muslims make up just one part). Muslims are highlighted because the world is, and has been for a decade or so now, very paranoid of this community (sadly) and India having so many Muslims attracts a great deal of attention (the radicals in the West seem to think every single Muslim is a ticking time bomb or terrorist in waiting) not to mention the Pakistani attempts to highlight even the smallest issue the Muslim community in India faces in an attempt to justify the ideology that founded their state.

The fact of the matter is that the state of Pakistan (and her people) right now (and for however long it might be) need to create a narrative that Indian Muslims are treated as second class citizens in that country and that the decision to split form India was right, otherwise it will have some very serious ramifications for the domestic audiences in Pakistan and might cause some very troubling but unwanted introspection (no matter how needed that might be).

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Watch it when you're back home.But do watch it.

He twists the question pretty well... If you ask me the same question, I shall tell, I am a Indian first. If any religious activity of me, affects my service to the nation, then I shall avoid me. However thats ME.

Cant expect all to be like me. Lots of Muslims are patriots as well. Whats ur opinion of that video??

 

[niaz]

Ethnicity or skin colour or gender has no bearing on one being a Muslim or not. A Muslim by definition is one who believes in Allah, divine books and messengers of Allah, in the day of judgement and in life after death.

Next question relates to freedom to practice one's religion. Is there any impediment in India? For example is there any ban on Mosques or Azaan or offering prayers or any one stops you from going for a Hajj? To the be best of my knowledge there is none.

Being a student of history; I only came across one reference to second class Muslims which was raised by the Salafi Imam Timmiyah who is supposed to have said:

Quote

“And the majority of the scholars are of the opinion that Arab species is better (Afdal) than the non-Arabs just as the nation of Quraish is better (Afdal) than non-Quraishytes and just as Banu Hashim is better (Afdal) than non-Banu Hashim. “(Majmua al Fatawaa 19/29)

Unquote.

I beg to disagree with this opinion. In my view a Muslim is 'Afdal' because of his deeds and his scholarship not thru accident of birth. Therefore IMO one can be as good a Muslim as any as well as being an Indian or a Pakistani.

Finally, I would like to qualify that not being able to read books in Arabic, my reference to Sheikh ul Islam Ibne Timmyah is thru a secondary source only, hence I wouldn’t be able to vouch for 100% veracity of his opinion referred above.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

The requirement for a separate economic platform where Muslims would be able to leverage their collective to uplift themselves on an economic level was there and just. Same as the requirement for them to be governed by laws they saw fit. But could this not all be accomplished within a single "Union" of states?

A greater study of Jinnah, cleansed from the state propaganda from both sides is needed to realize that this was his initial ideal all along. Even after Pakistan came into being, he wished for both nations to be very close.. yet the elements within the Indian side which had their ill feelings and those within Pakistan later ensured that such was to never end up happening.

There will always be Indian Muslims, but whether they will ever be free from being demonized from the majority due to the existence of Pakistan is the actual question.

Dude, you CANNOT expect something like Direct Action day to happen and then the two states to be 'close'. ANy deliberate use of violence, no matter what the intent, will lead to enmity.

So all the demographic data will be up to date... except religion.

For religion, the data will be decades old.

It's such a specific and pointed omission. Why would including the religious demographics cause India to be divided?

You removed RELEGION ITSELF from your state. What are you afraid of then?

2-3 years after the census would be 2013-2014.

Why would it take several years to release such basic numbers though?

According to India's 2001 census, Indian Hindus barely made the "psychologically important" 80% mark. By a fraction of a percentage.

And considering that Indian Muslims have a significantly higher total fertility rate than Indian Hindus (around 4-5 children each), and considering that a decade has passed since then, it is pretty much certain that Indian Hindus are now less than 80%. And that is not even counting the supposed Bangladeshi immigration.

Which no doubt would fuel the beliefs of many of your countrymen (example above from Arya Desa) of the much-touted "demographic threat" theory. So of course the Indian government would have motivation to hide such numbers.

So what?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

You removed RELEGION ITSELF from your state. What are you afraid of then?

That's funny. The last time I checked, my parents were Chinese Buddhists.

Do you know something about them that I don't? Do you even know their names?

 

[Guynextdoor2]

That's funny. The last time I checked, my parents were Chinese Buddhists.

Do you know something about them that I don't? Do you even know their names?

Well if Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses, guess you guys didn't go down that road.

 

[Developereo]

let us accept the fact, that this is land of Hindus and its offshoots religion...Let us respect the land and culture where does it belong to...We can not have a puritarian version of Islam in India...Indian Muslim has to create and adopt to a Islam which has an appeal to Pan Indian Mindset....What India needs is that we the Hindus can be a less Hindus for sake of my nation but in return...Muslims should have to be a less Muslim too

I think that sums it up, although that last sentence is a bit contradictory.

Muslims will be asked to tone down their religion, but Hindus will celebrate theirs, albeit as a pan-India cultural identity.

The whole crux of the debate is that Hinduism is/will be cast as a cultural concept rather than a religious one. It is already evident in the language used by educated, urbane Hindus who are wise to the lingo used by Western chauvinists to disguise their religious agenda (e.g. in France, Belgium. Switzerland, etc.). Many of these Hindus may well be atheists or non-religious, but they would feel strongly about the Hindu cultural identity.

Once India is accepted as a culturally Hindu country, what is to stop India banning the hijab, banning minarets, and any of the other laws which are passed in the West under the garb of preserving cultural identity?

 

[Kaniska]

what is to stop India banning the hijab, banning minarets, and any of the other laws which are passed in the West under the garb of pr

See...your question is perfectly valid and this is the same question that is coming to the mind of every of the moderate Muslim who are alligned with India and its aspiration....So to answer these question i will give a simple example.

I respect the sentiment of the Muslim people...In a office work, i have 2 Muslim friends...One is a Muslim girl and another is a person from Hyderbad origin....The person always seeks to go to prayer in a specific time in a day...Now this is good for once or twice...But these things sounds odd with the rest of the people...Try to understand the essence of statement...But the lady does not care about the prayer or not..She is as assimilated with other people as we are and neither she is less religious not we have asked her for...But in the other hand, the person who seeks to go frequently creates silent murmur among the team..The point is this is where the perception come into the pictue...There are several instances where Hindus always have a different view of the religion...In Hinduism there are lot of nuances where ladies will not go outside home, all the non sense stuff...But with due course of time, they have evolved...In the same vein, if a women comes to the office with a Burkha and keep that black Bukha through our the day...You can very well understand how it will be a odd man out among the rest...You are entitled with your view that this is racism and I am not tolerating the expression of religious symbol in public life...But to create a harmony that is required...You can not present, a Burkha clad woman to a work place and the same way a covered face of a working woman in the work area...

This is just a few..as i mentioned, i feel the essence of growth of India lies with cultural aspect of the religion..but if we stick to religion so aggressively, then it is a tough question to answer....If seriously both Hindu and Muslims want to stick to more religious version...then it is imperative that Hindus and Muslims intellectual in India should start debate to one another and address the concern of the historical fact that both religion people need to address....Muslims can go to Mosque and Hijabs and Minarets whenever they are in their private mode...but in public mode there has to be a common mode to conduct themselves...

Again..as i mention earlier, our intelligence chief in an Muslim person? Can you imagine if a Hindu can be a top boss of ISI?...It is not like we are against Muslims..But we would definitely want to revisit the way both Hindu and Muslim conduct themselves in public life....

 

[Developereo]

You are entitled with your view that this is racism and I am not tolerating the expression of religious symbol in public life...But to create a harmony that is required...You can not present, a Burkha clad woman to a work place and the same way a covered face of a working woman in the work area...

Let's set aside the burqa since it is such an extreme example. Let's talk about the hijab instead, which is much more common, and less objectionable.

I don't see why non-Muslims need to be freaked out by seeing the hijab, any more than non-Hindus should be freaked out by seeing a tika, or non-Christians should be freaked out by seeing a cross pendant.

As for respecting women's, or anyone's, right to be less religious than oneself, then I will agree that many Muslims need to become more tolerant of nonobservant Muslims.

Now, coming to your central point about expressions of religion in public, I will give the contrasting examples of American and French style secularism. The French way is, as you mentioned, to force people to hide their religion so as no one is "forced" to look at others' religion. The American way is the opposite: it allows people to express their religion but requires them to respect others' right to have their religion.

The American way is more fair since it recognizes that the majority will always find some way to showcase its religion and create exemptions for itself, and that laws to hide religion will penalize minorities disproportionately.

So, the better approach is not to hide the differences, to deny the diversity, but to celebrate it by inculcating tolerance and mutual respect.

 

[Levina]

He twists the question pretty well...

I think that was his way of putting subtly telling the audience that country comes first. But he was addressing a crowd which was largely muslim he could not have avoided twisting it in order to not earn ire of the audience.

If you ask me the same question, I shall tell, I am a Indian first. If any religious activity of me, affects my service to the nation, then I shall avoid me. However thats ME .

Whats ur opinion of that video??

If I had to answer this question then I would have said I'm a human first. Nationality is secondary and religion doesn't get a priority. I still dont understand how can ppl bond over religion??? I might hate a hindu guy personally and like a muslim boy better, but just because the hidu guy is same religion as mine should I be liking him???
I'm not sure I would do that.

 

[Kaniska]

Let's set aside the burqa since it is such an extreme example. Let's talk about the hijab instead, which is much more common, and less objectionable.

I don't see why non-Muslims need to be freaked out by seeing the hijab, any more than non-Hindus should be freaked out by seeing a tika, or non-Christians should be freaked out by seeing a cross pendant.

As for respecting women's, or anyone's, right to be less religious than oneself, then I will agree that many Muslims need to become more tolerant of nonobservant Muslims.

Now, coming to your central point about expressions of religion in public, I will give the contrasting examples of American and French style secularism. The French way is, as you mentioned, to force people to hide their religion so as no one is "forced" to look at others' religion. The American way is the opposite: it allows people to express their religion but requires them to respect others' right to have their religion.

The American way is more fair since it recognizes that the majority will always find some way to showcase its religion and create exemptions for itself, and that laws to hide religion will penalize minorities disproportionately.

So, the better approach is not to hide the differences, to deny the diversity, but to celebrate it by inculcating tolerance and mutual respect.

Trust me...I am a big fan of Hijab...I see most of the Iran women and Indian modern Muslim women the Hijab too...It is so nice and makes a women so respected...In general in India at least, people does not worry about Hijab...but people react to black burkha clad woman..And again..I like your last statement and i hope we the people of India start appreciating the diversity in true sense...

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I think that was his way of putting subtly telling the audience that country comes first. But he was addressing a crowd which was largely muslim he could not have avoided twisting it in order to not earn ire of the audience.




If I had to answer this question then I would have said I'm a human first. Nationality is secondary and religion doesn't get a priority. I still dont understand how can ppl bond over religion??? I might hate a hindu guy personally and like a muslim boy better, but just because the hidu guy is same religion as mine should I be liking him???
I'm not sure I would do that.

True. My friendship with people is not based out of religion. I share with people whom I feel comfortable with.

At the same time, I shall say, we are like this, cos we are brought up in India, and accousted to different cultures and practises.
Others, I am not too sure. Religion is their bread n butter.