Entirely Internal": India As 600 EU Lawmakers Move Anti-CAA Resolutions

[Lincoln]

Firstly, there's a difference between being a mujaddid and believing that Quran was revealed for that era.

And Allama Iqbal is a common man for me, far far below, in fact nothing compared to the last prophet Muhammad PBUH. There's a reason Muhammad PBUH was the last prophet and Quran was the last revelation.

There's nothing that can be changed in Quran, nothing can be added and nothing can be subtracted. For example, no one can decide today that pork was haraam only 1400 years back and Muslims of today can eat them, or fornication and live-in relationships were forbidden only 1400 years back, now we can do anything as we like.

And it has nothing to do with extremism. It is a belief system and anyone who believes on Quran being the final book and Muhammad PBUH being there final prophet and wants to abide by the strict rules of Quran and Sunnah is NOT an extremist. Extremist is a person who makes fun of a guy who wants to stick to his beliefs.

I understand you have an opinion, but you need to read and understand Quran and Sunnah unless you are a Qadiani, which if you are, I will not debate on anything with you as you and I are completely different when it comes to our beliefs and I don't see any point in discussing religion with non Muslims.

No, I am not Qadiani.

Islam is a religion, and its texts are open to interpretations. If we were take everything literally, we would be in a bad spot. Iqbal has given very good arguments in his book, but it requires you to read it. He was a very smart man. If you're not ready to read his ideas and its basis, then arguing has no point.

Stuff like fornication, eating pork, being wrong, are principles of Islam. I am not debating these. I am talking about the law such as punishments and extent of parda, role of women and so on, I am saying that is subject to change. I think the road leads to secularism and there's nothing wrong with it either. This is what Jinnah wanted as well if you read closely about his personal life, and about what people close to him have written; there's a reason religious leaders hated him.

Firstly, there's a difference between being a mujaddid and believing that Quran was revealed for that era.

And Allama Iqbal is a common man for me, far far below, in fact nothing compared to the last prophet Muhammad PBUH. There's a reason Muhammad PBUH was the last prophet and Quran was the last revelation.

There's nothing that can be changed in Quran, nothing can be added and nothing can be subtracted. For example, no one can decide today that pork was haraam only 1400 years back and Muslims of today can eat them, or fornication and live-in relationships were forbidden only 1400 years back, now we can do anything as we like.

And it has nothing to do with extremism. It is a belief system and anyone who believes on Quran being the final book and Muhammad PBUH being there final prophet and wants to abide by the strict rules of Quran and Sunnah is NOT an extremist. Extremist is a person who makes fun of a guy who wants to stick to his beliefs.

I understand you have an opinion, but you need to read and understand Quran and Sunnah unless you are a Qadiani, which if you are, I will not debate on anything with you as you and I are completely different when it comes to our beliefs and I don't see any point in discussing religion with non Muslims.

I think Quaid e Azam and Iqbal are more than just common men. National heroes, more appropriate. If you can't look into a national hero Iqbal's book and read why he held the beliefs he did, then what hope do I have you will listen to what I have to say from a point of objectivity.

I have nothing more to argue.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

opinions expressed by the European Parliament and its members do not represent the official position of the European Union,

Keep that in mind next time Modi invites select groups of EU parliamentarians to go boating in IoK.

So European Union would interfere in India to liberate the oppressed. Is that it?

no but Pakistan can.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

BRUSSELS: At least 156 members of the European Parliament are set to move a joint motion on Thursday for a resolution against the controversial and discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act in what is being considered a major blow to Indian diplomacy.

The motion for the resolution is being backed by six of the eight largest groups in the European Parliament, and was initiated by Kashmiri-origin British MEP Shafaq Mohmmad of the Renew Europe liberal group, along with with his colleagues Petras Auštrevičius, Catherine Bearder, Phil Bennion, Katalin Cseh, Chris Davies, Barbara Ann Gibson, Martin Horwood, and Irina Von Wiese from the group.

In the resolution, the MEPs state that the India's fast-track citizenship act is "explicitly discriminatory in nature as it specifically excludes Muslims from access to the same provisions as other religious groups".

They say the law undermines India's commitment to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination—treaties prohibiting discrimination on racial, ethnic or religious grounds which India is a signatory to.

They say the CAA sparked massive nationwide protests, with 27 reported deaths, 175 people being injured, and thousands of arrests. Indian authorities also used internet shutdowns, curfews and limits on public transportation to prevent the peaceful protests, they say.

European Union member countries' national flags wave in front of the European Parliament.—AFP/File photo

The resolution calls on the Government of India to "immediately engage in peaceful dialogue with various sections of the population and repeal the discriminatory amendments", which constitute "a dangerous shift in the way citizenship is determined in India" and might lead to of the largest statelessness crisis in the world.

It also condemns the violence and systematic brutality perpetrated by the Indian government and calls on the Indian authorities "to end their violent repression of those who are critical of their policies".

Speaking to Geo News, British MEP Shafaq Mohmmad of the Renew Europe said India cannot hide behind the excuse that the discriminatory law is purely its internal matter. He said the matter was of great concern for the European Union as India has trampled upon UN Human Rights charter and European values of human rights.

Meanwhile, the Indian government has threatened the European Union with the cancellation of its foreign minister's upcoming visit on February 17. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to visit Brussels for the India-EU Summit, which will place on March 13.

On Thursday, when the 156 MEPs move the motion, it will be the first time that the full house of the European Parliament will debate the discriminatory laws recently introduced by the Narendra Modi's government in India. The debate will bring the rightwing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led Hindutva regime's fascist tactics into the public light.

https://www.geo.tv/latest/269554-15...gainst-discriminatory-indian-cititzenship-law

 

[El Sidd]

It must be noted that through Bollywood portrayal of evil muslims the Nazis have tried mass propagation techniques at desensitization of a lynch victim.

From cultural discrimination to political marginalisation. The citizenship bill is the final nail in the Muslim coffin in India

 

[Thorough Pro]

IK's use of very specific words has an impact on European leaders because they know the true meaning of those words and they can relate to the situation like no one else.

Wow the number is increasing!

 

[xeuss]

To extrapolate what is going on now, maybe more and more jamahirs will become stateless, but there will be no Balkanization of India. Indians in general, except for Kashmir, are not that keen on independent status. I believe even in the North Eastern states, they are not that keen.

The concept of India as a nation state will start falling apart when the BJP-led central government starts changing the center/state relationship and further encroaches on the rights of the states. Some of that has already started as revenues are not being shared by the central government.

 

[PakSword]

I am talking about the law such as punishments and extent of parda, role of women and so on, I am saying that is subject to change. I think the road leads to secularism and there's nothing wrong with it either. This is what Jinnah wanted as well if you read closely about his personal life, and about what people close to him have written; there's a reason religious leaders hated him.

Here I agree with you..

And that's why I defend Pakistani society where many women wear what they want.

What's the percentage of women you see on streets covering their faces?

We must appreciate that our society has come a long way rather then telling that we are going back. Pakistan of 2010s is much more different than Pakistan of 1980s.

I think Quaid e Azam and Iqbal are more than just common men. National heroes, more appropriate. If you can't look into a national hero Iqbal's book and read why he held the beliefs he did, then what hope do I have you will listen to what I have to say from a point of objectivity.

I have nothing more to argue.

When I called his common man, I meant that he wasn't a prophet to tell us what's applicable to current era in Quran and what's not applicable.

My difference of opinion with you is over this:

Lastly, I believe that the principles of Islam, like oneness of God, finality of Prophet PBUH, and other foundations, are the only thing which are unchangeable.

I believe that Islamic law however is subject to rigorous change with time. Many verses in the Quran purely concern people of that time and circumstances of that time.

And Whether it's Allama Iqbal, or Quaid e Azam, or whoever, no one can decide what is changeable and what's not, and which verses were concerning the people of that era and which are not, because if we ever open that subject, there will be no limit for inclusions and exclusions. For example, some people may say that alcohol was only haraam for people of that time, not in the current era.

Interpretations can differ, changing something entirely is not in the hands of anyone.