India : Muslim family forced to leave theatre for not standing during national anthem

[Hyperion]

Technically, I totally agree with your whole post............ wholeheartedly..............wait............... here comes the ....... but/however........ the situation in India is pretty much sensitized, you know it, I know it, I bet the family knows it as well, hence my statement of "stupid family" "arrogant family"........ I don't want to elaborate further upon it.......... you are an intelligent guy......... for others with limited grey matter, I can derive a million parallels, however, you simply don't need them, unless you have turned your arrogance a notch up in the past few months.

You're misinterpreting the issue and the argument - laws need to be obeyed, the enforcement of laws is the task of the government and institutions assigned that authority by the government, and any accusations of violations of laws is balanced with the right of the accused to defend themselves and conditional to a basic tenet of the assumption that the accused is innocent till proven guilty.

Your refusal to unequivocally condemn the behavior of audience is not dissimilar to religious extremists in Pakistan who, when all else fails, choose to hide behind arguments such as 'Ahmadis and alleged blasphemers are responsible for the violence against them because they choose to not obey the laws of the land'. The point here is not that laws should not be obeyed and the constitution not followed in amending/repealing laws that are ridiculous or outright repugnant, but that constitution in civilized societies provides protections and rights to the accused.

The family refused to stand up - OK, take a cell-phone video, inform management/LEA's - what punitive actions does the law provide for? By whom? Conditional to what? Is a mere complaint by multiple audience members sufficient for punitive action to be taken under the law? Then what chance do poor Ahmadi's and alleged blasphemers have in Pakistan to defend themselves?

Unfortunately, your position here dovetails with those of the Lashkar's and Jamaat's running around inciting mob violence and hatred against Ahmadis and alleged blasphemers.

 

[gslv]

I wonder how many Pakistani would have participated in this thread if the family were not Muslims that is Hindu.

 

[Chanakyaa]

It May be a Piece of Cloth, But People DIE saving a Flag.
Do the People of India ( & Pakistan ) need an EXPLANATION ?

 

[Imran Khan]

daily episode of family drama india

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is really the key part - 'their side of the story' is absolutely important and it absolutely does matter. We are dealing with laws here (assuming this is a law vs a theater rule), and a basic tenet of laws in most civilized societies is the assumption of innocence until proven guilty and the right of the accused to argue their position.

To flippantly declare that 'it doesn't really matter what their side of the story is' is itself a remark disrespectful of the constitutional and legal structures, processes and protections that are so painfully built over time.

Not at all.

An open act of violation of a law does not require an explanation.

I might have any reason - playing a prank, carrying out a sociological experiment, doing something accidentally - for pulling out a pistol and waving it at somebody, and I would not be able to plead that I should have been given a chance to explain before being shot by something feeling threatened, or by an armed policeman (that it cannot happen in India in normal circumstances is a different matter).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In the real world, if somebody grabs your wife's @ss you immediately slap that man and beat the cr@p our of him (if you can) or at least land a blow or two. You do not wait to call the police and then file a police complain, an FIR and then spend the next 6 years making the rounds of courts with your wife.

While not endorsing your argument of 'immediately slapping the man', I need to point out that you are conflating situations in which tangible harm has/could be inflicted upon an individual/s, with the reaction of people possibly being justified due to the threat of tangible harm. The situation in this particular case is a far cry from someone 'grabbing the arse of someones wife, sister, girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, brother'.

Quite frankly the law requiring 'standing up during anthems' should itself be struck down by the judiciary as a violation of individual rights (allowances for certain entities making such rules notwithstanding), and will likely eventually meet that fate, provided Indian society and India's legal fraternity continue evolving in the manner they were prior to Modi-mania sweeping the nation.

 

[Mamsalaphala]

It May be a Piece of Cloth, But People DIE saving a Flag.
Do the People of India ( & Pakistan ) need an EXPLANATION ?

India is a nation that sends men to patrol and have posts in Siachen Glacier where temperature can dip to -50 degrees Centigrade and oxygen hardly exist so every breath is laboured.

We do that because we seek to defend even the silliest of points with blood and tears. Our passion overrides logic and the love for our values burn bright.

Then to imagine people can get away with gross disrespect to all that is just plain Stupid. People has died for much less and every sacrifice adds a new weight to the amount of respect one needs to give.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

but/however........ the situation in India is pretty much sensitized, you know it, I know it, I bet the family knows it as well, hence my statement of "stupid family" "arrogant family"........

My lack of patience for religious nutcases has gone down several notches in the past few months, and I'm not suggesting you're a religious nutcase (far from it), but that when I see arguments that use rationale similar to that of religious nut cases (even if the intent is the opposite), I can't let it go.

Let me paraphrase the excerpt from your post I quoted above, "the situation in Pakistan is pretty much sensitized, you know it, I know it, I bet the Ahmadi/Blasphemer knows it as well, hence my statement of "stupid Ahmadi/Salman Taseer" "arrogant Ahmadi/Salman Taseer".

How is your position any different from those of religious nut-cases, even if the intent (promote nationalism over religion) is well meaning?

 

[Joe Shearer]

The West isn't 'hyper-sensitized', the East has yet to reach the level of civility and civilizational evolution the West has already attained.


Yes - it's called reporting the crime to the police, letting law enforcement investigate and build a case, and for the prosecution to try the case, with the accused assumed innocent until the prosecution successfully establishes guilt.

What part of the law endorses mob violence and/or threats of violence and disturbing the public order (as those confronting the family did) to 'enforce standing up for the national anthem in a theater'?

Possibly you have the right perspective on it.

 

[Nilgiri]

Its not about Anger, its about Disrespect. More importantly its about the Law.

No one is going to wait for disrespect to be proved in the court of law. That is a childish and naive argument. Does not work in the real life.

In the real world, if somebody grabs your wife's @ss you immediately slap that man and beat the cr@p our of him (if you can) or at least land a blow or two. You do not wait to call the police and then file a police complain, an FIR and then spend the next 6 years making the rounds of courts with your wife.

If you are going to wait in this life for other people to come around and solve your problem then you have a very short life and a long wait ahead of you. You are required to deal with your own problem and many times deal with problems of immediate concern without waiting for back up or the perfect solution.

The men who acted in the theatre are the men who act first. They are the doers. They are the kind of men I will hire to work for me. Not the guys who will say, sorry saar ... the police is coming,please wait.

You can always have a theoretical discussion and then there is the practical aspect of life.

If you are caught between Thinking about Acting and Action, my advice will be to ACT first. More things get done that way and end of the day, you earn respect. Might not make you popular, but will certainly make you reliable and bankable. That will serve you well in both professional and personal life.

Vigilantism exist for a reason and in a "shame" society like ours, they are relatively unnecessary. So when you do see it happen you need to understand they are deeper reason to it. Some you see, many you don't see.

Wisdom is to understand what is not obvious, many times even unspeakable.

Look I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The big problem is that they chased away these guys and they are not going to be facing the law anytime soon. Short term impulse basically drove away a better long term justice and in the end nothing gets properly addressed.

If I was there, my reaction while gathering around them would not be to drive them away, but to ensure they stayed put while the management and police arrived to sort things out.

Driving away people like this through mob vigilantism is a poor alternative imo....but one thats better than nothing for sure. If you want to disagree with that, thats your prerogative.

And I have to believe in the theory to work, but accept that at times practicalities will trump it no matter what....because we are all humans in the end.

But then you cant go about justifiying and glorifying it over the "theory"...when you did not give the theory a chance to even operate.

 

[Luffy 500]

What's this ? Mob justice for "blasphemy" against nationalism in a "civilized" secular state? Nationalism & secularism are indeed the religion of non-muslims in our time. Nationalist symbols r sacrosanct and not showing "respect" to these symbols is a social taboo. Freedom of religion , individual rights and free speech goes out the window in this case.

As for the muslim family , i don't know whether they did it due to religious or personal reasons , but they indeed did the right thing. Islam doesn't allow either singing or standing up for national anthem and muslims should not do that. Not to mention Islam prohibits music and nationalism. But more importantly what were they doing in a place of corruption like a movie theater?


http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=83792

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the World; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.

As you have mentioned, it is Haram to stand for the national anthem. A prohibition of such an action depends on:
1) This action constitutes a form of glorification and sanctification, which is like worship.
2) This action does not only establish the principles of allegiance and loyalty on nationalism and patriotism, but also it is at the expense of allegiance to Allah, Islam and Muslims.
3) The national anthem is accompanied with music.
4) Such an action constitutes an imitation of Jews and Christians.
Muslims have to be distinguished among others nations and have to avoid the others' special characteristics.
Allah knows best.

http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=85728

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.

al-Bukhari reported in 'al-Adab al-Mufrad' and al-Tirmizi in his Sunan from Anas(RAA) that he said: "They (the companions) did not love anybody in this life more than the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) and they did not use to stand up when they saw him because they knew how much he disliked that" .

No doubt that standing up is an act of glory which originally should be rendered only to Allah. This is why it is one of the most gracious acts of prayer. It is narrated in a sound Hadith that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: "The best in the prayer is the long Qunut", i.e. standing up" . [ Ahmad andMuslim ].
So, since the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) who is the best of all human beings and the one that Allah appreciates most, disliked this custom then it is unIslamic and it is a bad innovation which was introduced into the Muslim society by disbelievers.
The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said in a sound Hadith reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim : "You will follow the ways of those nations who were before you, span by span and cubit by cubit (i.e., inch by inch) so much so that even if they entered a hole of a lizard, you would follow them." We said, "O Allah's Apostle! (Do you mean) the Jews and the Christians?" He said, "Whom else?" .
So, it is unlawful to stand up for such a thing and Muslims should make sure that anything they do conforms with these rules. Blind imitation of disbelievers is rejected. It is reported from Abu Dawood that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: "Whoever imitates some people, he is one of them" . So, the Muslim should not commit this Haram unless there is dire necessity like fearing to be jailed or beaten. In this case, he may make believe that he is standing for the anthem but keeps on remembering Allah and should feel deep sorrow for doing such a thing. Indeed standing for these flags and anthems is a glorification of them. And if the person intends by such act any glorification of these things similar to glorifying Allah, then he becomes a Kafir, i.e. moves away from Islamic religion.
Allah knows best.

 

[Mamsalaphala]

While not endorsing your argument of 'immediately slapping the man', I need to point out that you are conflating situations in which tangible harm has/could be inflicted upon an individual/s, with the reaction of people possibly being justified due to the threat of tangible harm. The situation in this particular case is a far cry from someone 'grabbing the arse of someones wife, sister, girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, brother'.

Quite frankly the law requiring 'standing up during anthems' should itself be struck down by the judiciary as a violation of individual rights (allowances for certain entities making such rules notwithstanding), and will likely eventually meet that fate, provided Indian society and India's legal fraternity continue evolving in the manner they were prior to Modi-mania sweeping the nation.

An "accidental" brush by males in an office is considered Sexual harassment and can get your Fired. You are required to provide certain amount of "respect" in private or professional life.

This only increase when you are in society, not decrease. You are required to dress well, smell good, etc. so as no to offer offence to others. In a public certain mark of respect is expected, like wishing others. etc. If person is unknown, then not to invade his private space etc.

Law QUANTIFYING respect removes ambiguity about what respect means and that is what the state law does.

There is no more confusion about what needs to be done. Individual rights are subservient to Individual duties and social duties.

 

[Sky lord]

Yes - it's called reporting the crime to the police, letting law enforcement investigate and build a case, and for the prosecution to try the case, with the accused assumed innocent until the prosecution successfully establishes guilt.

What part of the law endorses mob violence and/or threats of violence and disturbing the public order (as those confronting the family did) to 'enforce standing up for the national anthem in a theater'?

I don't know where you live or what it is like over there but in India forcing the police to spend time and effort building a case and investigating something like not standing up for a national anthem is not worth the effort, I have seen policemen letting the air out of the tires of bicyclists for stupidly zig zagging through traffic, quick simple knock for doing something stupid and no doubt more effective than a challan.

If this family was beaten up or man handled in any way I would be agreeing with you, no one has the right to dispense violence BUT not a hair on their head was hurt. All this family got was an earful, if they had not got up and left the management would have been called in no doubt. That is how real life works, you escalate on a needed basis. This family was disrespectful and they got a little disrespect right back. .

 

[Joe Shearer]

My lack of patience for religious nutcases has gone down several notches in the past few months, and I'm not suggesting you're a religious nutcase (far from it), but that when I see arguments that use rationale similar to that of religious nut cases (even if the intent is the opposite), I can't let it go.

Let me paraphrase the excerpt from your post I quoted above, "the situation in Pakistan is pretty much sensitized, you know it, I know it, I bet the Ahmadi/Blasphemer knows it as well, hence my statement of "stupid Ahmadi/Salman Taseer" "arrogant Ahmadi/Salman Taseer".

How is your position any different from those of religious nut-cases, even if the intent (promote nationalism over religion) is well meaning?

Begging your pardon, but many of us have a subtly different position from @Hyperion .

We are not arguing that the peculiar charged times demand greater circumspection; we are saying that even at the best of times, those who are reluctant to comply with the laws and the local custom should avoid thrusting their reluctance in the face of those who are willing, even enthusiastic about laws and customs.

Some of us are also clear that there is no basis, no foundation for vigilante action, and that either the theatre management or the police, depending on the place of occurrence of this incident, should have taken action, on being informed.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not at all.

An open act of violation of a law does not require an explanation.

Yes it does - as an extreme example, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was put on trial, allowed to defend himself per the constitution, and had his guilt established, despite 'committing multiple open acts of violation of multiple laws'.

Civilized societies do not suspend constitutional protections because our 'sentiments are hurt' and certainly do not implicitly or explicitly endorse mob violence or threats of violence because such uncivilized and depraved acts somehow pander to our 'hurt sentiments' and scratch that itch demanding justice for irrational demands (cartoons of the prophet or standing up during the anthem).

I might have any reason - playing a prank, carrying out a sociological experiment, doing something accidentally - for pulling out a pistol and waving it at somebody, and I would not be able to plead that I should have been given a chance to explain before being shot by something feeling threatened, or by an armed policeman (that it cannot happen in India in normal circumstances is a different matter).

Again, you're incorrectly conflating a passive, non-threatening and non-tangible harm inflicting act (not standing up during an anthem, which is even less inflammatory than drawing a cartoon of the prophet) with an active, direct and potentially physically threatening and 'tangible-harm inflicting' act of waving an object that looks like a firearm. The two situations are not comparable.