Is being Anti-Islam the same as Pro-Indian?

[zaxcolix]

.....

And thanks for recognizing Charminar as a non-religious structure. Only saffronists and some right wing Muslims demand that the structure be recognised as a religious monument.

This is an absurd statement ….no ‘saffronist’ would ever call Charminar a religious structure. It’s only islamist who would call it that to bring legitimacy to their demand of not having the temple there.

So you are also blaming the muslim community for letting a temple be built in the 60s touching Charminar and letting it stay all these years(despite the area being adjacent to their strongholds)?

Naturally …… you have admitted that Charminar is a non religious structure …then there should be no problem in having a temple there.

Are you implying temples should not exist anywhere near “Muslim Stronghold” ? By that same logic …no mosque should exist near Hindu stronghold …which is pretty much most of India.

Yeah sure, may be muslims are angry at the temple being there.

And that anger is precisely what the ‘safronist’ question….its not warranted ..and reeks of bigotry.

But why do call the monument as non-religious and simultaneously blame muslims for not allowing a temple.

Temples are not allowed near non-religious structures ? …you see how absurd this keeps getting ?

Besides there are also secular muslims who want the temple out of there, exactly because Charminar is a secular historical monument in their view.

LOL…if muslims want the temple out of there because they live near it …how are they ‘secular’ ? …......This is getting ridiculous…..dont you see this ?

Are you going to sit here and pretend that its OK for ‘secular’ muslims to be bigots ?

Promoting a temple there to ridicule our heritage just because it was built by a Muslim is demeaning and wrong.

How does existence of a Temple near Charminar “ridicule” Muslim heritage ? You really need to explain that part …I suspect it holds the key to this whole discussion.

Does that mean existence of a Church or Mosque in India “RIDICULE” Hindu, Buddhist, Jain Heritage ?

If the muslim bigot leaders get support from the community because they raise legitimate concern about the temple, then you should not blame the community.

You do realize that anyone who supports a Bigot is a bigot themselves ….you are now claiming that muslim community is full of religious bigots.

I hope in your reply you will actually answer the questions I have raised and not go of into a tangent with Rhetoric's and straw-man arguments.

 

[bronxbull]

Apologetic?!!! I am just being practical and fair.

You are the one who started talking in terms of comparative justice with a hypothetical example. I had to come to your standards to show that there is no point in digging into history to take revenge. Albeit with a better and an actual real life example, showing how the jews did not take revenge by constructing their temple over Al-Aqsa mosque, even though they have practically crushed their enemies.

I am sad that you cannot smell the contradiction in your own statements. You call sanatan dharma as not about revenge but about values. Yet you ask for revenge for something that happened(whether it happened or not is a different debate) centuries ago. What great values will you acquire suddenly by building RAM temple?

This is not an age for communal revenge. I hope you understand this and will come out of your shell.

It is a fact that Hindus suffered from the Muslim ruler under some of the rulers. If a common man Muslim was part of it, it was because of the emotions and religious sentiments riled up by the ruling class. The same happened to muslims under some Hindu rulers. It may be true that Hindus did not get to pay their due because they could not rule for longer period during this time. This one sided narrative that only Hindus suffered is dangerous and is any way not based on facts.

But all that has nothing to do with what we have now, a modern state. Whatever happened was unfortunate. We have to accept whatever we inherited as our heritage. Babri mosque would have stood as grim reminder of what would happen if religious intolerance is allowed to spiral out. Now it just shows we want to go back to the medieval ages.

This age is not for communal revenge,what is this age for then?

Ranjit Singh rules Punjab and say Hindus ruled many Indian states,then why did they not demolish any mosque and how did they treat anyone badly in anyway?

we still see so many punjabis and bengalis batting like this?

perhaps the mutton biryani tastes good but nobody cares about their progeny 300 years down the line?

 

[KS]

.... The same happened to muslims under some Hindu rulers...

I dont recall any Hindu ruler treating Muslims unjustly or as second class citizens when they were ruling.

We have to accept whatever we inherited as our heritage. Babri mosque would have stood as grim reminder of what would happen if religious intolerance is allowed to spiral out.

Sorry, what a foreigner from Ferghana did to one of our holiest places cannot by any stretch of dhimmitude become my heritage. Infact it cannot become the heritage of any self-respecting guy born on this soil. Plus the babri structure stood as a grim reminder of, not what would happen if religious intolerance is allowed to spiral out, but rather as the victory structure of a central asian invader who came here to loot and pillage.

 

[Puchtoon]

idea of india is not possible w/o majority of an unorganised religion so to your Q ummm......... i say 50/50

 

[Joe Shearer]

No,anyone can be anti-islam for whatever reasons and need not be pro indian,

and even being pro-indian doesn't mean anti islam,only thing i know is that being pro indian means being anti-pseudo secular,they are the ones to be scared of.



This is because of centuries of pent up anger.



Thats not true,

Most secularists are brain washed marxists.

Centuries of pent-up anger? Oh, you mean from the eleventh century to the eighteenth century? And this is legitimate, but not the anger of the adivasis, or of the hillmen of the north-east, or the Darjeeling Gurkhas, or the Bodo or nearly a score of other tribes, including Nagas, Mizos, Kukis and Khasis?

Do you realize that they are already in fights against the brutality of the civilians from other regions?

 

[KS]

This is what the OP meant..

http://www.defence.pk/forums/bangladesh-defence/237314-protesters-shahbagh-bangladesh-backed-india.html#post3968998

How the Jamatis use anti-Islam and pro-Indian interchangeably.

 

[acid rain]

What is this thread about? I did not get the OP at all.

I am pro Indian and I am anti (hardline, Jihaadi, fanatic, fundamentalist, converting boom boom kind) Islamic but pro normal, secular, peaceful Islam.

As for the section of Islamists or Jamaatis or Rezakars from our neighboring countries - I think they are anti India, because we are secular and their are religious fanatics.

 

[Joe Shearer]

No,anyone can be anti-islam for whatever reasons and need not be pro indian,

and even being pro-indian doesn't mean anti islam,only thing i know is that being pro indian means being anti-pseudo secular,they are the ones to be scared of.

This is because of centuries of pent up anger.

Thats not true,

Most secularists are brain washed marxists.

Quite amazing conclusions. This is also an insight into the bundle of prejudices that people carry around with them......

The problem often is that the very Muslims who converted to get power and cannot reconvert as their people wont take them back,

have to hold onto islam dangerously.

Thats the real problem.

.....but this is the real gem. Only a permanently inebriated mind, or a permanently impaired mind, could come out with this pronouncement.

My diagnosis is an overdose of Cab Sav.

he he hs Shukriya ji aaj to apne hame khareed liya

Bahut Shukriya Bari Meherbani 1962 film Ek Musafir Ek Hasina - Joy Mukerjee, Sadhana Shivdasani - YouTube

Don't look now, but I think he is being flirtatious.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I dont know what people are discussing.


The Andhra High court has thrown into the dustbin all the petitions filed by the raza-kar goons whining about the temple in their "muslim" structure.

The temple is here to stay legally.

If some bigot Muslims cant tolerate to see a temple there, they can wear a blindfold while crossing the char minar.

p.s.: request all posters arguing in support of the temple stop it. The Andhra high court has upheld the status quo and rejected the petitions. There is no need to prove anything to anybody.

The best spin in years. Why is this character not in the Indian cricket team?

Even as the dispute over the temple adjacent to the historic Charminar in Hyderabad was threatened to blow up in a major communal conflagration, the Andhra Pradesh high court on Monday ordered that status quo as on October 31 should be maintained and no alternations or expansion of the temple should take place.

Rather than recognizing the temple, the High Court came to the common sense conclusion that the provocative expansions and alterations should not take place.

In a piece of typical Hindutva twisted logic, this has been interpreted as an implicit recognition of the temple. The High Court was not sitting on the matter of the temple's age or authenticity, and the plea before it was not for the demolition of the temple. It was simply asked to restrain the bigots who wanted to cause trouble, and to prevent them from going ahead with their plans to expand the structure under cover of 'repairs'.

Reporting it the way it was reported is utterly dishonest.

Thanks dude,

It always feels good to win praise from the opposition.

Dude,

India is hindu majority and we ll build a temple wherever we want.

We ll build temples on all sides of the charminar.

well do whatever we want,

people who have a problem are welcome to stop us.

Maybe the situation is more serious than I had assessed it to be. Perhaps Shiraz, not Cab Sav. Claret cannot have caused this extensive damage.

 

[kalu_miah]

This question, of course, is in context of the perception that India enjoys in its immediate neighborhood.

I read a few articles on the recent tensions in Maldives, Bangladesh and Pakistan. In a number of these articles, the two terms "anti-islam" and "pro-indian" were used almost interchangeably.

So is being anti-islam the same as being pro-indian? What do you think?

You cannot escape the fact that 1947 partition was based on the fact that Muslims did not feel secure in a Hindu majority state. That partly explains Bangladesh and Pakistan situations. Do not know enough about Maldives to comment.

In Bangladesh, the pro-Indian element, AL and some others, have consistently sabotaged national interest in favor of India. These parties have become a complex mix of local minority Hindu community and self serving politicians who uses Indian power to further their personal and party interest, at the expense of the collective greater interest of the people, which includes around 10% Hindu population.

Similarly, vote bank politics of Congress using Muslims votes, I believe is making some people upset in India.

A solution would be to find ways around by the majority community to include more of the minority community in their alternative parties, BJP in India and BNP in Bangladesh and thus marginalize both the beneficiaries of these vote bank parties, Congress and AL.

Another solution would be to reverse the partition in fast track SAARC union, but Indians would never accept Pakistan and Bangladesh back and Pakistan and Bangladesh would not want to join in a union with India, although I think it would be in everyone's interest to do it. Although it may be possible to convince the population of Pakistan and Bangladesh, I think it will be impossible to convince Indian population, because of the fear of a future majority Muslim SAARC united states.

So this is how the matter stands. I see Pakistan and Bangladesh both moving away from South Asian orbit and join neighboring orbit, even pull away some parts of India, when peaceful secession and self-determination becomes an option.

Also, when India uses Bengali Hindu population in India and in Bangladesh to further their geopolitical interest in the neighborhood, the opposing parties automatically starts calling these pro-India parties anti-Islam to rally around the Muslim cause. And there is some truth to it, there are pro-India elements (Hindu and Muslim) in Bangladesh who are active in the Islamophobia hate brigade, such as the atheist bloggers who defame the Prophet (SAWS).

 

[muse]

You cannot escape the fact the 1947 partition was based on the fact that Muslims did not feel secure in a Hindu majority state. .

And now these Muslims are not safe in Muslim majority states. And a secular India cannot stomach being "anti-islam"

 

[KS]

In a piece of typical Hindutva twisted logic, this has been interpreted as an implicit recognition of the temple. The High Court was not sitting on the matter of the temple's age or authenticity, and the plea before it was not for the demolition of the temple.

Actually it was one of the demands of MIM. Not that it would ever be done, but still it was their demand. And there is no need for any more implicit recognition. The temple is listed in the Endowments Department and that itself is an explicit recognition.

It was simply asked to restrain the bigots who wanted to cause trouble, and to prevent them from going ahead with their plans to expand the structure under cover of 'repairs'.

Typical pseudo twist seeing eveeel yindootva hand in everything without being aware of the actual issue.

The decorations for Deepavali have been done for each year (this is the 2011 photo and this one on 2010) and it was not something new. Why this year it was raised is because of the Congress govt progressive squeezing of the Owaisis and its refusal to lease them the Mahavir Jain hospital to the Owaisi run trust. The Owaisis tried to blackmail the Govt into leasing them that hospital by raising the temple issue and the pseudos got suckered (as usual) into their schemes.

As FYI, the court had allowed the reparations to go on as usual and rejected the petitions of the raza-kar goons for dismantling the decorations or shed or anything.

Plus due to good ol' Streisand , this year saw much much more devotees than any of the previous years.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You cannot escape the fact that 1947 partition was based on the fact that Muslims did not feel secure in a Hindu majority state. That partly explains Bangladesh and Pakistan situations. Do not know enough about Maldives to comment.

In Bangladesh, the pro-Indian element, AL and some others, have consistently sabotaged national interest in favor of India. These parties have become a complex mix of local minority Hindu community and self serving politicians who uses Indian power to further their personal and party interest, at the expense of the collective greater interest of the people, which includes around 10% Hindu population.

Similarly, vote bank politics of Congress using Muslims votes, I believe is making some people upset in India.

A solution would be to find ways around by the majority community to include more of the minority community in their alternative parties, BJP in India and BNP in Bangladesh and thus marginalize both the beneficiaries of these vote bank parties, Congress and AL.

Another solution would be to reverse the partition in fast track SAARC union, but Indians would never accept Pakistan and Bangladesh back and Pakistan and Bangladesh would not want to join in a union with India, although I think it would be in everyone's interest to do it. Although it may be possible to convince the population of Pakistan and Bangladesh, I think it will be impossible to convince Indian population, because of the fear of a future majority Muslim SAARC united states.

So this is how the matter stands. I see Pakistan and Bangladesh both moving away from South Asian orbit and join neighboring orbit, even pull away some parts of India, when peaceful secession and self-determination becomes an option.

Also, when India uses Bengali Hindu population in India and in Bangladesh to further their geopolitical interest in the neighborhood, the opposing parties automatically starts calling these pro-India parties anti-Islam to rally around the Muslim cause. And there is some truth to it, there are pro-India elements (Hindu and Muslim) in Bangladesh who are active in the Islamophobia hate brigade, such as the atheist bloggers who defame the Prophet (SAWS).

You might be interested to read post #71.

Partition was what you said it was, and therein lies the tragedy. Without that silly idea, the population of Muslims would have been a strong, self-confident mass in areas that are today India; conversely, the population of Hindus and Sikhs would have been a strong, self-confident mass, each of them, in areas that are today Pakistan and Bangladesh.

In my view, partition is irreversible. So the epiphany of a SAARC-wide union, which would be a wonderful thing considered in the abstract, is never going to happen.

Isn't it strange to think that what you are advocating for the future was there for the taking in 1947? ironic.

 

[KRAIT]

@Joe Shearer It will all go in vain. Many people have said this over and over again. Today, there are over 900 million Hindus and over 150+160+180 Million (very rough estimate) Muslims in Indian subcontinent.

I personally feel that India should form a new organization for creating economic zone including India, BD, Myanmar, ASEAN etc.

Reviving or focusing on SAARC is like PCR given to dead.

 

[doppelganger]

My modern history is not very strong. Can someone good in history give us a tight kunji on when and how the tension between Indian hindus and muslims really began? I mean the real undivided India obviously. Not the truncated nation forced on us in 1947. When the Mughals were fighting the Rajputs and the Sikhs and the Marathas, was it muslim army versus hindu army or were the wars cosmopolitan? Was majority Hindu India ruled by minority Muslims something like an Iraq waiting to happen vis-a-vis the Shia and Sunni thing, with backlash?