Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

[Arleitter]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

^O.K Agreed.Going by what you have said, Lets take the case of Christians in Pakistan as example.Pakistan is an Islamic state.But it has a negligent ,minute Christian population.But Christians in Pakistan are allowed to preach Christianity.If Pakistan is an Islamic state then Christians in Pakistan should not be allowed to preach their religion,ac cording to what you have said here.If a state like pakistan has tolerance then why can't a mere body/person like Mr.Salman Khan respect another religion?

[GlobalGal]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

@Arleitter

^O.K Agreed.Going by what you have said, Lets take the case of Christians in Pakistan as example.Pakistan is an Islamic state.But it has a negligent ,minute Christian population.But Christians in Pakistan are allowed to preach Christianity.If Pakistan is an Islamic state then Christians in Pakistan should not be allowed to preach their religion,ac cording to what you have said here.If a state like pakistan has tolerance then why can't a mere body/person like Mr.Salman Khan respect another religion?

pakistan doesn't have complete sharia islamic law in place so i don't know whether it can be called an islamic state, definitely a democracy but only a knowledgeable pakistani muslim can answer whether it is Islamic

saudi arabia has a substantial amount of sharia law in place, if a nonmuslim tries to preach or promote their religion, it's a criminal offense. i think even building a church or temple has significant problems that come with it. i don't even think there are churches there.

[T1000]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

Pakistan is not an islamic state. It does not govern to the basic laws of islamic state. It was made with the "idealogy" to be an islamic state but it is never implemented :)

@Arleitter

^O.K Agreed.Going by what you have said, Lets take the case of Christians in Pakistan as example.Pakistan is an Islamic state.But it has a negligent ,minute Christian population.But Christians in Pakistan are allowed to preach Christianity.If Pakistan is an Islamic state then Christians in Pakistan should not be allowed to preach their religion,ac cording to what you have said here.If a state like pakistan has tolerance then why can't a mere body/person like Mr.Salman Khan respect another religion?

[Arleitter]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

^^The last time when they issued Visa to me ,the Visa paper titled `Islamic Republic of Pakistan'.The copy is with me.

O.k for an argument you can call it Semi-Islamic :)

[T1000]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

Most of pakistan's document still states WEST Pakistan .. does that mean that there is some EAST PAKISTAN now?

I wrote it above clearly that pakistan was made on the "ideology" of islamic state but it was never implemented.

^The last time when they issued Visa to me ,the Visa paper titled `Islamic Republic of Pakistan'.The copy is still with me.

[Tasavur]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

^ ^O.K But does Koran prohibit Muslims from respecting other's beliefs?

By no means.

Islam does not at all prohibit respect for other cultures and religions; in fact, Islam specifically protects and guards the rights of non-Muslim minorities.

^^The last time when they issued Visa to me ,the Visa paper titled `Islamic Republic of Pakistan'.The copy is with me.

O.k for an argument you can call it Semi-Islamic :)

No, Arleitter my friend, Pakistan isn't even semi-Islamic. The UK is more Islamic than Pakistan.

You have to fill some very, very, very important obligations before you can call yourself Islamic; things like free, fair and cheap justice; things like 100% accountability; things like redistribution of wealth; things like having an interest-free economic system. Calling yourself Islamic doesn't make you so.

@GlobalGal

saudi arabia has a substantial amount of sharia law in place, if a nonmuslim tries to preach or promote their religion, it's a criminal offense. i think even building a church or temple has significant problems that come with it. i don't even think there are churches there.

Hmm, I think the not building a church/temple has to do with a hadith of the Prophet (PBUH) where he said that no non-Muslim place of worship may be built in Arabia... I can pull up the exact reference for you if you like.

Saudi Arabia does have a lot of apparently Islamic laws, but even Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic State. There are some core, fundamental problems preventing them from being so.

[Boredman]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

By no means.

Islam does not at all prohibit respect for other cultures and religions; in fact, Islam specifically protects and guards the rights of non-Muslim minorities.

i totally agree with you !!

[Tasavur]

Re: A Muslim Indian never lives in peace

You, sir, are a top man.

Reading through this thread you're spot on.

Thank you, LondonsFinest!

PS: You a Chelsea supporter, then? =P

[Arleitter]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

Great Tasavur,my friend :k: Thanks alot for the explanations.

[Arleitter]

Re: A Muslim Indian never lives in peace

Going by these ,if a state like Pakistan ,that titles the label of Islamic Republic ' in every governmemnt provision but is actually not anIslamic State' and can not manage the safety and security of it's own people as seen nowadays ,then how the people of that country can look for blames on other countries whether their Muslim population population is having any troubles or not?

If a state like pakistan itself has double meaning in it's title Islamic Republic' then whats wrong with a soul/body/person like Mr.salman inslightly' deviating from his beliefs?

[GlobalGal]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

@Tasavur

Hmm, I think the not building a church/temple has to do with a hadith of the Prophet (PBUH) where he said that no non-Muslim place of worship may be built in Arabia… I can pull up the exact reference for you if you like.

Saudi Arabia does have a lot of apparently Islamic laws, but even Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic State. There are some core, fundamental problems preventing them from being so.

never said that SA is an islamic state, in order for that to happen it needs to have complete islamic/sharia laws in place which it does not. what are those core fundamental problems preventing them? it’s a muslim majority country,what more does it need to be an entirely Islamic country?
you’re quite knowledgeable can you provide all quranic verses that refer to nonmuslims(both people of the book and other nonmuslims).

[Arleitter]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

Now this quetion surfaces.Is there a true Islamic republic?

[GlobalGal]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

@Arleitter

If a state like pakistan has tolerance then why can't a mere body/person like Mr.Salman Khan respect another religion?

i'll let tasavur answer this but when a muslim does ganeesh pooja, he would be promoting idol worship which is shirk and the highest sin, it would not be permissible to promote such hindu practices although tasavur or t1000 would be able to go into this in a better way.

[N3m3sis]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

@ravage

[QUOTE]
It postulates that the two nations are inherently separate and distinct, not merely circumstantially. Furthermore it is an unwarranted assumption that similar dynamics between the two communities did not exist prior to the partition and the flight of the moneyed class.
[/QUOTE]
1. I do not believe in 2 nation theory, no Indian does.
2. My comment regarding the 2 nation theory being a self fulfilling prophecy was made in the sense that the Partition created the conditions which facilitated the marginalization of Muslims of post Partition India- the flight of educated elite, the creation of a hostile Muslim neighbour and lack of leadership. These conditions allowed the Mullahs to increase their hold over the Muslim masses and keep them uneducated.

[QUOTE]
And since that probably is your core belief, I wont bother arguing it.
[/QUOTE]
It is not based on core belief but empirical evidence. The discrimination against the E. Pakistanis for first 25 yrs of Pakistan's existence is sufficient to exceed the suffering of all Muslims in post Partition India.

[QUOTE]
The reason for suppression is ethnic, not religious. Similarly the identity is ethnic, not religious.
[/QUOTE]
So despite this ethnic suppression ( which is somehow better) Uighars have been reduced to a minority in the Xinkiang province, whilst despite the horrible actions of Hindu fascists the percentage of Indian Muslims' population continues to grow ?

[QUOTE]
based, partly, on the existence of this dynamic. Also based on the growing religious identity of Muslims.
[/QUOTE]
Are you proposing that if two communities ( religious/ethnic/linguistic) riot against each other, they should be given their own nations ?

[QUOTE]
So between the years of 1947 and 1952 there was sufficient time to inculcate in a society the need for a monolithic society and hatred for the "other"?
[/QUOTE]
Yes. The chauvinistic and sectarian forces which had been held in check while Jinnah was alive, were unleashed on the Pakistani society after his unfortunate death. These forces then allied themselves with various political and feudal interests to the detriment of minority sects in general and Ahmadis in particular.

[QUOTE]
with any new power structure power struggles between different groups happen. if you go into the dynamics of any given indian province you'll find different groups competing with one another. not remarkable.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe not, but this "competition" did have pretty tragic consequences for the weaker competitor , particularly for the Muslims of Bengal and Baluchistan.

[QUOTE]
yeah? so how about the success of BJP after 1989? if you characterize BJP as a 'problem for Muslims' then you must admit that this problem is widespread enough for the 'problem' to be one of the two big parties that alternatively rules the country. why object to people writing about the state of Indian Muslims then?
[/QUOTE]
You err by mistaking BJP for a party with one point agenda. The ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits polarized the Indian society, the right wing party took advantage of it and we had tragic events like Babri Mosque and Gujarat. However lately most Indians have learnt that there is no point in blaming Muslims for Pakistan's deeds, as it leads to self destruction. In 2004 Elections BJP lost badly because of its role in Gujarat riots. So BJP has adapted the development agenda and at the same time is trying to woo Muslims by organizing Iftaar parties.

[N3m3sis]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

@Tasavur

The idea behind Partition was that Muslims could never prosper living under a Hindu majority whilst remaining true to their cultural, socio-political and religious truths (you need to realise that Islam is not a religion indiginous to India and several of its elementary idiosyncrasies are incompatible with Hindu India’s realities); that they would never achieve their full aspirations when outnumbered by Hindus 3:1, and that a democratic set-up with a Hindu majority would deny Muslims a) an independent political voice and most importantly b) the right to freely practise their religion.

Islam is not a monolithic religion, there are multiple sects, many *Pakistani *Shias and Ahmadis on this very forum have claimed that they are not very safe in Pakistan nor can they stay true to their religion in Pakistan. How can they, when every Pakistani has to sign on their Passport application that “I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad an impostor prophet. And also consider his followers, whether belonging to the Lahori or Qadiani group, to be non-Muslims.”. In your own words this is a “heretic” sect. Indeed many agree that minority Muslim sects are a lot safer in India than Pakistan. Furthermore, the shrines of Sufis and Barelvis, who have the largest following on Indian subcontinent, are not desecrated in India.

The British had, in a matter of a century, reversed a social order that had developed over the last three-quarter millenium. From being the educated, ruling elite of India, Muslims became the most backward, uneducated and resourceless peoples. It is no joke that the British vastly preferred their Hindu/Sikh subjects over their Muslims one; you need look only at such banal matters like the preference of Hindu over Urdu and Farsi as well as the development of the heretic Qadiani sect designed to internally weaken Islam.

There is no language called “Hindu”. The British imposed English on both Hindus and Muslims.Even Urdu was given more preference. As is obvious from the fact that majority of Hindu writers from that period wrote in Urdu. the Hindus Upper classes made progress because they were willing to adapt themselves and learn English. Muslim Elite still saw themselves as rulers, took pride in farsi, and that is why were left behind. Read up more on Sir Sayed Ahmed Khan. I would rather not comment on your “Qadiani” conspiracy comment, as it is an insult to all Ahmadi Muslims.

Anyhow, the premise is one we still maintain. For Muslims to propser in India, they must visibly ‘Indianify/Hinduify/Secularise’ - I wonder how many Muslims would make it to the post of Indian VP if they did not completely shed Orthodox Islam. If they kept beards, prayed 5 times a day, called for Islamic brotherhood, criticised India’s killings of Kashmiris, saw themselves as Muslims first and Indians second et al.

Our own Rana Bhagwandas was in India a few years ago on a personal pilgrimage. What would you do if your VP attended a Deobandi Conference organised by the Jamat-e-Islami in Nowshera?

These are the most laughable claims and made out of ignorance rather than facts.

1.The Indian VP Hamid Ansari has a beard and was educated from a Muslim University. Indeed I don’t see many Pakistani politicians who keep flowing beards. India’s first education minster was also a maulana. So is this gentleman who is from the Deoband seminary who incidentally is also a Member of Parliament.

2. “Islamic brotherhood” is nothing but a tool which is used by Islamist politicians to make political gains and exploit the ignorant masses. If it did genuinely exist , there wouldn’t be so much ethnic/sectarian strife, racism, castism in Pakistan in particular and Muslim countries in general. Nontheless Indian Muslims (along with fellow Hindus) participate in protests against Palestinian oppression. But just like Pakistani Muslims set aside their religious sentiments in case of China (oppressor of Uighars) and US ( biggest oppressor of Muslims), Indian Muslims also choose to overlook their religious sentiments when India makes alliances with Israel.
3. Indian Muslims do not speak up against Kashmir, just like Pakistani Muslim choose to remain silent against the oppression of Bengalis and Balochs, and the bombing of Pashtuns with US connivance.
4. If I am not wrong, Quran explicitly states that every Muslim should follow the law of the land. So I really don’t see any conflict between the Indian and Muslims identities of IM.
5. Rana BhagwanDas came to India because there are hardly any Hindu religious places in Pakistan. Why should VP of India go to Pakistan to attend a Deobandi conference, when we have Deoband in India . Sikhs regularly go to Nankana Sahib in Pakistan, and we have a Pak born Sikh PM .

Hell, it takes one or two statements from Shahrukh Khan about the lack of Pakistani players in the IPL and your whole country goes crazy,

Yes, because 6 months before Kasab and chums had attacked Mumbai. Being Anti Pak doesn’t mean being Anti Muslim. Besides many Pak artists come to India to make money. Nobody stops them. Shiv Sena does some protests, but that’s all a political drama, otherwise there wouldn’t be a single Pakistani artist living in India.

The Shia-Sunni conflict you mention is at a level ***low enough to be insignificant. ***You need to realise something: Pakistan has the world’s second largest number of Sunnis (after Indonesia) and the world’s second largest number of Shia’s (after Iran). If the level of communal violence was at the level you would describe, Pakistan would be on fire. Given how hetergenous our society is, Pakistanis are for the most part pluralistic and accepting of others; which is why in most localities, you will find a Shia’ mosque, a Berelvi mosque, a Deobandi mosque, an Ahl-e-Hadith mosque, a Christian church… etc without issue. So for you to say that Shia’s face wide-spread discrimination is simply not the case. Qaid-e-Azam was a Shia, Bhutto was a Shia, Benazir is a Shia, Zardari is a Shia… People may not like them, but that was hardly because of the madhab they belonged to.

1. It is so insignificant that people on this forum are debating whether to ban religious processions or not. Isn’t taking part in religious procession is also a part of religious expression.
2. It is so insignificant that an Ahmadi can be jailed for calling their “holy places” as mosques. Or for just saying Salam. And these are not public prejudices or based on anecdotal evidence but are enshrined in Pak. Constitution.
3. No political leader visited the Ahmadi mosque after its bombing, and Nawaz Sharif was heavily criticized for calling them “brothers”. Is this the kind of religious freedom that you desire ?
   4.India has the largest number of Hindus ( 800 Million) and 2nd/3rd largest number of Muslims (160 million). If the Muslims were so insecure in India, India will be burning down.
4. Indian Muslim leaders are just token politicians, but Pakistani Shia leaders are a symbol of Sunni-Shia solidarity. What is good for thee, is not for me?
5. Come visit any part of India, you will find many mosques/temples/chruches/ side by side. With no problem. So will you agree, that this is an evidence that there is no religious strife in India ?

brands which has been very successful in fooling the world and covering the fact that your country is in instances more screwed over than Sub-Saharan Africa.

Nobody is fooled. Your comment is based on reports published in International Media, and not some covert source in India.

But does that outward glitter conceal the fact that your NW corridor is on fire? Or that Kashmir is suddenly a major pain in your ass again?

India is simply put, in my opinion, too big to sustain itself; you are a much, much, much more hetergenous society than China. You have too many differences of opinion, too many political differences, too many communities, beliefs, languages and religions. You are as Winston Churchill said “merely a geographical expression… [and]… no more a single country than the equator.” I would worry about India’s own future existence than Pakistan’s failures.

Are you a fan of Mr. Zaid Hamid ? This comment looks suspiciously like one of his rants.

[N3m3sis]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

Oh, just to clarify, India is not a land of milk and honey for Muslims. But they are more free in India, than most Muslims countries. I don't know of any other Non-Muslim country where Muslims have their own personal laws and allowed polygamy. There is lot more to be done, and inshallah we will do it !

[N3m3sis]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

[QUOTE]
Pakistan is not an islamic state.
[/QUOTE]
Pakistan is according to its own constitution de jure Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

[QUOTE]
Islam does not at all prohibit respect for other cultures and religions; in fact, Islam specifically protects and guards the rights of non-Muslim minorities.
[/QUOTE]
Is apostasy allowed ? Right to preach one's religion ? What is your opinion regarding Blasphemy Laws ? Would you agree not all sections of Shariah Law are practicable in Modern World ?

[Nisha25]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

Oh, just to clarify, India is not a land of milk and honey for Muslims. But they are more free in India, than most Muslims countries. I don't know of any other Non-Muslim country where Muslims have their own personal laws and allowed polygamy. There is lot more to be done, and inshallah we will do it !

sharia laws for muslims are in the Singaporean constitution and sri lankan one, if i'm not mistaken.

so three nonmuslim countries allow for sharia

[ravage]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

@ravage

1. I do not believe in 2 nation theory, no Indian does.
2. My comment regarding the 2 nation theory being a self fulfilling prophecy was made in the sense that the Partition created the conditions which facilitated the marginalization of Muslims of post Partition India- the flight of educated elite, the creation of a hostile Muslim neighbour and lack of leadership. These conditions allowed the Mullahs to increase their hold over the Muslim masses and keep them uneducated.

Once again, the conditions described in point number 2 are not either implied, predicted or required for the two nation theory. it is not circumstantial, it is ideological rather than demographic. Therefore to call it a self fulfilling prophecy is either to misunderstand it as a 'prophecy' or an insistence on trying to misuse the theory.

[quote]

It is not based on core belief but empirical evidence. The discrimination against the E. Pakistanis for first 25 yrs of Pakistan's existence is sufficient to exceed the suffering of all Muslims in post Partition India.

[/quote]

The hypothetical being the treatment of Muslims wouldnt have been worse had the Hindu majority had a broader area to fight for control and power over.

[quote]

So despite this ethnic suppression ( which is somehow better) Uighars have been reduced to a minority in the Xinkiang province, whilst despite the horrible actions of Hindu fascists the percentage of Indian Muslims' population continues to grow ?

[/quote]

Nope. simply that it is apples and oranges. I said at the outset when you mentioned China that it is a good comparison, except that I believe the violence to have a significant, if not dominantly, ethnic motive, and is therefore not germane to this discussion.

[quote]

Are you proposing that if two communities ( religious/ethnic/linguistic) riot against each other, they should be given their own nations ?

[/quote]

Nope. Nor is the two nation theory contingent merely on rioting. It doesnt even have pretensions of application beyond the indian subcontinent or proposing a general rule for Muslim minorities. It is a highly specific theory catering to the historical dynamics of the region we hail from.

[quote]

Yes. The chauvinistic and sectarian forces which had been held in check while Jinnah was alive, were unleashed on the Pakistani society after his unfortunate death. These forces then allied themselves with various political and feudal interests to the detriment of minority sects in general and Ahmadis in particular.

[/quote]

Too vague, anonymous and speculative to be an interesting discussion for me.

[quote]

Maybe not, but this "competition" did have pretty tragic consequences for the weaker competitor , particularly for the Muslims of Bengal and Baluchistan.

[/quote]

okay.

[quote]

You err by mistaking BJP for a party with one point agenda. The ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits polarized the Indian society, the right wing party took advantage of it and we had tragic events like Babri Mosque and Gujarat. However lately most Indians have learnt that there is no point in blaming Muslims for Pakistan's deeds, as it leads to self destruction. In 2004 Elections BJP lost badly because of its role in Gujarat riots. So BJP has adapted the development agenda and at the same time is trying to woo Muslims by organizing Iftaar parties.
[/QUOTE]

wow. So between 1989 and 2004 Indian society was learning theres no point in blaming Muslims for Pakistans deeds. Thats one hell of a learning curve. Also its interesting that you say BJP lost because of its role in Gujrat and since then they've been hosting iftar parties. How about Modi then. Hes still CM Gujrat isnt he?

[N3m3sis]

Re: Lack of freedom for Muslim of India

Manisha,
Thanks for the info. Is it only for personal law (mariage,divorce,etc.) or for criminal law too (murder, thievery, fornication, etc) ?