Varanasi Explodes

Re: # 357 raw

Well said.... that`s something muslims world over have to understand - that their intolerance and supremacism cannot be accomdated in a free secular society.... that they have to change such archaic medieval bedouin mindset... if that means changing Kalima, Koran or whatever - so be it....

enough is enough.....

To realize jinnah`s dream - first Jinnah worshippers need to institute a new sect in Islam called Jinnahite or something and then reinterpret TNT in light of the reinterpretation of Islam according to Jinnahite school of jurisprudence.
Then, Jinnahites have to escape the fatwa-recursion of current-TNT enshrined in constituion of 1973. (i.e. the precedent of thrusting Qadyanis into the NonMuslim Nation category). Once, this is done a new TNT will beget a new Pakistan that will in turn father a new Islam that will truly unhijack the current Islam out of the clutches of mullas and their 1 billion followers.

my best wishes.

Re: # 356

Looks like Pakistanis need another Mr. Jinnah, this time to Partition Pakistan from the
other rock. I guess `Secularism Khataray main hai` would be a good slogan to achieve that.

#356 and just to add: the rock in pakistan (i.e. mullah islam) is largely unchecked while in india it is checked both by the constitution and by the fact that mullahs dont have the entire field to themselves. That is the downside to the creation of Pakistan that we as Pakistanis need to recognize - and to fix by going back to the ``secular standards`` as applied to Pakistan that I agreed with (i.e. take out sharia courts, take out ``islamic`` from the name of Pakistan, and I would go furhter and say that we need to separate the bloody mullah from his damned loudspeaker).

Only then will Jinnah`s dream be truly realized.

#354: Ramanujan

that is a highly unamusing trick by a few peeps i have seen doing (and i am not sure if this guy pulled it off deliberately or not) that they take the intolerance of certain belief systems and point out the incapability of a liberal-democratic(secular) polity to accomodate THAT intolerance to prove that it is the fault of the later and not the former. these people deserve our sympathies.

dost mittar #343 The facts as you present seem from all indications quite accurate to me - i.e. you have summarized both sides of the picture 1. the negative stereotyping/behavior towards muslims by hindus on the one hand, and 2. the ``in your face`` practice of religion by muslims in India on the other. And you have summarized them very well indeed, and while I have dwelt on 1., I fully agree with 2. as well. (and indeed, on 2. I consider this ``in your face`` practice of religion (loudspeakers, public processions and demonstrations) to be part of what I call ``mullah islam`` which in my view is the antithesis of what islam is about.

You consider 2. to be indicative of ``freedom of religion`` and 2. to be socio-economic discrimination. I dont think there is a clear-cut distinction between 1. and 2. though, as you think and as HP agreed (by comparing it to the black/white issue in the US): what you need to consider is the fact that 2. creates pressure to switchover from islam to hinduism. While a black man in the US could not change the color of his skin, the indian muslims have no such problem.

So, while granting that you would know better (having been raised in India), from all indications it seems to me that the average joe muslim (the fellow who just wants to have a good life, and is not interested in pushing islam on others) is caught between a rock and a hard place: socio-discrimination from the majority on the one hand, and ``in your face`` islam pushed by the mullahs on the other.

In Pakistan, at least we have only the rock to worry about - that is the ``in your face`` islam of mullahs!! So, Jinnah zindabad (as ylh would say). :-)

#349 by jang

[ajeya

to my simple mind, demand for building a ram tample in place of a masjid by legislation is a religious demand, to apease a religios sentiment. a secular demand would be supporting the court case, negotiating with the waqf board etc. ]

1) It is not ``appeasing a religious sentiment``. It is righting a monstrous wrong that had been perpetrated on the Hindu community of Ayodhya. It is an attempting to reverse centuries of systematic humiliation and degradation of Hindu culture and ethos.

2) The court case had been filed, but because of prostitute-cum-politicians who are always hungry for Muslim votes, it was bogged down in courts. And Indian courts are famous for delaying stuff for many many years. There was no way out other than legislating. And sometimes you have to force issues to effect a change. Breaking down a structure without a court order is illegal, and there is rule of law (to a point) in India, and people are being prosecuted for it even today.

So in other words, pressing for legislation is just fine with me.

#335 by Mantolives

[Ramanujan...

The way ``secular`` is understood in India... the demand was completely secular...

And we have similar examples of great ``secularists`` from the Islamic World as well... like the Taliban who implemented Indian-style Secularism by destroying the Buddhist Bodhisatwas... ]


Okay, this time let`s play a game. I`ll point out the line that is lacking logic, with a couple of hints, and you tell me why your statement lacks logic. This should come in handy in your career as a lawyer:

The line that is lacking logic:


``And we have similar examples of great ``secularists`` from the Islamic World as well... like the Taliban who implemented Indian-style Secularism by destroying the Buddhist Bodhisatwas...``



Hints:

1) The Babri masjid was built AFTER DESTROYING a pre-existing temple (signifying Lord Rama`s birthplace) that stood there.

2) The Bamiyan Buddhas were not built AFTER destroying pre-existing Muslim structures.

3) Remember, we are not talking about the LEGALITY of destroying structures - the Bamiyan Buddha destruction was actually legal by then-existing Afghan laws, because the Taliban were running the country.



Think about this for a while. Use your notes from your Law classes. I`m confident that after a while you`ll figure out the ESSENTIAL difference that goes to the HEART of the issue.

#352 indeed..one wishes muslims in india rioted for equal rights, jobs and access to healthcare and not for danish cartoons...

#350

``No such discriminatory laws against Muslims exist in India.``


``Yet, if Jim Crow is legally buried, the belief in white superiority and the legacy of segregation and racial discrimination still lives on in the hearts, minds, and actions of many Americans. The recurrent outbreaks of race riots in American cities are telling reminders that voting rights and integration of public schools represent only part of the solution to the problem of race in America. Indeed, the lack of equal access by African Americans to adequate and rewarding jobs, quality education, and affordable housing strongly suggests to many observers that the spirit of Jim Crow still haunts the social and economic landscape of the American nation. ``

it is not an issue of majority or minority....

Sikhs survived only thru violence.....their demise is due to lack of violence.

if self defence and self preservation requires violence, then it is noble.

if peace ensures certain demise, then it is a lahnat.

``I just wonder what the civil rights movement was all about.
``

Quick History Lesson...The movement was to remove Jim Crow laws that were on the books of State governments. No such discriminatory laws against Muslims exist in India.

ajeya

to my simple mind, demand for building a ram tample in place of a masjid by legislation is a religious demand, to apease a religios sentiment. a secular demand would be supporting the court case, negotiating with the waqf board etc.

Yep, Hindus bought Muslims as slaves from Arabia, Persia, Central Asia, Afghanistan
just as blacks were bought from Africa to Americas.

Those evil Hindus, oppressing Muslims for 1000s of years. Shame on them.

#343

“But I do not believe that there is any opression against them in a religious or political sense.”

Yeah Blacks were not oppressed in the US.

“They practice their religion openly and often in an in-your-face manner with loud speakers”

Yeah Blacks had their own churches and could practice their faith freely.


“hold huge demonstrations where they freely vent their grievances and even forcing Hindus to join their protests”

Yeah Black had a right to assemble and protest and sometimes forced the whites to close shops like the blacks did in the 60s.

“they have scores of political parties and they have leaders in all political parties including the BJP,”

Yeah Blacks were in the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Black Muslim party in the Black Panther party. They had all the rights.

“they have their Tableeghi Jamaats which propagate their message freely, they have their own personal law,”

Yeah Blacks had their own preachers, priests and black churches


“they even get paid by the government to perform the holy haj.”

Yeah Blacks were getting paid social welfare, pensions and social security.



I just wonder what the civil rights movement was all about.

#343

“They become the target of police suspicion whenever there is a terrorist act. I also believe that they face discrimination in both govt. and private sectors in obtaining jobs and even in renting a house in some neighbourhoods. And if a communal riot against Muslims breaks out, the police is more likely to be the enemy rather than a friend.”


Seems like you are describing the Blacks in the US of the sixties and before and perhaps still in some places….

Angela Davis is a hero to many blacks and the Black panthers enjoyed overwhelming support in the Black community.