Autobiography of a Forgotten Indian

Re: anarayan, #122:

I am an Ahmadi-Muslim, and following is my reply to your comments. I am not a scholar in religious affairs, but whatever little I have studied and understood about Islam, has fully appealed to me.

1) I still think the verse “Cow:192” is quoted out of context. The full context becomes clear from the previous verse:

“And fight in the way of Allah, against those who fought against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors” [Al-Baqarah (The Cow): 191]

This verse was one of the earliest verses in which permission to fight was given to Muslims. It gives the gist of conditions for religious war. (a) Such a war should be undertaken with the object of removing obstacles placed in the way of Allah i.e. for the establishment of the freedom of religious belief and practices. (b) It is to be waged only against those who first take up arms against Muslims. (c) Muslims should lay down arms as soon as the enemy desists from fighting.

When Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) started spreading the message of Allah, atrocities were inflicted upon him and his companions in Mecca for 13 years. Although I have not read extensively on this subject, my understanding is that despite being subjected to cruelties (being dragged on hot sand, tortured, and even slaughtered), the believers did not raise arms against the perpetrators. The commandment was to be patient, to persevere, and spread the message of Allah. After 13 years, the believers were commanded to migrate to Medina. When the enemy kept causing trouble and raised an army to attack the believers, the believers were commanded to fight, but strictly for self-defense.

2) In my opinion, your comment “A gentle man can never take another`s life, NO MATTER FOR WHAT” lacks maturity. Taking another persons life in self-defense does not automatically make the defender a cruel beast. While Islam teaches love and compassion, it also teaches us to deal with evil with a firm hand. Not dealing with evil with firmness, does not reflect the quality being gentle, but rather the attribute of weakness. When one peacefully practices his belief, does not create mischief, and yet finds his life and life of his family/community members in jeopardy, and peaceful negotiations are not working out, then picking up arms and killing the aggressor is fully justified.

Saying that “A gentle man can never take another`s life, NO MATTER FOR WHAT” is an idealistic statement and does not measure up to the harsh realities of life. It does not display gentleness, but rather misplaced compassion.

3) I certainly think that Quran gives the message of peace and compassion, and tells one how to live in accordance with divine principles and to achieve nearness to Allah. It is not authored by a human, but is the Message from Allah, which is consistent with human psyche and nature. Studying it carefully, modeling one’s life after it, combined with prayer, meditation, and sacrifice will not doubt lead one to the path of spiritual ascension.

These were my two-bits; thoughtful comments from anyone will be appreciated.

Asad

Re: rajanjua #: 119

(1)

``The emphasis of this verse is to fight against injustice and persecution and not disbelievers.``

I can only reply by rephrasing Khayyam (the moving finger).

All your explanation, arguements and hopes my dear Amir,

Will not change one word in that very explicit line.

``If they do, then slay them: such is the requital for unbelievers``

(2)

``Muhammed was an extremely gentle man who abhorred violence... It was only after this verse was revealed that Muhammed agreed to take up arms against the injustice and persecution of Meccans.``

At the risk of annoying a whole lot of people, I conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about. A gentle man can never take another`s life, NO MATTER FOR WHAT. But this being a sensitive issue we`d better talk something else.

(3)

``The overwhelming message of Islam and Quran is that of peace, love, mercy and forgiveness.``

I`m an atheist - a Godless one, destined to rot in hell. To my eyes, every second page of that book seemed to spew forth hatred and fear. But that may be because I`m an unbelieving scoundrel (apologies to Russell).

Regards,

AN

Dr David Taylor speaks to Muna Khan on the possibility of easing tensions between India and Pakistan

Dr David Taylor has been on the faculty of the School of Oriental and African Studies since 1970, where he is Senior Lecturer in Politics and Pro-Director for Taught Courses. Educated at the Universities of Cambridge and London, Dr Taylor has made many visits to Pakistan and India.

Q: Can Pakistan and India be friends?

A: First they have to ask what are the reasons for the hostilities between them. One immediately comes to Kashmir. Then one needs to ask what Kashmir symbolises. I think that Kashmir has come to symbolise different things to different generations; for people around 55-60 years of age it still represents something to do with Partition, with the disruptions that many people had to face. For other people, it is like a dreadful football game with a Ôwe have to beat the other side` attitude which ultimately has no logic to it. It`s simply a case of one country wanting to be top dog. International systems have to find ways of coping with countries` desires to be seen as superior to the other and yet, at the same time living together, comfortably as friends. There is a similar European example: the French and the British are elbowing each other. Both countries want to be taken seriously in Europe and all that business about who should be appointed the first chairman of the European Central Bank with each country anxious to have their person as the top dog, but that didn`t stop a lot of straight forward personal level contact. Kashmir in that context could be no more than just a symbol, it could co-exist with friendship. But it won`t until some solution is found to the human rights problem. From the Pakistani perspective, they see a huge number of potential Pakistanis deserving to be treated in a better manner, whereas the Indian perspective is that Islamic fundamentalism is trying to take over Kashmir and push out the Hindus. The symbol of Kashmir does prevent the friendship from developing but it doesn`t mean that it is impossible to resolve the issue.

Q: So, is Kashmir the hurdle between better relations with India?

A: You have to develop a framework where people feel a solution is possible. Look at Northern Ireland: apart from the IRA, ordinary middle-class opinion of the south recognises that Tony Blair or John Major were making serious efforts to solve this issue. Northern Ireland was an issue but it wasn`t an insurmountable issue so that they could get over that hurdle even though that hurdle hadn`t vanished. You could have something like that in Kashmir. If you put it from an Indian point of view, the settlement is there; it is based on the Simla Agreement and the supposed agreement between Mr Bhutto and Mrs Gandhi which was to turn the line of control into an international border. May be that happened, may be that didn`t but a lot of people have subsequently said that it is the solution. From India`s point of view, that is fine but from Pakistan`s point of view, it confirms India`s illegitimate occupation. So if India wants Pakistan to recognise the line of control then it has to make a framework where Pakistanis can feel friendlier. It`s a chicken and egg situation: which comes first? It`s going to take 10-15 years for some improved difference provided they move in the right direction; if we`re lucky they will. If it moves in the wrong direction, things will stay where they are. India also has to give Kashmiris some sort of guarantee that they won`t be deprived of their special position and that economic development will be made.

Q: Pakistan highlights the Kashmir issue in international forums yet it continues to be ignored. Does the west pay heed to the problems in Kashmir?

A: The west knows that Kashmir is a conflict situation. India made a miscalculation when it detonated the first (nuclear) tests because, for a little while, it reminded the rest of the world that there was a risk of war with Pakistan over Kashmir. That led western countries to at least think about internationalising the Kashmir issue but it seems to have faded again. The rest of the world does recognise the threat; there`s always a threat of an accidental war. I don`t think there`s a high risk, it would be suicidal apart from anything else.

Q: Have the two countries taken enough measures for better ties in the future?

A: They have been talking to each other more or less even though those talks haven`t amounted to much. Take the Lahore Declaration. There`s not much in the Declaration that hasn`t been included in previous discussions between Benazir and Rajiv; yet people had forgotten. So when Vajpayee and Sharif say the same thing it is suddenly rediscovered which indicates how little progress has been made since earlier talks. In fact, the Benazir and Rajiv meeting looked just like the period where things would get a lot better but they didn`t and it looked just the same as Vajpayee`s bus trip to Pakistan.

Economic cooperation between the two countries is a step forward. The idea of Pakistan selling electricity to India is a good idea. The interesting thing is that they have a similar stance against the west in that they are both determined to show that they are not going to knuckle under all the pressure. Of course, they are doing it because of each other, because of their fear for each other but at the same time it creates a similar platform.

Q: Pakistanis seem to Ôfear` the speed at which India is growing Ð both in terms of military and economic growth. Is that fear justified, especially in light of the bomb?

A: The fears are understandable but I don`t know if the word Ôjustified` is correct. Are the Indians justified in fearing China? There`s no reason why the Chinese are going to threaten India but that situation may change in 10-15 years Ð Indian authorities may have to note the possibility seriously. In the same way, there`s no threat that India will take over Pakistan tomorrow but the threat will always remain. Pakistan has to be alert, always. India is a mightier nation so its fear of Pakistan is restricted to viewing it as a nuisance as they attribute the Kashmiri insurgency in the `90s to Pakistan.

As far as the bombs are concerned, Pakistan tested after a three-week period and a lot of pressure was put on them not to test; countries were promising to Ôlook after` them although Americans were careful not to say that they would give Pakistan a full nuclear guarantee. There were a few in Pakistan who subscribed to the view that Pakistan should prove the world wrong and not test. But on the other side, you had people like Advani who was giving speeches saying that Ôwe`re going to sort Kashmir out.`

Q: But even after the devices were tested, and talks were held, there have been random incidents of firing on the border. Plus, the Agni and Prithvi issue has reared its ugly head again. Could third party intervention solve the tension; Pakistan advocates it?

A: The cure, and there is no magic cure, has to come from themselves. This tension is not all about Kashmir, it`s about what Kashmir stands for. Both Pakistan and India are large nations ÐÊIndia is larger and it is desperately anxious to avoid this second-class status. None of the countries want another war. I genuinely believe that if you had a government in India with an overwhelming majority, like Nawaz Sharif has, than you might get some significant changes happening, for example with the Kashmir status. As long as you`ve got any coalition government, whether BJP led or Congress led, you won`t see realistic changes because each coalition is vulnerable to criticism both from within the coalition and outside just like Benazir Bhutto was always vulnerable. Sharif at least has the opposition where he wants them and has considerable sway within his own party but it takes two to play. At the same time, he can`t make too many concessions. He couldn`t say Ôokay we`ll have the line of control as a border without any major changes`; India`s not going to settle for a joint co-dominion of the valley. I don`t think third party intervention would do anything. The Indians aren`t going to accept American mediation. Pakistan would because it would prove their point of Indian aggression in Kashmir.

Q: Would economic cooperation between the countries ease the tension?

A: For Pakistan, too much cooperation is threatening because it means that the Punjabi industry is going to be overwhelmed by these developments. When I.K. Gujral was prime minister, he did make some concessions. He did not insist that Pakistan would reciprocate on everything but I can imagine Indian industrialists thinking Ôhow long will that (unequal treatment) go on`. It is difficult.

Re:#118 anarayan

The emphasis of this verse is to fight against injustice and persecution and not disbelievers. It was revealed (if I remember correctly) before the Battle of Badr. Muhammed was an extremely gentle man who abhorred violence. The companions of Muhammed (some of them were seasoned warriors, like Omar and Ameer Hamza-who did`nt agree with the pacifist reasonings) had been urging him to fight against the Meccans who had been persecuting him and his followers relentlessly since their conversion to Islam. It was only after this verse was revealed that Muhammed agreed to take up arms against the injustice and persecution of Meccans.

The verse you quoted is immediately followed by:

But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. COW:192

The overwhelming message of Islam and Quran is that of peace, love, mercy and forgiveness.

You are not the only one who has quoted this verse out of context-thousands of Muslim extremists use this as their battle-cry, forgetting that in Islam forgiving is considered better than exacting revenge (which is allowed). Jehad literaly means to struggle and if you struggle to obtain a good education that is the highest level of jehad. Muslims consider their whole lives as a Jehad ( a struggle to overcome one`s weaknesses and the effort to become one with Allah ). Jehad is mostly used in the terms of armed struggle though, and it is sad that to many Muslims that`s the only definition of jehad also (which is incorrect).

Regards,

Amir Janjua

p.s. For English Translation of Quran, the best one that I have come across so far is by Pickthall.

Re:#118 anarayan

The emphasis of this verse is to fight against injustice and persecution and not disbelievers. It was revealed (if I remember correctly) before the Battle of Badr. Muhammed was an extremely gentle man who abhorred violence. The companions of Muhammed (some of them were seasoned warriors, like Omar and Ameer Hamza-who did`nt agree with the pacifist reasonings) had been urging him to fight against the Meccans who had been persecuting him and his followers relentlessly since their conversion to Islam. It was only after this verse was revealed that Muhammed agreed to take up arms against the injustice and persecution of Meccans.

The verse you quoted is immediately followed by:

But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. COW:192

The overwhelming message of Islam and Quran is that of peace, love, mercy and forgiveness.

You are not the only one who has quoted this verse out of context-thousands of Muslim extremists use this as their battle-cry, forgetting that in Islam forgiving is considered better than exacting revenge (which is allowed). Jehad literaly means to struggle and if you struggle to obtain a good education that is the highest level of jehad. Muslims consider their whole lives as a Jehad ( a struggle to overcome one`s weaknesses and the effort to become one with Allah ). Jehad is mostly used in the terms of armed struggle though, and it is sad that to many Muslims that`s the only definition of jehad also (which is incorrect).

Regards,

Amir Janjua

p.s. For English Translation of Quran, the best one that I have come across so far is by Pickthall.

Re: UR #: 106

``narain: You stated, ``Quran at other places also admonishes the believers to kill the Kafirs.`` This is interesting. Could you quote the complete verse that states this. Thanks.``

Here is the verse in question: CHAPTER 2 - ``THE COW``.Verse 191.

``And fight those who fight you wheresoever you find them, and expel them from the place they had turned you out from. Oppression is worse than killing. Do not fight them by the Holy Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do, then slay them: such is the requital for unbelievers``

Re: #116 Asif Naqshbandi

Patched cloak and prayer carpet do not make a Sufi, nor practice or custom; the Sufi is he who is not.

-Abul Hassan Kharaqani

Sufism is beyond the schisms of sunni, shia, deobandi, etc.

Regards,

Amir Janjua

A good article but with some factual errors which have detracted from its worth. Indeed the author is correct in insisting that Hazrat Amir Khusrau Dehlvi alayhi rahmat was an extraordinary human being and devoted mureed of Hazrat Nizam ud Deen Awliya.

I just wanted to say that the Islam represented by Hazrat Nizam ud Din was TRUE Islam; however it should be remembered that he [alayhi rahmat] was an orthodox Sunni Hanafi too. That is why the statement that he had no time for organised religion is not true. Any serious student of Sufism [arabic: tassawuf] will now that the Sufis are the MOST careful amongst all the Muslims in observing the rules and minutes of the Shar`iah and Sunnah. It is said that Hazrat Amir Khusrau used to spend the whole night in doing nafl namaz--this is something not unusual for Sufis of that time of his stature. Indeed, to be a favourite mureed means that you are expected to have more spiritual development than the other disciples and the exercises you have to undergo are rigorous and demanding [see Imam Ghazali`s Al-Bidayah wa`n Nihaya for an account of a day of a Sufi disciple!]....so instead of not caring for organised religion [islam] the sufis are the ones most immersed in it` THAT is why they are so full of love for all and hate for none for their own sakes...

Also qawwali was not unknown before Hazrat Amir Khusrau`s time; just that it was called `sama` instead. Although the Chisti Sufis are known for their love of music, in the time of Hazrat Nizam ud Deen although the great saint did indeed listen to melodious singing of qawwalies--it was without any instrumental accompaniment (such being not allowed in shar`iah). Indeed, the saint did not even allow hand-clapping! But he did listen to beautiful singers songs...

Hazrat Amir Khusrau has written a famous couplet about his Shaykh [Nizam ud Din Awliya]:-

Har qawm raast rahay, deenay wa qibla gaahay

man qibla raast kardam, bar simt kuj kullaahay.

Every nation has a right way, a faith and a qibla

I am straightening my qibla, towards the crooked kulla [turban-hat].

[Hazrat Nizaam ud Deen were doing wuzu and the hat of his turban was at an angle on his head. Seeing this Amir Khusrau recited this verse. Allahu aalam.]

India (and Pakistan) is still very lucky that the majority of Muslims their are still following the traditional Sufi Islam of the Sunnis; the danger is that recently -in this century-there has arisen a fanatical, anti-Sufi ,movement funded (and started) by the British (initially) and now the Saudis, which is trying to distance Muslims form this great inheritance of Sufism [peeri-mureedi]. This fanaticism goes under the name of Wahaabism. In India/Pak it`s major source is the Deobandi sect and the Jamaat-e-Islami...

Efforts should be made by the govts of Indo-Pak to limit the activities of the Deobandis/other fanatics and to support the traditional Sufi Islam; in the sub-continent the upholders of Sufism are called Barelvis. These are the followers of Ala Hazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan from Bareilly, U.P.

If the fanatical element can be remove by restrictions on Deobandism,JI, then relations between the communities can improve. (It is a fact that the vast majority of converts to Islam in India have been by the Sufi Shaykhd and their supporters...)

www.nfie.com and www.alahazrat.net (or .org/.com?) are good sites for further information.

Finally the `inheritors` of Amir Khusrau rahmatullah alayhi are not exclusively Indian/Pakistani but those Muslims in both countries who practise Islam as this great man did. i.e. the people like Ala Hazrat and not fanatics like Maudoodi etc.

COAS in India.

It has been mentioned on the chowk a few times about the Commander of the armed forces/services in india.

In india there is no unified command, the three forces remain seperate. The three chiefs are not supposed to meet or communicate with one another with out the presence of some one else, not below the rank of a defense secretary. The meeting has to be reported to the defense minister. The three avoid one another socially.

One thing that every aspiring `general` knows in india is to avoid the counterparts in other forces in non-oficial situations.

May be there is something for pakistan to learn to avoid coups.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: ad#110

I strongly believe in secularism. However, secularism cannot be implemented in a vaccum. What is the context of hindu-muslim relations in India ? The two communities have had a tense 1000 year relationship. They have mostly remained isolated from each other and they have interacted primarily as opponents. They have characterized each other as mlech/kafir and they have been reluctant to even share a meal with each other. The result is a deep rooted distrust and insecurity about the other side. As hindus it is difficult for us to understand why muslims would feel insecure in India. Similarly an educated muslim in Pakistan may not be able to appreciate the insecurity of a hindu living there. You or I or the educated Pakistani may be good people, but you cannot eliminate centuries of ill-will by simply wishing it away by making laws.

Consider the case of Indians living in USA. Indians are one of the wealthiest and successful communities. Yet they are quick to take offence when someone makes an ignorant comment about Indian culture or religions. They complain about the glass ceiling and similar problems. If this happens in USA, where Indians do not have a negative history, can you imagine being a minority in a South Asian nation where you have a history of animosity ?

Therefore the first step is to be honest and acknowledge the existence of the problem, which is that hindus and muslims have always been alienated from each other. This is what resulted in partition. Next the question is what is the best way for reconciliation, given that 130 million muslims reside in India ? I suggest that we spend our energy in bringing muslims into the mainstream to implement true secularism. That means that we should forget the wedge issues like common civil code and focus on substantial issues like education, employment, enterpreneurship etc. We must increase positive interaction beween hindus and muslims at cultural and social levels. As muslims join the mainstream, it will reduce their sense of insecurity as they realize that they can be devout muslims while being a part of the mainstream. That is the only way we can build a modern nation and get out of the mental ghettos.

Your last statement was whether it was a crime to be a hindu. As a hindu, I feel that you are getting too emotional. There is a saying ``Winners never remember, Losers never forget``. By complaining all the time about Ghaznavi, Aurangzeb etc., we hindus are behaving like losers. Yes we lost at that time because we were weak and completely disunited. We allowed people like Ghazanavi to walk in and conquer us. Did you know that it was a group of hindu kings that advised Ghaznavi to attack Somnath because they were jealous of the hindu king who had the rich temple Somnath in his territory ? You surely know that Ghauri could not have beaten Prithviraj without the help of Jaichand. So let us not cry over the past. We should learn the lesson that we were our own worst enemy and build a strong, united India.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

To Amit:

#108

``I have no interest in imposing a common civil code on muslims. Nor do I feel envious about muslims marrying 4 wives.``

Amit, do you believe in secularism ? Do you believe that in secular countries, the govt and religon are seperated.

If, so then how can you justify your statement that I posted above, for your convenience ?

Is it fair that muslims as citizens of INdia, demand that they are somehow special. Is it fair that the law gives in to their demands ?

Is is fair that India happens to be the only ``secular`` country which does such things ?

Is it a crime to be born a Hindu ? Is it a crime to be part of the majority ? (Even if that were so, how come other minorities do not get special laws according to their own religons.) Why is it that the civil law of one country cannot even touch the the so called ``repressed`` muslims.

AD

Re:adsmfg#90

I do not advocate assimilation of muslims or anyone else in India, nor did I call for intermarriage. If you read the paragraph, I explicitly mentioned that muslims need not go that far. What I would like to see is more interaction between hindus and muslims at a social and cultural level. Since it is our destiny to live as citizens of one country, it is important for us to understand and appreciate each other`s way of life. We have coexisted in the subcontinent for a 1000 years, but we have been quite isolated from each other. This leads to misconceptions and stereotypes which result in social friction.

In the past, even hindus from different regions rarely interacted with each other. As a result they held misconceptions and stereotypes about each other. Thankfully this situation has changed drastically and the barriers have come down significantly. Still Punjabis remain Punjabis and Bengalis remain Bengali. No one is getting assimilated to anything else. People are learning to live with others who are different from them. This process needs to start with muslims as well.

I have no interest in imposing a common civil code on muslims. Nor do I feel envious about muslims marrying 4 wives. Heck, I have a hard time dealing with one wife! Why in the world would I want to deal with four times the problems :-) ?

Amit

Studebaker,

``There is a degree to every acceptence I am sure inspite of being accomadative to the recent religions,Hindus, would not accept ..... a low caste in there house or temples.They still would be relatively tolerent without having to do those things``.

I completely agree with your above remark. Politicians have appointed one R.K.Narayan, an untouchable as the president of india, and many are refusing to accept him, the high caste hindus, as the following incidents reveal.

In the recent swearing in of the new Vajpaye govt, several high caste ministers refused to be sworn in by the untouchable, and the president had to fake an illness so that the VP could swear them in.

In the last republic day parade, many soldiers from the rajput regiment refused to accept galantry awards from an untouchable.

Last months visit to Nepal, a pure hindu kingdom, king Birendra refused to meet Narayan at the airport. All the meetings were held in the veranda of the palace, the king declared that being a pure hindu kingdom this is the limit he is ready to go. No untouchable in my palace, he asserted.

In fact Narayan is from my home town in kerala and his brother also was subjected to all sorts of humialiation. His brother R.K. Laxman dared to go to school when he was five, a teaher hit him on the head with a wood piece that he was brain damaged, lost his ability to write. He had to resort to drawing cartoons to communicate. Last I heard was that R.K. Laxman ekes out a living some were near Times of India Square in Bombay.

Thank you Studebaker, I am proud of you.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

narain: You stated, ``Quran at other places also admonishes the believers to kill the Kafirs.`` This is interesting. Could you quote the complete verse that states this. Thanks.

Studebaker,

From time to time various people have argued about the ``true islam``. There is an operational islam, manifest in the actions of the muslim countries. This operational islam recognises `fatwa` and `jihad`. Fundamental problem with the above two islamic concepts (spare me your true interpretations) is not compatible with the notion of sovereign govt, legal systems etc.

To give you an example, according to the pak govt and the military, Kargill was carried out by jihad forces which is out side the pak govermental system.

Fatwa on Rushdie was not criticised by any islamic govt. A cleric in Iran has issued an order binding on all muslims, and if Rushdie were to be killed in Pakistan it would have been completely legal. No case would be filed, like in the honour killings, because it is carried out according to a parallel legal system.

Reply #: 102

Studebaker

``If hindus insist on building temple in Saudi Arabia,WHY NOT DO IN VATICAN,after all you let them convert to christianity in India.``

When talking about matters of Principle you cannot use such weak arguments, that just becuase they (the Christians) will not (or might not) allow Hindu temples, so how can we ?

After all christainity is not the same as Isalm. The whole issue, in this case is that ADSFMG said that Isalm preaches tolerance and if that is so, then it should stick to it, despite what other major religons might or might not do.

``How can rest of muslims plead the case to a sovereign nation of which they are not citizen``

Becuase Saudia Arabia follows the Shariat or muslim law, which is the same for all muslims. Also, a lot of my muslim friends would disagree with your statements that Saudia Arabia is just a big oil cartel. For them Saudia Arabia is one of the few palces where Islamic culture and its way of life is revered and preserved.

``if not already there ,i think there will be a temple in Jedda,or other cosmopolitan areas like Riyadh``

Nope, although they did allow a chruch atfer much persuasion.

``Dont tell me you believe 2% of population(sikh)could prevent 35% of undivided muslim population``

When Sikhs came about, in the early 14th century, muslims were not 35%, of the population. AND, Sikhs were not some other people but Hindus who gave thier eldest sons, to the resistance, that began under Guru Nanak, a Hindu.

Sikhs were and remain to be very much Hindu, even today. There granth mentions hindu gods like Ram etc all the time.

``There is no evidence of sikh fighting in East Bengal,Kerala,Malabar regions,&hyderabad region to indicate any resitence militarily to have had any sikh role``

YOu are right there. Sikhs were mainly restricted to the Northen parts of INdia, like Punjab and Sind regions. However, their movement was the driving force for the Marathas in Maharashtra and the rajputs in Rajasthan (although some Hindu Rajput rulers openly joined hands witht the Mughals.)

``Tolerence doesnt mean you let someone walk all over you ,& use you as a doormat.I hope you agree with me.There is a degree to every acceptence I am sure inspite of being accomadative to the recent religions,Hindus, would not accept beef in there house,or a low caste in there house or temples.They still would be relatively tolerent without having to do those things. ``

Thanks for bringing up the example. You are right when you say that I will not allow beef in my house. However, that is where the domain of my control will end. If someone wants to eat beef, outside then its his wish. I do not assume the role of God and start issuing fatwas, on GOds behlaf.

In fact if a ``lower caste`` was trying to enter a temple, I would definitely support that. You see, in Hinduism, man is given the right to make decesions for himself based upon his duties in life. If I was to encourage a lower caste man from entering a temple, it`s not like I would become less Hindu.

If you did not like the book, all you have to do is not buy it. No one shoved that book in anyones mouth. IN fact, as one of the few people who have actually read the boook, I can say that less that .5% even understood what was being said.

Well Studebaker, I wil wait for your rebuttal.

AD

Does Islam really ask you to ``respect` other religions? I think at best it asks one to tolerate other beliefs, but ``respect`` is not required. Even if it required, that is one injunction that is observed more in the breach by most muslims. While christianity has tried to understand other religions and sometimes assimilate their best parts into itself, Islam violently rejects any such attempts. Those who tried nontheless (like the sufis) were reviled and considered ``not muslims``.

Islam might say that there is no force in religion, but the Quran at other places also admonishes the believers to kill the Kafirs. Now this has been argued many times. it is claimed that this was contextual, and that there was a war on at that time which justified such violence. But can the word of god, any word, be contextual and therefore temporal? Can any word of god ever loose its relevence? So of course one can argue that Islam is tolerant, while its followers aren`t, but that is not entirely true. The followers who aren`t tolerant are also deriving their guidance from the same book.

As for conversions not being ``forced``: ``forced`` doen`t only mean that they should be carried out at gun-point. How is it that if any non-muslim wants to marry a muslim, they are asked to change their religion? Is this not blackmail? Is that not forced conversion? Charging a Jaziya or head tax on the non-believer: is that not discrimination? Is that not a subtle economic incentive for the non-believer to change his faith? Surely that is written in the book, and is not a product of over-zealous believers! One may not like to believe it, but forced conversions are more a part of Islam than any other religion today.

-narain

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

RE:

Reply #: 91

jkhawaja

``furthurmore, as far as conversions of non-muslims or whatever you were talking about, let me tell you unequivocally that islam demands that all muslims respect other religions``

Forgive me if it sounds rude, but you speak like the frog in the well, who thinks the whole world is within the well.

Perhaps you need to step out into the open and see the world as it truly is. What is written in the Koran and the Gita, is one thing and what people do is another thing.

So to justify or deny history, by quoting what the Koran does and does not say, is stupid. Fine, the Koran preaches tolerance ? But does Saudia Arabia practise tolerance. If so why does it not allow a temple to be built.

Fine, Koran asks you to respect other religons. But did Aurangzeb do that ? NO.

However, you and people like you still calim Auragzeb to be a pious muslim. Why, do you not accuse him of doing UnIslamic deeds, and condem him ?

Why did no muslims organisation challenge the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. After all, the KORAN says that MUSLIMS SHOULD BE TOLERANT !

Perhaps, its time to come out of the high ideals preached in the Koran and look at the real world.

AD

RE:

Reply #: 91

jkhawaja

``

if islamic rule of india was so terrorizing, then i am sure that india would be much less hindu than it is today``

Had it not been for the Sikhs, then Hinduism would have been eradicated.

I am not condoning Islam. I am condoning its followers who in their zeal, go too far.

If you deny that Aurangzeb was a tryant who killed thousands, simply becuase they refused to convert, then this debate is fruitless.

``of course there are laws which muslims must follow``

LAws which dictate abolishing of interest, laws which govern the number of wives you can have, etc are in direct conflict with the seperation of religon and state.

Can you tell me one Islamic country where, the civil laws are in contradiction to what the Koran preaches ?

On the other hand, can you tell me one SECULAR country, where the muslims are governed under a different set of laws ?

I think I know what I am talking about. Please answer my questions, before questionsing my knowledge.

AD

Jay: I didn`t realize you were joking. Could you tell me the source of the quote. I would like to read the complete analysis. Maybe the person who came up with quote knows something I don`t.

Ur,

That was a quote, dont take offense, and dont be side trcked by the trivia. A sense of humour is beneficial irrespective of the background.

Re: #90 adsmfg

In your reply to Amit you say,

``Islam and Hinduism is like oil and water. Their teachings are totally different.``

I won`t go so far my Muslim friend. All faiths in essence are seeking a definition of the Divinity, and all religions trying to define morality. The traditional Sufi saying goes,

``The ways to God are as many as the breaths of human beings.``

Salam!

Re: #90 adsmfg

In your reply to Amit you say,

``Islam and Hinduism is like oil and water. Their teachings are totally different.``

I won`t go so far my Muslim friend. All faiths in essence are seeking a definition of the Divinity, and all religions trying to define morality. The traditional Sufi saying goes,

``The ways to God are as many as the breaths of human beings.``

Salam!

Jay: ``Pak military is a LATIN MILITARY, DEADLY TO ITS CITIZENS, TRASH TO THE ENEMY.`` Once again you are commenting on topics about which you have no knowledge. You know about as much about the Pak military, as I know about Kerala.

I have had an opportunity to attend military courses in the US. And believe me, the US military, as well as the other international militaries recognize the Pak military as a very professional organization when it comes to military affairs.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

REALITY OF INDO-PAK WARS.

It has become ritualistic for the chowkwalas to quote that India and Pakistan have fought four wars over Kashmir, it is a manifestation of the enmity between the two. The two armies are facing one another ready to annihilate each. But what is the reality, even after accounting for the massaging of data, it is alleged that less than 6000 soldiers have died on the Indian side in all these wars. If you compare this with the most recent, the Kuwait/Iraq war, that is less than half a days work for the Americans. One can go sentimental about human death, every life is precious, etc etc, in reality more than 10,000 die of snake bites, 1000 get run over by trains, 50 die falling off coconut trees in kerala, all of this in a year, every year. In reality the great indo Pak rivalry are essentially skirmishes, no change what so ever in the international borders.

One aspect Pakistanis have consistently refused to give credit to be Indian magnanimity after Bangladesh war. If needed India could have easily asked Pakistan to vacate from all of Kashmir, Bhutto would have agreed, India could have asked for a significant modification of LOC so that Kargill could have been avoided, but India did not. Compare this to the actions of Pak assisted victors in Afghanistan, what has Taliban done to the losers, did Pakistan try to moderate it. Read the statements of general PM about Bin Laden, he wants proof that bin laden is training guerillas. Ask him to find out why Pakistanis died when the cruise missile slammed into Bin Laden camp.

Any how moral of the story is that pakistani army did not act as any kind of deterrent to indian military advancement, it was only the restraint of the indian political system that has made the survival of the pak military feasible. In case of wars with india, pakistan military has nothing to write home about. Pak military is a LATIN MILITARY, DEADLY TO ITS CITIZENS, TRASH TO THE ENEMY.

jkhawaja # 91 Abdmfg# 90

``.......when the catholic church poured into the byzantine empire, they did not

spare the sword, and for the most part, eastern europe is mostly

christian. the same could have applied to india, but instead, india is

80% hindu. so i do not think that india was all that religiously

supressed, per se.``



AND

! If Muslim rule was ``so cruel`` that unjustice flowed in all the rivers,

then during the 900 years or so, the hindu way of life should have been

eradicated.

BUT, this is not so. Because that was not the motive of the rule

I guess the Hindutva brigade is like count Dracula who cant stand the bright light of reason,fact &truth it runs away from.

Amit, I agree with most of your ideas except one.

I take exception to your following suggestion:

Hindus used to be very close minded people but look how they have changed in the past 50 years. 50 years back, it was absurd to think of a Punjabi marrying a Tamilian. Today these things are non-events and both Punjabi and Tamilian cultures are stronger. Muslims do not need to go that far, but at least they should come out of their self imposed shell.

Are you suggesting that Muslims marry Hindus? Why?

How come most of the Hindu writers want us to assimilate? Assimilation is a synonym for decimating the muslim populace. There is other way to put it. You have psuedo sociologist and historian`s putting forth their theories and all. Hello!!!! If Muslim rule was ``so cruel`` that unjustice flowed in all the rivers, then during the 900 years or so, the hindu way of life should have been eradicated.

BUT, this is not so. Because that was not the motive of the rulers then nor is it the motive Indian Muslims now. This false agenda is just a fabrication of the hinduvata brigade. This is the same strata who`s notion that the only ``true Indian`` muslim is the one who worship idols.

Those writers emphasising that muslims are treated the same because the have their civil code and the famous qoute ``are allowed to have FOUR wives``

Please all you ignoramuses, we are allowed to have a separate civil code, just as you have your civil code. This is NOT a concession you have made, it is our right. And please if you are so envious of the ``four wives allowance``, go keep some mistresses. If you cannot with a open mind understand my religion, then you don`t the right to malign it either.

Islam and Hinduism is like oil and water. Their teachings are totally different. What is norm for you (eg. idol worship), is totally against my religion. But that does not give me the right to put down your religion or you malign my religion.

We have co-existed for centuries, and there is no reason that we should not do it for centuries ahead.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

EDUCATION, RELIGION AND POLYGAMY

Since I am the only identified Keralite on the chowk, may be I should stake my claim as the resident sociologist, a participant observer of the hindu-muslim-christian melting pot of Kerala, in the great tradition of Margaret Mead. As a religious group Muslims are less educated in India, even in Kerala. The value of education in the Hindu system is transmitted through folk tales, mythologies and the Panchatantra stories, which are absent in an average Muslim household because of the religious connotations. In the educated Muslim households, these stories take a secular hue, the parents seem to encourage it and the cycle of low education seem to break.

So where does polygamy come in; in Kerala polygamy is practiced mainly by the less educated. Polygamy follows a matriarchal (this was practiced by certain castes of the Hindus) system, the husband moves to the wives house, or rather circulates around. The typical remark of parents of a girl in polygamous marriage is “ oh what to do, my daughter is not well educated”. Polygamy, though legally and religiously sanctioned is considered as undesirable and demeaning by at least one party, with education as an escape hatch.

Educated Muslims in monogamous system have a matriarchal arrangement with the wife moving to the husband’s house. As some one pointed out, this could be considered as hinduisation of Islam with attendant changes in the value system, typically relating to education. It could be correct to allege that the dominant value of the Hinduism exerts subtle pressures on Islam to change.

There appears to be some causal link between children from polygamous households and low education levels, a cyclical link. There could be numerous social factors related to it, the large joint family, lack of fatherly attention, overcrowding in households etc. It could be interesting to know the education-Islam-monogamy link in other societies.

Reply #: 82

jkhawaja.

``islam demands tolerance and civil liberties for all. the only way for this to exit is the establishment of a totally secualr state, with complete separation of islam and state. ``

I have heard that Islam gives instructions of a complete way of life, including judicial, and legal rights. So seperation of church and state is not possible within Islam.

Also, in the Koran, I have read passages which sometimes call for conversion against Kafirs, (by force if required) and sometimes it preaches tolerance.

Why this contradiction ?

AD

Reply #: 81

jkhawaja

``this is not the case. they have simply been denied civil rights and social services for so long that it is difficult for them as a race to recuperate. the same analogy applies to the muslim world. and as india keeps them from receiving the aid that they need, they furthur depress their economic status. so the blame for the muslim plight in india falls squarely upon the government of india.``

Muslims ruled India, for 900 years +. The rule for the most time was brutal. The Hindu culture, education etc were forcibly suppressed. Then how the hell do you say that Muslims were ``denied civil rights and social services for a long time.``

Hellloooo, get real. The British had the same disdain for Hindus and Muslims. So if they suppressed people, they did so equally.

And as far as Civil Rights, Muslims are the only minority that have special civil laws to follow. So where does the denying of civil rights come.

As far as championing the Hindu cause is concerned, where else in the world would you find a population that has been bullied into submission for such a long time. From the barbaric muslim invaders (no offence intended), to the British occupation of INdia, where did you see such a bunch of dis-united people (agreed it is our fault).

So even though 80% of the people in India are Hindus, it is not correct to assume that they have a powerful say in the Govt. Becuase, the 80% are not united.

The BJP is the first org, which has actually made Hindus proud of who they are, instead of being guilty for being the majority.

Tell me one SECULAR country where muslims are given more rights than India, and I will agree with you that muslims are being suppressed !!!

AD

AD

Re:Studebaker

Sorry for not being able to reply earlier. I think that muslims in India must start a grassroots campaign at uplifting their community. Such a campaign needs to address the social, political, economic and religious issues in a combined manner. One thing you have to realize is that the situation in India is changing rapidly. Millions of people, like the lower caste people, are getting empowered by democracy and they are not willing to accept the status quo. We can laugh at the Yadavs of UP/Bihar or the Mayawatis and Kanshi Rams. However, these people are becoming power brokers and the old rules of upper caste control are disintegrating. People are demanding results and improvements in their lives. Even the BJP has put all its contentious issues on the backburner. You combine economic liberalization with this process and you have a very exciting, dynamic environment that is causing complete upheaval of the socio-economic structures.

Muslims must step forward and seize this opportunity to redefine their destiny within India. First of all, there must be a dedicated focus of education. If there can be Missionary operated schools, why can`t muslims start chains of schools and colleges ? If Sir Syed could do it in British India, what is stopping muslims today ? While teaching modern subjects, you can include religion as well. Some seats can be set aside for non-muslims. The reason you feel non-mulims are insensitive is because they do not have any exposure to Islam and they do not understand the muslim culture. Secondly, there should be a concerted effort at economic renewal. This can happen by encouraging small business and enterpreneurship. The micro-lending model used by Grameen Bank in Bangladesh is a good concept. Money can be pooled and loaned out to deserving muslims who want to start their business. Muslim groups can lobby their MPs and MLAs to get the government to support such ventures financially. The Hamdard model of health care can also be adopted to start health care centers. This will provide employment while serving a massive need for primary health care in society. Muslims also should hop on the IT bandwagon since it does not need too much capital.

Thirdly at a social level, muslims should encourage interaction with large numbers of non-muslims. For e.g. organize Urdu poetry sessions or classical music sessions and invite everyone to attend. Social interaction enables dialogue and understanding. Hindus used to be very close minded people but look how they have changed in the past 50 years. 50 years back, it was absurd to think of a Punjabi marrying a Tamilian. Today these things are non-events and both Punjabi and Tamilian cultures are stronger. Muslims do not need to go that far, but at least they should come out of their self imposed shell.

At a politcal level, I would suggest that muslims should be very vocal in their Indian nationalism and patriotism. This may sound unfair, but there is a lingering ill-will from partition that should be erased now. Being very vocal about their patriotism does not cost muslims anything but it buys them major goodwill that has a spillover into economic and social benefits. Muslims, especially the clergy from Deoband, Bareilley etc., should definitely help India on the Kashmir issue by being a liaison with the Kashmiri people. While we wait for negotiations with Pakistanis that can take decades, at least we should try to make life better for the Kashmiris by providing them with some sense of hope and optimism as well as economic opportunities. The bottom line is that muslims in India should take the initiative and take their rightful share like other communities.

mythbreaker: You stated, ``. i think it is better for me to stop reading chowk.`` I would encourage you not to stop reading chowk. Even though there is lot of trash-talking between Pakistanis and Indians on this site, it is still quite a bit less than other sites I have seen. And, it is mutual, so Indians and Pakistanis are both doing it, and are allowed to do it. Just ignore the comments that are made to you personally, and only concentrate on the replies that criticize your ideas, and not you directrly. That is what I do.

Discussion and negotiation on sensitive issues is a very difficult process. It is very easy to get into discussions with people who support one`s point of view, or are very civil in their approach. However, my experience has been that discussing difficult issues unfortunately always involve anomocities, hatred and personal criticism. That is why they are so difficult to solve. The discussions on chowk pretty much give one an experience of all the negative and positive aspects of conflict negotiation.

I personally have very clear views on India, Pakistan, Kashmir, Indians, Islam, Nawaz Sharif, Musharraf, Kargil, Siachen etc. I respect Indians, and count many among my close friends. My business partner is a Hindu Indian. At the same time I completely disagree with India`s stand on Kashmir. I feel Kashmiris should get their independence. However there is no need for Pakistan to gain any part of the Indian occupied Kashmiri territory. I dislike Nawaz Sharif, but dislike military coups, as well. I think a liberal form of Islam should be practiced in Pakistan. I think both Kargil and Siachen wrong, etc. etc. The point I am trying to make is not to describe where I stand on these issues. The point is that you and I and everyone else should discuss them so that we can understand each other`s point of view better, and figure out whether our stances are correct or incorrect.

As they say, discussions may be good or they may be bad, but not discussing issues at all is always bad. So don`t lose heart. There is no need to start hating Muslims just because of what you read here. Some of the replies from Indians to my comments contain all kinds of personal attacks, but that does not mean I will started hating Hindus.

PAKISTAN AND RUSSIA

UR

The total frustration you are feeling about Kashmir is symptomatic of the upheaval in Pakistan. Most of the people for a long time believed in the UN plebiscite line, unaware that Simla and Lahore have buried it, Kashmir is as far away from UN agenda as a black hole is from earth. There were not many takers for general PMs deprecating remarks about Lahore. Your valiant attempts to clothe Kashmir as a human rights issue is commentable may be you have credibility as an individual, but Pakistan credibility is the same as that of KKK in an Amnesty meeting. If your line represents a new Pakistani line, it will be as futile as the previous, a lot more blood, a lot more misery. Any one whose mind is not steeped in pak.org history, whose mind is not wrapped in TNT webbing, can benefit from the following analogy.

It is important to realise the parallels between Pakistan and Russia. Jinnah embraced the TNT formulated by some one else and established Pakistan, same relationship as Lenin and Marxism. The military build up of Russia was to defend against class enemy, capitalism while Pakistan’s was against India, the other nation, the exploitative, dominant enemy. Russia collapsed because of inherent deficiencies of implementation and the increasing military expenses, but still has vast natural resources, technological traditions and infrastructure. Pakistan has collapsed because of the inherent flaw of continuing with TNT after 1947 and transforming to an anti-India policy resulting in diversion of resources towards that. I realise that TNT is the arch stone of Pakistan and should be left at that. It is the metamorphosis and endless mutations of it, as I have mentioned in various posts that are draining Pakistan.

Russia has found the right solution by absorbing certain elements of capitalism, the very system they opposed. Pakistan solution also lies in a similar approach. But I cannot see that happen, Pakistan is going in the US direction which will destroy everything that an average Pakistani cherishes, the remnants of Jinnahs dream that is so often talked about. The US/IMF line will only lead to an islamic/taliban revolution in Pakistan, good or bad.

It is time for chowkirdars to change the line, only 2-3% are extremists, then why did general PM mention them in his first address, there are several sentences devoted to islamic extremism. As one of the knowledgeable chowkirdars mentioned, roti kapda our makhan is not enough for Pakistanis, there is a need for dignity. Any one from India would have settled for roti, kapda our makhan, the dignity would have been derived out of it. No even for educated chowkirdars there is a dignity to be derived out of the very well being of life, it is derived at the cost of India, it is derived out of TNT and its manifestations.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Studebaker,

The extreme rag to riches stories, you give credit to god, for the rest it is to the family, which is unfortunate. May be you need to be fair in the credit distribution I studied in colleges and schools opened since independance, credit to gandhi, why not even jinnah, i studied with scholarships since year 10, credit to govt of india, i worked in a large public sector, credit to nehru for the temples of modern india program, for the luck and health, credit to god.

As you say, after family and god if there is nothing left, you will always find the politico oconomic system lacking. There are times even you have to be thankful to your enemies, if you have some.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

PEOPLE! PEOPLE! most of you are off base in your replies.

As a Indian muslim, I am just pointing out that we need educational institutions with emphasis on Islamic identity and high education standards. Schools or colleges whose students go to excel in whatever field they chose. Retaining a Islamic identity, does not mean that you are anti-Indian or anti-hindu.

Teaching children the fundamentals of Islam, does not mean you deny them other education. It does not mean that they become ``extremist``. Being secular does not mean you lose your identity and follow the norm of the majority. Everybody has the right to follow their religion, as long as it does not encroach other people (the people in minority) religion.

Studebaker,

``I believe many muslims students could be me if they were given OPPERTUNITIES that so lovingly given by my family.``

It is a good point you are making, where the credits should go, should it be to the family, or should it be to the land, the indomitable spirit of the land,( which inclused the family) it may be just a question of choosing the correct heirachy.

People who have lived through major transitions in the society, urban-rural, rich - poor and have suceeded tend to give credits to the land, the change is so significant, almost non-human that the credits have to go to something that transcends humans.

After joining for engineering, at 18, i went along with Sankaran to buy the first shoe ever in life. Walked for an hour to go to school, dreamt of having a house with electricity. To day Sankaran is one of the three vice presidents at the 2 billion dollar Reliance Industries. Our parents never had more than a couple of years at school.

Mustafa, whom i fondly talk about heads a defense industry in bangalore, his parents were illiterate farm workers.

We talk about our childhoods, we talk of the `wealth` we have, we know it is all a fleeting chemera compared to the eternla spirit of kerala, the drving force we had when we had nothing, the belief that hard work with a little bit luck can take us anywhere we choose. May be the change in our lives had been magical, the time frame so short, the cause un traceable that we find it hard to attribute it anything human. May be india, may be kerala, may be independance, may be god.

Studebaker,

``I believe many muslims students could be me if they were given OPPERTUNITIES that so lovingly given by my family.``

It is a good point you are making, where the credits should go, should it be to the family, or should it be to the land, the indomitable spirit of the land,( which inclused the family) it may be just a question of choosing the correct heirachy.

People who have lived through major transitions in the society, urban-rural, rich - poor and have suceeded tend to give credits to the land, the change is so significant, almost non-human that the credits have to go to something that transcends humans.

After joining for engineering, at 18, i went along with Sankaran to buy the first shoe ever in life. Walked for an hour to go to school, dreamt of having a house with electricity. To day Sankaran is one of the three vice presidents at the 2 billion dollar Reliance Industries. Our parents never had more than a couple of years at school.

Mustafa, whom i fondly talk about heads a defense industry in bangalore, his parents were illiterate farm workers.

We talk about our childhoods, we talk of the `wealth` we have, we know it is all a fleeting chemera compared to the eternla spirit of kerala, the drving force we had when we had nothing, the belief that hard work with a little bit luck can take us anywhere we choose. May be the change in our lives had been magical, the time frame so short, the cause un traceable that we find it hard to attribute it anything human. May be india, may be kerala, may be independance, may be god.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

reply to studebreaker:

I am not suggesting that bollywood solves the problems of all the muslims in India. My point was that when there is talent, you will be succesful no matter what the religion is. I just wanted to give u an example saying that nobody is suppressing muslims as a community.

U said it was becoz of your parents u were successful.Same for me, no Indian govt gave me single rupee directly. It all depends on parents if a kid gets education or not. Part of the muslim illiteracy rate is due to the migration of educated indian muslims to pakistan( this continued till 1965),and the large families. Still there are lots of muslims who were successful in higher education. I myself know atleast 10 muslims who are in good IT jobs(some of them are my friends). Why do you want to point towards hindus for every problem faced by muslim community. Why don`t u do a impartial self analysis about this.

When i was studying my intermediate, my class topper was a muslim. We came from the same back ground(middle class family). He has the talent and he was the topper. Nobody tried to stop him from acheiving his goals. It is up to the muslims to realize the importance of education and start sending their kids to the modern schools instead of madersahs. Even when the british ruled it was the hindus who were good in academics. Atleast during that time u cannot blame the hindus as they r not the ruling govt. Muslims certainly has the talent, it is up to them in deciding how to harness those talents into useful proffessions. No gove can do anything if people want to have big families and madersah education.

It is sad that India failed to help its heroes( abid ali) when they needed help. but at the same time there were many hindu cricketers and hockey players who died of poverty. Sports persons in India started making money only from the last 20 yrs. I heard about a hockey player who was begging on the streets of patna(don`t remember his name).

To UR:

Sorry man, i was kind of mad at the guy who came up with figures of 2% muslim literacy rates(cooked up figure) and the other guy i forgot name(zkhwaza or somethign like that) who started his reply by branding India as a communal nation. I want to keep this discussion civilized, so i will try to control my feeling next time even after reading some stupid reply.

When i started reading chowk, i thought it is a perfect place for understanding pakistan and subcontinent muslims. But now slowly i am loosing interest, becoz some of the people are writing hate filled replies(not just in this article replies). I think these replies are causing me to think more negatively than to think positively about muslims. I donot want to hate anyone. I have some of the muslim friends, and i value their friendship. When i talk to them it never strikes me that they are muslim, For me they are like any other friends of mine. i think it is better for me to stop reading chowk.

Studebaker wrote:

``Bollywood doesnt count as an asset for Indian Muslims rather may be a favourable trap for the majority to neutralise the remaining muslims .Isnt that the end result either way,either kill them with hate or with too much love!``

Only a blind person would write such a statement. Dont tell me you dont hate Hindus, Studebaker, because only a person who distrusts Hindus could have written the above. Distrust is a form of hate.

Studebaker # 65

``If Indian muslims are just as good as there majority counterpart why are there numbers so low in key positions``

Come on now Studebaker. You speak what Orwell calls Doublespeak. On one hand you agree that muslims have been successful, but then you simply put them as exceptions. The fact that so many muslims have become successful, itself shows that muslims do not face the invisible wall that many blacks face in the USA.

If you are a business owner, would you hire a person qualified for the job or would you start hiring any tom, dick or harry who happens to be muslim. Get real !

I personally know, that in India, if you have the qualifications, you will get the job. Forget crappy govt jobs, I am talking about the highly lucrative IT industry. They look for talent not your religon or caste !!

I think the points cited in earlier postings about muslims and education are more real.

AD

Re: Studebaker #65

``If Indian muslims are just as good as their

majority counterpart why are there numbers so low

in key positions?``

You ask the question, and answer it both in the

same posting. You say that you were able to rise

to where you are becoz of the opportunities given

to you by your family. Well, how many of your

community are that lucky? How many have families

that can provide them with quality education?

As for affirmative action, I would really not

recommend its usage in India. Remember the bitter

hatred and caste feelings which surged up from

apparently nowhere during the Mandal riots? The

after-effects of trying to get reservations for

muslims are going to be that much worse, and that

much more unaffordable.

So where does that leave us? The government is

already trying to get madrassah`s upgraded to

provide education relevant to todays time. I am

sure that is not going to go down well with the

muslim community who will probably see a ``Hindu

conspiracy`` in it. Trusting the government to get

anything right is anyway expecting too much.

There already exist centres for higher education,

like AMU and Jamia Millia. I would be happy if

you could think up something else that the

government could do to improve the lot of the

muslims in india, without seeming to favor them

unduly.

It is som important to realize that ultimately

the initiative must come out of the community

itself. The world is not going to stop to allow

the muslims to catch up with them. It is up to

them to run harder. And in a country as poor and

desperate as India, that is even truer. So tell

me, if you feel so bad about the state of your

community in India, what have you done to improve

it? Or are you going to just wait till the

government can get round to doing something about

it?

-narain

I think that a lot of the problems that the

muslims in India find themselves in are due to

the fact that there is virtually no middle class

to lead them. Most of the muslims in UP for eg.,

fall into two broad categories:

The landed feudals who are somewhat into

politics, but who are now a fading power. Though

they are in some ways the natural leaders of the

muslim community, they have failed totally in

providing any political support to the interests

of the large majority of their co-religionists.

This is partly becoz their interests are so

completely different from them.

The poor class: These are the people who have

suffered the most. They are the natural victims

in any riot. They have no political voice, and

receive little support from the state. Yet the

general (Hindu) perception is that they have been

pampered becoz of the few inconsequential

tit-bits that the feudals were able to get for

them.

As far as the middle class is concerned, they

find themselves in a hard position. There are not

too many of them in the first case. Hence they

cannot assert themselves politically. Then they

find themselves rebuffed by the ``upper class`` on

the one hand, and unable to identify with the

``lower classes`` on the other. Education, and a

greater mixing with society in general have given

them a view of life which is different from the

rest.

From personal experience I know how difficult

life is for them. They are torn between the

social pressure on them to conform to the

``traditional`` muslim way of life on the one hand,

and the ``modern`` life that they see their friends

leading outside. Marriages are specially

problematic, and more so for the women. Educated

and Urbane, they have a very hard time finding

suitable spouses. The more educated and qualified

they are, the smaller the choices available.

-narain

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

UR #61:

``I think ruling of a majority by a minority, against the will of the majority is unfair, and should be denounced. Keeping that in mind, how do the Hindus view the various Muslim kings that ruled over India``

This is not necessarily true. In those times, there was no other alternative. So it was acceptable in those times.

Most of the rulers were detested by the Hindus. Exceptions was Akbar. A mojority of the other rulers were muslim fundamentalists who were only interested in converting Hindus, by force.

AD

A lot of people seem to be trying to differentiate between good kings and bad kings. In my opinion, all kings by definition are bad. Regardless of how pious, religious, or secular kings maybe, the fact that they imposed themseleves on a population, against the will of the population, indicates that they are unfair. It goes against Islam`s concept of equality. I think ruling of a majority by a minority, against the will of the majority is unfair, and should be denounced. Keeping that in mind, how do the Hindus view the various Muslim kings that ruled over India? I would think that the kings are probably not too popular.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Hi Guys,

I have been following the replies here which sounded to me silly.

one of the guy asked why in Indian history aurangazeb is portrayed negatively who is a pious muslim.

My answer for that is because he is a relgious bigot. What do u mean by pious muslim, just offering namaz five times a day. There are certain things done by Aurangazeb which made him villain in Indian history. One is Zizya. You don`t know the pain of paying tax by one who is leaving in his own country imposed by some this sick man.

He chopped of many hindu heads. since u don`t agree this, what about the number of sikhs killed during Aurangazeb time( guru govindh singh and his sons etc).

I don`t think u can call a person who jailed his father and who killed his three brothers a pious muslim. If u still think he is pious, then go and kill your brothers and jail your father then future generations will think of u as pious muslim.

About the literacy rates given by some other guy they are totally wrong( i guess he gave some numbers in his mind). It is not hindus who r trying to keep muslims backward. It is the mentality of muslims and their leaders to blame. all the schools and colleges are open to everyone irrespective of their castes and religion in India. Muslims give more importance to the religious education and some don`t give any importance at all no matter what koran is saying in this matter. Lets assume that In India Hindus are suppressing muslims thats why low literacy rate( 35% in muslims compared national avg of 50%). Why is that the literacy rate of pakistan is 35% where there are no hindus to suppress. Literacy rate through out the islamic world is less. Who r u going to blame i hope not hindus. It is about the priorities that makes one literate or not. Why is the birth rate through out the islaminc world is higher. With large families it is very difficult to feed and educate everyone. May be this is one reason. Donot tell me that large families are due to the illiteracy. There are so many illiterate people in India with small familes who are hindu and are slowly catching up with rest of the country in literacy rate.

One guy pointed out that there are no jordans etc in India( while comparing afro americans with indian muslims). Sir, u certainly donot know anything about India so no comments from you please. What about Azahruddin, pataudi etc( i cannot name all the muslim cricketers and hockey players). What about the bollywood film industry(u need names?). What about kalams and azeem premjis of wipro.Lots of ministers served in state and central cabinets. About the comparison of afro americans with indian muslims, it is wrong. Because we were the slaves for 1000 yrs and we are ones who paid zizya taxes in our own nation. Even blacks are better because they didn`t pay any such taxes.

When u think of Indian muslim literacy rates u have to think about the number of educated muslims migrated to pakistan also, leaving a vaccum in muslim society. Most of the muslims who migrated are highly educated. It is a fact that in starting years of pakistan most of the important positions were occupied by mohazirs.

Finally for pakistanis donot even question about indian secularism. Iam not saying it is perfect but atleast we are trying.Not like pakistan where minorities are separated from main stream right from elections. People who kill each other in sacred mosques, you guys donot have any moral ground to question us. Your only business seems to be sowing seeds of hatred in indian muslims and hindus.

Studebaker,

The most `religious` hindus i have ever come across are from south africa. For them, hinduism is frozen in time, at a time when their forefathers arrived in south africa and had little contact with india since then. Hinduism in india even for me is different from what i knew when i was a child. The same is true in the case of food. While in india to go to a `western restuarent` was great, the steake and sizzlers and boiled vegies were delicacies, now in a developed country i dont remember when last i had that crap as food. It is no match for rice and curry.

Now coming to education and religion, may be because of the daily four time prayer requirements, a lowly educated muslim emits `symptoms` of religion more often than a hindu of comparable education, while they seem to converge at higher education levels.

mythbreaker: You stated, ``Finally for pakistanis donot even question about indian secularism. Iam not saying it is perfect but atleast we are trying.Not like pakistan where minorities are separated from main stream right from elections. People who kill each other in sacred mosques, you guys donot have any moral ground to question us. Your only business seems to be sowing seeds of hatred in indian muslims and hindus.``

This discussion so far has been quite civilized. Please do not turn it into a Indian vs. Pakistani contest. There is no need to be paranoid. No one is trying to sow the seeds of hatred amongst Indian Hindus and Muslims. I doubt it is possible to do that by just writing replies to an article. Besides, most of the people replying to this article have already had detailed discussions/arguments etc. on India, Pakistan, Kashmir etc. So I think we all know where we stand on those issues.

The questions on this article are just an attempt to get first-hand knowledge of the Indian society. I believe in not believing everything I read in newspapers regarding India. I also think it is impossible to get accurate information about other societies without actually living in those societies. So what better way to understand the Indian society than by asking Indians directly. The only other option would be for me to keep my mind closed, and filled with biases about India.

from hindustan times of today, about muslim education.

Plan to modernise madarasas

New Delhi, November 11 (HT Correspondent)

The Human Resource Development (HRD) Ministry will soon set up a committee to suggest ways to modernise madarasa education in the country.

The objective is to encourage traditional institutions like madarasas and maktabs to modernise their curriculum and strengthen the schemes for giving financial assistance. Sources said the government is eager to help Muslim youth in getting an education status equivalent to the national education. At present the students of these institutions cannot compete for mainstream jobs and can at best aspire to jobs of imams and clerks in Wakf-run bodies.

UR;

There is a welcome change here, quotes from Bose is no substitute for reality touch. You have asked a few specific questions about muslims in india, my response is based on my experience in Kerala, which to some extend is the best the muslims have in india.

Muslims a considered a `backward caste` in kerala, they have reserved seats in medicene, engg etc and also in government jobs. But in general, muslims do not value education as much as the hindus, and on everage are less `educated`. But I cannot but mention this spectacular exception. In last december when I visited my muslim friend of 30 years, after a lot of hesitation he showed me an invitation letter signed by the PRESIDENT OF INDIA, inviting his daughter Femita and the family to attend the REPUBLIC DAY PARADE as a guest of the govt. of india, because his daughter came first in the HSC exam, an all-india year 12 level exam. Today Femita is a medical student at one of the most prestigeous researh institutes in india, JIPMER. I am proud of her.

Muslims, are they seperate people. There are certain rituals which make them distinctive. In all schools in kerala, friday lunch break is an hour extra, when the muslim students p