Gujarat, Madrasas and Other Things

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

Honorable_Syed #292

``Oh My God, it seems like i am speaking to walls.``

`` If you read my post closely, I am not discussing the laws of a certain country, i am talking strictly talking on an individual basis. What i said was GIVEN A CHOICE, a muslim would rather accept his/her daughter marrying another muslim, regardless of nationality, where a Muslim would never marry his/her daughter to another hindu, regardless of how much he feels akin to that person, because the strongest bond is our religion ``ISLAM``. The question still remains, which is would a bengali muslim marry his/her daughter to a bengali hindu or a muslim from any other place, i.e. Malaysia, Philipines, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia?`` Until you don`t answer this question, all your arguments fall flat. ``

Your question is a dumb one. Because 99.99% of Bengali Muslim women marry Bengali Muslim males. You are discussing a hypothetical situation. Most Bengali Muslims would not have thought about this issue because it is a non-existent problem. They have more serious survival issues to deal about it.

If you force the Bengali Muslim to choose between the two options he will initially pick a Muslim from Malaysia, Philipines, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. Pretty soon in 5-10 years I will assure you that the educated Bengali Muslims will switch to Bengali Hindu grooms. What is the point of sending your daughter to a far off place where you cannot see her. I would not expect a you to know such civilities.

I am not sure what the uneducated ones will do. But then they is always a need for road kill for American laser guided bombs.

Even Hyderabadi Muslims who used to sell their teenage daughters to rich Arabs have wised up and stopped doing so.

`` As to your claim of the ban, first i have never heard of it, and second even if it were true, there might be a reason for it, which you cunningly did not explain. In any case, our religion doesn`t pose any such conditions, which hinduism does, hence if one is to follow the hindu religion, a shudra can not marry a brahmin, yet the brahmins can engage in prostitution with these poor shudras, by terming them as devdasis. ``

There is no law in India that prohibits inter-caste marriage. There are no barriers in urban India against inter-caste marriage. Devadasi is not practised actively anymore.


Look at the Malaysian article
----------------
Malaysia Curbs Intermarriage, Tightens Migration Policies
By Iqbal Ragataf

KUALA LUMPUR (IslamOnline) - Malaysia again showed that if it needs a scapegoat for its failures and misgivings, immigrants make the perfect black sheep. Locals are now being asked not to marry foreign spouses due to the difficulties they have in getting residency visas.

``The people should consider the problems they and their children may face in the future when they marry non-Malaysians,`` said Deputy Home Minister Zainal Abidin Zin, during a discussion on youth marital problems organized by the Malaysian Indian Muslim Youth Movement.

Migrant workers or immigrants who just want a change of life and place find it difficult to adjust in Malaysia as a result of a strict regime imposed by the country`s leaders on immigration in Malaysia.

The country recognizes it has a dire need for imported workers and possibly new citizens if it wants to compete in the global world. Yet the authorities are at crossroads and are finding it difficult to admit they might have missed the train of migration changes that has touched the world of today.

``The country that claims itself to be the most modern Muslim nation on earth, thanks to its impressive infrastructural base, tolerance and acceptance has given way to pride and prejudice,`` wrote Fatin Nurhan in an e-mail.

Many Malaysians believe the authorities have gone too far in preventing locals from having foreign spouses. Many women believe that they are free to choose who to marry and where to stay, in defiance of the current ruling that wives should follow their spouses to their respective countries.

Such rulings apply mostly to migrant workers from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Myanmar. Malaysia has ruled out the possibility of any such workers to be married to local people of both sexes, in a bid to prevent an influx of demand for citizenship or permanent residence from these workers.

The constitution of Malaysia guarantees freedom of choice and of expression of the citizens of Malaysia. According to Malay heritage, confined in a series of by-laws enacted by the Malay forefathers of Malaysia, anyone marrying a Malay is deemed to become a Malaysian citizen by right and enjoy full Malay rights.

Malays have special rights to try to make up for their lagging behind in economic and educational sectors. The country`s Malay-dominated government offers facilities to the Malays to upgrade their living standards. But it also trampled and squashed other rights that Malays used to enjoy. One such right includes the freedom to choose any spouse.

The current administration is making it difficult for anyone marrying a local to have either an extended stay, permanent residence or national citizenship. They do not take into consideration the rights of the individuals, the wives or the children, and impose strict regimes on migrant spouses.

Since 1997, a new ruling allows the immigration department in Malaysia to grant a special temporary working visa to spouses married to locals. This visa is granted only if the wedding is locally registered and if the couple show proof they have children of their own, born in Malaysia and registered as Malaysian citizens.

The spouses must support the application for this visa with registration of a business. This ruling has been in place since the 1997 crackdown on foreign workers, who were by the millions in Malaysia. They were mostly Bengalis and Indonesians, most of them without a valid visa. Most have been deported or given amnesty if they were ready to leave Malaysia.

Foreigners have been the recent target of official criticism on the rate of divorce and single motherhood in the country. Recently a minister argued that locals should marry more locals and restrain from marrying foreign immigrant workers or ``imported`` spouses due to the difficulties in getting visas and other permits for them. He added that Malay women should give birth to their babies locally.

Foreigners have also been blamed for the increase in violence in the country since the economic downturn. They have also been blamed for occupying jobs illegally, thus preventing locals from obtaining sufficient income for survival. A recent crackdown in the sophisticated city Cyber Jaya carried by several agencies lead to the cleaning up of illegal Indonesian migrants from Aceh who had occupied government lands in the vicinity.

A former deputy prime minister and several chief ministers have been blamed in the past for allowing foreign nationals, mostly from Indonesia and Pakistan, to have Malaysian citizenship. In the 1970s several hundred thousand Indonesian nationals were granted Malaysian nationality under the tenure of Musa Hitam, the first deputy prime minister under Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.

Several thousand Pakistanis were also granted the famous ``blue identity card`` in the states of Sabah and Sarawak, though in Sarawak most of the migrants-turned-Malaysians were of Filipino Christian origins. Since then, the tap has been tightened and there seems to be no way for it to be released soon. There seems to be an effort to clean the states of Sabah and Sarawak of the Filipino migrants.

``It seems that the authorities in this country are lost in their priorities. The people know what they want, but the government agencies are living in an age of tribalism and sectarianism, an age of dinosaurs I would say,`` lamented Zurina Abdullah, who runs a matrimonial agency in Kuala Lumpur.

She says that hundreds of migrant workers, especially from Bangladesh, found Malay girls who are willing to marry them but not to follow them back to their country of origin, as required by immigration rulings, which do not have the force of law at any rate.

In the past, the government accused the Bangladeshis of being responsible for the increased number of abandoned infants. The babies were said to be the children of male Bangladeshi migrant workers who had affairs with their local girlfriends.

``Figures show that a great number of newborns found dead or alive, abandoned in forests, dustbins or street canals, are of purely local origin. Many of them have been abandoned by local youngsters who had illicit sex, and those suspected of being of Bengali fathers were the cause of restrictions on marriages between local girls and the Bengalis,`` Zurina said.

Many Bengali nationals who came to Malaysia on three-year contracts in the past found a rich niche of local Malay and Indian girls who were ready to marry them. One reason was looks. ``Oh my God! Some of the Bengali`s are so handsome, they look like Shah Rukh Khan or Amir Khan [Indian movie stars],`` said a young Malay woman working in the Ministry of Education.

Mirana Manap insisted that she would have married her Bengali boyfriend if the authorities had not refused them the permission to be married. They contacted a local agency for their marriage registration, but the officials were adamant and refused to entertain them. They were told to leave the country if they married.

``I wonder where is the right of females in this country?`` asked a disgusted Mirana. Basically, Malaysian authorities have failed to understand how their society works. They seem to have overlooked the major problems faced by ``imported spouses,`` mostly women from Singapore, Indonesia or Thailand and India.

``The country`s policy makers seem to give more importance to racism than to the tolerance of marriage in Islam,`` Mirana added.

It is sensibly easier for local males to marry a foreign spouse as it is possible for them to sponsor their wives for an entry visa, which is granted on a monthly basis first and then later extended to a six-month visa.

Malaysian females are treated differently. They are grossly discouraged from marrying foreigners. ``This is because the policy makers fear the Malays will be overrun in numbers by foreign husbands,`` says Zurina. ``Local women find it very difficult to have their spouse to stay in Malaysia. This shows that they are treated as second-class citizens,`` she added, saying that women`s rights groups should join forces to fight off these challenges.

The opposition party, PAS, believes that foreign spouses should be allowed to stay in Malaysia, and at least be granted permanent resident status, and believes it is the right of citizens to marry any one they want. Upholding its Islamic principles, the opposition party says that Muslims must be allowed to intermarry regardless of race or origin.

Yet the government seems in total disagreement on this issue, as on many other issues indeed. ``Things will only change if the local non-government organizations and other social service agencies join forces to tell the government that things are changing and that they should adapt to the realities of the global world,`` Zurina said.

Honourable_Syed, Hinduism per se does NOT prohibit such marriages. It`s only fedualism that imposed these ideas on Hindu society. And didn`t someone on chowk just say that you shouldn`t judge a religion by the worst of its practitioners but by its scriptures? Given a chance, wouldn`t you prefer that your son marry a girl from your own region/language group? Why was there so much of anguish when Imran Khan married a Jewish girl, though he made her convert to Islam? One can`t change human nature, which is what I`ve been stressing all along.
and please try to learn a little bit more about Hinduism and India before you write such venom.
Because I`m a Hindu I respect Islam and Christianity. Hinduism believes that all ways to God should be respected. If you`re a good Muslim or Christian - or atheist or agnostic or follower of any religious belief - you`re a good Hindu.

This is in response to the posts by the Honourable_Syed about my comments.
1. I`m afraid neither history nor linguistics bears you out about Urdu. Both confirm that Urdu was born of the marriage - all right, interaction - between one or more of the numerous dialects of Hindi (there was no standard dialect then) and the court language of Persian, with perhaps a few touches of Arabic. (Hindustani, which Gandhi wanted as the national language of India, is a blend of spoken Hindi and Urdu.) Perhaps you are not aware that the Sanskritized form of Hindi much patronized by Doordarshan/All India Radio and Hindi schoolroom lessons is not really the spoken language of the ordinary people. And a language belongs to the people, not to textbooks. Urdu was not an artificially created language like Esperanto to fulfil the needs of Indian Muslims but, like all natural languages, grew on its own, the child of the languages of North India. No language is ``pure`` and free of influence, not English, not French, Latin, not even Sanskrit. In fact, the last language was called Sankrit because the grammarians tried to ``purify`` it, and the result was a dead language that exists only in books. (It`s another matter that attempts are being made in India to make it a living language once again.) The sign of a living language is that it is capable of changing and growing.
As for the Urdu words you mention, and several others you haven`t, of course they`re derived from Arabic and Persian - didn`t I say that Urdu is the product of the marriage of Persian and Arabic on the one hand and Hindi on the other? That doesn`t stop them from being words that belong to the Indian languages. And, btw, they`re all an integral part even of the formal Hindi that is being taught in our schools. In fact, they`re also very much a formal part of several North Indian languages (since I don`t have much acquaintance with South Indian languages I can`t say anything about that) My point is that Urdu is very much an Indian language and symbolizes our syncretic culture and civilization. No doubt in Pakistan, in a desperate bid to distance yourselves from the larger Hindustan (I am referring, of course, to the geographical and cultural entity called Hindustan, not to a religion) from which your leaders tried to detach you, there is an ongoing attempt to Arabicize (interestingly, not Persianize) Urdu, but there`s still much more in common between the two kinds of Urdu, the ``original`` one and the ``Arabicized`` one, than you`d care to admit.
2. I just don`t understand why Pakistanis should want to assert their ``pure-blooded`` West Asian identity. If you believe in the concept of the ummah, as you say, surely there should be no problems about accepting your status as converts or the descendants of converts?
3. You know, Islam isn`t the only religion that says there`s no difference between people from different regions, colours, etc. As m_souza has pointed out, all religions say that. And may I point out that no Hindu SCRIPTURE - mind you, scripture, not myth, legend, smriti, or fascist-minded people like Manu - has ever praised, or even accepted the caste system. This terrible and iniquitous social system does NOT have the sanction of Hinduism. It is absolutely the product of feudalism and colonialism (colonialism, as you know, isn`t just a Western concept that took root four or five centuries ago in Europe). Neither do our laws in India permit it. All our Govts say that they are committed to rooting it out. They haven`t succeeded so far because it`s something deeply rooted in the human psyche.
4. Yes, culturally we ARE the same, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, etc, etc. We eat the same kind of food, enjoy the same kind of music, share the same social norms , and so on. You`ll realize the truth of this statement if you live abroad, especially in a Western society, and you`ll see that we - and that includes even Pakistanis! - have much more in common than with Westerners. And if you say that a South Asian Muslim has more in common with a West Asian one than an Anglo-Saxon, of course I`ll agree, so would a South Asian Hindu or Buddhist!
As regards marriage, I would agree with you there. There is too much of distrust between Hindus and Muslims for traditional families in particular to accept interreligious marriages. But I think this goes for all interreligious marriages, or indeed all intercommunity marriages - even in the so-called liberal West, just see how a white takes to the idea of a child marrying a colored person, or even a WASP marrying an Irish Catholic When it comes to marriage, we like to find more things in common than not. Just as all Hindus have a lot in common with each other regardless of region, so also do Muslims. It`s much easier to prefer that one`s children marry people belonging to one`s religion.
5. Regardless of what all religions teach, we human beings are made of common clay and can`t help differentiating among themselves. That`s why ALL of us, Hindu, Muslim, etc., etc., constantly and continuously discriminate, differentiate, etc. This has nothing to do with Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc, but with human nature itself, which doesn`t seem to change no matter how many prophets, holy men, etc., come down on earth.
BTW, ali 87`s story about the Hindu man marrying at the age of 17 a girl of the age of 13 seems quite weird. Is it possible that they came from a village? Unfortunately India`s laws regarding the permissible age of marriage hasn`t always been effective in practice in our remotest villages.
The average age of marriage in India, according to the last census (and that includes villages too), is now 19 for women.
6. Honourable_Syed, now when did I disagree that there are many Indians (and many Muslims who might have left India, too) who are the descendants not of converts but of people who had come from Turkey/Arabia/wherever in West Asia? My point, simply, was that Indian Muslims who don`t have converts for ancestors are very much in the minority and in the South in particular form part of the erstwhile aristocracy. Now are you going to say that the aristos outnumber the plebs? (a) That`s factually inaccurate. (b) Aren`t you going against the spirit of Islam by implying that the ordinary people of India weren`t attracted by Islam`s message of brotherhood and preferred to cling on to their Hindu faith(s)?
I like the way you referred to all Muslims as your brothers. That no doubt explains the way you treated the Bangladeshi Muslims during their freedom struggle. Muslim rulers in India have had a long history of patricide and fratricide and all sorts of butchery in order to gain the throne/power. That`s the way you treat your family members, no doubt? Now I don`t have any Muslims as family members, but I do have very dear Indian Muslim friends, and I`m sure that would be shocked to hear your feelings about Hindus. This is what happens when you`re so ignorant.
You seem to labour under a weird misconception that India is a seething caludron of evil and will disintegrate any day. That won`t happen. You`ll see that Pakistan will disintegrate before that. There are no doubt all sorts of weirdos in India as well of all faiths and political beliefs, but because they have the freedom to say and do what they want -- that is, a thriving democracy -- that India will lurch along. Haven`t you seen what happens whenever there`s an external threat to India -- like when Pakistan betrayed us over Kargil? We stopped fighting amongst ourselves and gave you a thrashing. So don`t you think you should stop imagining things about people you don`t know about.

In response to Post #289
Oh My God, it seems like i am speaking to walls.
``Malayasia has imposed a ban on Bangladeshi Muslim men marrying Malay Muslim women. Try marrying a Gulf Arab female without her family permission. See what they do to your head. Try getting their permission. See what they do to your head.``
If you read my post closely, I am not discussing the laws of a certain country, i am talking strictly talking on an individual basis. What i said was GIVEN A CHOICE, a muslim would rather accept his/her daughter marrying another muslim, regardless of nationality, where a Muslim would never marry his/her daughter to another hindu, regardless of how much he feels akin to that person, because the strongest bond is our religion ``ISLAM``. The question still remains, which is would a bengali muslim marry his/her daughter to a bengali hindu or a muslim from any other place, i.e. Malaysia, Philipines, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia?`` Until you don`t answer this question, all your arguments fall flat.
As to your claim of the ban, first i have never heard of it, and second even if it were true, there might be a reason for it, which you cunningly did not explain. In any case, our religion doesn`t pose any such conditions, which hinduism does, hence if one is to follow the hindu religion, a shudra can not marry a brahmin, yet the brahmins can engage in prostitution with these poor shudras, by terming them as devdasis.

#290 by bbabu on June 11, 2003 10:53am PT

thanks..

I dont want to either. Ill watch myself on with you.

Naqshbandi #248

I get a chuckle when Talibanites like you talk about human rights.
Is there anything done to the Indian Dalits that Pakistani feudals don`t do to their underclass ?

Hindus and Hinduism in India will solve their problems sometime in this century. It will be interesting when Muslims especially Pakistanis solve their problems.

Honorable_Syed #274

`` This is again where you are wrong. Muslims from even far off places like the mindano, have far more in common with us than you people, the reason being the concept of Ummah, which the hindus can not accept, because it alienates them, this is a fact which sincere people will not deny. The most important bond shared by all muslims is their religion, hence given a choice if a muslim had to marry his daughter, i ask you would a bengali muslim marry his/her daughter to a bengali hindu, or would he/she prefer a flipino muslim? This is a question which i pose to you. ``

Malayasia has imposed a ban on Bangladeshi Muslim men marrying Malay Muslim women. Try marrying a Gulf Arab female without her family permission. See what they do to your head. Try getting their permission.
See what they do to your head.

ali87 #266

I had no intention of getting into a fight over religion.

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

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

You see, you can not differentiate between things that are sanctioned by a religion, and things which are practiced by the followeres of that religion. To quote a cliche `` Do not judge a religion by its people, but judge it by its scriptures.`` This is were you lose the argument. If certain arabs don`t reat pakistanis well, thats a sin in Islam, because it goes against the basic fundamentals of our great religion, and they will be punished for it, whereas in hinduism, if a brahmin or upper caste discriminates with a shudra by various ways, for eg. pouring molten lead in the ears of any shudra who hears the vedas, that brahmin is rewarded and is following hinduism. Do you see the difference?

``On the one hand you totally disown any links you ever had with Hinduism by saying that Islam tells its followers to start afresh and totally forget your past. And you totally ridicule all Hindu rituals-obsolete or current ones..SO WHY THE HELL DO YOU HAVE THIS INFLUENCE OF HINDUISM??? Wasn’t it this very ‘societal hierarchy’ that you disliked when you converted to Islam? ``
How absurd an argument is this. Is it possible that after we have conquered and have been living in this country for a thousand years, where we have married amongst their women, where we have several people who have converted to our great religion, that we won`t be influenced by their religion. Sure there have been hindu influences, because not every human being is a scholar of islam and will not know how to decipher truth from absurdity. This is where our ulema come in and stop these hindu influenced practises.

``You have superiority complex and look down upon teh `converted muslims` of the subcontiment. So you believe in class/caste system.``
This again is a false accusation, since you cant answer my questions you attack my character, I dont look down upong any muslim, as they are all my brothers, and i would sacrifice my life for them if i had to, but i certainly look down upon hindus, because it defies basic human intellect, to see them worshipping male and female organs of procreation and believing in bull crap, which is found aplenty in their scriptures.

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

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

#276 by m_souza on June 10, 2003 0:34am PT

But Hindus ..I feel ..just because of their previous non-violent set of beliefs.

.. that is a myth which probably people like you belive. Have you forgetten your school history. Remember the remorse that Ashoka felt after the battle of Kalinga. In the commentary he thinks about the needless wars that take place. Which means that wars were taking place.

I hope you dont call the treatment of dalits non-voilent. Dalit was subject to inhuman subjugation under the threat of voilence not the threat of peace.


.... Only thing that I have just started HATING so much is the arrogance..the superior attitude shown by Muslims at chowk.

very amusing your post starts is full of superior attitude and you find fault with others.

YOu can hate muslims just for the heck of it dont bother to justify dear.

In this case the latest affirmation of hate (is the same words as you have done many time earlier) comes because we were discussing Aishyas marriage.

Dont be kind enough to spare my religon Im all for taking it head on. As our previous encounters have shown that you run out of arguments eventually and call me hindu hater or paki lover.

Each case is individual. If your son wants to marry my daughter before I even consider his personal merits or dismerits he has to become a muslim first. then lets see.

The first conditon is the girl should have reached puberty which typically in our country is about 12-15 years. I dont have any need to marry my daughter at this age because the life of today is quite differnent from hundereds of years back it requires a more investment in education than before. However there is nothing shocking at marrying a girl at a small age with a older man if the man is caring etc. However it is better if men and women have similar age groups. There can be exceptions though. I personally know a few people both hindu as well as muslim who have married their very young daughters to older men as old as 38. Its been more than two decades I find their lives very good. My own friend a hindu was married to his wife at the age of 15 and his wife was 13 at the time of marriage. My friend attended college with us and was remarkably stable person and never strayed from his marriage even though he was very handsome and object of affection of quite a few girls. We never knew about all this until we were in our fourth year when there was particularly very desperate girl clamouring after him that he reaveled that he was married upon being teased by us.

He has two kids now and I interact with his family on a very regular basis for a number of years and I find no problem with his wife or him or his marriage at all. I fact by the time he was 27 his kid was 10 years old.

All these ages are for rough guidance only and each case has to be evaluated indiviudaly depending upon the individials involved and the conditions prevaling. Islams stand is also such.

refer to another discussion(for better or worse) right now for a more detailed discussion on this topic.

#272 by urbashi on June 9, 2003 5:03pm PT

im with you