London’s Hour of Reckoning

the question was about legal status not actual practice, in legal status all citizens of secular polities are equal and of religous polities are not. So it doesnt help if you are looking at only Islamic polities, you could compare them to then christian, jewish or hindu polities but if you are looking at Muslim majority polities there are many examples where the legal status of minorities are the same as that of majorities as i have pointed out below.

Re: #446 by hindvi

[This not in defence of any organised religion but you give me one example of ANY Christian, Hindu, or Jewish regime that gave equal treatment to its minorities and I will answer you query.]

By the way, Hinduism is NOT an organized religion.

But to address your comment, it is possible that I am not adequately informed on this matter. And I am assuming we are talking about RELIGIOUS minorities ONLY (Because if you are talking of ethnic minorities, NO SOCIETY is perfect, and in no society has there been perfect interaction between different communities).


That said, could you list out the examples of oppression inflicted on SPECIFICALLY the Jewish and Parsee communities by the Hindu majority.

Pew Foundation

``So, again, just ONE example, of ANY muslim regime, anywhere, anytime that gave equal treatment to minorities as it did to muslims will demolish his assertion that `Islam has a long tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam```

This not in defence of any organised religion but you give me one example of ANY Christian, Hindu, or Jewish regime that gave equal treatment to its minorities and I will answer you query. And if it is secular polity that you are referring to then there are many muslim majority states that would qualify ex: Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Turkey, Syria, Kazakhistan, etc etc.

Re: #442 by dost-mittar

[Ajeya:

You are right that most people inherit their faith. But over time, it does become a part of their identity, sometimes the most important part.]

That`s exactly what I said. Our identity is derived from our culture. And religion becomes intertwined with the culture.

(In the case of Islam, though, it replaces almost any traces of pre-existing culture - everything becomes arab-oriented. But that`s a different issue)

[There are two aspects to any relgion such as Islam - the personal and the political. In the personal domain, one can have faith in anything or anyone. Islamic faith demands complete obedience or submission to it, indeed that is the real meaning of Islam. If you are a Muslim, you must have faith that the Prophet was a divine messenger and that he was flawless. Faith does not permit argument and debate even though this is what we do at chowk all the time. The Prophet is at the core of Islamic faith and if one does not want to discuss certain aspects of his life, it is their prerogative. ]

If that is indeed true, and he does not want to discuss Islam, then he should keep his mouth shut on any and all aspects of it. Because at this forum, EVERY issue that deals with India-Pakistan relationship, terrorism etc. ultimately revolves around that.


[Most Muslims are aware of what is in the Quran and the life of the Prophet and I would be surprised if your doctor or the Iranian friend are not. Yet, I don`t think that it would be proper for you to talk to them about subjects which are in a deep emotional domain. ]

This is why I don’t. As long as they don’t start spouting forth on why kafirs must pay jezia to them.


[Muslims have their own interpretation of why the Prophet did what he did and, if asked in a calm way, would inform you of those reasons.]

It is difficult to shout here on this forum. I was hoping that I had asked such questions in the spirit of academic debate on many occasions. The reasons that I have been provided so far have been meagre, and easily refuted. And in the end, they invariably clam up, instead of acknowledging that they have no argument left.

[However, a debate on this issue is not easy because of the concept of blasphemy in Islam. ]

This is because of circular logic. One always hopes to go from Muhammad -> Quran -> Blasphemy route, but one is always confronted with Quran -> Blasphemy -> No discussion on Muhammed -> Muhammad is GRREAT -> Quran is great route.

[There are two types of verses in the Quran; one which address the believers directly and the others that address the Prophet. Several verses are said to deal with the situation at hand and many Muslims believe that they should only be understood with reference to that situation. Still, they are not allowed to reject even those which may not be applicable today. ]

Well, even if one overcomes one’s disinclination to open a book that came out of the mouth of a man with Muhammad’s track record, and does open the Quran, and asks people like tahmed to explain WHAT THE REFERENCES ARE that would justify those horrible words, they just clam up.


[Now to tahmed32. I have followed his interacts for a long time and he is quite consistent.]

I don’t think he is consistent.
Read his posts after the Bombay blasts that killed about 300 Indians. And compare those with today where 52 Britishers were killed.


[He loves his religion, is highly sensitive about it and will defend it against all and sundry who in his opinion are misrepresenting it. But his interpretation of Islam is very liberal. He rejects political Islam completely and does not believe that the laws developed during the 7th century should have any relevance in today`s world. He loves the Prophet like every other Muslim but I do not think that he would defend each and every action of the Prophet even though he may not criticise him nor can he do so beyond a point without risking a charge of blasphemy.]

Or without risking losing the ground under his feet, on which he has staked his life, his afterlife, the life of his family, and his entire worldview.


[And he would perhaps agree that the concept of blasphemy should not have any place in today`s world. As far as my interpretation of the Quran is concerned, he has laid himself open to the serious charge of being a Munafiq, namely, a person who accepts the verses of the Quran selectively. ]

On this I agree. You CANNOT be a hypocrite and pick and choose if as a faithful, you believe the Quran when it says that it is the immutable law for all times and people.


[Tahmed is okay. I know. I have had many an argument with him and probably will again. Our main difference is that what he says Islam IS, is what I say that it SHOULD BE. ]

Well “Okay” is a relative term, I guess. If someone believed in the Mein Kamf fervently, and taught his children that it is a good book (and thus potentially creating another Nazi), I don’t think that that person is okay.

[It is awkward for me to talk about another person and his religion but I have done so because you specifically asked me to. I hope you understand if I do not want to prolong this discussion. Thanks.]

I specifically asked you because you made the post #431 in response to my post to tahmed32.

But thanks for responding. I appreciate it.

mohar:

i see that ``nanny ana`` is going to have to tutor you on the fine and not so fine art of sarcasm. . . or irony.

chalo koi na, if it pleases you to call me uptight. ye bhi hum bardaasht kar saktay haiN. :)

cheers!

Ajeya:

You are right that most people inherit their faith. But over time, it does become a part of their identity, sometimes the most important part.

There are two aspects to any relgion such as Islam - the personal and the political. In the personal domain, one can have faith in anything or anyone. Islamic faith demands complete obedience or submission to it, indeed that is the real meaning of Islam. If you are a Muslim, you must have faith that the Prophet was a divine messenger and that he was flawless. Faith does not permit argument and debate even though this is what we do at chowk all the time. The Prophet is at the core of Islamic faith and if one does not want to discuss certain aspects of his life, it is their prerogative.

Most Muslims are aware of what is in the Quran and the life of the Prophet and I would be surprised if your doctor or the Iranian friend are not. Yet, I don`t think that it would be proper for you to talk to them about subjects which are in a deep emotional domain. Muslims have their own interpretation of why the Prophet did what he did and, if asked in a calm way, would inform you of those reasons. However, a debate on this issue is not easy because of the concept of blasphemy in Islam.

There are two types of verses in the Quran; one which address the believers directly and the others that address the Prophet. Several verses are said to deal with the situation at hand and many Muslims believe that they should only be understood with reference to that situation. Still, they are not allowed to reject even those which may not be applicable today.

Now to tahmed32. I have followed his interacts for a long time and he is quite consistent. He loves his religion, is highly sensitive about it and will defend it against all and sundry who in his opinion are misrepresenting it. But his interpretation of Islam is very liberal. He rejects political Islam completely and does not believe that the laws developed during the 7th century should have any relevance in today`s world. He loves the Prophet like every other Muslim but I do not think that he would defend each and every action of the Prophet even though he may not criticise him nor can he do so beyond a point without risking a charge of blasphemy. And he would perhaps agree that the concept of blasphemy should not have any place in today`s world. As far as my interpretation of the Quran is concerned, he has laid himself open to the serious charge of being a Munafiq, namely, a person who accepts the verses of the Quran selectively.

Tahmed is okay. I know. I have had many an argument with him and probably will again. Our main difference is that what he says Islam IS, is what I say that it SHOULD BE.

It is awkward for me to talk about another person and his religion but I have done so because you specifically asked me to. I hope you understand if I do not want to prolong this discussion. Thanks.

PewResearch #439 That is an interesting method of studying scriptures you have provided - that is, ignoring the scriptures (i.e. the Quran in this case) themselves (for lack of time, as you said); ignoring books written about these scriptures by independent (i.e. western, in this case) scholars. And pointing to kingships etc.

And how do you measure ``equal treatment`` of minorities?? Which society is totally free of discrimination?

as far as india is concerned, you dont even have to look too far to see the rot that pervades your indian society: look at the insults to a minority religion by hindu chowkies on chowk, and then tell me about proper treatment of minorities. you yourself are arguing that a minority religion in india (islam) is evil!! Are you able to understand the irony behind what you are arguing about??

Re: # 440

Tahmed:

I am suggesting that since kingships (a notion that you introduced, not me, to set the record straight) are irrelevant when it comes to explaining Sunni homicide bombings, where does the reason lie? Why then is the world witnessing this terror? If you suggest that it is not scripture, then WHAT IS THE REASON? Kingships, as we discussed apply equally to all regions of the world.

In so far as equal treatment of minorities is concerned, while it is true that in PRACTICE few societies meet the bar, in PRINCIPLE, many societies have made their INTENTION explicit in their supreme laws (e.g. the US Constitution amongst others). No OIC member state has made even that intention explicit. THAT is the difference -- some have outlawed discrimination, while others have institutionalized it. The latter applies to ALL 54 OIC member states, and the lowest common denominator amongst them is (you guessed it). That is how liberal democracy (including India) is different. And your attempt to cloud the issue with Chowkies wont wash on this one.

The hypersensitivity that Ferozk alluded to seems to be clouding your ability to distinguish between institutionalized discrimination as practiced by OIC and the random insults by Chowkies. Does Chowk speak for India? And it was not me who dragged me India into the discussion, it was you!

The OIC issue is important because the common bond amongst them is `Islam`. And where do the supreme laws of Islam draw their inspiration from?

So, again, just ONE example, of ANY muslim regime, anywhere, anytime that gave equal treatment to minorities as it did to muslims will demolish his assertion that `Islam has a long tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam`.

If you recall, you refused to explain a particular verse (8.12) from the Quran to me. Your stated reason was that `Those discussions are with people who claim to subscribe to the Quran (i.e. self-professed muslims).`. I hope that you are not implying that my faculty of comprehension is compromised by the fact that I may not a muslim! Otherwise, do you realize how supremacist that suggestion is?

I never wrote that `a minority religion in india (islam) is evil!! ` That choice of language is yours, not mine. Sorry, but I wont similarly ascribe words to you.

Re: #431 by dost-mitter

By the way, I would appreciate it if I get a response from you along the lines of:

``Oh, I see now``

Or,

``I still cannot agree to what you are saying because of .....``.


Too many discussion threads are left hanging in Chowk for a lack of acknowledgement from the other person at the end of the discussion.


tahmed32 specializes in this, by the way.

(Not namecalling - ask me, and I`ll give you MANY examples).

Re: #433 tahmed32

[dm #431 thanks for responding to Ajeya on that point. now you too have set yourself up for namecalling. ;-)]

You can say that I am engaging in namecalling.

I can say that you are engaging in namecalling.

That makes it a 50-50 situation, much better for you than the 100% situation where you are unable to answer my questions 100% of the time.

So it is not surprising that you would say that my posts are merely “namecalling” and nothing else.

But anybody who reads my posts would recognize that I am asking legitimate questions which you are unable to answer.

Re: #432 by tahmed32

[Ajeya #429 I am indeed a very ordinary guy. And not too smart either. But I manage to get by...in the land of the blind (i.e. chowk), the eyed man is king. :-) ]

No.

The ONE-eyed man is king.

Re: #431 by dost-mitter


[Won`t you let them into your house? Don`t these gentlemen admire the same prophet?]

Most people simply follow the religion handed down to them by their parents. Many do not even bother to read the religious texts in detail, but just follow the customs and rituals that become part of the culture. This is true of ALL societies. A lot of times people don’t ask themselves the tough questions, or try not to confront them.

But if these same gentlemen had the same conversations with me as I had with tahmed, and still did not express any doubt in the man who started their religion, or the contents of the Quran, but exhibited the same steadfast obstinacy and stubbornness, I would have to change my opinion about them as well.

PewResearch #430 I think muslim kingships have been bad - but not much worse than similar (i.e. absolute) kingships in every other culture. The japanese had their suicide bombers in WWII - who killed themselves in the name of their king. Absolute monarchs in europe were no better, and burnt villages and committed mayhem over centuries. So, there is no difference here.

The difference is as follows: Europeans gave up the ``divine right of kings`` after the american revolution, and established democracies. The japs gave up venerating their king as a god as they used to, and the US occupation introduced democracy in japan. Democracy is still very tentative at best in muslim countries like turkey and indonesia and malaysia - and does not exist in other muslims countries at all. That is one difference. The other difference is that muslim fanatics talk vaguely of re-establishing the caliphate, i.e. muslim kingships. They talk about sharia and the islamic state - and those have their roots in the caliphates of old, i.e. muslim kingships. Fanatics in other countries dont have a hope of introducing such absolute forms of government.

Re: # 434
Tahmed:
You are still no closer to disproving Friedman`s hypothesis. Just ONE example, of ANY muslim regime, anywhere, anytime that gave equal treatment to minorities as it did to muslims will demolish his assertion that `Islam has a long tradition of tolerating other religions, but only on the basis of the supremacy of Islam, not equality with Islam`. If you are able to find ONE, SINGLE example to disprove this, then the explanation for Islamist terror lies elsewhere. If you cannot, then the world will continue to look for explanations in Islamic scripture.

dm #431 thanks for responding to Ajeya on that point. now you too have set yourself up for namecalling. ;-)

Ajeya #429 I am indeed a very ordinary guy. And not too smart either. But I manage to get by...in the land of the blind (i.e. chowk), the eyed man is king. :-)