Is being Anti-Islam the same as Pro-Indian?

[rubyjackass]

that is a lame excuse that was ram temple there and baur the mughal as they call him made a mosque over it tell me how will muslims react if tommorow jews erect a senegouke over the kabba well ayodhya is the kabba of hinduism
tell me if a invader or a goon kills your fatherr and takes over your house where you were born in by force and after many years when your strong enof and snatch back your house from that criminal are you right or wrong the issue is not the temple but owr pride and every thing we fought for over the centuries its the idea behind the dushahra you celebrate hope you get my point SIR

we hindus are no pushovers now and we will retaliate and we will use force for what is owrs no one can take us as a weekling any more those who think hindus of 21st centuray are the same they used to intaract and bully some 65 years ago are in for a tremendous jolt its better for pakistan to mind its ways or else history will not be too kind to it

OK Sir. The parallel for you is that the Jews did not try to resurrect their temple by destroying the Al Aqsa mosque. Despite the complete victory Israel won over the territory, they did not claim their holiest site!! How do you eat that?!! Also I read somewhere that non-muslims are not allowed to pray near the site(not the wall where Jews visit but the site where the temple stood)!!


You don't want a temple there. You just want revenge. Thanks for clarifying your views by showing your saffronist motives. Hindus are definitely not weak now. They are also educated. That is why they should let the law of the land take its course and should have let the mosque be as it was.

And besides 'they' did not kill your father. If they did, you can pursue them by the law. All this sentiment about religion and taking back lost things will only take the nation into a spiral of ahtred. Thank God people like you got driven into your ideological ghettos. So get a life now. What next? You want to attack Iran,Turkey and Saudi now for their ancestors' attacks on India?

 

[KS]

So is being anti-islam the same as being pro-indian? What do you think?

Actually you have reversed the question.

I think you meant, Is being pro-indian the same as being anti-Islam ?

There is a lot of difference between both.

What about the +100,000,000 Indian Muslims????

Being Indian has nothing to do with religion, except for some hindutva loosers.

Did you even understand his question before going on the usual,hi-fi anti-hindutva rant ?

 

[Ayush]

not at all.
@Koovie nice pic.

 

[KS]

The converse is usually true. Secular voices are smeared with an anti-Hindu label, however much Hindu they are. They are called anti-Hindu if they oppose the construction of a temple over a demolished mosque, if they ask to move a makeshift temple turned pilgrimage spot touching Charminar to some place where there is more space and where it does not come in the way of Charminar - even if this stance is based on rational principles of fairness and not having a hatred for Hinduism.

I think we have been over this.

The temple being there is actually a symbol of co-existence of the two faiths unless you are an Islamist who does not want a Hindu temple near a muslim structure. I'm being frank here. No, dont give the obvious fallacious answer of occuptation of ASI structure,for I have made it plenty clear that there were no rules prohibiting the construction of any structure outside the walls when the mandir was erected.

As for secular voices being smeared with anti-hindu label, its not the secular voices which are smeared, but the hypocritical, pseudo-secular noise that is rightly criticized as anti-Hindu. The pseudo-secular noise mongers are damaging the name of secularism for their shallow interests and it should rightly be condemned.

 

[KS]

The topic is not about Indian muslims but rather about the other subcontinental muslims and their perception of India. So please stop being all mushy @Indians and going on a tangent.

 

[Redbull]

Ant-Islam does not equal pro indian, and neither does anti-islam equal Islamophobia.

 

[Kaniska]

This question, of course, is in context of the perception that India enjoys in its immediate neighborhood.

I read a few articles on the recent tensions in Maldives, Bangladesh and Pakistan. In a number of these articles, the two terms "anti-islam" and "pro-indian" were used almost interchangeably.

So is being anti-islam the same as being pro-indian? What do you think?

This is really good question. Here is my thoughts...

1- India is based on on the fundamentals of secularism....In my personal opinion....this is a great thing that has happened to us unless and otherwise it is been used by political parties for their own benefit.

2- I think that as long as I identify myself as Indian first and rest of my identity as a secondary...I should think my self as PRO Indian....

3- The trouble in perception of our neighboring nation is that for them their religion is identified as a first criteria to identify themselves rather than being a citizen of their nation....And unfortunately, people who think we are anti Islam, happened to be Islamic nations...And that is where the contradiction in perception comes up....

4- The people who categorize us as anti Islam, do not like the concept based on which India has been built like secularism and democracy, do not like India should succeed. Because as per them the best way the govern a nation is through religious dictat or some kind of religious way as prescribed by holy religious books....So if India succeed in our secular and democratic form, it will negate the very theory based on which they have been prescribing to their own public....So as long as India is facing a failure as a nation, those kind of people has the relevance in their specific public to say that the concept of secularism and democracy is just a hot air thought rather than it is practically possible.

Hence in a nutshell for me, we should not mind what religion others are...as long as you are identify yourself as an nationality first...For example...I donot thing it should be issue to me if someone says he is a Pakistani/BD person who does not like to Indian people because they have some grievance .....but i would not like to meet with people who says that he is a Muslim/Hindu/Christian/... and he does not like a Indian who happens to be of any religion...Because the 2nd category of people are very much non trustworthy and difficult people to interact....

 

[rubyjackass]

I think we have been over this.

The temple being there is actually a symbol of co-existence of the two faiths unless you are an Islamist who does not want a Hindu temple near a muslim structure. I'm being frank here. No, dont give the obvious fallacious answer of occuptation of ASI structure,for I have made it plenty clear that there were no rules prohibiting the construction of any structure outside the walls when the mandir was erected.

As for secular voices being smeared with anti-hindu label, its not the secular voices which are smeared, but the hypocritical, pseudo-secular noise that is rightly criticized as anti-Hindu. The pseudo-secular noise mongers are damaging the name of secularism for their shallow interests and it should rightly be condemned.

Lol at the temple being a symbol of co-existence of the two faiths.

Check your previous posts on the thread. You were claiming that the temple was there since the time Charminar was built and that the state BJP president has proof of it. Later picture of 'The Hindu' shredded you argument and that of the saffron groups with their pictures from the 50s. Then you retrenched to the argument that the temple should remain because it is there now. I mentioned the law(dating to 1947 or so) that says all heritage structures(Charminar is obvious one) will be protected and that no construction should be allowed 'near' such structures. So your BS got called and then you retrenched to this new argument that there is no definition of 'near' in the law and so the Bhagya lakshmi temple, being outside the periphery of Charminar(by what half metre?) was legal. So there you go, I just summarized what we have been through. You ended up in the shelter of a technicality of a law that existed well before the temple was built.

But I have news for you. The temple actually touches Charminar, literally!! The extra 'decoration' touches the structure. I can get you the pictures the next time I visit the city. So now where will you put your argument?

Pray tell us what are the 'shallow interests' of the pseudo-secular voices.

 

[KS]

Lol at the temple being a symbol of co-existence of the two faiths.

yes it is.

But I have news for you. The temple actually touches Charminar, literally!! The extra 'decoration' touches the structure. I can get you the pictures the next time I visit the city. So now where will you put your argument?

Pray tell us what are the 'shallow interests' of the pseudo-secular voices.

My argument is/was simple. Law will take its course.

And if you did not know the High court has dismissed all the cases relating to the Bhagyalakshmi mandir filed by the raza-kar goons and you may now give your pictures to the high court since you seem to know law better than them.

 

[Rusty]

You cannot deny that the majority of Indians dislike Muslims.
I have a friend from Goa who is a Catholic and he was telling me how his father hates Muslims because during the war there was a rumor that the Muslim neighborhoods in India kept their lights on so Pakistani planes knew where to bomb.

It's attitudes like these that make India's neighbor think that it is Anti-Islam, and thus the opposit of that would be pro-India.
Might not be true but is perfectly understandable.

 

[neutral_person]

Not really. Dont really care what god if any you pray to, as long as you look at the nations interests.

 

[zaxcolix]

Lol at the temple being a symbol of co-existence of the two faiths.

Check your previous posts on the thread. You were claiming that the temple was there since the time Charminar was built and that the state BJP president has proof of it. Later picture of 'The Hindu' shredded you argument and that of the saffron groups with their pictures from the 50s. Then you retrenched to the argument that the temple should remain because it is there now. I mentioned the law(dating to 1947 or so) that says all heritage structures(Charminar is obvious one) will be protected and that no construction should be allowed 'near' such structures. So your BS got called and then you retrenched to this new argument that there is no definition of 'near' in the law and so the Bhagya lakshmi temple, being outside the periphery of Charminar(by what half metre?) was legal. So there you go, I just summarized what we have been through. You ended up in the shelter of a technicality of a law that existed well before the temple was built.

But I have news for you. The temple actually touches Charminar, literally!! The extra 'decoration' touches the structure. I can get you the pictures the next time I visit the city. So now where will you put your argument?

Pray tell us what are the 'shallow interests' of the pseudo-secular voices.

That temple next to the charminar is obviously a touchstone of co-existence of the two faiths. .....charminar being a non religious structure and temple being a religious structure...the anger and intolerance it generates in the muslim community is the real issue here.

Legality of the existence of the temple is a separate issue ......and obviously building the temple is a BJP's effort to garner more support for itself and get a foot hold in AP.

But the fact that such polarization can be achieved by building a structure dedicated to god next to a non religious structure like charminar must make you think about the intolerance in the muslim society in Hyderabad.

To be anti-Hindu is to be Islamic...that is the real take away of this story.

Of course ....its not 'secular' to state such obvious facts ....we like to pu$$foot around such realities and look the other way. That is Indian 'secularism'.

 

[Joe Shearer]

truth is in india anty Hindu is considered to be pro secular or asy forward thinkin ...am i worng what do you think

I think you are wrong, and you are also diverting attention from the original question.

 

[Joe Shearer]

that is a lame excuse that was ram temple there and baur the mughal as they call him made a mosque over it tell me how will muslims react if tommorow jews erect a senegouke over the kabba well ayodhya is the kabba of hinduism
tell me if a invader or a goon kills your fatherr and takes over your house where you were born in by force and after many years when your strong enof and snatch back your house from that criminal are you right or wrong the issue is not the temple but owr pride and every thing we fought for over the centuries its the idea behind the dushahra you celebrate hope you get my point SIR

we hindus are no pushovers now and we will retaliate and we will use force for what is owrs no one can take us as a weekling any more those who think hindus of 21st centuray are the same they used to intaract and bully some 65 years ago are in for a tremendous jolt its better for pakistan to mind its ways or else history will not be too kind to it

This kind of proves the point. How can incidents of hundreds of years ago be brought into the picture today? What's more, we don't see Hindus retaliating, we see them initiating. Why this aggressive behaviour, which is totally not called for?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I think we have been over this.

The temple being there is actually a symbol of co-existence of the two faiths unless you are an Islamist who does not want a Hindu temple near a muslim structure. I'm being frank here. No, dont give the obvious fallacious answer of occuptation of ASI structure,for I have made it plenty clear that there were no rules prohibiting the construction of any structure outside the walls when the mandir was erected.

As for secular voices being smeared with anti-hindu label, its not the secular voices which are smeared, but the hypocritical, pseudo-secular noise that is rightly criticized as anti-Hindu. The pseudo-secular noise mongers are damaging the name of secularism for their shallow interests and it should rightly be condemned.

The difference, of course, is that you conveniently arrogate to yourselves the right of defining who is secular and who is pseudo-secular. Just because Gandhi and the brand of nationalism he advocated wiped out the identity of everybody else under a fuzzy Hindu-like mishmash does not mean that the rest of the country has to choose between that and the bigotry of Hindutva. There are those of us who are far from either position, which, of course, your rants never acknowledge.