What's new

Islamic Republic and Hindutva

When one criticizes Gandhi or Nehru, it is not to suggest that they were intolerant Hindu bigots but rather that they failed to appreciate how divided the Indian society was and what it would mean when majoritarian trends take over.

Let us see.

Nehru who was a Hindu, declared after the elctions of 1937: "There are only two forces in India today, British imperialism and Indian nationalism as represented by the congress"

He then said afterwards: "Third parties were unimportant because the congress was charged with a historic destiny"

For me this is the highest form of Hindu bigotry. Nehru was a Hindu bigot who wanted to create a one party Hindu Rashtrya and didn't wanted to tolerate other parties.

Then after partition this Hindu bigot declared again: "Confederation remains our ultimate goal, though if we say it, they are alarmed and say we want to swallow them up".

For Indian nationalism and Hindu destiny, I can only say one thing. Lanat on Indian nationalism and destiny of congress.
 
.
@TeesraIndiotHunter

Unlike Hinduism (or any other religion for that matter), Islam has been inextricably involved in statecraft since its very inception! ......Why? Yes, because unlike other religions, Islam is unique in how it relates to legal, social, and political fabric of the states it exists in.

As you see I have already alluded to it in one of my earlier responses. All true Muslims especially the thinking ones have already accepted this as a given.

Regards
 
.
Pakistan did not fare any better- in fact it turned out to be infinitely worse. Created as the result of a minority’s demand, it soon discarded Jinnah’s repeated invocations for what can only be described as a secular state and slipped into majoritarianism far worse than what Jinnah had apprehended in United India.

We created this state to get rid of the idolatry of secularism and ethnic nationalism. The author is a secular/liberal bigot, serving agenda of his western kafir masters.


In 1956 we became an Islamic Republic, the world’s first of its kind, and then in 1973 we added Islam as the state religion.

And we are proud of this fact. We dont need a secular state. The seculars who want to live in a secular state can shift back to secular Bharat Maata.

The offices of the President and Prime Minister were closed to Non-Muslims. In essence Non-Muslims were relegated to second class status and after General Zia ulHaq took over, they effectively became third class citizens at best.

The author is forgetting that we get rid of Hindu's because we didnt wanted to be ruled by a Non Muslim. That was the reason behind partition and that huge loss of life. But, a liberal cant understand this because he has effectively rejected Islam and it's basic teachings and adopted a narrative of Kufaar.

One particular group, the one even our Prime Minister is too scared to name, was systematically disenfranchised and for all practical purposes is stateless.

Qadiyanis were disenfranchised because they are enemies of Rasool Allah (P.B.U.H) and His Deen. This state is created for Rasool Allah P.B.U.H and His deen, His enemies will surely be sidelined in every way possible.

So it is extraordinary that the President of Pakistan, the great dentist Arif Alvi, can give an interview to a Canadian news outlet and suggest without any sense of irony that secularity of India is being burnt.

He is an idiot. We shouldnt be worried about secularity of anyone.

For His Excellency it is submitted that Pakistan seems to have begun to burn its own secularity in March 1949 with the Objectives’ Resolution. By the 1980s, Pakistan spread those ashes in the Indus river and for all practical purposes became a full blown theocracy.

As expected, liberals are full of hate against Islam and it's ideals. Secondly, they are worst lairs and distorter. This liberal idiot doesnt even understand the meaning of theocracy and it's historic relevance. Basically, they have read books of their kafir masters and started applying the same terminologies to Islamic state without studying and understanding Islamic system.

There is no theocracy or priesthood in Islam or Islamic state. It is a purely western concept which is utterly irrelevant to Islam. There is no pope, no priesthood in Islam. We Muslims are followers of Quran and Sunnah and unlike Christianity we are not bound to follow any Pope, Imam, Molvi or priest in beliefs. Our beliefs are directly derived from Quran and Sunnah and unlike Roman Catholics and Qadiyanis, no Molvi can declare that "I am the representative of God on earth, follow me'.

These liberals are ignorant of highest order, who cant understand basic facts.

How then can President Alvi and Prime Minister Khan complain about the demise of Indian secularism?

They shouldn't claim that. Moreover, we always believed that this is the fight of two religions, two ideologies, two different way of livings. Now, it is proving right in the face of emerging Hindutva nationalism.

How can Islamic Republic which forecloses the right of Non-Muslim Pakistanis from becoming President or Prime Minister complain about India’s treatment of its minorities? How can you complain about Hindutva when you are yourself an Islamic Republic which denotes an exclusivist ideology that presupposes only Muslims have the right to govern Pakistan?

We should realize the fact that these liberals are traitors and are serving under the guidance of their kafir masters. They are our real internal enemies, due to their hatred of Islam. They have soft corners for Qadiyanis and they will do everything in their power to destroy Islamic republic of Pakistan. We should also keep in mind that there will be no Pakistan after the destruction of Islamic republic of Pakistan

The only interpretation of his explanation possible is that in his view it is okay for Pakistan to be an Islamic Republic but not for India to be Hindu Republic because Islam is obviously better than Hinduism.

Of course it is better. The one who believes otherwise can only be a Kafir or Murtad.


At least Maulana Maududi and other Ulema were fairer than Prime Minister Khan, when they conceded to Munir-Kayani Commission in the 1950s that they wanted an Islamic State even if India became a Hindu state based on laws of Manu and Muslims were mistreated in India.

They were right. We will not accept anything other than an Islamic state.


That is a consistent vision – we will persecute our minorities and you may persecute your minorities

These liberals are not attacking Islamic republic of Pakistan but Islam itself. They believe that Islam allows minorities to be persecuted. We should understand their real agenda.

Yet I think one of the reasons India, still secular and democratic on paper, can get away with it is because Pakistan is rightly viewed by the world as a bankrupt theocracy. For the Muslim only President and the Muslim only Prime Minister of Pakistan to cry foul about the ideology of Hindu supremacy in India is nothing less than rank hypocrisy. Only a modern, secular democratic Pakistan based on Jinnah’s 11 August speech can fight for Kashmir and win it.

These idiots only see the one side of picture, which is favourable to their idolatry of secularism. Pakistan will not and can not become a secular republic. This is like signing a death warrant for Pakistan and they wanted to do that. Inshallah, they and their masters will be humiliated by God.


That obviously is not going to happen at least in our lifetimes and therefore we can pretty much kiss Kashmir goodbye. No world tribunal will ever take our complaints on the matter seriously. The best outcome in this scenario would be for the Indian Supreme Court to strike down Modi government’s action of 5 August.

Again, the mentality of secularist to link all problems they have to religion.


Things will then go back to as they were and Pakistan can go back to persecuting Non-Muslims in Pakistan without too big a burden on its conscience.

By non Muslims he means his qadiyani brothers.


Meanwhile India can slowly slide into the same majoritarian trap that we did decades ago. The world is never going to be a better place for the people who were unfortunate enough to be born in this subcontinent. Tragic but this is unfortunately the world we live in.

Thank God, we are not living in a Secular Pakistan.

In the end i would like to quote the great Iqbal so that liberals can burn some more.

"Islam is more than a creed, it is also a community, a nation"

"Nationalism is a subtle form of idolatry, a defecation of material object"

"It is the eternal mission of Muslims to protest against idolatry in all its forms"


@Khafee @war&peace @Wa Muhammada @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan
 
Last edited:
.
:rofl:

Another idiotic article by the irrelevant and desperate YLH.

Hindutva is a fascist idealogy based on unnatural mythical make-beliefs and hatred of Muslims out of humiliation.

Islamic Republic is none of those things. Unlike Hinduism (or any other religion for that matter), Islam has been inextricably involved in statecraft since its very inception! Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was himself a stateman who laid the foundations of state of Medina and governed it. The concept of 'Islamic state' has been there since 1400 years. That is why Islamic State(s) have existed in the world for past 1410 years continuously. Islam has a very well developed legal, political, and social framework for state building, which has been put to practice in various forms for centuries and centuries. Even today, you see multiple Islamic States and Republics across the world---from Africa, to Middle-East, to Asia-Pacific. Why? Yes, because unlike other religions, Islam is unique in how it relates to legal, social, and political fabric of the states it exists in. This has been studied quite extensively fellas. Try to read a book or two instead of writing meangingless gibberish on the forum all the time...Google the Brookings Scholar Shadi Hamid and read his work for a starter...

Show me anything remotely similar in Hinduism? You can't. Hinduism isn't even organized religion. Its bunch of different and disorganized religious dogmas all put together under a name called Hinduism. It has no tools, instructions, or legacy of any state-building as it was never meant to be the organizing force of any state. Modern Hindutva is just a reactionary movement to get back to Muslims and is driven by Muslim hatred. There is no precedent for a Hindu state or even an empire (Hindu-ruled empire does not equal to 'Hindu Empire') in world history

@SoulSpokesman @Kabira



Its not that. Read my post from the top (above where I quoted you)

We are just high lighting the fact that Modi and RSS are going against their own established constitution in order to act on their hatred of minorities (Muslims) more effectively. It is a classic sign of fascism!

No one is lecturing anyone on anything. We are just highlighting the rise of indian fascism based on historical victimhood and humiliation.

Only muslim can be president make minorities in to 2nd class citizens. They are barely 2-3% so them making in to top was highly unlikely. Considering must of them are either sweeper christians or poor hindus of Tharparkar.

On the other hand Pakistan allow some muslim sects who are technically not proper muslims to become anything they want just because they are powerful and more numerous.

I already said Pakistan is better then India when it comes to treating minorities yet western world doesn’t see it because of our constitution. This doesnt help Kashmir cause, especially when Pakistan is incapable of taking it by force like Russia did in Crimea.

You how British India map would look today if not for secularism? They played this card to gain as much land as possible of minorities.

original-pakistan.jpg
 
.
Only muslim can be president make minorities in to 2nd class citizens. They are barely 2-3% so them making in to top was highly unlikely. Considering must of them are either sweeper christians or poor hindus of Tharparkar.

Again, dumb excuses of seculars who find nothing else so they cook up mythical stories like these. Stop getting influenced by such hackneyed versions of constitutional framework.

In U.S, if you are not born in the U.S---you can not become President. Does that mean U.S treats its immigrants as "second class citizens" just because they can't become President? :disagree:

Presidency/PM are top most executive positions of any country. Many countries have certain exclusionary requirements for these positions. Its not a big deal at all. In U.S, a person who was 2 years old when his parents came to the U.S can grow up in U.S, speaking only English, going to U.S schools, and has no other identity than American. They serve in the military and fight for their country. Lose their one eye in the battle for their nation. Even with all this, that 2-year-old baby can not grow up and become U.S President even after all their services, loyalty, and sacrifices for their nation. Does that mean U.S is "oppressive" somehow?

NO! highest most executive position of the land having few exclusionary requirements does not automatically mean "oppression".....What counts is the situation of the vast majority of people/minorities and their life. In that regard, Pakistan is doing far, far better. That is where we should be focussing. No some idiotic idea of "secularism" in Pakistan, which goes against our very foundations as a country.


You how British India map would look today if not for secularism? They played this card to gain as much land as

possible of minorities.
original-pakistan.jpg

LOL, that map is not real. For god's sake....stop peddling same internet myths and pick up a book or two. This map is only popular on internet. In actual policy documents, this map wasn't even under consideration of the British.

There was no way that this green map would have survived. British were adamant that the new states would be democratic in nature and NOT monarchies. By WW2, even European monarchies had ended, let alone British/UN/USSR allowing any post-colonial states to keep their kingships (except few tribal states aka GCC). All these "green" areas on map were overwhelmingly hindu majority. You think bunch of Muslim nawabs would have been allowed to continue ruling over these lands without any hindrance....in a democratic india? You think British would have been fine with it? :lol:

Hindu majority Gujrat, Hyderabad etc were going to be with india. That was 100% confirmed and everyone knew it (Just like Muslim majority Balochistan was going to Pakistan, even though Congress laid a claim on it). Infact, when Nawab of Junagardh tried to succeed to Pakistan, his Hindu majority population rebelled, and expectedly so. Plecibate was conducted in Junagarh and massive majority voted for India. So it is not 'secularism' that allowed india to merge hindu majority regions within British india into the new union. It was the very demographics that dictated the merging of these obsolete nawabdoms into the Republic of india.

Please stop peddling the embarrassingly wrong myths of neo secularists like Marvi Sirmed or Jibran Nasir or baby Iman Hazari etc. Read few books may be? Hell, I can recommend even few links if you want. Pakistan was created as an Islamic state where minorities were to be protected. Our constitution does not hinder the resolution of Kashmir or support of Western govts. If this was the case, no Western govt would have been supporting Saudi Arabia. Overt support is rare in international politics and interests drive the policy---not 'secularism' or 'morals' or whatever bs you wanna feed yourself.

Pakistani state is taking correct measures on internationalizing Kashmir. But that's a different topic for now.
 
Last edited:
.
:rofl:

Another idiotic article by the irrelevant and desperate YLH.

Hindutva is a fascist idealogy based on unnatural mythical make-beliefs and hatred of Muslims out of humiliation.

Islamic Republic is none of those things. Unlike Hinduism (or any other religion for that matter), Islam has been inextricably involved in statecraft since its very inception! Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was himself a stateman who laid the foundations of state of Medina and governed it. The concept of 'Islamic state' has been there since 1400 years. That is why Islamic State(s) have existed in the world for past 1410 years continuously. Islam has a very well developed legal, political, and social framework for state building, which has been put to practice in various forms for centuries and centuries. Even today, you see multiple Islamic States and Republics across the world---from Africa, to Middle-East, to Asia-Pacific. Why? Yes, because unlike other religions, Islam is unique in how it relates to legal, social, and political fabric of the states it exists in. This has been studied quite extensively fellas. Try to read a book or two instead of writing meangingless gibberish on the forum all the time...Google the Brookings Scholar Shadi Hamid and read his work for a starter...

Show me anything remotely similar in Hinduism? You can't. Hinduism isn't even organized religion. Its bunch of different and disorganized religious dogmas all put together under a name called Hinduism. It has no tools, instructions, or legacy of any state-building as it was never meant to be the organizing force of any state. Modern Hindutva is just a reactionary movement to get back to Muslims and is driven by Muslim hatred. There is no precedent for a Hindu state or even an empire (Hindu-ruled empire does not equal to 'Hindu Empire') in world history

@SoulSpokesman @Kabira



Its not that. Read my post from the top (above where I quoted you)

We are just high lighting the fact that Modi and RSS are going against their own established constitution in order to act on their hatred of minorities (Muslims) more effectively. It is a classic sign of fascism!

No one is lecturing anyone on anything. We are just highlighting the rise of indian fascism based on historical victimhood and humiliation.
Excellent points by teesraindiothunter


Give me an Islamic republic over a hindutva republic ANY DAY OF THE WEEK.

THE CRAP THAT SANGHEES DO IN HINDUTVA LAND IS MAINSTREAM. THE CRAP THAT ISLAMIST EXTREMISTS DO IN PAKISTAN IS FRINGE. THAT WILL ALWAYS ALWAYS BE THE ETERNAL AND EVERLASTING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ISLAMIC REPUBLIC AND A HINDUTVA ONE.
 
.
LOL, that map is not real. For god's sake....stop peddling same internet myths and pick up a book or two. This map is only popular on internet. In actual policy documents, this map wasn't even under consideration of the British.

There was no way that this green map would have survived. British were adamant that the new states would be democratic in nature and NOT monarchies. By WW2, even European monarchies had ended, let alone British/UN/USSR allowing any post-colonial states to keep their kingships (except few tribal states aka GCC). All these "green" areas on map were overwhelmingly hindu majority. You think bunch of Muslim nawabs would have been allowed to continue ruling over these lands without any hindrance....in a democratic india? You think British would have been fine with it? :lol:

Hindu majority Gujrat, Hyderabad etc were going to be with india. That was 100% confirmed and everyone knew it (Just like Muslim majority Balochistan was going to Pakistan, even though Congress laid a claim on it). Infact, when Nawab of Junagardh tried to succeed to Pakistan, his Hindu majority population rebelled, and expectedly so. Plecibate was conducted in Junagarh and massive majority voted for India. So it is not 'secularism' that allowed india to merge hindu majority regions within British india into the new union. It was the very demographics that dictated the merging of these obsolete nawabdoms into the Republic of india.

Please stop peddling the embarrassingly wrong myths of neo secularists like Marvi Sirmed or Jibran Nasir or baby Iman Hazari etc. Read few books may be? Hell, I can recommend even few links if you want. Pakistan was created as an Islamic state where minorities were to be protected. Our constitution does not hinder the resolution of Kashmir or support of Western govts. If this was the case, no Western govt would have been supporting Saudi Arabia. Overt support is rare in international politics and interests drive the policy---not 'secularism' or 'morals' or whatever bs you wanna feed yourself.

Pakistani state is taking correct measures on internationalizing Kashmir. But that's a different topic for now.

You didn't get it. Indian muslims left in Bharat who believed in secularism including mullahs would have risen up and demanded separate land for themselves. Thats how that map make perfect sense. If instead of facade of Congress secularism, RSS would have been party of choice by hindus back then that map would have been reality. Or if Indian muslims were not fool enough to believe in lies of Nehru.

You are talking about majority areas but thats not how that would have worked out once everyone had made their mind that we will soon be living in hindutva rashtra. 1/3 of muslims left behind in India would have made more Pakistans under British raj. Trust me back then hindus would have been happy to give away land to get rid of violent muslims. Remember at the end master gora would have made final decision. As that land belonged to muslim anyway for centuries. Now they rather keep them as slaves.

Just like sikhs had a option to get separate country if they really worked for it before 1947. Now hindus rather keep sikhs under the thumb.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom