What's new

Mood of the Indian Muslims

So basically India now a day behaving like any normal Muslim majority country.
Is this the point of above article?

In Pakistan, I can say with 100%+ certainty that we don't discriminate so blatantly against minorities (with the exception of Qadiyani, but that needs to be fixed) like Indians.

1. We don't avoid their businesses, or turn them away just because they're non-Muslim.
2. We don't treat them as outsiders at all. Due to Pakistan's issues in interior Sindh, they're more appreciated in the rest of the country.
3. We do not abuse their religion or beliefs. Definitely not the majority.

Want to know the difference?

Go to google and search for a news story where a Muslim in India got lynched; look up TOI or any video by some Indian poster, and look at the comments. I guarantee that the majority will be happy about it.

Search some forced conversion article for Pakistan, and find me one comment by a Pakistani who supports it.

Whether you people like it or not, grand differences are coming in between Pakistan and India, and these are observable by social media. Already called it like much before that India is fast going towards religious extremism, far worse than Pakistan, and you can see it.

Lastly, even if you consider that this is behavior in Muslim-majority countries, is that your excuse or justification? Is this what you hang on to? What abouttism? Some people have zero ethics or considerations, pure garbage of a people, and you're certainly one of them.

EDIT: If any Indian has doubt, just recall how Indians reacted to blasphemous cartoons in France, and the call to boycott French products. That's a representation of their hate for Islam and Muslims.
 
Last edited:
.
Why all the Indian Muslims didn't migrate to Pakistan.
The great deception !


The "population exchange" was halted the behest of Sardar Patel and Nehru with the Liaquat Nehru Pact on April 08, 1950.
The pact guaranteed safety of minorities in the respective countries and was intended to prevent forced migration.

India wanted to prevent the influx of Hindus from East Pakistan ( now Bangladesh) into the North Eastern states particularly Assam. Hindus comprised 25% of the population of East Pakistan ( now Bangladesh) and about 20% of the overall population of both East and West Pakistan. India was not in a position to absorb more refugees.
Pakistan too was not in a position to absorb more refugees after the carnage in Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, UP, Rajasthan, Bengal, CP ( now MP) , Gujarat and Delhi had displaced millions of people into the country.

By late 1949, the original Muslim League had packed up shop in India and surviving Muslims were looking for a direction from religious clergy. There was an Ijtema ( meeting) in Delhi where two factions of the Muslim Ulema , Jamait - ul-Ulema-Hind , and Jamait-e-Islami duked it out in religious debate whether to issue a fatwa ( directive) for Indian Muslims to migrate. This was dependent on whether the remaining territories of India were declared as Darul Harb " Land of Conflict " or Darul Aman .
A " Land of Conflict " Darul Harb , is where Muslims cannot exist as Muslims, and are debarred from performing their religious obligations such as prayers and burials .
As opposed to this is the "Darul Aman" or Land of Peace " where Muslims can exist as a minority with full rights to their religious status.
Muslims are duty bound to emigrate out of a Darul Harb
to preserve their faith. The earliest example is the emigration of the Prophet Muhammad ( SAW ) and his companions from Mecca to Medina. Other examples: When a fatwa was declared categorizing a land as Darul Harb Muslims migrated out of Mongol ravaged Central Asia, and Reconquista oppressed Southern Spain, and Macedonia.
The Jamait e Islami (JI) argued that India was a Darul Harb so demanded a joint fatwa asking Muslims to perform hijrat . The Jamait-e-Ulema Hind ( JUI) opposed the idea asking Muslims to wait till India's constitution was finalized. If the constitution was acceptable then India would be a Darul Aman .
The ijtema was being keenly watched by over twenty then independent Muslim majority countries including Afghanistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt
On Sardar Patel's behest Ambedkar sent a delegation to the ijtema led by K. M. Munshi ostensibly as "observers" but in fact were heavily influencing the JUI and assuring them of a Constitution that would guarantee Muslims their status in India. The reason the Indian government adopted this stance was because it did not want refugees from East Pakistan and it wanted an "image" in the newly independent Arab and Muslim world as a foil to Pakistan's claim as the new "Homeland " for Indian Muslims. Hijrat and declaration of India as a Darul Harb would have a deep diplomatic impact on India's relations with the countries in the region akin to Israel as it was then.
Most Muslim and Arab countries knew that Pakistan would never be able to sustain the influx of the Indian Muslim refugees so they had come to an understanding with the the JI ( Maulana Maudoodi was very influential) to address the problem.
All the independent and semi-independent Muslim nations were preparing to take an influx of Muslim emigrants from India including the war ravaged population depleted Soviet Union.
After the carnage there some migration from Bihar did occur mainly to Saudi Arabia, but for linguistic and cultural reasons most Indian Muslims preferred to go to Pakistan.,
After a fierce debate the JI walked out of the ijtema . The JUI in the ultimate act of treachery issued a fatwa declaring India as Darul Aman.
The JI was banned in India and the JUI became the official lapdog puppet Government ulemas.
With Ambedkars deception the fate of the Indian Muslims was sealed. They were now hostages in a larger game.
------------------------.
Foot note ( topic for a future thread).
In a similar grotesque deception game the Stranded Pakistanis of Bangladesh refused offers of relocation even though many OIC countries had offered to absorb them. There were only 500,000 Stranded Pakistanis left in Bangladesh by mid 1972. The initial repatriation fund collected by Lord Ennels was $40 million
 
Last edited:
.
@Avatar
Many are not, but there are those that are (just as there are Muslims who want to commit barbarity just for the sake of it). And that's who I was referring to.
Yes, definitely. As humanity develops better standards for itself I hope violent protests will be universally accepted as ineffective and unnecessarily destructive behaviors that seldom achieve anything.

This is something that I've always found intriguing, why wouldn't you want to spread what you believe to be true and a superior way of life?
It is because Hinduism does not force its beliefs on anyone. The Sindhu people who lived in ancient India universally accepted the common threads of what we know as Hinduism today. It is perhaps because of foreign religions coming into India that Hinduism came to have this name.. Our texts dont have this word "Hindu" anywhere. We just know about "Dharma", which is simply "The law".. and it is only the law of cause and effect that is central to the teachings. Every lesson teaches cause and effect and encourages humans to cultivate the right causes for the desired effects. The reason why there are no conversions is because we cannot really convert anyone - the conversion is only from suffering to happiness by accepting a philosophy in life that gives a deeper meaning to every interaction in life. Conversion is just like wearing an additional layer of clothing - I dress so and so, I read namaaz 5 times and this makes me a Muslim? Well, we all bleed the same, we all become angry the same, this does not solve anything and after we die - who knows what will happen?

Personally, I am a huge fan of some of the Sufi Mystics such as Rumi, Hafez and Kabir. These saints speak with the universally understood language of love and their words penetrate deep into the hearts of the most stubborn men, change people for good without any forceful compulsion or conversion. The ones who truly know would never force their knowledge upon anyone, because truth does not need enforcement, only patience and openness for discovery.

Right, and the fact that it is so loose means that a variety of views on matters such as this can develop (and have).

Yeah, you can pretty much do anything and still call yourself a Hindu. The majority follow the Bhakti/Devotion path but there are ways of seeking knowledge or refinement of the senses without any blind faith, believing only what you personally experience.


I don't think causing pain is universally seen as wrong in all circumstances given the existence of Kshatriyas, and I disagree with the notion that Muslims were entirely treated positively. There were cases of positive as well as negative treatment, even from the beginning (the latter of which was used to justify subsequent invasions, e.g Indian pirates kidnapping Muslim women).
The existence of Kshatriyas are an unavoidable consequence of human nature. Our communities have always fought with each other for greed or power, and these warrior clans were the ones who did the dirty work of fighting. Hindu philosophy tried to make them feel better about choosing this way and accept their fate with dignity. If you read the Bhagwat Gita, you'll see that it deals with all the reluctance that a warrior encounters before the great battle.

The negative treatment that you're referring to is probably not due to bad intentions of the Hindu ruler, but as a rule of thumb Hindus and Muslims got along fine until they started fighting each other. I am very happy to see that at least you are acknowledging some parts of history that I thought were largely ommited in your education.


Most people who turn towards violence are victims of poverty more than almost anything else, but there are those for whom this is not the case. Take a look at, say, the communal tensions within the US that persist despite a much higher standard of living than much of the world. I don't think India becoming wealthier will fully resolve the matter.
Yes, I agree with this. In US, society is becoming more expressive and radicalized with their views and this is a huge problem. I think it stems from excessive freedoms and liberties without a strong grounding, which confuses some people and makes them act too rashly. The lone gunman mass shooters are a phenomena I haven't been able to process yet other than some kind of suicidal ouburts.

But this is the problem, you can't control this. You're not even in India. Whilst such niceties are indeed soothing to the ear, no matter what you and I might want for each other and within our own countries, things like this just don't seem realistic. Which is perhaps the most depressing matter of all.

To be honest, I dont know what to do about it. There are so many elements involved in this problem that its difficult to imagine any useful intervention. We have to let the forces play out their agenda and hope that better sense prevails (which does among more people than you would expect)..every time Muslims are in threat in prominent areas of India, you'll see their Hindu brothers and sisters form a human chain to protect them. A lot of Indians are feeling very sick of the excessive presence of RSS idealogy in mainstream. For my own role - I try to calm the fires wherever I can be of help.

If you see the situation inside Pakistan today, its probably not what Jinnah dreamed of.. More than anything it is our British Colonizers lack of initiative and poor planning that lead to the violent partition of India whose scars have still not healed fully. I dont know if partition was the right thing to do.
They can be largely mitigated in various ways, with further partitioning being (imo) one of them.
Is Pakistan really better off? Had India and Pakistan not invested so heavily into fighting each other, brewing negative sentiments and hatred among their populations, using religion as a tool, I am sure we'd be happier even if we were still a poor nation. Undivided India was big enough for all of us.
 
.
muslims should try to do their duty as a patriotic citizen of india , they have all rights in hindu raj . if you have anything to say firstly improve life of minorities in pakistan.

"All rights in hindu raj":hitwall:
Is that what M.S. Golwalkar said ?
M.S. Golwalkar :

There are only two courses open to these foreign elements’, Golwalkar went on, ‘either to merge themselves in the national race and adopt its culture or to live at its mercy so long as the national race may allow them to do so and quit the country at the sweet will of the national race. That is the only sound view on the minorities’ problem… [The] foreign races in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment—not even citizen’s rights.
 
.
slaves have no modes
they have orders to follow .

1607571278727.png
 
.
India sounds like a shit hole. Pakistan is whatever but at least as a society people don’t harass each other here. We have a lot of Christians in my city and even hindu mandar in the bazaa
We saw that in 1947. Now that the minorities are negligible in Pakistan, how can we see anything?

- PRTP GWD
 
. .
Indian Muslims make up a tiny fraction of the Indian diaspora around the world. Your point however is correct, that they should be more aggressive, and there are signs of that, at least in the US.
Don't worry. All that will fizzle out once the funding stops.

- PRTP GWD
No because you've never been to Pakistan lol.
But we have read about 1947.

- PRTP GWD
 
.
Indian Muslims are largely poor and lowly educated to understand history and geopolitics on a macrolevel and its effect on the microlevel. Pakistan/Jinnah does not exist in their sphere of knowledge. If you ask a common Muslim street vendor on why his parents did not emigrate to Pakistan or if Jinnah was right, he will give you a bewildered look. When people are living hand-to-mouth and struggling to get by, such fanciful intellectual arguments of the past have little meaning.

Let's also be honest here. Migration for 200 million Muslims was neither practical, and nor possible. Furthermore, the Nehru-Liaqat pact of 1950 (?) eliminated the need of population transfers. No matter how many Muslims migrated to Pakistan, there were bound to be Muslims left behind.
Migration was not possible maybe but another partition in the name of pakistan where they were in majority was indeed possible.
 
. .
No, we're ok letting others be just the way they are. It is the correct approach.

Khurram or Kumar, depends entirely on the individual how they've gone about living life, how their thought process works. I know some muslims here who are the most non muslim muslims ever lol,

no.. Indians (hindus) have no desire to convert any other. Yahwey, muhammed, jesus, vishnu.. all good.

But that very statement is itself an ideological viewpoint, I feel as if you're inherently perennial/pluralistic in understanding (as many Hindus are), so surely you'd at least want to spread that as fiercely as possible?

yup, and what a great shame that is.

dragging 2 billion people through the mud as they go around driving over people in Christmas markets and.. you know the rest.

Yep, it is a shame that so many innocent people have to die due to their actions. But with that being said, a large reason why many people slip into this is due to the current political climate. If France is going to intervene in Africa, obviously Africans are going to get angry and lash out. The same applies to Kashmiris lashing out against India, or Afghans against Americans.

The proof of this is quite obvious, Western intervention in the Islamic world has dramatically decreased in recent years and so have the terrorist attacks in their lands alongside it. Ultimately, groups like AQ and ISIS have the power that they have because of the fact that there are a lot of Muslims who are not pleased with how they're treating and have nobody else to turn to.

Obviously everyone wants things to end, but quite frankly, what a lot of countries do just gives these people ideological ammunition. And this problem won't go away until that dissolves.

The Saudis or Iran aren't either then

Idk about Saudi Arabia but Iran is. A theocracy is a very particular form of governance.

Can you imagine these mass conversions of the most vulnerable in Pakistan, who happen to be muslims, to some other way ? Islam won't allow it, your constitution also probably does not allow it.

That would be the case, but I thought you said that Hinduism is ok with other ways of life? Why contradict that by barring conversions? If you want to do it for the sake of preserving yourselves, then you can't exactly have it both ways and say that you're also perfectly fine with people being Muslims, Christians, etc. And by promoting this preservation, you're only further proving my point that the demarcation is sharper than many would like to suggest.

I'd also disagree with the assertion that's it always (or even typically) forced.

Don't have super strong convictions on the whole thing personally but it is objectively wrong to engage in that kind of behaviour. Wouldn't you agree ?

It is an abomination to rape someone, even if done through legal means and especially when combined with forced conversions.
 
.
Well, we all bleed the same, we all become angry the same, this does not solve anything and after we die - who knows what will happen?

Yep, but if you hold to this notion, why not spread this in particular? You don't have to tell people to go to a Yogi, to read the Gita, to abandon their Talmud, etc. Even spreading the most basic message you believe in counts as some form of proselytisation, and I would hope that you'd want to spread it by any means necessary.

If you read the Bhagwat Gita, you'll see that it deals with all the reluctance that a warrior encounters before the great battle.

Arjuna did seem quite reluctant to fight to say the least (if memory serves correctly).

The negative treatment that you're referring to is probably not due to bad intentions of the Hindu ruler, but as a rule of thumb Hindus and Muslims got along fine until they started fighting each other. I am very happy to see that at least you are acknowledging some parts of history that I thought were largely ommited in your education.

The Bawarij were the main ones to increase tensions by harassing Muslim-run ships, and Raja Dahir did not help by not dealing with them. Not only that, but his lack of popularity at the time resulted in a lot of tribes defecting to the Ummayads which spearheaded the Ummayad campaign significantly (even the Bawarij ended up largely converting to Islam). Prithviraj Chauhan also refused to establish a treaty with Muhammad Ghori, which led to him expanding past Lahore. A similar incident occurred between Ghaznavi and Jayapala. Ironically, many Chauhans also ended up becoming Muslim as did the Hindu Shahis. So our ancestors caused the problems, then became turncoats, and now you have to pay for what they instigated (despite your much kinder gestures towards Muslims in those days, .e.g those traders in Kerala). Darkly comedic if you ask me :D

The Pakistani curriculum isn't quite so monolithic, it depends on where you're studying, under which specification and at what level. My parents mainly remember the Indus Valley Civilisation, Porus, the Ummayads and the Ghaznavids being taught. As far as I'm concerned, the pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan's various ethnicities/tribes ought to have much emphasis but that doesn't mean that the post-Islamic history of the sub-continent is to be washed over either. There is a balance, I just don't want "we wuz Turkz and Arabz" to be pushed onto the country just because a small portion of it claims such ancestry.

To be honest, I dont know what to do about it. There are so many elements involved in this problem that its difficult to imagine any useful intervention. We have to let the forces play out their agenda and hope that better sense prevails (which does among more people than you would expect)

Indeed we do.

If you see the situation inside Pakistan today, its probably not what Jinnah dreamed of

Understatement :D

I dont know if partition was the right thing to do.

My view is this: partition was the right thing to do, but the way in which it was done was horrible. Splitting the Bengal and the Punjab was horrific, Kashmir should have been more properly dealt with, Bangladesh should have been separate from the beginning, and there should have been two more countries for Muslims within what is now the Republic of India itself. This would have allowed for much more cordial relations between all of us.

Is Pakistan really better off? Had India and Pakistan not invested so heavily into fighting each other, brewing negative sentiments and hatred among their populations, using religion as a tool, I am sure we'd be happier even if we were still a poor nation. Undivided India was big enough for all of us.

That's a big "if". Obviously, such a scenario where we all get along would negate the need for partition, but I just don't see that as being a reality.
 
.
But that very statement is itself an ideological viewpoint, I feel as if you're inherently perennial/pluralistic in understanding (as many Hindus are), so surely you'd at least want to spread that as fiercely as possible?
Fiercely ? no

Organically ? yes, if it ends up doing so, guess it'll end up doing so.. if it ends up fading away, it fades away.

I like the Dao/Taoist philosophy of flow, neti neti is a good one too.

Yep, it is a shame that so many innocent people have to die due to their actions. But with that being said, a large reason why many people slip into this is due to the current political climate. If France is going to intervene in Africa, obviously Africans are going to get angry and lash out. The same applies to Kashmiris lashing out against India, or Afghans against Americans.

The proof of this is quite obvious, Western intervention in the Islamic world has dramatically decreased in recent years and so have the terrorist attacks in their lands alongside it. Ultimately, groups like AQ and ISIS have the power that they have because of the fact that there are a lot of Muslims who are not pleased with how they're treating and have nobody else to turn to.

Obviously everyone wants things to end, but quite frankly, what a lot of countries do just gives these people ideological ammunition. And this problem won't go away until that dissolves.
All we as individuals in a personal capacity can do is to not contribute to the gargantuan mess the world is in.

It is indeed a tragedy what has gone down with the Islamic world vs the rest of the world, there's plenty of blame to go around on all sides I think. We'd be so much better off if people stopped with the blame game and introspected themselves, all of us.

Idk about Saudi Arabia but Iran is. A theocracy is a very particular form of governance.
Technically, yes but what can the mullahs do when their subjects revolt ? Doesn't necessarily have to be an armed insurrection, a lot of the youth in Iran just stopped giving a F to their ideology.



Ok, rest later.. nice chat, thanks. :-)
 
.
Fiercely ? no

Maybe I used a term that was too Abrahamic in orientation :D , I'm sure you understand what I mean.

All we as individuals in a personal capacity can do is to not contribute to the gargantuan mess the world is in.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

It is indeed a tragedy what has gone down with the Islamic world vs the rest of the world, there's plenty of blame to go around on all sides I think. We'd be so much better off if people stopped with the blame game and introspected themselves, all of us.

Right, but that's not to say we ought not assist each other in said introspection. If I was left to my bubble, and you to yours, I doubt either of us would comprehend many of the issues we both need to tackle.

Ok, rest later.. nice chat, thanks. :-)

You too.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom