- A Muslim in India is Indian first and Muslim second, just like how a Hindu in India is Indian first and Hindu second, or any other religion. The same can be said for Pakistan, otherwise you wouldn't need a visa to visit Saudi Arabia.
- Old man Qasim or his Rajput counterparts were products of their times. We don't define heroes by their faith. Take it from someone who spent countless hours memorizing high school history, the Islamic personalities were neither glorified nor vilified.
- He is not forced to abandon any language. We are a diverse people and pretty much every state has its own language. Another one is hardly a cause for concern. But yes importance will always be given to Hindi and English due to convenience and need for a common language. We don't want to end up like Pakistan, fragmented over language disputes.
- You don't need to sacrifice a cow specifically. An animal has to be sacrificed, a third given to family, friends and the poor each for the sacrificial part of Eid. Don't forget the original sacrifice was a goat after the boy was saved.
- India has a lot of poor people, and yes historically some communities were marginalized. All of that was abandoned, banned and made criminally punishable when the constitution was written up. It's a slow progress, but we're making progress.
- Yes the triple talaq was banned. So was SATI. Any religious practice that tends to harm others, of the same faith or different faith, will be banned for the sake of the greater good.
- Muslims underrepresented? Yes that must be why a Muslim was one of the most popular presidents of India, ever. We have Muslims in most major political parties, along with exclusive Muslim political parties.
You might call Kalam as someone who abandoned his religion, but if your definition of a Muslim is "someone who will unconditionally hate India", then yes, we don't want them here in India and that goes for every religion.
1. Anyone who is not Muslim first is not Muslim, simple as. The Quran and Hadees are very clear about this (I can bring up evidence later if you wish). Every single practicing Muslim, no matter what nationality, regards himself as Muslim first. Ask a religious Muslim if he values his country or his religion more, he will not say country unless he is either lying or simply not a religious Muslim. Saudi Arabia is irrelevant to this discussion, since being Saudi is also a nationality, not a religion.
2. If that's how you feel, fine. I am a proud Muslim before all else and therefore people like Qasim are my heroes where as I spit on the graves of those terrible creatures that acted against Islam and Muslims, this is how Muslims should view these Islamic conquerors.
3. Exactly, he has to write using Devangari rather than a Perso-Arabic script. His culture is literally being robbed from him. Pakistan doesn't have any language disputes, we all agree that Urdu and English are the national and formal languages whilst anything else is for provincial/personal use only. And I don't see why you are talking about fragmentation when you guys view Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan as lost land. You're also probably going to lose the rest Kashmir too.
4. We are well within our rights to sacrifice whatever we damn please, and should be able to do so without regarding your sensitivities (since you hardly ever extend the same courtesy).
5. Once you've actually completed your progress, then we talk.
6. Comparing Talaq to Sati is laughable, they are not even remotely similar.
7. Yes, Muslims are underrepresented, even the ones who are not practising:
https://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2003/12/200849155257613162.html
Kalam attempted to synthesise Hinduism with his religion, that's kufr. He aided in the development of weapons of mass destruction that would be primarily be targeted at other Muslims, again, that's kufr.
A practising Muslim doesn't have to hate Hindustan full stop, but he must value his religion over his nationality and any other identity he may hold, whilst also hating any haram things that his country does, whether he is Pakistani, Hindustani, Bangladeshi, Saudi Arabian, etc. It doesn't matter, the principle applies in all cases.
We Muslims in India are under no such illusions.
You're not Muslim, you cannot be Muslim whilst being a Secularist and hating Islamic heroes like Qasim or Ghaznavi.
You're a Kafir, just accept it and stop trying to be one of us.
Wsalaam, bro im not so sure - no army man will admit defeat, the fact that your friend said it was a silly endeavour is quite telling. The politicians in this case are telling the truth as they have nothing to hide here.
Everyone has an agenda when it comes to this issue, let's just look at the facts. We went, and we took Point 5353. We made gains, where as Hindustan made none (in fact, they had to rely on political pressure to force Pakistan to evict most of the 20% of Kargil it held).
We won, they lost. Simple as.
Read some history. The part of Kashmir you got/occupy is what you acquired by invading the free state of Jammu and Kashmir. Once India entered the fray, you lost territory and were pushed back. So you lost territory there.
You got 10% of your claim to Rann of Kutch through a British tribunal whose establishment and decision was accepted by both sides. Lol, you consider that some kind of victory? You claim was because the border was not demarcated. So by your own logic, India controls 90% of your claim.
Kashmir was never going to join Pakistan, get real. The ruler was clearly going to join Hindustan, hence why he was butchering Muslims long before Pakistan invaded (he wanted to cause a major demographic change). You lost land, we only gained it.
I don't care what we claimed, the fact is it was still originally yours but we took it. You lost 10% of Kutch that was yours, end of story.
