Do you put nationality before religion or vice versa?

[Knight_Rider]

Vast majority of other religious groups have become Secular, and thus they have negligible problem in integrations.

While vast majority of Muslims hate the western secular values, therefore Europeans consider that integration is worst when it comes to Muslims.

There are enough to Indians and Chinese and Africans and South Americans as labour force if needed. But the Secular West wanted to rise up against the religious discrimination. But vast majority of Muslims in Europe failed their humanity based plan. And now many Europeans are against that Muslims get the European immigration.

Two things:
1) In reality vast majority of Muslims are secular. They are happy to live and let live and are well aware they exist in a multi-religious, multi-cultural society. Of course there are a few who want to impose their religious code on others but they are a very small minority. Such individuals always exist in every sect and every religion, that's just the nature of things.
2) Its fairly known fact that there is a general bias against Muslims and Islam in the west. Islamophobia is openly shown on media and other venues. There are wider and historical reasons for it because Islam directly competed with Christianity and Muslim states were direct competitors of Christian States in Europe and Middle east.

Sorry to point out but your claim about Muslims failing the Humanity based plans is laughable. There is a huge muslim population in Western European countries like France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and UK for many 'Decades' and there are no real problems to shout about. Mostly the issues faced are those of race base discrimination and social mobility.


India and Hinduism on the other hand doesn't really matter much on world scale. As they were always confined to the subcontinent and even there got trampled over by various other people, so they never posed any threat.

These are the reasons why you will hear more about Muslim migrants in the press but that doesn't change the reality these kind of religious phobias always existed in the western societies. First against Jews, then against various Christian sects then on racial basis. Examples are that many smaller Christian sects like Quakers were prosecuted in England, Huguenots and Jews in France and so on. Enough said. Hope you get my drift..

 

[Ronaldo7]

Two things:
1) In reality vast majority of Muslims are secular. They are happy to live and let live and are well aware they exist in a multi-religious, multi-cultural society. Of course there are a few who want to impose their religious code on others but they are a very small minority. Such individuals always exist in every sect and every religion, that's just the nature of things.
2) Its fairly known fact that there is a general bias against Muslims and Islam in the west. Islamophobia is openly shown on media and other venues. There are wider and historical reasons for it because Islam directly competed with Christianity and Muslim states were direct competitors of Christian States in Europe and Middle east.

Sorry to point out but your claim about Muslims failing the Humanity based plans is laughable. There is a huge muslim population in Western European countries like France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and UK for many 'Decades' and there are no real problems to shout about. Mostly the issues faced are those of race base discrimination and social mobility.


India and Hinduism on the other hand doesn't really matter much on world scale. As they were always confined to the subcontinent and even there got trampled over by various other people, so they never posed any threat.

These are the reasons why you will hear more about Muslim migrants in the press but that doesn't change the reality these kind of religious phobias always existed in the western societies. First against Jews, then against various Christian sects then on racial basis. Examples are that many smaller Christian sects like Quakers were prosecuted in England, Huguenots and Jews in France and so on. Enough said. Hope you get my drift..

That's the one point people miss.

The west thinks Islam is a threat because of how widespread it is.

Hinduism is not a threat because it was confined to the subcontinent and also Indians are seen as very submissive and vulnerable people so no one picks on the weak

 

[troodon]

That's the one point people miss.

The west thinks Islam is a threat because of how widespread it is.

Hinduism is not a threat because it was confined to the subcontinent and also Indians are seen as very submissive and vulnerable people so no one picks on the weak

Or it has something to do with Islamic extremism in the west from the 3rd world muslim immigrants?

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Vast majority of other religious groups have become Secular, and thus they have negligible problem in integrations.

While vast majority of Muslims hate the western secular values, therefore Europeans consider that integration is worst when it comes to Muslims.

There are enough to Indians and Chinese and Africans and South Americans as labour force if needed. But the Secular West wanted to rise up against the religious discrimination. But vast majority of Muslims in Europe failed their humanity based plan. And now many Europeans are against that Muslims get the European immigration.

The real reason they dont want immigration is that they dont want there demographics to change. People in Europe do not want a Indian or chinese, or african majority in there country as well. and that is ok, they have a right to perserve there culture.

Let me quote from De Gaulle

"It is very good that there are yellow Frenchmen, black Frenchmen, brown Frenchmen. They prove that France is open to all races and that she has a universal mission. But [it is good] on condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are, after all, primarily a European people of the white race, Greek and Latin culture, and the Christian religion."

 

[Knight_Rider]

The real reason they dont want immigration is that they dont want there demographics to change. People in Europe do not want a Indian or chinese, or african majority in there country as well. and that is ok, they have a right to perserve there culture.

Let me quote from De Gaulle

"It is very good that there are yellow Frenchmen, black Frenchmen, brown Frenchmen. They prove that France is open to all races and that she has a universal mission. But [it is good] on condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are, after all, primarily a European people of the white race, Greek and Latin culture, and the Christian religion."

Many Hindus coming out of india think that they are immune to all this just because they aren’t the focus of right wing politics right now. Its foolish to think that just because they are submissive in nature and will do whatever it takes to please the Gora Saab, they will never get targeted on.

 

[Ronaldo7]

Many Hindus coming out of india think that they are immune to all this just because they aren’t the focus of right wing politics right now. Its foolish to think that just because they are submissive in nature and will do whatever it takes to please the Gora Saab, they will never get targeted on.

That's the difference.
Hindus are so submissive that their "gora" saabs can easily manipulate and use them. That is the thing they don't like about muslims.
Most muslims are not submissive hence can't be toyed around as easily.

Why would the gora saabs pick on the weak (Hindus)? lol

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Cpt. Rishwat, you are perhaps looking at UK only.

Europeans, in general, believe that only that part of Muslims have integrated who prefer secularism over religion, but as a person gets more and more religious, more and more he becomes against the secular values.

Europeans, in general, also believe that Muslim community stands at the bottom, when it comes to integration.

Europeans, in general, also believe that Muslims, especially the new Salafi movement, openly preaching in their countries that Muslims are not allowed integrate in a local society, they are not allowed to attend their festivals, especially those like Christmas, Easter, Valentines Day etc. Muslims are not allowed to attend their parties which have alcohol (even if they don't offer or compel Muslims to drink).

There is indeed a clash between religion and local culture and local laws. And if you prefer religion over secularist values, then will get involve in this clash with surety.

This is absolute nonsense. You are speculating that the majority of Muslims in Europe are hardliner salafi types, when in fact those are probably a very small minority, same as fundamentalist Christians and Jews. I can't speak for Hindus since I don't really know what their beliefs are, but they do seem to support a Hindu power govt, both at home and abroad.

 

[Local.Dada]

That's the difference.
Hindus are so submissive that their "gora" saabs can easily manipulate and use them. That is the thing they don't like about muslims.
Most muslims are not submissive hence can't be toyed around as easily.

Why would the gora saabs pick on the weak (Hindus)? lol

Maybe minding their own business and focusing on their work and welfare of their family is called submissiveness in some parts of the world.

Where are you getting this fact that Muslim’s are super aggressive , I mean from the Pakistani families I know they are usually into the same philosophy of minding their own business and families.

Unless you are calling out blowing up buildings etc as aggressiveness. Thank god every-time that happens we have the good and liberal Muslims coming out and condemning it as it is not in accordance to Islam.

So you need to define this aggressiveness you speak of

 

[Ronaldo7]

Maybe minding their own business and focusing on their work and welfare of their family is called submissiveness in some parts of the world.

Where are you getting this fact that Muslim’s are super aggressive , I mean from the Pakistani families I know they are usually into the same philosophy of minding their own business and families.

Unless you are calling out blowing up buildings etc as aggressiveness. Thank god every-time that happens we have the good and liberal Muslims coming out and condemning it as it is not in accordance to Islam.

So you need to define this aggressiveness you speak of

there's a difference between being submissive and minding your own business.

Most muslims mind their own business but stand up (peacefully) for themselves when they're being treated unfairly.
The same can't be said for Hindus

If you think peacefully standing up for yourself is "aggressive", then may god help you.

and where did blowing up buildings come into this?

I'm talking about self respect not being violent.

 

[Ronaldo7]

I don't want to use the word but i think it would be best used in this context.
a lot of Indians imo are bootlickers (no offence). Most Pakistanis are not. Most Black people are not either.

Even if someone is treating Indians poorly, Indians will let it happen and won't even tell them to stop (talking from personal experience).

This was the point of my post

 

[Vega]

This is absolute nonsense. You are speculating that the majority of Muslims in Europe are hardliner salafi types, when in fact those are probably a very small minority, same as fundamentalist Christians and Jews. I can't speak for Hindus since I don't really know what their beliefs are, but they do seem to support a Hindu power govt, both at home and abroad.

Salafis are not a small group of Muslim by any imagination.

What is worse is this that even other normal Sunni Muslims have also left the Sufi teachings and now they also try to follow the Fiqh. As a result, these Sunni families are also not participating in Christmas, Easter or Valentines day celebrations.

And off course even the Sunni Muslims are also not secular enough to allow their girls to marry other human beings. But Sunni Boys could easily marry the European girls, and also demand them to change their religion.

All extremist groups of all religions are dangers to the humanity. It is only the question of more evil or less evil. And Muslims are considered the bigger evil in this respect by the Europeans as compared to the extremists of other religions.

 

[andy0204]

Salafis are not a small group of Muslim by any imagination.

What is worse is this that even other normal Sunni Muslims have also left the Sufi teachings and now they also try to follow the Fiqh. As a result, these Sunni families are also not participating in Christmas, Easter or Valentines day celebrations.

And off course even the Sunni Muslims are also not secular enough to allow their girls to marry other human beings. But Sunni Boys could easily marry the European girls, and also demand them to change their religion.

All extremist groups of all religions are dangers to the humanity. It is only the question of more evil or less evil. And Muslims are considered the bigger evil in this respect by the Europeans as compared to the extremists of other religions.

Keep crying or moan against Muslims and Islam.

 

[Local.Dada]

I don't want to use the word but i think it would be best used in this context.
a lot of Indians imo are bootlickers (no offence). Most Pakistanis are not. Most Black people are not either.

Even if someone is treating Indians poorly, Indians will let it happen and won't even tell them to stop (talking from personal experience).

This was the point of my post

The post above is a shining example why there is a need to Overhaul the immigration system and get in qualified folk who aid in nation building

 

[Knight_Rider]

I don't want to use the word but i think it would be best used in this context.
a lot of Indians imo are bootlickers (no offence). Most Pakistanis are not. Most Black people are not either.

Even if someone is treating Indians poorly, Indians will let it happen and won't even tell them to stop (talking from personal experience).

This was the point of my post

That words describes them well. Yeh paisay aur status k chakkar meh Gadhay ko bhi Baap banna saktay hain.

When Muslims invaded India many of the local Hindu Rajas were quick to offer their women to make peace with the invaders aur ab inn ka rona dekho. There is a reason why numerically inferior Invaders always found it easy to rule over masses in the subcontinent.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Salafis are not a small group of Muslim by any imagination.

What is worse is this that even other normal Sunni Muslims have also left the Sufi teachings and now they also try to follow the Fiqh. As a result, these Sunni families are also not participating in Christmas, Easter or Valentines day celebrations.

And off course even the Sunni Muslims are also not secular enough to allow their girls to marry other human beings. But Sunni Boys could easily marry the European girls, and also demand them to change their religion.

All extremist groups of all religions are dangers to the humanity. It is only the question of more evil or less evil. And Muslims are considered the bigger evil in this respect by the Europeans as compared to the extremists of other religions.

Sunni girls are not kept in locked rooms, even those who are brought up in strict households go to school and know their rights in European countries. If they want to marry a non-Muslim they can't be stopped from doing so. What do you suggest? All Muslim families be forced to hand over a quota of girls to non-Muslims to ensure compliance? How about religious police knocking on doors to make sure every Sunni household has a Chrsitmas tree in the sitting room?

 

[Mesozoic]

When Muslims invaded India many of the local Hindu Rajas were quick to offer their women to make peace with the invaders aur ab inn ka rona dekho. There is a reason why numerically inferior Invaders always found it easy to rule over masses in the subcontinent.

Strongly agree. Hindus were/are downright cowards.

I mean look at the way they converted in millions to foreign faiths to escape the wrath of the invading swords and how those are still suffering from Stockholm syndrome to this day to the point where they're glorifying those invaders and putting down their own roots. I mean that's some whole new level of cowardice.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Strongly agree. Hindus were/are downright cowards.

I mean look at the way they converted in millions to foreign faiths to escape the wrath of the invading swords and how those are still suffering from Stockholm syndrome to this day to the point where they're glorifying those invaders and putting down their own roots. I mean that's some whole new level of cowardice.

Yes exactly. Who would want to be associated with a primitive form of religion where every Animal that you are scared of is elevated to the God status. Those who were sensible made the right choice centuries ago, whereas others are still busy creating new Gods like Donald Trump. Didn’t you see that in news?

 

[Mesozoic]

Yes exactly. Who would want to be associated with a primitive form of religion where every Animal that you are scared of is elevated to the God status. Those who were sensible made the right choice centuries ago, whereas others are still busy creating new Gods like Donald Trump. Didn’t you see that in news?

Exactly.

Hindus have always been submissive to foreign rulers and/or their faiths. I really hope they wake up soon, come out of this syndrome and own up to their "realities" instead of giving excuses like "did the sensible thing" etc etc to cover up their inability to stand up against tyranny.

 

[Knight_Rider]

So what’s happening in India is ‘waking up against Tyrany’?

 

[Local.Dada]

So what’s happening in India is ‘waking up against Tyrany’?

Actually yes. Tyrannical governments in the neighborhood have subjected minorities to a lot of grief and have oppressed them. Not just Hindus but Christians,Parsees,Sikhs etc so yes it is a fight against tyranny to provide them with shelter in secular India.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Problem is that Hinduvita nutcases define everyone by the religion. Its just not acceptable for them that How can some Indians (as native to land as they are) decided to leave their religion and chose to adhere to a new religion. They cant get over their own inferiority complex after these centuries, where their religion rescinded from subcontinent and Southeast asia. These crazy hate mongers are the ones who cant accept that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis to most part are “their own blood”.

I tried many times to be friendly and understanding with my Hindu compatriots but 8 out 10 times i got hatred and deep burried grudge inside.

 

[Musakhel]

Problem is that Hinduvita nutcases define everyone by the religion. Its just not acceptable for them that How can some Indians (as native to land as they are) decided to leave their religion and chose to adhere to a new religion. They cant get over their own inferiority complex after these centuries, where their religion rescinded from subcontinent and Southeast asia. These crazy hate mongers are the ones who cant accept that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis to most part are “their own blood”.

I tried many times to be friendly and understanding with my Hindu compatriots but 8 out 10 times i got hatred and deep burried grudge inside.

That's why some groups in India have decided to initiate "Ghar wapsi" but it seems that they are losing on that front too with all the So called "love jihad" happening.

 

[Local.Dada]

That's why some groups in India have decided to initiate "Ghar wapsi" but it seems that they are losing on that front too with all the So called "love jihad" happening.

The whole ghar wapsi movement has found a lot of criticism among Indian Hindus too.

Do you see Indian cheer leading for Bopara or Monty because of their religion like how Amla becomes as good as Kohli/Williamson/Smith on here?

Indians even Indian Muslims for the most part use religion as a base for ethics and as a moral compass just like how religion is supposed to. It doesn’t take over our lives and clouds our judgement.

 

[Musakhel]

The whole ghar wapsi movement has found a lot of criticism among Indian Hindus too.

Do you see Indian cheer leading for Bopara or Monty because of their religion like how Amla becomes as good as Kohli/Williamson/Smith on here?

Indians even Indian Muslims for the most part use religion as a base for ethics and as a moral compass just like how religion is supposed to. It doesn’t take over our lives and clouds our judgement.

It's Supposed to take over your life if you are a muslim.

 

[Ronaldo7]

That's why some groups in India have decided to initiate "Ghar wapsi" but it seems that they are losing on that front too with all the So called "love jihad" happening.

Hindus complaining about ‘Love Jihad’ is similar to white people complaining about Inter-racial (usually Black man + white woman) marriages in America

 

[Ronaldo7]

The post above is a shining example why there is a need to Overhaul the immigration system and get in qualified folk who aid in nation building

Lol what r u on about?

Didn’t bother to understand what i was trynna say rather got offended?

We’re talking about bootlicking here. Where did immigration come into this?

Treat your boss as your boss, not as a person who owns you.
That’s the concept most Indians don’t understand

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Salafis are not a small group of Muslim by any imagination.

What is worse is this that even other normal Sunni Muslims have also left the Sufi teachings and now they also try to follow the Fiqh. As a result, these Sunni families are also not participating in Christmas, Easter or Valentines day celebrations.

And off course even the Sunni Muslims are also not secular enough to allow their girls to marry other human beings. But Sunni Boys could easily marry the European girls, and also demand them to change their religion.

All extremist groups of all religions are dangers to the humanity. It is only the question of more evil or less evil. And Muslims are considered the bigger evil in this respect by the Europeans as compared to the extremists of other religions.

Plenty of Sunni families participate in Christmas, Halloween, Valentines day, but still dont want there daughter to marry a non Muslim. this does not make them unsecular. They are simply following their religion.

I mean should they eat pork and drink alcohol as well to prove they are secular?

Also no Sunni man demands a non Muslim to change her religion. They might ask. Huge difference. And if the non Muslim girl agrees, its non of your business.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Strongly agree. Hindus were/are downright cowards.

I mean look at the way they converted in millions to foreign faiths to escape the wrath of the invading swords and how those are still suffering from Stockholm syndrome to this day to the point where they're glorifying those invaders and putting down their own roots. I mean that's some whole new level of cowardice.

Its not Stockholm syndrome when the invaders are your own ancestors.

The Muslims soldiers and settlers whether they were Afghan, African, Arab, Persian, Turk, married/raped local women. There descendants live in the subcontinent, not anywhere else. They did no go back to wherever they came from instead they made the subcontinent there home. Those are our people. Not a hard concept to understand.

And all those Hindus and Buddhist who converted to Islam, who had no blood what so ever of the "invaders", were culturally assimilated into that culture. Maybe it might have been strange for the first generation to be a Muslim, but subsequent generations who were born and bred as Muslims would have no problem what so ever.

And Historically Muslim empires didn't place that much importance on ethnicity, and they gave benefits based on religion. So it should not be surprising to see why Muslims of subcontinent would be more attached to Muslim empires than Christians of the subcontinent would be to the British Empire.

Not to mention the fact that there were Muslim dynasties that were of Rajput origin as well, who are hated just as much as the other Muslim kingdoms, which shows its really more hate for Muslims than hating "foreign invaders".

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

That words describes them well. Yeh paisay aur status k chakkar meh Gadhay ko bhi Baap banna saktay hain.

When Muslims invaded India many of the local Hindu Rajas were quick to offer their women to make peace with the invaders aur ab inn ka rona dekho. There is a reason why numerically inferior Invaders always found it easy to rule over masses in the subcontinent.

There were plenty of brave Hindus who preferred to fight to the death, and they had there women commit Jauhar to avoid humiliation. However since they fought to the death they have no descendants.

However those cowards who preferred to save their own neck, and had there daughters and sisters humiliated by being forced to marry someone of another culture, where her children would be raised in another religion, were a true disgrace.

And it was not only the Rajas, the common man did the same thing.

However since those women would be our ancestors its important that we honor there culture as well. We can have Mughals and Mahabharata as part of our culture.

 

[Mesozoic]

Its not Stockholm syndrome when the invaders are your own ancestors.

You really think that the 600 million Muslims of the subcontinent are the descendants of those invaders ? If yes, you have my sympathies.

 

[Knight_Rider]

You really think that the 600 million Muslims of the subcontinent are the descendants of those invaders ? If yes, you have my sympathies.

What do you think?
And do they /should they have the same rights as natives of the land, as Hindus claim?

 

[Mesozoic]

What do you think?
And do they /should they have the same rights as natives of the land, as Hindus claim?

Doesn't matter what "I think".

It's a fact that the overwhelming majority of the modern day subcontinental Muslims are direct converts from Dharmic faiths and have had zero genetic contact with the invaders. Why they did so is a whole another discussion , so don't want to go deep into that.

And regarding your second question , yes. They have as much right on the land as the Hindus. Their ancestors were the natives to the SC for thousands of years. They're no different from an average Hindu/Sikh just because they are the followers of a different religion.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

You really think that the 600 million Muslims of the subcontinent are the descendants of those invaders ? If yes, you have my sympathies.

What percentage of Hindus are high caste? Only a small percentage right? But there culture would be pretty much the same as the lower caste Hindus. So all Hindus would consider it part of their heritage.

Same way those "invaders" did not bring women with them. So once they married the locals they had a new culture. The people who converted to Islam from local religions also adopted this culture. There is no difference between them. Culturally we are the same people, whether we have "foreign" blood or not.

Your blood doesn't matter its your culture that does. Shah Jahan had 3 Hindu grandparents, but culturally he was still raised with the Persianized Muslim culture of the Mughals. Majority of Muslims Kings had very little foreign blood. Same way Ottoman Emperors had very little Turkish blood, but that does not mean that there were not Turks culturally.

Majority of subcontinent Muslims would have some ancestors who served in Muslim armies, they would have benefited from the perks of being Muslim in a Muslim Kingdom, there is no reason for them not to see these Muslim empires as there own, same way people in Turkey see the Ottoman as there own empire, even though they have very little Turkish blood.

You also have my sympathies. To keep peace in India you have been lied to. You have been told that foreigners are responsible for bad things that happened to Hindus in the medieval era, instead of it being people born and bred in the subcontinent, who had very little to no foreign blood, who would look just like other Indians.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Doesn't matter what "I think".

It's a fact that the overwhelming majority of the modern day subcontinental Muslims are direct converts from Dharmic faiths and have had zero genetic contact with the invaders. Why they did so is a whole another discussion , so don't want to go deep into that.

And regarding your second question , yes. They have as much right on the land as the Hindus. Their ancestors were the natives to the SC for thousands of years. They're no different from an average Hindu/Sikh just because they are the followers of a different religion.

If the "invaders" did not bring women with them, and married locals, the second generation onwards would have local blood. So from second gen onwards they would have the same genetics as the other Muslims.

 

[Ronaldo7]

What’s the obsession of Indian Hindus with trying to prove pakistani/indian muslims are not muslims?

Don’t see them talking about Europe where every person and his dog was a pagan/believed in other religions then they were converted to christianity

 

[Knight_Rider]

Doesn't matter what "I think".

It's a fact that the overwhelming majority of the modern day subcontinental Muslims are direct converts from Dharmic faiths and have had zero genetic contact with the invaders. Why they did so is a whole another discussion , so don't want to go deep into that.

And regarding your second question , yes. They have as much right on the land as the Hindus. Their ancestors were the natives to the SC for thousands of years. They're no different from an average Hindu/Sikh just because they are the followers of a different religion.

Thumbs up to you. I wish every Indian was as rational as this but most seem confused on either accusing subcontinent’s Muslims to be the offsprings of foreign Invaders -or- Those who betrayed their original dharmic religion.

Indeed we are (to most part) the same people divided by the religion. The sooner we can rise above this divide, the better it is for us. All this infighting and ego is in no one’s interest.

 

[troodon]

Thumbs up to you. I wish every Indian was as rational as this but most seem confused on either accusing subcontinent’s Muslims to be the offsprings of foreign Invaders -or- Those who betrayed their original dharmic religion.

Indeed we are (to most part) the same people divided by the religion. The sooner we can rise above this divide, the better it is for us. All this infighting and ego is in no one’s interest.

Religion is a curse. It divides people and can make sane people do insane things.

 

[Knight_Rider]

Religion is a curse. It divides people and can make sane people do insane things.

May be it is to you but everyone has a different interpretation of things. To me religion, race and culture are not necessarily mutually exclusive. At end of the day all religions have same basic core values.

 

[amax]

Two things:
1) In reality vast majority of Muslims are secular. They are happy to live and let live and are well aware they exist in a multi-religious, multi-cultural society. Of course there are a few who want to impose their religious code on others but they are a very small minority. Such individuals always exist in every sect and every religion, that's just the nature of things.
2) Its fairly known fact that there is a general bias against Muslims and Islam in the west. Islamophobia is openly shown on media and other venues. There are wider and historical reasons for it because Islam directly competed with Christianity and Muslim states were direct competitors of Christian States in Europe and Middle east.

Sorry to point out but your claim about Muslims failing the Humanity based plans is laughable. There is a huge muslim population in Western European countries like France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and UK for many 'Decades' and there are no real problems to shout about. Mostly the issues faced are those of race base discrimination and social mobility.


India and Hinduism on the other hand doesn't really matter much on world scale. As they were always confined to the subcontinent and even there got trampled over by various other people, so they never posed any threat.

These are the reasons why you will hear more about Muslim migrants in the press but that doesn't change the reality these kind of religious phobias always existed in the western societies. First against Jews, then against various Christian sects then on racial basis. Examples are that many smaller Christian sects like Quakers were prosecuted in England, Huguenots and Jews in France and so on. Enough said. Hope you get my drift..

muslims are not passive religious followers , islam promotes active preaching and cult , thats why they get more visible.

Germany and France has big problem with turk/kurds and north africans.

 

[Knight_Rider]

muslims are not passive religious followers , islam promotes active preaching and cult , thats why they get more visible.

Germany and France has big problem with turk/kurds and north africans.

I ve lived in Germany for over a decade (no longer there now) and didn’t witness Turks or Arabs (mainly Moroccans) actively involved in Dawah and Tableegh type preaching activities. Its mainly people from Subcontinent, who are keen on that stuff.

Not too sure about France but ve been there a few times and didn’t get the impression either. Infact nothing wrong with preaching either if its done in a civilized manner.

 

[Ronaldo7]

muslims are not passive religious followers , islam promotes active preaching and cult , thats why they get more visible.

Germany and France has big problem with turk/kurds and north africans.

I've never seen a Turkish person preach Islam in the open.
turkish people are very secular muslims probably the most secular in the muslim world.

So i don't know what you're on about

 

[KB]

I would make three points generally on identity. First, most people are comfortable with multiple identities. It is in fact when a state insists on the primacy of one form of identity that many problems arise. As an example, in South Asian history, many factors certainly went into the making of Pakistan and Bangladesh but some weight needs to be given to the discomfort with cultural difference that Congress (with regard to a religiously informed Muslim cultural identity) and Pakistan’s governing elite (with respect to Bengali articulations of cultural difference) displayed.

Secondly, while identities are socially constructed, they are not something that can simply be wished away, whatever we make of them. With great wisdom, Rabindranath Tagore noted:


"When there is genuine difference, it is only by expressing and restraining the difference in its proper place that it is possible to fashion unity. Unity cannot be achieved by issuing legal fiats that everybody is one."

Kwame Anthony Appiah has written a whole book on ‘rethinking identity’ which challenges the myth “of supposing that at the core of each identity there is some deep similarity that binds people of that identity together.” But at the same he does not accept the “liberal fantasy in which identities are merely chosen, so we are all free to be what we choose to be.” He states that “Identities work only because, once they get their grip on us, they command us, speaking to us as an inner voice; and because others, seeing who they think we are, call on us, too.”

Finally, the affective dimension, that is the emotional attachments that identities generate need to be taken seriously and not derided as an outcome of mass of credulous people being bamboozled and manipulated by elites.

 

[Local.Dada]

Religion is a curse. It divides people and can make sane people do insane things.

Religion when used as moral compass or ethical guide is fine. A lot of people turn to it for inner peace. When it starts clouding your judgement and takes over your life and brainwashes you into doing radical things like blowing up stuff killing innocent people it becomes a problem.

 

[Itachi]

If the "invaders" did not bring women with them, and married locals, the second generation onwards would have local blood. So from second gen onwards they would have the same genetics as the other Muslims.

Erm how Muslim genetics differ from rest of the human population?

 

[James]

What do you see as the difference between the two?

George Orwell, in his influential essay Notes on Nationalism distinguished patriotism from the related concept of nationalism:

"By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force upon other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."

 

[Nadeemp]

Erm how Muslim genetics differ from rest of the human population?

i would like to know that also.

 

[minamino]

My question is, just imagine India becomes a Muslim country, would Pakistanis still talk about injustices in Kashmir or not?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

My question is, just imagine India becomes a Muslim country, would Pakistanis still talk about injustices in Kashmir or not?

Then the talk would be about injustices themselves rather than having a nationalistic tint.