[VIDEOS] Why anti Muslim bias is so profound among Hindutva supporters?

[big_gamer007]

Because they are probably at loggerheads with Muslims as Muslim League proceeded Hindu Mahasabha.

Credit to Hindutva supporters though, unlike Muslim League that easily got Pakistan and wins in Kerala thanks to British and Congress, Hindutva went from being banned to actually moving up at grass root levels, it’s not surprising that so many of the Hindutva leaders are doctors and professors remember what makes them strong and are patient enough to bring about change and power.

There is a reason Muslim League’s countries (BD and Pak) are bankrupt, and Hindutva leaders like N Rao, Vajpayee, Modi have stabilised the ship because patience helped.

@big_gamer007 Am i completely right wing now justifying their anti-abrahamic stance.

This is not being right wing.

Words like Hindutva, Right wing, Liberal, Left wing, centrist etc are just words coined by Media/politicians to justify/shame someone.

In reality, any individual will have varying ideologies based on circumstances, topic in question etc.

From being quite open and accommodating towards Muslims 5-6 years ago now you have changed and started questioning your own beliefs from 5-6 years ago because in the last 5-6 years your experiences have been different from what you thought they ought to be while dealing with Muslims.

It’s just human nature and there is no problem with it, the problem starts when your opinions turn so sour and filled with hatred that you start worshipping/justifying people who echo your views for their own political/selfish goals (political parties).

 

[big_gamer007]

According to your thesis the BJP government and the people slapping old men on trains must be on PP. Which posters are these?

You are a sensible poster, why are you resorting to such posts?

Whatever I said in my post which you quoted holds true for the other side as well. I.e. troll posters from India who have been spreading hate/troll against Islam/Pakistan might have changed the view of some Pakistanis who might have had a favourable/neutral view about Indians before.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I wrote in one of the other threads, I’ll reiterate for you.

Any humans opinion on any individual/group of individuals/community etc are decided by their experiences with the said people.

You have been gaslighting Indians for better part of a year now, starting random agenda based threads everyday where the same posters mostly from Britain pop up and post derogatory posts against Indians.
You and your ilk have already changed atleast 5 posters from PP itself who were quite liberal and accommodating towards Muslims to now questioning themselves and their leniency.

I’ll bet you will never even think this deep about your own actions and introspect what you have been doing. You will just blame others or delete this post.
Whatever you choose to do, still remember you are one of the reasons why Muslims are getting a bad reputation around the world.

Only time will tell this, truth is sometimes bitter but it must be told backed by facts. Otherwise you are right it appears to be some agenda

 

[DeadlyVenom]

You are a sensible poster, why are you resorting to such posts?

Whatever I said in my post which you quoted holds true for the other side as well. I.e. troll posters from India who have been spreading hate/troll against Islam/Pakistan might have changed the view of some Pakistanis who might have had a favourable/neutral view about Indians before.

You are attributing the movement to the right solely on interactions here. My point is that what you are saying is being simplistic.

For example cricket cartoons had an epiphany after CAA incidents, Rajdeep had epiphany after hearing Rudolph the Red nose Reindeer.

I believe most posters are sensible enough to look past troll posts and it doesn't have an impact on their politics.

 

[anikrc1]

That’s what democracy is. You can try spread your chump philosophy but if it’s majority Muslims and they want whatever then that’s what goes. If they are in minority and can’t form the government they abide by and respect the majority view (or at least they should)

Or are you saying majority rule of democracy is BS?

Democracy is not just majority rule, it also has to produce equal opportunity regardless of the faith of a citizen, which Sharia does not provide.
Mob lynching can also be a form of majority wish. Democracy has no place for them.

 

[HalBass9]

No of course not. But I'd support them banning the drawing of such cartoons.

However let's be honest when Charlie Hedbo happened some in our community just said meh and shrugged their shoulders too.

In this thread it seems many have even denied Hindus the right to feel offended and tried to paint our own views on what is/isn't offensive and then ask them to abide by it. I don't think any Hindu has said they are happy that people are killed if they eat beef. They have just tried to show us how important the issue is to them.

While no one can deny their right to feel offended, just as no one can deny my right to feel offended, this does not and should not justify the act of lynching or defending violence against others. Likewise, I should not impose restrictions on what others can eat simply because it might offend my religious beliefs.

As a Muslim, I find cartoon drawings and the burning of the Qur'an deeply offensive. However, taking a life over my beliefs is far more offensive to me. I could never justify such actions with statements like 'it is very important to me.' Nor would I want to impose any restrictions on non-Muslims’ right to 'disrespect' my beliefs. In fact, I would encourage their freedom of expression, as it ultimately strengthens the significance of Islam in the Western world.

 

[CricketCartoons]

While no one can deny their right to feel offended, just as no one can deny my right to feel offended, this does not and should not justify the act of lynching or defending violence against others. Likewise, I should not impose restrictions on what others can eat simply because it might offend my religious beliefs.

As a Muslim, I find cartoon drawings and the burning of the Qur'an deeply offensive. However, taking a life over my beliefs is far more offensive to me. I could never justify such actions with statements like 'it is very important to me.' Nor would I want to impose any restrictions on non-Muslims’ right to 'disrespect' my beliefs. In fact, I would encourage their freedom of expression, as it ultimately strengthens the significance of Islam in the Western world.

If Hindus cannot live according to their traditions and practices, no matter how irrational they seem to you, in a country where they are majority, then where can they have their religious rights protected? Should someones tastebuds have more rights than someones deeply held religious beliefs?

 

[Stewie]

Democracy is not just majority rule, it also has to produce equal opportunity regardless of the faith of a citizen, which Sharia does not provide.
Mob lynching can also be a form of majority wish. Democracy has no place for them.

You do not represent Entire Ummah. A large chunk of Muslims want Sharia in the lands where they live.

Holy Quran clearly says, obey Allah and obey the Prophet. You cannot obey the Prophet until you follow the rules set by the Prophet. The law that enforces those rules is Sharia. Now don't tell me all the Muslims around the world wanting Sharia are not real Muslims.

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

According to the survey findings, most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of

www.pewresearch.org

So here are my thoughts on the last few posts, where my original views were responded to.

1. As has been stated here multiple times by me after a reasonable discussion where @Red-Indian made a good point is that pragmatically as an individual since we don't have a decent implementation of Shariat anywhere in the world (that I know of) we go by what's available to us which is a democracy driven by separation of church and state (not the secular mode India has at the moment)

2. Hindus/Athiests views on Sharia is based on a pre-concieved notion that it is "negative" or "bad". Their whole argument thus far is, "oh your views are not good because you back Shariat". What you fail to understand is, if a Muslim truly believes in his/her faith, we have to side with God's prescribed mode of governance .. once again for "majority Muslim states". There are no ifs and buts about it. As Muslims we wont be any good if we say "yeah that's not good, lets go with alternative x or y or z" .. No sorry! We wont accept that in theory, but yes practically and pragmatically speaking, please refer to #1.

3. This one is for @Champ_Pal, you keep citing sources or whatever blaming Muslims for wanting or favoring Shariat or posing highly unlikely scenarios where "if given the choice, will Muslims choose Shariat over secularism?" followed by the poll up there as proof. The answer to that is hiding for you in plain sight, these are majority Muslim countries to begin with where you have a high percentage of "yes". Muslims will choose the option that aligns with their faith more often that others because of our strong belief in that we have been given this mode of governance by a divine force. So why would we not pick it?

But is it for everyone? of course not. Do Muslims living in lands where they are in minority understand that they might be ok with it but non Muslims wont be? Probably and probably not. Which is why you have inconsistent numbers across the board.

4. Do muslims want to "impose" Shariat over an existing mode of governance that believes in the separation of church and state, while living in countries where they are not in majority? I would say most likely "NO". a view that be backed by the poll above, although there will be some outliers like Thailand and Kenya, etc.

But more importantly, regarding the poll above, there are too many questions or factors that can throw the whole conclusion @Champ_Pal is deriving off the board. How did the respondents of the poll actually define "favor"? it can mean anything. I might favor an option but does that mean I would like it enforced on everyone regardless of their consent and preference? Is the question asking them to consider the fact they live in a country where a vast majority will be non muslims? Too many moving parts there to use the results of this poll as a definitive conclusion in the context of this debate.


With that all being said, a word of advice to Hindus is: blame your bad experiences on practitioners of a faith and not the actual faith. Islam and Shariat is not like hinduism which is very fluid, malleable and flexible. Islam is rigid and well defined. You can easily educate yourself about Shariat laws rather than believing what you are told. I know you will read it from a non Muslim perspective but try to understand from a Muslim's perspective too. For instance, why would I not prefer a flat tax of 2.5% (zakat) on my savings and property and zero income and sales tax? Why would I not prefer interest free housing and other facilities? Zakat is only applicable on Muslims. Non Muslims pay jaziyah tax, which can or cannot be lower than 2.5%.
Shariat law REQUIRES that the state provide safe places for worship and practicing of non muslim faiths. They are also held to same criminal standards of law as Muslims, from what I understand. Obviously a non Muslim cannot be the "caliph" or head of state but apart from that there is no restriction of holding any other government office. These are just some of the postulates I can think of off the top of my head.

But yes, I can fully understand if non Muslims don't agree with it. But it is also a very skewed view of Muslims' psyche if their preference for Sharia is considered a negative, as I have previously stated.


Thanks for reading!

 

[RexRex]

Should someones tastebuds have more rights than someones deeply held religious beliefs?

Why should your deeply held religious beliefs take priority over my deeply held culinary beliefs ? It shouldn't.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Why should your deeply held religious beliefs take priority over my deeply held culinary beliefs ? It shouldn't.

Of course, hindus are only sub humans, and your toe nail should have more right than dindoos.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Every cult has its drawbacks. You have to address them and fix them with time.
Something doesn’t make sense, chuck it out. Hanging onto age old beliefs that lack common sense is detrimental in the modern times. If science says otherwise, religion must adopt.

Religion did adapt, In India those who rejected the detrimental hindu beliefs of caste, sati, etc., became Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians, Muslims and atheists.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Pakistan should become secular before pakistanis go about talking secularism with others.

No use talking secularism with people who made an Islamic republic.

Does everybody refrain from commenting on others business? Why do we have international law then? Do you think US presidents shouldn't comment on Iran or Russia? This is your belief not mine, so why should you comment on my comments?

 

[RexRex]

Of course, hindus are only sub humans, and your toe nail should have more right than dindoos.

I feel sad that you are relegating my deeply held culinary beliefs to a discardable human waste part like toenail. May a thousand poxes descend upon you, sir.

 

[Stewie]

Does everybody refrain from commenting on others business? Why do we have international law then? Do you think US presidents shouldn't comment on Iran or Russia? This is your belief not mine, so why should you comment on my comments?

Technically the definition of "secular" Indians use is one where all the religions have rights. Pakistan is secular too then except for one case which is the head of state cannot be a non Muslim. apart from that non Muslims pay the same tax, they get the same state benefits, they get their places of worship, etc.

So on principle and based on the constitution of the country Pakistan is as secular as India. Now its a different story that it does not happen practically, due to a lack of law and order and enforcement that affects Muslims and non Muslims like.

Now if you want to use the definition of secular as being a form of governance divorced from religion, well that we can hardly find anywhere. In that sense of the word, even India is not secular thanks to their whole cow slaughter ban amongst other things.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I feel sad that you are relegating my deeply held culinary beliefs to a discardable human waste part like toenail. May a thousand poxes descend upon you, sir.

No, I meant even your toe nail should have more rights than a dindoo like me. We dindoos are savage sub humans who sometimes don't know how to write proper english.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Technically the definition of "secular" Indians use is one where all the religions have rights. Pakistan is secular too then except for one case which is the head of state cannot be a non Muslim. apart from that non Muslims pay the same tax, they get the same state benefits, they get their places of worship, etc.

So on principle and based on the constitution of the country Pakistan is as secular as India. Now its a different story that it does not happen practically, due to a lack of law and order and enforcement that affects Muslims and non Muslims like.

Now if you want to use the definition of secular as being a form of governance divorced from religion, well that we can hardly find anywhere. In that sense of the word, even India is not secular thanks to their whole cow slaughter ban amongst other things.

I'm sure there are a few different interpretations of secularism, all of them might have merit. I just find this concept that one shouldn't comment on a subject unless one is actually practising it, whatever "it" is perplexing. That doesn't happen in real life, or you would never get people from other countries participating in forums like this one.

 

[Stewie]

I'm sure there are a few different interpretations of secularism, all of them might have merit. I just find this concept that one shouldn't comment on a subject unless one is actually practising it, whatever "it" is perplexing. That doesn't happen in real life, or you would never get people from other countries participating in forums like this one.

that's just the joshila logic which in other words is just nonsense. Don't pay any attention to it.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Technically the definition of "secular" Indians use is one where all the religions have rights. Pakistan is secular too then except for one case which is the head of state cannot be a non Muslim. apart from that non Muslims pay the same tax, they get the same state benefits, they get their places of worship, etc.

So on principle and based on the constitution of the country Pakistan is as secular as India. Now its a different story that it does not happen practically, due to a lack of law and order and enforcement that affects Muslims and non Muslims like.

Now if you want to use the definition of secular as being a form of governance divorced from religion, well that we can hardly find anywhere. In that sense of the word, even India is not secular thanks to their whole cow slaughter ban amongst other things.

I read your post only because Cpt quoted it, and saw the lie straight away.

Aain-e-Pakistan discriminates among its citizens not only at one place, but several that I know of apart from the one for head of state.
1. Blasphemy law.
2. laws on Ahmadiya.
3. Islam as state religion.

yes, apart from that Pakistan is secular.

 

[Stewie]

I read your post only because Cpt quoted it, and saw the lie straight away.

Aain-e-Pakistan discriminates among its citizens not only at one place, but several that I know of apart from the one for head of state.
1. Blasphemy law.
2. laws on Ahmadiya.
3. Islam as state religion.

yes, apart from that Pakistan is secular.

1. And how is that different from India where there is ban on certain freedoms based on Hindu beliefs? How is that different from Blasphemy law? (you are getting punished for going against a certain religion)

2. What is the law on Ahmedeiya? Maybe you can educate us all since you happen to know more about it than Pakistanis.

3. Islam is a state religion in name only. But you guys are not that far behind by changing India's name to BHarat and declaring it a hindu Rashtra. I fail to see the difference.

The only saving grace you guys have is that technically a non Hindu can be the PM unlike Pakistan, where a non muslim cant.

But has a Muslim ever been a PM or realistically has a chance of becoming a PM in India? Let us be honest now.

 

[Stewie]

India's definition of secular is we will respect all religions... just one religion more than the rest. That is not the definition used in the rest of the world where they try to portray themselves as a separation between church and state. Hope you guys keep that in mind.

 

[CricketCartoons]

1. And how is that different from India where there is ban on certain freedoms based on Hindu beliefs? How is that different from Blasphemy law? (you are getting punished for going against a certain religion)

2. What is the law on Ahmedeiya? Maybe you can educate us all since you happen to know more about it than Pakistanis.

3. Islam is a state religion in name only. But you guys are not that far behind by changing India's name to BHarat and declaring it a hindu Rashtra. I fail to see the difference.

The only saving grace you guys have is that technically a non Hindu can be the PM unlike Pakistan, where a non muslim cant.

But has a Muslim ever been a PM or realistically has a chance of becoming a PM in India? Let us be honest now.

1. Are there any bans on religious freedoms? Which religious freedom of muslims is banned?

2. Sure, I always love to educate you, for free. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa330151991en.pdf

3. Islam is a state religion in name only? They try speaking up for removing it. Salmaan Taseer was killed just for asking for some secularism.

Muslims are given excemptions and benefits that no other religion is given. India is more quasi islamic, than secular.

I hope you are improving everytime I expose your lies.

 

[CricketCartoons]

India's definition of secular is we will respect all religions... just one religion more than the rest. That is not the definition used in the rest of the world where they try to portray themselves as a separation between church and state. Hope you guys keep that in mind.

Yes, and that religion is Islam. Exempt from affirmative action for dalits despite taking state funds. Special law for waqf property. Exception for polygamy, muslim personal law board, stopped hindu festivities so that muslims can take processions.

You are right, but by mistake. Just that your understanding is poor. As Always.

 

[Stewie]

1. Are there any bans on religious freedoms? Which religious freedom of muslims is banned?

2. Sure, I always love to educate you, for free. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa330151991en.pdf

3. Islam is a state religion in name only? They try speaking up for removing it. Salmaan Taseer was killed just for asking for some secularism.

Muslims are given excemptions and benefits that no other religion is given. India is more quasi islamic, than secular.

I hope you are improving everytime I expose your lies.

1. Who said about religious freedom. Its freedom in general that is banned based on Hindu beliefs.

2. What does this prove? Is this showing some flaw in pakistan's constitution that states Ahmedis are lesser citizens? All it is proving is that there is poor law and order in the country, something I have already admitted and mourned about. And I can produce multiple such links regarding the plight of Muslims in India, by the way if you like.

3. Once again, poor law and order, please cite any credible sources that provide constitutional favoritism of Muslims over others. (apart from the top leadership position). India is exactly the same except they don't have it codified in their consitution that a non HIndu cannot be the top leader. When was a Muslim PM of India in over 70 years of its history. in fact you will be hard pressed to find any non Hindu get the role. Maybe a Sikh, but I highly doubt even that.

I hope you are learning more about your own country from me, as you try to expose my "lies"

 

[CricketCartoons]

1. Who said about religious freedom. Its freedom in general that is banned based on Hindu beliefs.

2. What does this prove? Is this showing some flaw in pakistan's constitution that states Ahmedis are lesser citizens? All it is proving is that there is poor law and order in the country, something I have already admitted and mourned about. And I can produce multiple such links regarding the plight of Muslims in India, by the way if you like.

3. Once again, poor law and order, please cite any credible sources that provide constitutional favoritism of Muslims over others. (apart from the top leadership position). India is exactly the same except they don't have it codified in their consitution that a non HIndu cannot be the top leader. When was a Muslim PM of India in over 70 years of its history. in fact you will be hard pressed to find any non Hindu get the role. Maybe a Sikh, but I highly doubt even that.

I hope you are learning more about your own country from me, as you try to expose my "lies"

1. So you concede no religious freedom of muslims is restricted.


Folks. Brother @Stewie accepts that no religious freedom of muslims is restricted.

 

[Stewie]

1. So you concede no religious freedom of muslims is restricted.


Folks. Brother @Stewie accepts that no religious freedom of muslims is restricted.

I don't live in India so I cant speak to religious freedom but from what I can tell there is general freedom of non Hindus that is restricted and that is a bigger indictment than restriction of religious freedom. I mean I would hate to live in a country where I can be held liable for killing a cow. This restriction covers not just Muslims.


I did not realize I will be educating people here on deductive reasoning and inferring logic today. I guess I'll put that down for my social welfare bit for the week. You are welcome, Cartoon.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I don't live in India so I cant speak to religious freedom but from what I can tell there is general freedom of non Hindus that is restricted and that is a bigger indictment than restriction of religious freedom. I mean I would hate to live in a country where I can be held liable for killing a cow. This restriction covers not just Muslims.


I did not realize I will be educating people here on deductive reasoning and inferring logic today. I guess I'll put that down for my social welfare bit for the week. You are welcome, Cartoon.

Now brother @Stewie says he doesn't live in india so he cannot say anything for sure.

The gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Stewie]

Now brother @Stewie says he doesn't live in india so he cannot say anything for sure.

The gift that keeps on giving.

Of course, I am being realistic, unlike the idiots who don't live in Pakistan but make it sound like they live here and know everything, and especially sympathize with Ahmedis by posting links to other websites about their plight. I swear I saw some deluded dude post about that on here somewhere.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Of course, I am being realistic, unlike the idiots who don't live in Pakistan but make it sound like they live here and know everything, and especially sympathize with Ahmedis by posting links to other websites about their plight. I swear I saw some deluded dude post about that on here somewhere.

Aren't ahmadiyas barred by law from calling themselves muslims or calling their mosques as mosques?

I am not sympathizing with ahmadiyas btw.

Are you saying one has to live in the country to know about its laws? aain-e-Pakistan changes its texts based on the country form where it is being accessed?

 

[Stewie]

Aren't ahmadiyas barred by law from calling themselves muslims or calling their mosques as mosques?

I am not sympathizing with ahmadiyas btw.

Are you saying one has to live in the country to know about its laws? aain-e-Pakistan changes its texts based on the country form where it is

Feel free to discuss their "plight" in one of tens of threads focusing on their particular case. Let us keep this one on track. Maybe you can provide us with some more hateful viewpoints of a Hindu, Cartoons. Don't slow down on my account now, please.

So far we have seen reasons such as Muslims praying in the open to Muslims wanting to impose Shariat on everyone. And that's ALL MUSLIMS, a blanket statement by the way by the Hindutva gang of pious philosophers.

What else you got to add to all this genius now?

 

[anikrc1]

Democracy is not just majority rule, it also has to produce equal opportunity regardless of the faith of a citizen, which Sharia does not provide.

1. And how is that different from India where there is ban on certain freedoms based on Hindu beliefs? How is that different from Blasphemy law? (you are getting punished for going against a certain religion)

2. What is the law on Ahmedeiya? Maybe you can educate us all since you happen to know more about it than Pakistanis.

3. Islam is a state religion in name only. But you guys are not that far behind by changing India's name to BHarat and declaring it a hindu Rashtra. I fail to see the difference.

The only saving grace you guys have is that technically a non Hindu can be the PM unlike Pakistan, where a non muslim cant.

But has a Muslim ever been a PM or realistically has a chance of becoming a PM in India? Let us be honest now.

In India a Hindu can become Muslim legally. Is it legal in Pakistan for a Muslim to become Hindu? More generally does Sharia allow preaching of other religions to Muslims?

 

[Stewie]

In India a Hindu can become Muslim legally. Is it legal in Pakistan for a Muslim to become Hindu? More generally does Sharia allow preaching of other religions to Muslims?

Fair point: yes you are correct those activities are not allowed in Pakistan. Under sharia law, I am not entirely sure if preaching is allowed or not. I am inclined to say probably not.

But point taken about Pakistan being not secular enough like India in that particular regard.

 

[CricketCartoons]

@Stewie

Feel free to discuss their "plight" in one of tens of threads focusing on their particular case. Let us keep this one on track. Maybe you can provide us with some more hateful viewpoints of a Hindu, Cartoons. Don't slow down on my account now, please.

So far we have seen reasons such as Muslims praying in the open to Muslims wanting to impose Shariat on everyone. And that's ALL MUSLIMS, a blanket statement by the way by the Hindutva gang of pious philosophers.

What else you got to add to all this genius now?

I am not discussing their plight, I am showing how Pakistani law discriminates against them

So have you counted how many instances I provided of aain-e-Pakistan discriminating against its people based on religion?

 

[Stewie]

@Stewie
I am not discussing their plight, I am showing how Pakistani law discriminates against them

So have you counted how many instances I provided of aain-e-Pakistan discriminating against its people based on religion?

I don’t think you are in any position to judge what sort of discrimination the Ahmedis face. I actually have no sense of unease about it at all. It’s fairly clear what a Muslims stands for and believes and according to the government, they don’t fulfill that qualification. So they are classified as non Muslims. If you want to call it discriminatory, well who cares. We can claim the same about the Hindu caste culture which judges people on the family of birth than belief. What’s worse?

 

[CricketCartoons]

I don’t think you are in any position to judge what sort of discrimination the Ahmedis face. I actually have no sense of unease about it at all. It’s fairly clear what a Muslims stands for and believes and according to the government, they don’t fulfill that qualification. So they are classified as non Muslims. If you want to call it discriminatory, well who cares. We can claim the same about the Hindu caste culture which judges people on the family of birth than belief. What’s worse?

Indian laws discriminate based on caste? Show me the proof or it is yet another lie from your never ending stable.

Pakistani law forbids ahmadis to call their mosques as mosques.
Pakistani law denies non musloms from becoming head of state.
Pakistani law has Islam as state religion.
Pakistani law has blasphemy law for Islam.
Hudood ordinance is based on Sharia.


Don't be so guilty about it. Proudly own that Islam is primary, and non muslims are second class even by the law. Why so much trouble to prove Pakistan is secular?

 

[Stewie]

Indian laws discriminate based on caste? Show me the proof or it is yet another lie from your never ending stable.

Pakistani law forbids ahmadis to call their mosques as mosques.
Pakistani law denies non musloms from becoming head of state.
Pakistani law has Islam as state religion.
Pakistani law has blasphemy law for Islam.
Hudood ordinance is based on Sharia.


Don't be so guilty about it. Proudly own that Islam is primary, and non muslims are second class even by the law. Why so much trouble to prove Pakistan is secular?

Haha, way to divert the topic but ok fine I’ll play along.

Who says you can have a state religion and can’t be secular? That’s the Indian definition of secular by the way. India says it caters to all faiths but why is it that only one religion and a few castes from that religion have had held the PM post of the nation? The proof is in the pudding. How many Christian’s, Muslims, lower caste or scheduled caste people have held the PM position?
Brahmin Hindus are what percentage of the total population and compare that with the number of Brahmins who have been the PM of India and it will open your eyes.

Claiming something is one thing but backing it up with facts is another. You can chest thump secularism to death but the numbers totally betray the narrative put out by india.

How many non hindus are in the current PMs cabinet out of total and how many total positions are there in the cabinet?

I own up to Pakistan’s flaws in my response to anikrc1, don’t need to run away or hide.

Can you frankly admit the same? Time to man up my friend. Nobody will hold any lower opinion of you than already, if you did.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Haha, way to divert the topic but ok fine I’ll play along.

Who says you can have a state religion and can’t be secular? That’s the Indian definition of secular by the way. India says it caters to all faiths but why is it that only one religion and a few castes from that religion have had held the PM post of the nation? The proof is in the pudding. How many Christian’s, Muslims, lower caste or scheduled caste people have held the PM position?
Brahmin Hindus are what percentage of the total population and compare that with the number of Brahmins who have been the PM of India and it will open your eyes.

Claiming something is one thing but backing it up with facts is another. You can chest thump secularism to death but the numbers totally betray the narrative put out by india.

How many non hindus are in the current PMs cabinet out of total and how many total positions are there in the cabinet?

I own up to Pakistan’s flaws in my response to anikrc1, don’t need to run away or hide.

Can you frankly admit the same? Time to man up my friend. Nobody will hold any lower opinion of you than already, if you did.

I am not a fan of secularism. Let there be no mistake about it. I am only exposing your lies and schooling you because you said except head of state rule, Pakistani laws are secular.

I have given multiple examples (FACTS) which show Aain-e-Pakistan treats non muslims as second class citizens.

Now you have given ZERO proof where COI (Constitution of India) discriminates based on religion.

In fact you already conceded that Indian law does not restrict ANY religious freedom of muslims.

A-e-P treats non muslim pakistanis as second class, but but but apart from that it is truly secular.

 

[Stewie]

I am not a fan of secularism. Let there be no mistake about it. I am only exposing your lies and schooling you because you said except head of state rule, Pakistani laws are secular.

I have given multiple examples (FACTS) which show Aain-e-Pakistan treats non muslims as second class citizens.

Now you have given ZERO proof where COI (Constitution of India) discriminates based on religion.

In fact you already conceded that Indian law does not restrict ANY religious freedom of muslims.

A-e-P treats non muslim pakistanis as second class, but but but apart from that it is truly secular. This is brother @Stewie logic, folks.

Hilarious!
You stopped at the religious freedoms part and got so excited jumping up and down at little old me’s concession, which by the way I have to say I’m flattered matters so much to you, you didn’t even go on to read the rest of it.

Do religious freedoms mean more to you than “general freedoms”? Such as having a nice juicy steak on the weekend without the fear of being run over by a crazy Hindu? Answer that first and then we can discuss the rest, brother @CricketCartoons

 

[Stewie]

I am not a fan of secularism. Let there be no mistake about it. I am only exposing your lies and schooling you because you said except head of state rule, Pakistani laws are secular.

I have given multiple examples (FACTS) which show Aain-e-Pakistan treats non muslims as second class citizens.

Now you have given ZERO proof where COI (Constitution of India) discriminates based on religion.

In fact you already conceded that Indian law does not restrict ANY religious freedom of muslims.

A-e-P treats non muslim pakistanis as second class, but but but apart from that it is truly secular. This is brother @Stewie logic, folks.

Can you please send me text of aine Pakistan that says they are “second class” citizens please?

Or are you going to use the Rig Vedas defense again?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Hilarious!
You stopped at the religious freedoms part and got so excited jumping up and down at little old me’s concession, which by the way I have to say I’m flattered matters so much to you, you didn’t even go on to read the rest of it.

Do religious freedoms mean more to you than “general freedoms”? Such as having a nice juicy steak on the weekend without the fear of being run over by a crazy Hindu? Answer that first and then we can discuss the rest, brother @CricketCartoons

Good to see you falling back to your old defense mechanism, which is to avoid discussion with me.

Folks! @Stewie again reaffirms that COI does not restrict any religious freedom of muslims in India.

He has also been exposed for his lie that Pakistani laws are secular except for head of state rule.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Can you please send me text of aine Pakistan that says they are “second class” citizens please?

Or are you going to use the Rig Vedas defense again?

LOL. The gift that keeps giving!

Pakistani law forbids ahmadis to call their mosques as mosques.
Pakistani law denies non musloms from becoming head of state.
Pakistani law has Islam as state religion.
Pakistani law has blasphemy law for Islam.
Hudood ordinance is based on Sharia.

But But But, non muslims are not second class because Aain-e-Pakistan does not use the word "second class" anywhere.

 

[anikrc1]

Haha, way to divert the topic but ok fine I’ll play along.

Who says you can have a state religion and can’t be secular? That’s the Indian definition of secular by the way. India says it caters to all faiths but why is it that only one religion and a few castes from that religion have had held the PM post of the nation? The proof is in the pudding. How many Christian’s, Muslims, lower caste or scheduled caste people have held the PM position?
Brahmin Hindus are what percentage of the total population and compare that with the number of Brahmins who have been the PM of India and it will open your eyes.

Claiming something is one thing but backing it up with facts is another. You can chest thump secularism to death but the numbers totally betray the narrative put out by india.

How many non hindus are in the current PMs cabinet out of total and how many total positions are there in the cabinet?

I own up to Pakistan’s flaws in my response to anikrc1, don’t need to run away or hide.

Can you frankly admit the same? Time to man up my friend. Nobody will hold any lower opinion of you than already, if you did.

India's official head of state is president. A Muslim became president. A Sikh became PM.

 

[CricketCartoons]

India's official head of state is president. A Muslim became president. A Sikh became PM.

So what? Has a muslim become a prime minister? Unless a muslim becomes a prime minister, india is not secular.

But Pakistan is secular, of course, obviously apart from everything else which makes non muslims second class citizens.

 

[Hitman]

India's official head of state is president. A Muslim became president. A Sikh became PM.

2 Muslims became President - APJ Abdul Kalam and Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed.

 

[CricketCartoons]

2 Muslims became President - APJ Abdul Kalam and Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed.

My favourite was Vice President Hamid Ansari, cousin of Mukhtar Ansari.

 

[Hitman]

My favourite was Vice President Hamid Ansari, cousin of Mukhtar Ansari.

Why exactly?

 

[big_gamer007]

You are attributing the movement to the right solely on interactions here. My point is that what you are saying is being simplistic.

For example cricket cartoons had an epiphany after CAA incidents, Rajdeep had epiphany after hearing Rudolph the Red nose Reindeer.

I believe most posters are sensible enough to look past troll posts and it doesn't have an impact on their politics.

I already answered this in another thread when you asked the same question.

It is never one thing which leads to change in ideologies, it’s a combination of many things.

I quoted the poster since he has been starting threads and gaslighting Indians/Hindus for around a year now so that he can get interactions on PP to increase traffic and as a result increase ads revenue.
I wanted him to realise he is part of the problem even though it might be his job to do it but his job is spreading hate for monetary gains of the owners of PP.

 

[Stewie]

India's official head of state is president. A Muslim became president. A Sikh became PM.

we don’t get anywhere with these discussions if we are not honest. You were correct with your analysis and I conceded to it with all honesty.
Can you truly and honestly claim you are correct here? President might be the “official” head of state but is he really the guy in charge? Isn’t the role figurative in nature?
Please be honest. If you make any other different argument about the discrepancy in the leadership demographic than this lame little excuse at least we can discuss. LOL

 

[RexRex]

I already answered this in another thread when you asked the same question.

It is never one thing which leads to change in ideologies, it’s a combination of many things.

I quoted the poster since he has been starting threads and gaslighting Indians/Hindus for around a year now so that he can get interactions on PP to increase traffic and as a result increase ads revenue.
I wanted him to realise he is part of the problem even though it might be his job to do it but his job is spreading hate for monetary gains of the owners of PP.

OP makes good thought-provoking threads which lends for interesting discussions, not sure what you're so upset about.

 

[CricketCartoons]

OP makes good thought-provoking threads which lends for interesting discussions, not sure what you're so upset about.

I would rather people be brutally honest. Like I admired when you directly mocked my religion. That is how we should be. Showing what we truly think of each other. Not hiding behind fake social niceties.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Can you please send me text of aine Pakistan that says they are “second class” citizens please?

Or are you going to use the Rig Vedas defense again?

https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/193145.pdf

"the constitution requires that the president and prime minister be Muslims. All senior officials, including members of parliament, must swear an oath to protect the country’s Islamic identity."

Open practice of religious Apartheid.

 

[Stewie]

https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/193145.pdf

"the constitution requires that the president and prime minister be Muslims. All senior officials, including members of parliament, must swear an oath to protect the country’s Islamic identity."

Open practice of religious Apartheid.

I have already accepted that piece. Is your sole argument that President or PM cannot be NON MUSLIMS, hence they are second class citizens?

There are tons of immigrants in the USA, people like Musk, the Hindu CEO of Google, Arnold Schwarzenengger, etc. They cannot be president of the USA. Are they then 2nd class citizens?

Religious apartheid part is also subjective. I would like to look into this bit more as to what this even means, when you swear an oath to protect the country's Islamic identity. That is interesting. Does it mean we put non Muslims in cages? I think we can do that without any of the negative connotations that might come with it.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I have already accepted that piece. Is your sole argument that President or PM cannot be NON MUSLIMS, hence they are second class citizens?

There are tons of immigrants in the USA, people like Musk, the Hindu CEO of Google, Arnold Schwarzenengger, etc. They cannot be president of the USA. Are they then 2nd class citizens?

Religious apartheid part is also subjective. I would like to look into this bit more as to what this even means, when you swear an oath to protect the country's Islamic identity. That is interesting. Does it mean we put non Muslims in cages? I think we can do that without any of the negative connotations that might come with it.

You are comparing naturalized citizens with natural born citizens. Very poor comparison.
If a person is born in US irrespective of religion, race, sexual orientation etc can become President.

When a person takes an oath to become PM or President, he/she should work to protect the rights of all citizens including their right to worship whichever God they choose to. In the above case, it clearly only mentions about protecting Islamic identity of Pakistan. You can beat around the bush all you want. The above is clear religious apartheid.

The bias is glaring even in so called progressive Muslim countries like Malaysia. You can convert to Islam, but you cannot leave Islam if you choose to.

"Muslims who seek to convert to another religion must first obtain approval from a sharia court to declare themselves as “apostates.” Sharia courts seldom grant such requests, especially for those born Muslim and ethnic Malays, and those who have converted to Islam. Penalties for apostasy vary by state. In the states of Perak, Melaka, Sabah, and Pahang, apostasy is a criminal offense punishable by a fine or prison term. In Pahang, courts may also impose up to six strokes of the cane for apostasy. The maximum penalty for apostasy in the states of Kelantan and Terengganu is death, but courts have never imposed this penalty, and its legality remains untested. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) report that most converts from Islam prefer to do so privately, without legal approval. Nationally, civil courts generally cede authority to sharia courts in cases concerning conversion from Islam. In some states, sharia courts allow one parent to convert children to Islam without the consent of the second parent. The law does not restrict the rights of non-Muslims to change their religious beliefs and affiliation. A non-Muslim wishing to marry a Muslim must convert to Islam for the sharia court to officially recognize the marriage."

Technical Difficulties

 

[CricketCartoons]

You are comparing naturalized citizens with natural born citizens. Very poor comparison.
If a person is born in US irrespective of religion, race, sexual orientation etc can become President.

When a person takes an oath to become PM or President, he/she should work to protect the rights of all citizens including their right to worship whichever God they choose to. In the above case, it clearly only mentions about protecting Islamic identity of Pakistan. You can beat around the bush all you want. The above is clear religious apartheid.

The bias is glaring even in so called progressive Muslim countries like Malaysia. You can convert to Islam, but you cannot leave Islam if you choose to.

"Muslims who seek to convert to another religion must first obtain approval from a sharia court to declare themselves as “apostates.” Sharia courts seldom grant such requests, especially for those born Muslim and ethnic Malays, and those who have converted to Islam. Penalties for apostasy vary by state. In the states of Perak, Melaka, Sabah, and Pahang, apostasy is a criminal offense punishable by a fine or prison term. In Pahang, courts may also impose up to six strokes of the cane for apostasy. The maximum penalty for apostasy in the states of Kelantan and Terengganu is death, but courts have never imposed this penalty, and its legality remains untested. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) report that most converts from Islam prefer to do so privately, without legal approval. Nationally, civil courts generally cede authority to sharia courts in cases concerning conversion from Islam. In some states, sharia courts allow one parent to convert children to Islam without the consent of the second parent. The law does not restrict the rights of non-Muslims to change their religious beliefs and affiliation. A non-Muslim wishing to marry a Muslim must convert to Islam for the sharia court to officially recognize the marriage."

Technical Difficulties

I don't think you should waste so much time. All his points can be ripped apart in a few lines. @Stewie should I do the honours again?

 

[Stewie]

You are comparing naturalized citizens with natural born citizens. Very poor comparison.
If a person is born in US irrespective of religion, race, sexual orientation etc can become President.

When a person takes an oath to become PM or President, he/she should work to protect the rights of all citizens including their right to worship whichever God they choose to. In the above case, it clearly only mentions about protecting Islamic identity of Pakistan. You can beat around the bush all you want. The above is clear religious apartheid.

The bias is glaring even in so called progressive Muslim countries like Malaysia. You can convert to Islam, but you cannot leave Islam if you choose to.

"Muslims who seek to convert to another religion must first obtain approval from a sharia court to declare themselves as “apostates.” Sharia courts seldom grant such requests, especially for those born Muslim and ethnic Malays, and those who have converted to Islam. Penalties for apostasy vary by state. In the states of Perak, Melaka, Sabah, and Pahang, apostasy is a criminal offense punishable by a fine or prison term. In Pahang, courts may also impose up to six strokes of the cane for apostasy. The maximum penalty for apostasy in the states of Kelantan and Terengganu is death, but courts have never imposed this penalty, and its legality remains untested. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) report that most converts from Islam prefer to do so privately, without legal approval. Nationally, civil courts generally cede authority to sharia courts in cases concerning conversion from Islam. In some states, sharia courts allow one parent to convert children to Islam without the consent of the second parent. The law does not restrict the rights of non-Muslims to change their religious beliefs and affiliation. A non-Muslim wishing to marry a Muslim must convert to Islam for the sharia court to officially recognize the marriage."

Technical Difficulties

I think you missed the whole point or as usual tried to evade the main point.

Countries have laws. In USA, the law is you have to be a born citizen to run for President. In Pakistan you have to be a muslim. Is it my fault i am not born here? Why cant I run for President of the USA? Isnt that discriminatory? Guess what, I can still run for PM of Pakistan if I become a Muslim but there is absolutely no way I can become president of USA just because I was not born here?

The point is every country is going to have laws of its own. You very judiciously called the ones in Pakistan apartheid laws. One can make the same claim about US law for the eligibility to run for president.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I think you missed the whole point or as usual tried to evade the main point.

Countries have laws. In USA, the law is you have to be a born citizen to run for President. In Pakistan you have to be a muslim. Is it my fault i am not born here? Why cant I run for President of the USA? Isnt that discriminatory? Guess what, I can still run for PM of Pakistan if I become a Muslim but there is absolutely no way I can become president of USA just because I was not born here?

The point is every country is going to have laws of its own. You very judiciously called the ones in Pakistan apartheid laws. One can make the same claim about US law for the eligibility to run for president.

Are you serious or trolling now?

You can run for president if you are born in US. Your religion does not matter. In Pakistan's case, you cannot run for president if you are not a Muslim even though you are born in Pakistan. Aren't Pakistani Christians, Ahmedis and Hindus not their natural born citizens? Their only fault is they are not Muslim. If you cannot see the disparity, I don't know what to say.

It is Pakistan's constitution and it is up to them to make changes if needed. Its their choice. However, for an outsider, it is clear cut religious apartheid.

 

[Stewie]

Are you serious or trolling now?

You can run for president if you are born in US. Your religion does not matter. In Pakistan's case, you cannot run for president if you are not a Muslim even though you are born in Pakistan. Aren't Pakistani Christians, Ahmedis and Hindus not their natural born citizens? Their only fault is they are not Muslim. If you cannot see the disparity, I don't know what to say.

It is Pakistan's constitution and it is up to them to make changes if needed. Its their choice. However, for an outsider, it is clear cut religious apartheid.

I have no idea what to say either if you cannot simply grasp a concept because it is outside of your wagon wheel. You are not even showing any intent to try to understand it.

There are laws in each country about how they operate, some may base it on religious philosophy, some may do it on the basis of place of birth and some may not have any at all on paper, as in the case of India, but their policies speak louder than any words on paper on the basis of actual results.

Once you figure out what percentage of Hindu PMs have been non Brahmin Hindus and compare that to the percentage of Brahmin Hindus in the total Indian population, please let us know.

On second thought we all know you will run away from that as well because you are too busy redefining the word apartheid.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I have no idea what to say either if you cannot simply grasp a concept because it is outside of your wagon wheel. You are not even showing any intent to try to understand it.

There are laws in each country about how they operate, some may base it on religious philosophy, some may do it on the basis of place of birth and some may not have any at all on paper, as in the case of India, but their policies speak louder than any words on paper on the basis of actual results.

Once you figure out what percentage of Hindu PMs have been non Brahmin Hindus and compare that to the percentage of Brahmin Hindus in the total Indian population, please let us know.

On second thought we all know you will run away from that as well because you are too busy redefining the word apartheid.

If the law in a country tells a natural born citizen that you cannot become this or that because you do not follow certain religion, then it is religious apartheid.

I know you are trying your best defend it by doing gymnastics. Its futile. Just accept it and be proud of the law. It is your country and your laws. We as outsiders will call it as we see it.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Are you serious or trolling now?

You can run for president if you are born in US. Your religion does not matter. In Pakistan's case, you cannot run for president if you are not a Muslim even though you are born in Pakistan. Aren't Pakistani Christians, Ahmedis and Hindus not their natural born citizens? Their only fault is they are not Muslim. If you cannot see the disparity, I don't know what to say.

It is Pakistan's constitution and it is up to them to make changes if needed. Its their choice. However, for an outsider, it is clear cut religious apartheid.

it is discrimination but not apartheid

 

[Stewie]

If the law in a country tells a natural born citizen that you cannot become this or that because you do not follow certain religion, then it is religious apartheid.

I know you are trying your best defend it by doing gymnastics. Its futile. Just accept it and be proud of the law. It is your country and your laws. We as outsiders will call it as we see it.

We don't need you, an Indian to tell us to be proud of our laws. LOL.

But maybe you do need someone to point out the discrepancy in your caste based elitist political system because you guys have been turning a blind eye to it by bashing everything and everyone else under the sun as a distraction.

 

[Champ_Pal]

it is discrimination but not apartheid

Can we call it legalized discrimination then?

 

[Stewie]

Can we call it legalized discrimination then?

you can call it whatever you want, who cares? just like Americans don't care if I cry about not being able to run for president or if Christians, Muslims, achyouts and all the backward class and dalits having no chance to become PM of India, you will not care. THats just the reality of it.

 

[Champ_Pal]

We don't need you, an Indian to tell us to be proud of our laws. LOL.

But maybe you do need someone to point out the discrepancy in your caste based elitist political system because you guys have been turning a blind eye to it by bashing everything and everyone else under the sun.

I bash caste system unabatedly. I don't think it ever served any good purpose and definitely not in this day and age. It must be binned ASAP.

Can you do the same to the discrimination against non-muslims in Pakistan? Just say that it is a dastardly law to prevent non-muslims from becoming PM or Prez. I will wait for your response.

 

[Champ_Pal]

you can call it whatever you want, who cares? just like Americans don't care if I cry about not being able to run for president or if Christians, Muslims, achyouts and all the backward class and dalits having no chance to become PM of India, you will not care. THats just the reality of it.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Can we call it legalized discrimination then?

Yes, as it limits the full participation of minorities in political life.

The counter argument is that as Pakistan is an Islamic Republic, there is a religious aspect to the role and that a non-muslim can't perform. is that because as I am a non-christian me being exempt from being the head of the church of england is also legal discrimination.

I'm not sure how much merit the counter argument has to be honest.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Pakistan should abolish this rule as long as the constitution upholds Islam and it is a parliamentary system whats the harm in non muslim becoming PM? If the fear is that he/she wants to bring in laws that are unislamic the parlimentarians can debate it and vote accordingly.

 

[Stewie]

I bash caste system unabatedly. I don't think it ever served any good purpose and definitely not in this day and age. It must be binned ASAP.

Can you do the same to the discrimination against non-muslims in Pakistan? Just say that it is a dastardly law to prevent non-muslims from becoming PM or Prez. I will wait for your response.

In all honesty, it is not my call anymore. I don't live in Pakistan but I do identify as a Pakistani by race. I don't vote in Pakistani elections. How that country is and should be run is upto the people who live there and make their own choices. I don't think I do enough to fairly have any say in that matter. My personal view would be that eventually, I would like Pakistan to get out of the "labelling" business. A state should have no business in declaring people muslims or non-muslims. it should also allow for non Muslims to become PM and be given equal rights to run for other offices within the state.

Now once they remove any such nonsense from their constitution, they can simply continue with their unofficial policies. Basically take a leaf out of India's book so people like Brother @Champs_Pal who have no business commenting on their policies can pick on something else to complain about Muslims on PP.

 

[CricketCartoons]

you can call it whatever you want, who cares? just like Americans don't care if I cry about not being able to run for president or if Christians, Muslims, achyouts and all the backward class and dalits having no chance to become PM of India, you will not care. THats just the reality of it.

So now Pakistan is as discriminatory as USA? Because USA wants a natural born citizen as president and Pakistan wants a muslim as a president?

Does USA have a state religion?
Does USA have blasphemy laws favoring one religion only?
Does USA law declare any sect of christianity as non christians and prohibits them their religious rights, like Pakistan prohibits Ahmadiyas from even using Islamic greetings and calling their mosque a mosque?
Does USA have law protecting endowment properties for a particular religion?

Is the discriminatory law of Pakistan against non muslims, so normalized that you find USA laws as discriminatory as Ain-e-Pakistan?

Folks. here is a so called moderate muslim, living in USA, enjoying the freedoms given by USA, finding equivalence between Pakistan and USA. These people don't know what is liberty unless it is taken away from them.Comparing the two reveals not just a misunderstanding, but a troubling normalization of oppression. @Stewie sees religious discrimination as NORMAL and ETHICAL, because this is the value system he has seen around him.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Pakistan should abolish this rule as long as the constitution upholds Islam and it is a parliamentary system whats the harm in non muslim becoming PM? If the fear is that he/she wants to bring in laws that are unislamic the parlimentarians can debate it and vote accordingly.

Salman Taseer was killed, not because he wanted to end the blasphemy rule, but because he didn't want the law to be abused. The killer had a sea of supporters to attend his janaza, and is a martyr for Islam.

Pakistan can not DARE to even tinker with any rule.

Religious discrimination is normalized to the extent that it is considered the RIGHT thing to do, and I am talking about the law of the land, not even the society.

 

[JaDed]

Salman Taseer was killed, not because he wanted to end the blasphemy rule, but because he didn't want the law to be abused. The killer had a sea of supporters to attend his janaza, and is a martyr for Islam.

Pakistan can not DARE to even tinker with any rule.

Religious discrimination is normalized to the extent that it is considered the RIGHT thing to do, and I am talking about the law of the land, not even the society.

And Pakistan is not a great example to be..I understand the constitution normalises discrimination there but why should Indian constitution do the same?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

No more off topic discussion guys...This is an anti Muslim bias thread not Pakistan one

 

[CricketCartoons]

No more off topic discussion guys...This is an anti Muslim bias thread not Pakistan

This discussion is very revealing, because a moderate muslim living in USA is defending the religious discrimination against non muslims in Pakistan, while also wanting more and more rights for muslims in India, after conceding that he cannot find one example where indian muslims religious freedom is restricted by the law.

Any normal person will develop anti Muslim bias to see the views of a moderate and modern muslim. Imagine what the fundamentalists would be believing then.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Yes, as it limits the full participation of minorities in political life.

The counter argument is that as Pakistan is an Islamic Republic, there is a religious aspect to the role and that a non-muslim can't perform. is that because as I am a non-christian me being exempt from being the head of the church of england is also legal discrimination.

I'm not sure how much merit the counter argument has to be honest.

Are you saying Islam is discriminatory?

 

[Hitman]

Salman Taseer was killed, not because he wanted to end the blasphemy rule, but because he didn't want the law to be abused. The killer had a sea of supporters to attend his janaza, and is a martyr for Islam.

Pakistan can not DARE to even tinker with any rule.

Religious discrimination is normalized to the extent that it is considered the RIGHT thing to do, and I am talking about the law of the land, not even the society.

All you need to do is look for videos of Mumtaz Qadri on youtube and look at the comments section of each video.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Are you saying Islam is discriminatory?

It is equally as discriminatory as other religions.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Well what was CAA then?

This discussion is very revealing, because a moderate muslim living in USA is defending the religious discrimination against non muslims in Pakistan, while also wanting more and more rights for muslims in India, after conceding that he cannot find one example where indian muslims religious freedom is restricted by the law.

Any normal person will develop anti Muslim bias to see the views of a moderate and modern muslim. Imagine what the fundamentalists would be believing then.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Well what was CAA then?

CAA did not apply to indian citizens, so the discrimination between citizens doesn't even arise.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Salman Taseer was killed, not because he wanted to end the blasphemy rule, but because he didn't want the law to be abused. The killer had a sea of supporters to attend his janaza, and is a martyr for Islam.

Pakistan can not DARE to even tinker with any rule.

Religious discrimination is normalized to the extent that it is considered the RIGHT thing to do, and I am talking about the law of the land, not even the society.

His supporters are pakistani equivalent of people like you that support vigilantes

 

[CricketCartoons]

His supporters are pakistani equivalent of people like you that support vigilantes

I have always said that we sanghis are same as normal pakistanis.

 

[Champ_Pal]

It is equally as discriminatory as other religions.

I don't know if you are a Muslim. But if you are, kudos to you. I am reading this for the first time from a Pakistani.

 

[Stewie]

I don't know if you are a Muslim. But if you are, kudos to you. I am reading this for the first time from a Pakistani.

We don't hide behind disowning books like Hindus do with Rig Vedas and whatnot. We own it.

Now please enlighten yourself and read the Quran Karim if you have more questions about how you can try and fix the caste based societal issues of India.

No wait, you are a fellow naturalized American, aren't you? You cant vote in India, so it does not matter. But you sure seem to be hyperactive in discussions about India and the Muslim dynamic. so perhaps you can still study the Quran to satisfy the seemingly limitless curiosity you have about Muslims. Better yet go to a local masjid and spend some time there asking questions of the Imam there. You will feel a lot better, I promise.