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

[The Bald Eagle]

Warning:No more excrement etc stuff

 

[FearlessRoar]

Ganesh idol setup in Telangana sparks row over 'Muslim-like' appearance​

An annual Ganpati festival organised in Telangana's Secunderabad became the centre of a controversy over allegations that the deity's idol had a 'Muslim-like' appearance. The organisers clarified that the theme of the Ganpati pandal was inspired by the Bollywood film 'Bajirao Mastani', which led to the misunderstanding.

The row erupted over the dress of the Ganesh idol by the Young Leo's Youth Association, which drew inspiration from the attire worn by actor Ranveer Singh in Bajirao Mastani. The resemblance, however, was not well-received by certain groups who found the representation inappropriate.

The outrage spread quickly online, with some accusing the organisers of hurting their religious sentiments. Another section on social media called the theme an expression of secularism.

In response, one of the organisers clarified the intent behind the theme, explaining that the final outcome did not align with their vision.

"We didn’t deliberately choose a Bajirao Mastani theme. Unfortunately, the way things unfolded led to misunderstandings. Our goal was never to hurt anyone’s feelings," a member of the organising committee explained.

Organisers also expressed disappointment over the backlash on social media, attributing the confusion to miscommunication with the artist responsible for the design.

Despite the uproar, the Young Leo's Youth Association intended to continue the festivities peacefully and urged the public to not misinterpret their intentions. "We just want to move forward with our celebration of Ganpati Bappa. The execution wasn’t what we expected, but we don’t wish to escalate the situation," the committee member said.

Ganesh idol setup in Telangana sparks row over 'Muslim-like' appearance

A Ganesh idol setup in Telangana's Secunderabad has sparked a controversy over its theme, with social media outrage calling it a 'Muslim-Ganapati'.

www.indiatoday.in

 

[Theanonymousone]

Ganesh idol setup in Telangana sparks row over 'Muslim-like' appearance​

An annual Ganpati festival organised in Telangana's Secunderabad became the centre of a controversy over allegations that the deity's idol had a 'Muslim-like' appearance. The organisers clarified that the theme of the Ganpati pandal was inspired by the Bollywood film 'Bajirao Mastani', which led to the misunderstanding.

The row erupted over the dress of the Ganesh idol by the Young Leo's Youth Association, which drew inspiration from the attire worn by actor Ranveer Singh in Bajirao Mastani. The resemblance, however, was not well-received by certain groups who found the representation inappropriate.

The outrage spread quickly online, with some accusing the organisers of hurting their religious sentiments. Another section on social media called the theme an expression of secularism.

In response, one of the organisers clarified the intent behind the theme, explaining that the final outcome did not align with their vision.

"We didn’t deliberately choose a Bajirao Mastani theme. Unfortunately, the way things unfolded led to misunderstandings. Our goal was never to hurt anyone’s feelings," a member of the organising committee explained.

Organisers also expressed disappointment over the backlash on social media, attributing the confusion to miscommunication with the artist responsible for the design.

Despite the uproar, the Young Leo's Youth Association intended to continue the festivities peacefully and urged the public to not misinterpret their intentions. "We just want to move forward with our celebration of Ganpati Bappa. The execution wasn’t what we expected, but we don’t wish to escalate the situation," the committee member said.

Ganesh idol setup in Telangana sparks row over 'Muslim-like' appearance

A Ganesh idol setup in Telangana's Secunderabad has sparked a controversy over its theme, with social media outrage calling it a 'Muslim-Ganapati'.

www.indiatoday.in

Just a bit of background

Ganapathi idols are made in different forms and resemblances of movie stars, cricketers etc is done sporadically. Its just a way of showing love to their favorite people. As people believe, god can be in anyform. Its absolutely not demeaning. More, the idol is placed for worshipping.

So, even if it resembles ‘muslim-like’ appearance, it will absolutely not hurt the sentiments. Hope I am clear.

 

[Theanonymousone]

Most of the people brush away the top instead of addressing core issues.

While I agree, there a a few common topics that make Hindus or as a matter any other religion be cautious to issues pertaining to muslims

1. Sharia law - While I have read the few arguments about it here stating that, it will only happen when people are in majority. That statement itself will push others to not let muslims take the majority right?
Even in countries like UK/Canada, we are seeing demonstrations wanting Sharia law. With religion being a political tool, who will nit be afraid of it? And seeing the bad examples in AFG/Iran, it’s even more concerning.

What any person from a non-Islamic nation wants is that, there will not be a Sharia law, even with muslim majority in the country. And that is not Islamophobic. Because, its about the governance of a country.

2. And this is where some other stupid issues come. Like the higher fertility rate of muslims, unwanted showcasing of religion by praying on roads / public places, differences in religious aspects such as beef consumption, examples of previous islamic extremism etc.

I personally don't mind the latter but it just gets lots of attention due to politicizing issues

The real concerns are:
1. Running a parallel society
2. Groupism - I am not aware if people here know but the above two are of real concern. Even in a city as developed as hyderabad, local governing body employers doenst dare to go into some muslim regions in case of electricity stealing / bill payments, vaccinations, taxes etc related stuff.
3. Waqf board - the land grabbing of this group is well know but its like this group have an untouchability.

Who in the world would agree to a separate law for citizens of same country? That is the real discrimination IMO.

 

[Stewie]

Most of the people brush away the top instead of addressing core issues.

While I agree, there a a few common topics that make Hindus or as a matter any other religion be cautious to issues pertaining to muslims

1. Sharia law - While I have read the few arguments about it here stating that, it will only happen when people are in majority. That statement itself will push others to not let muslims take the majority right?
Even in countries like UK/Canada, we are seeing demonstrations wanting Sharia law. With religion being a political tool, who will nit be afraid of it? And seeing the bad examples in AFG/Iran, it’s even more concerning.

What any person from a non-Islamic nation wants is that, there will not be a Sharia law, even with muslim majority in the country. And that is not Islamophobic. Because, its about the governance of a country.

2. And this is where some other stupid issues come. Like the higher fertility rate of muslims, unwanted showcasing of religion by praying on roads / public places, differences in religious aspects such as beef consumption, examples of previous islamic extremism etc.

I personally don't mind the latter but it just gets lots of attention due to politicizing issues

The real concerns are:
1. Running a parallel society
2. Groupism - I am not aware if people here know but the above two are of real concern. Even in a city as developed as hyderabad, local governing body employers doenst dare to go into some muslim regions in case of electricity stealing / bill payments, vaccinations, taxes etc related stuff.
3. Waqf board - the land grabbing of this group is well know but its like this group have an untouchability.

Who in the world would agree to a separate law for citizens of same country? That is the real discrimination IMO.

I think some of these issues are characteristic "Indian" issues and don't necessarily mean exist within each Muslim society in the world. Only some areas of UK attempted to have Nifaze Shariat, but were shot down. I am not even sure where this thought comes from because I have not seen it here in the US. You mentioned there was an attempt in Canada as well. Thats news to me.
Even this issue as a whole is being made a big deal out of nothing really. The goal of the UK effort was to have Shariat just for Muslim communities.... not non Muslims ones, BUT STILL IT WAS IDIOTIC.

Groupism is a human trait and you will see that every time people are in a minority, they tend to stick to themselves. I have Hindus do it here in the US as well. I have been to their gatherings and parties and its a different world from American society. Nothing wrong with it, in my view.

 

[Hitman]

Most of the people brush away the top instead of addressing core issues.

While I agree, there a a few common topics that make Hindus or as a matter any other religion be cautious to issues pertaining to muslims

1. Sharia law - While I have read the few arguments about it here stating that, it will only happen when people are in majority. That statement itself will push others to not let muslims take the majority right?
Even in countries like UK/Canada, we are seeing demonstrations wanting Sharia law. With religion being a political tool, who will nit be afraid of it? And seeing the bad examples in AFG/Iran, it’s even more concerning.

What any person from a non-Islamic nation wants is that, there will not be a Sharia law, even with muslim majority in the country. And that is not Islamophobic. Because, its about the governance of a country.

2. And this is where some other stupid issues come. Like the higher fertility rate of muslims, unwanted showcasing of religion by praying on roads / public places, differences in religious aspects such as beef consumption, examples of previous islamic extremism etc.

I personally don't mind the latter but it just gets lots of attention due to politicizing issues

The real concerns are:
1. Running a parallel society
2. Groupism - I am not aware if people here know but the above two are of real concern. Even in a city as developed as hyderabad, local governing body employers doenst dare to go into some muslim regions in case of electricity stealing / bill payments, vaccinations, taxes etc related stuff.
3. Waqf board - the land grabbing of this group is well know but its like this group have an untouchability.

Who in the world would agree to a separate law for citizens of same country? That is the real discrimination IMO.

Top post.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Most of the people brush away the top instead of addressing core issues.

While I agree, there a a few common topics that make Hindus or as a matter any other religion be cautious to issues pertaining to muslims

1. Sharia law - While I have read the few arguments about it here stating that, it will only happen when people are in majority. That statement itself will push others to not let muslims take the majority right?
Even in countries like UK/Canada, we are seeing demonstrations wanting Sharia law. With religion being a political tool, who will nit be afraid of it? And seeing the bad examples in AFG/Iran, it’s even more concerning.

What any person from a non-Islamic nation wants is that, there will not be a Sharia law, even with muslim majority in the country. And that is not Islamophobic. Because, its about the governance of a country.

2. And this is where some other stupid issues come. Like the higher fertility rate of muslims, unwanted showcasing of religion by praying on roads / public places, differences in religious aspects such as beef consumption, examples of previous islamic extremism etc.

I personally don't mind the latter but it just gets lots of attention due to politicizing issues

The real concerns are:
1. Running a parallel society
2. Groupism - I am not aware if people here know but the above two are of real concern. Even in a city as developed as hyderabad, local governing body employers doenst dare to go into some muslim regions in case of electricity stealing / bill payments, vaccinations, taxes etc related stuff.
3. Waqf board - the land grabbing of this group is well know but its like this group have an untouchability.

Who in the world would agree to a separate law for citizens of same country? That is the real discrimination IMO.

I can confirm. The bill collectors gets trashed if they try to collect bills.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I can confirm. The bill collectors gets trashed if they try to collect bills.

Are you a bill collector?

 

[IndoorCricket]

Are you a bill collector?

Do you have a internal brain injury.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Do you have a internal brain injury.

No need to be so touchy. You are a very poor ambassador for your community.

I am trying to establish why we should consider your confirmation as valid.

 

[Stewie]

Seems like India is behind the times on this one. Mostly you get the bill in the mail and you go pay it. I have not heard of any other place where the bill is collected door to door by a utility provider.

 

[Stewie]

No need to be so touchy. You are a very poor ambassador for your community.

I am trying to establish why we should consider your confirmation as valid.

Yeah he should be able to prove it, I agree.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Seems like India is behind the times on this one. Mostly you get the bill in the mail and you go pay it. I have not heard of any other place where the bill is collected door to door by a utility provider.

and they get thrashed and go away never to return lol.

You would expect the utilities to be cut off in that case.

but let's believe @indoorcricketer - Muslims are thrashing Hindu bill collectors for free utilities.

 

[Stewie]

and they get thrashed and go away never to return lol.

You would expect the utilities to be cut off in that case.

but let's believe @indoorcricketer - Muslims are thrashing Hindu bill collectors for free utilities.

That's how the real world works. You get the bill, you pay it. You don't pay it, you get your service disconnected. Unless the Indian power companies are training their soldiers by getting free phainti training while working as bill collectors, I find this highly suspect.

 

[IndoorCricket]

and they get thrashed and go away never to return lol.

You would expect the utilities to be cut off in that case.

but let's believe @indoorcricketer - Muslims are thrashing Hindu bill collectors for free utilities.

Its in local language telugu and I am from Hyderabad. I know how things work around here. Even police are afraid to cause any trouble there. Old city has a history of riots between Hindus and Muslims. Recently they are not many on a big scale but still legal forces won't interfere.

 

[IndoorCricket]

That's how the real world works. You get the bill, you pay it. You don't pay it, you get your service disconnected. Unless the Indian power companies are training their soldiers by getting free phainti training while working as bill collectors, I find this highly suspect.

The problem is Islamists live in a parallel world and specifically in Hyderabad they have a strong vote base.

 

[Stewie]

The problem is Islamists live in a parallel world and specifically in Hyderabad they have a strong vote base.

I still don't get it. Why cant you bill them by mail and disconnect their service?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Warning: Guys no personal remarks please

 

[deltexas]

Its in local language telugu and I am from Hyderabad. I know how things work around here. Even police are afraid to cause any trouble there. Old city has a history of riots between Hindus and Muslims. Recently they are not many on a big scale but still legal forces won't interfere.

Bro - my original hometown is Hyd and I know how it is. Just imagine if someone said the things that Akbaruddin Owaisi said a few years back. If anyone said something like that about Muslims - just imagine what would happen.

 

[RexRex]

That's how the real world works. You get the bill, you pay it. You don't pay it, you get your service disconnected. Unless the Indian power companies are training their soldiers by getting free phainti training while working as bill collectors, I find this highly suspect.

My guess is and this used to be the case at my ancestral house .. bill collectors go to each individual house, check the power meter at the house, print the bill out on the spot with some portable device and then collect the money. Maybe @IndoorCricket can confirm.

But yeah, if you don't pay .. they cut off the electricity.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Its in local language telugu and I am from Hyderabad. I know how things work around here. Even police are afraid to cause any trouble there. Old city has a history of riots between Hindus and Muslims. Recently they are not many on a big scale but still legal forces won't interfere.

I don't understand Telugu completely, but from what he is saying, it seems like the bill collectors got roughed up for entering the wrong locality.

May be Owaisi and his goons need to chill a bit and let Government at least collect electricity bills properly without fearing for their lives.

PS - It is heartening to see "Dara Hua Musalman" of India fighting back their oppressors.

 

[Champ_Pal]

My guess is and this used to be the case at my ancestral house .. bill collectors go to each individual house, check the power meter at the house, print the bill out on the spot with some portable device and then collect the money. Maybe @IndoorCricket can confirm.

But yeah, if you don't pay .. they cut off the electricity.

That was the case at my home too back in 90's. They visit every house monthly and check the power meter and print the bill on the spot. Owner of the house has to pay the bill right there or they have to go to electricity office, stand in line and pay the bill.
Now at least in big cities, all the utility bills are paid online.

 

[deltexas]

I think some of these issues are characteristic "Indian" issues and don't necessarily mean exist within each Muslim society in the world. Only some areas of UK attempted to have Nifaze Shariat, but were shot down. I am not even sure where this thought comes from because I have not seen it here in the US. You mentioned there was an attempt in Canada as well. Thats news to me.
Even this issue as a whole is being made a big deal out of nothing really. The goal of the UK effort was to have Shariat just for Muslim communities.... not non Muslims ones, BUT STILL IT WAS IDIOTIC.

Groupism is a human trait and you will see that every time people are in a minority, they tend to stick to themselves. I have Hindus do it here in the US as well. I have been to their gatherings and parties and its a different world from American society. Nothing wron

g with it, in my view.

You said you have not seen it here in the US. Hamtromock Michigan is an example if you dont know or if you are being coy. Here are some links on the now Muslim majority city council and population there and what they are doing and how they pack it up with Muslim staff once they are the majority members:

Hamtramck City Council votes to rename street in support of Palestine • Michigan Advance

As a symbolic gesture and demonstration of solidarity with the people in Gaza, Hamtramck’s all-Muslim City Council has decided to rename a stretch of Holbrook Street to “Palestine Avenue,” between Buffalo Street and Saint Aubin Street. A resolution posted online before the council meeting on...

michiganadvance.com

‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags

Many liberals celebrated when Hamtramck, Michigan, elected a Muslim-majority council in 2015 but a vote to exclude LGBTQ+ flags from city property has soured relations

www.theguardian.com

LGBT people ‘don’t feel safe’ in Muslim-led US city that BANNED Pride flags

Hamtramck, Michigan became the first city in the United States to elect a Muslim-majority council in 2015

www.gbnews.com

Hamtramck gets new Muslim, Arab police chief - WDET 101.9 FM

On the latest episode of "DER Weekends," WDET’s Nargis Rahman spoke with Jamiel Altaheri who becomes Hamtramck's new police chief this month.

wdet.org

WATCH: America's Muslim City - GBN documentary confronts zealous Imams as music is banned, animals are sacrificed and locals scream 'Death to America!'

America's only Muslim-dominated city has radically transformed with bans on LGBT flags, animal sacrifice laws and the call to prayer - Watch the full exclusive GBN America documentary now

www.gbnews.com

Federal lawsuit argues Hamtramck’s LGBTQ+ Pride flag ban is unconstitutional • Michigan Advance

A federal lawsuit filed Monday alleges the city of Hamtramck’s Pride flag ban violates free speech rights and numerous other state and federal laws. The lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Detroit was filed on behalf of former Hamtramck Human Relations Commission members Russ Gordon and Cathy...

michiganadvance.com

Hamtramck council approves Islamic animal sacrifices at home

After religious liberty concerns raised by some Muslim residents, Hamtramck City Council voted to approve religious animal sacrifices at home.

www.freep.com

Mich. town upholds Muslim call to prayer

Residents of the once-predominantly Polish city of Hamtramck, Michigan on Tuesday upheld an amendment to the city's noise ordinance, a victory for those in favor of allowing mosques to issue the call to prayer over loudspeakers.

www.nbcnews.com

Or do you want more ???

 

[deltexas]

I don't understand Telugu completely, but from what he is saying, it seems like the bill collectors got roughed up for entering the wrong locality.

May be Owaisi and his goons need to chill a bit and let Government at least collect electricity bills properly without fearing for their lives.

PS - It is heartening to see "Dara Hua Musalman" of India fighting back their oppressors.

The thing is , if the ticket collector is say Hindu or Christian and he goes in , these guys gang up on him and claim religious victimization and the next thing that happens is the local Muslim MLA or corporator with their goons come an threaten the collector. Yeah "Dara Hua Musalman " .. Dhruv Rathee should make a video on this. Still waiting for him ..

 

[Stewie]

Ok thank you, @RexRex

So this seems like a situation arising in low income lower class areas. Are we saying the meter readers/bill collectors don't sometimes get similar treatment from similar Hindu neighborhoods ever? Are all lower class non-muslims perfectly law abiding citizens and such issues never arise there?

By the way their actions are totally indefensible, I am not in any way defending any illegal activity here. But in the larger context of this thread, I feel such issues are probably trumpeted about more exaggerated in the media to score political points and create divisions for the sake of votes.

 

[Stewie]

You said you have not seen it here in the US. Hamtromock Michigan is an example if you dont know or if you are being coy. Here are some links on the now Muslim majority city council and population there and what they are doing and how they pack it up with Muslim staff once they are the majority members:

Hamtramck City Council votes to rename street in support of Palestine • Michigan Advance

As a symbolic gesture and demonstration of solidarity with the people in Gaza, Hamtramck’s all-Muslim City Council has decided to rename a stretch of Holbrook Street to “Palestine Avenue,” between Buffalo Street and Saint Aubin Street. A resolution posted online before the council meeting on...

michiganadvance.com

‘A sense of betrayal’: liberal dismay as Muslim-led US city bans Pride flags

Many liberals celebrated when Hamtramck, Michigan, elected a Muslim-majority council in 2015 but a vote to exclude LGBTQ+ flags from city property has soured relations

www.theguardian.com

LGBT people ‘don’t feel safe’ in Muslim-led US city that BANNED Pride flags

Hamtramck, Michigan became the first city in the United States to elect a Muslim-majority council in 2015

www.gbnews.com

Hamtramck gets new Muslim, Arab police chief - WDET 101.9 FM

On the latest episode of "DER Weekends," WDET’s Nargis Rahman spoke with Jamiel Altaheri who becomes Hamtramck's new police chief this month.

wdet.org

WATCH: America's Muslim City - GBN documentary confronts zealous Imams as music is banned, animals are sacrificed and locals scream 'Death to America!'

America's only Muslim-dominated city has radically transformed with bans on LGBT flags, animal sacrifice laws and the call to prayer - Watch the full exclusive GBN America documentary now

www.gbnews.com

Federal lawsuit argues Hamtramck’s LGBTQ+ Pride flag ban is unconstitutional • Michigan Advance

A federal lawsuit filed Monday alleges the city of Hamtramck’s Pride flag ban violates free speech rights and numerous other state and federal laws. The lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Detroit was filed on behalf of former Hamtramck Human Relations Commission members Russ Gordon and Cathy...

michiganadvance.com

Hamtramck council approves Islamic animal sacrifices at home

After religious liberty concerns raised by some Muslim residents, Hamtramck City Council voted to approve religious animal sacrifices at home.

www.freep.com

Mich. town upholds Muslim call to prayer

Residents of the once-predominantly Polish city of Hamtramck, Michigan on Tuesday upheld an amendment to the city's noise ordinance, a victory for those in favor of allowing mosques to issue the call to prayer over loudspeakers.

www.nbcnews.com

Or do you want more ???

first of all, I think you are confusing a number of different issues with Shariat. It seems very tough to make you guys even grasp the basic concept of it.

Shariat, itself, is a legal framework which can only be implemented in its entirety. That involves all the laws and associated penalties that you Hindus are so scared of. What you have given as multiple examples, none of them are actually related to that concept.

Now coming back to what you have provided in Michigan. I was aware of some, but not all of them. To me the banning of the LGBTQ expressions are definitely wrong in my view. But even for that and for other changes, the people of Michigan followed the American laws and legislative system and I don't see anything wrong with that. They are well within their constitutional rights to do it. Naming a street after Palestine, getting approval for animal sacrifice at home, etc is all consitutional stuff and morally and ethically there is nothing wrong in any of it. Police chiefs also get voted in, so that's perfectly legal as well.

The LGBTQ ban seems unconstitutional to me and I hope that gets reversed. But apart from all that one issue, this is much ado about nothing really.

All American cities operate under such laws where people have the power. If they tried to fully implement Shariat, then we will be having a different conversation but that is not the case here.

 

[Stewie]

I once had the fortune (or mistfortune) of working for a company that had a number of satellite locations in some extremely impoverished areas of Denver. The offices employed staff for a number of social welfare and other community outreach efforts. They were all black, because the population of the area was mostly black. And it made sense as well, because you cannot go out of your way to hire people who don't live in the area in the name of diversity.

In Michigan, when its becoming a majority Muslim town, its quite natural the pool of applicants for city/govt jobs will be mostly Muslims. I don't see what's so alarming about the whole thing.

 

[IndoorCricket]

Bro - my original hometown is Hyd and I know how it is. Just imagine if someone said the things that Akbaruddin Owaisi said a few years back. If anyone said something like that about Muslims - just imagine what would happen.

Scary situation. The good thing is Islamists are concentrated in old city and the city is developing around it. Politicians have these people on their leash. Old city didn't benefit much during recent developments of the city. Seems they are ok being what they are.

 

[RexRex]

Shariat, itself, is a legal framework which can only be implemented in its entirety.

What does the Quran say about Sharia; how and when should it be applied ?

 

[Stewie]

What does the Quran say about Sharia; how and when should it be applied ?

The point of contention here, which is why I am guessing you asked this question, is "when" is it considered to apply. I think in a society with large number of non Muslims, there is no precedence of shariat being applied.

My understanding is that its a legal framework to be used in a "Muslim" society. This was used in tribal Arabia of the time when most societies or tribes governed themselves rather than a state or federal governing body as in a nation or country. So the caliph or the leader who was Muslim was ruling over Muslims was sent this guidance.
In todays world, in countries like India, UK, USA, Canada etc it makes absolutely zero sense and should not even be considered legal by Islamic standards.


This topic has really been beaten to death. The UK and otherwise attempts for implementing the so-called Shariat is just plain ridiculous, more of a political stunt. There is no Shariat in Pakistan. There is no Shariat in KSA. or UAE or anywhere as far as I know. Sharai mode of governance is a caliph appointed by a committee of elders or leaders, not monarchy, and this is closest you can get to a democracy given the era it was written. All of this has been repeated several times.

 

[RexRex]

This topic has really been beaten to death. The UK and otherwise attempts for implementing the so-called Shariat is just plain ridiculous, more of a political stunt. There is no Shariat in Pakistan. There is no Shariat in KSA. or UAE or anywhere as far as I know. Sharai mode of governance is a caliph appointed by a committee of elders or leaders, not monarchy, and this is closest you can get to a democracy given the era it was written. All of this has been repeated several times.

No Shariat in Pakistan ? Tell that to the people in prison in Pakistan who've been sentenced to death for blasphemy.

 

[Stewie]

No Shariat in Pakistan ? Tell that to the people in prison in Pakistan who've been sentenced to death for blasphemy.

This is the part you don’t understand, bro. Shariat in its entirety.
Picking and choosing certain part doesn’t make it shariat. We have cried ourselves hoarse over that stuff.

 

[Stewie]

It’s ridiculous, by the way, that blasphemers are in jail and the thieves who should get their hands chopped off are running the country. Don’t you think?

How is this shariat then?

 

[RexRex]

This is the part you don’t understand, bro. Shariat in its entirety.
Picking and choosing certain part doesn’t make it shariat. We have cried ourselves hoarse over that stuff.

Blasphemy law is a part of Sharia, doesn't matter if it isn't in its entirety.

 

[Stewie]

Blasphemy law is a part of Sharia, doesn't matter if it isn't in its entirety.

To me, my concept of shariat is its a fully Islamic society where such controls are implemented fairly. but that narrative does not fit your perception of Islam so you will oppose it.

Did you know that the blasphemy laws are very clear that if someone is accused to blasphemy, that person is given an understanding of what blasphemy means, and its severity in an Islamic society. This is done to ascertain that the other person truly meant to speak derogatory of our Prophet. or intended to insult him. The accused is given a chance to correct any previous statements made in error. Which is why in pre modern times, mostly during the time of the Prophet and afterwards, capital punishment was non existent.

These are just some of the facts you can research.

Shariat does not allow mob justice and blind condemnation of people accused of blasphemy. Simple disagreements are not considered blasphemy. Simply denying Muhammed's message because you are a non Muslim does not constitute of blasphemy.

These are not such straight forward topics as you think and more you learn about them you will understand that based on the history and the time they make sense. Their modern interpretation does not, which is why I personally don't call it Shariat what you guys continue to claim as one in Pakistan and other countries just on the basis of one law which itself is inaccurately implemented.

 

[Stewie]

For further reading:

https://www.cato.org/commentary/islamic-views-blasphemy-are-more-complex-pakistani-courts-admit

An excerpt:

"This early view among Hanafi jurists — which later died out, conforming to the mainstream view — is important, not only because of what it is but also because of what it indicates: There is actually no clear basis for blasphemy laws in the two fundamental sources of Islamic law, the Quran and the Sunnah (the example of the Prophet). And this is the part that is too often ignored by today’s Islamic courts.

This is clear with the Quran, which in all its 6,236 verses does not have a single commandment to punish blasphemers — or apostates either, for that matter. Moreover, in two parallel verses — one revealed in Mecca (6:68), the other in Medina (4:140) — the Quran actually tells Muslims to do something mild in the face of blasphemy. The latter verse plainly says:

“If you hear people denying and ridiculing God’s revelation, do not sit with them unless they start to talk of other things, or else you yourselves will become like them.”

Just “do not sit with them” — that is the literal Quranic response to blasphemy. It is not killing or jailing. It is not even censorship.


Abdullah Saeed, professor of Islamic studies at the University of Melbourne, also made this argument in a pivotal article in an important book, “Freedom of Expression in Islam: Challenging Apostasy and Blasphemy Laws” (2021). “The need to develop detailed blasphemy laws,” Saeed observes, “began with the consolidation of political power, with the Umayyads and early Abbasids at the helm, and a strong, growing sense of the new religion’s superiority over other religions.” Yet today, he adds, “contemporary Muslims should be free to rethink the concept of blasphemy,” as there is really “no strong textual basis for the death penalty for blasphemy in either the Quran or the traditions of the Prophet.”

Some brave scholars in Pakistan publicly made the same case, too — but only to risk their lives. One of them is Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, who created a storm in 2011 when he said to the media: “The blasphemy laws have no justification in Islam … and these ulema [council of clerics] are just telling lies to the people.” Soon, after a failed plot to bomb his home, he had to leave Pakistan, first to Malaysia and ultimately to the United States.

The drama of Ghamidi indicates the dilemma that Pakistan continues to face today: To overcome the religious fanaticism that causes so much injustice, it needs fresh ideas about religious laws. But that very fanaticism doesn’t allow those ideas in the first place.

So.. in summation more I read this I arrive at the conclusion that there are no proper well defined blasphemy laws. Shariat itself is defined as Islamic law on the basis of Quran, Sunnah and Fiqh and in Quran itself there is no punishment for blasphemy. It is the Sunnah which complicates things but even then there is no agreement between the various schools of thought on the matter. In its current state, I would say what we have in Pakistan is absolutely not Shariat because most religions scholars and schools of thought wont even agree on it.

 

[RexRex]

Did you know that the blasphemy laws are very clear that if someone is accused to blasphemy, that person is given an understanding of what blasphemy means, and its severity in an Islamic society. This is done to ascertain that the other person truly meant to speak derogatory of our Prophet. or intended to insult him. The accused is given a chance to correct any previous statements made in error. Which is why in pre modern times, mostly during the time of the Prophet and afterwards, capital punishment was non existent.

My point flew over your head.

I was referring to cruelty and brutality of killing someone in the year 2024 for mocking a person that lived 1400 years ago. The fact that the accused is given a chance to repent or is sentenced by an expert judge (which u took great pains to explain lol) is completely irrelevant. It's the killing part that is barbaric. I amazed to see you defend this

 

[Stewie]

My point flew over your head.

I was referring to cruelty and brutality of killing someone in the year 2024 for mocking a person that lived 1400 years ago. The fact that the accused is given a chance to repent or is sentenced by an expert judge (which u took great pains to explain lol) is completely irrelevant. It's the killing part that is barbaric. I amazed to see you defend this

Perhaps you should read carefully. There is no death sentence and I am not defending the death sentence either. I’m defending the concept but in light of what I just read, I doubting we even have scholarly consensus on the issue in the actual concept itself.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Most of the people brush away the top instead of addressing core issues.

While I agree, there a a few common topics that make Hindus or as a matter any other religion be cautious to issues pertaining to muslims

1. Sharia law - While I have read the few arguments about it here stating that, it will only happen when people are in majority. That statement itself will push others to not let muslims take the majority right?
Even in countries like UK/Canada, we are seeing demonstrations wanting Sharia law. With religion being a political tool, who will nit be afraid of it? And seeing the bad examples in AFG/Iran, it’s even more concerning.

What any person from a non-Islamic nation wants is that, there will not be a Sharia law, even with muslim majority in the country. And that is not Islamophobic. Because, its about the governance of a country.

2. And this is where some other stupid issues come. Like the higher fertility rate of muslims, unwanted showcasing of religion by praying on roads / public places, differences in religious aspects such as beef consumption, examples of previous islamic extremism etc.

I personally don't mind the latter but it just gets lots of attention due to politicizing issues

The real concerns are:
1. Running a parallel society
2. Groupism - I am not aware if people here know but the above two are of real concern. Even in a city as developed as hyderabad, local governing body employers doenst dare to go into some muslim regions in case of electricity stealing / bill payments, vaccinations, taxes etc related stuff.
3. Waqf board - the land grabbing of this group is well know but its like this group have an untouchability.

Who in the world would agree to a separate law for citizens of same country? That is the real discrimination IMO.

Isn't that just how democracy works? People vote in numbers and the majority vote wins. In the UK or Canada, no one forces you to vote for Sharia, I don't even think it has ever been a campaign issue.

 

[Stewie]

Isn't that just how democracy works? People vote in numbers and the majority vote wins. In the UK or Canada, no one forces you to vote for Sharia, I don't even think it has ever been a campaign issue.

I am starting to actually even question the concept of sharia law. More I study more I find that there is no uniform legal code. It’s all bits and pieces. For instance there is very little consensus on blasphemy law.

So when one speaks of sharia either they don’t know anything about it or they want certain laws for political gain. I don’t know what they wanted in the UK when they petitioned or campaigned for it.

If there was a central code that everybody agreed on (shias Sunnis, barelvi Hanafi etc etc) then it would be a serious point of consideration. But as things stand now it’s just a political tool.

 

[Theanonymousone]

Isn't that just how democracy works? People vote in numbers and the majority vote wins. In the UK or Canada, no one forces you to vote for Sharia, I don't even think it has ever been a campaign issue.

I believe there were some campaigns albeit smaller ones. Replacing a legal code just cause one community has majority doesnt make sense. Then every group can run parallel societies of their own which doesnt make sense

 

[Theanonymousone]

It’s ridiculous, by the way, that blasphemers are in jail and the thieves who should get their hands chopped off are running the country. Don’t you think?

How is this shariat then?

That is the issue when you give power to religious lunatics.

Exactly same issue faced by India when religious heads put ban on backward castes not entering the temple. The same issue today as the religious mullahs control the power in muslim communities in India. State and religion should be kept separate.

Now if you ask about Modi, we dont have a better choice now. What India needs now is a bit of right-wing capitalist policies as a poor nation taking up path towards economic development. An average indian today is voting for BJP not for religious inclination but just afraid of Congress left leaning policies with freebies that will drain the economy.

 

[Theanonymousone]

Seems like India is behind the times on this one. Mostly you get the bill in the mail and you go pay it. I have not heard of any other place where the bill is collected door to door by a utility provider.

It has been digitalized but we dont have 100% penetration for internet services. Even then, non-payments has to be collected or the electric lines has to be removed. For that, government officers have to go door to door. While I will not say its a common thing, this has been an issue in uneducated parts under control of religious nut-jobs.
Same case with polio vaccinations and all.

I will not blame the people but the religious heads who keep tight control of power for their benefits. This may not be exclusive to Muslims but has been prevalent compared to Hindu communities, as police doesnt take swift action in fear of communal riots. Talking about Hyderabad and other southern India, not some place in UP

 

[Stewie]

That is the issue when you give power to religious lunatics.

Exactly same issue faced by India when religious heads put ban on backward castes not entering the temple. The same issue today as the religious mullahs control the power in muslim communities in India. State and religion should be kept separate.

Now if you ask about Modi, we dont have a better choice now. What India needs now is a bit of right-wing capitalist policies as a poor nation taking up path towards economic development. An average indian today is voting for BJP not for religious inclination but just afraid of Congress left leaning policies with freebies that will drain the economy.

Religious lunatics have zero power in Pakistan.

They are just pawns used by you know who. Religion is used to achieve their goals that’s it. The western powers weaponized religion in the late 70s and now the establishment uses that weapon on its own people.

I think BJP kind of took a leaf out of their book to get in power in India. of course they don’t have the unbridled power the Pakistani establishment wields but the strategy was very similar.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I believe there were some campaigns albeit smaller ones. Replacing a legal code just cause one community has majority doesnt make sense. Then every group can run parallel societies of their own which doesnt make sense

That's not how it works. Changing laws is a more laborious process than changing govts. But the reality is, in a democracy, what the majority wants will end up becoming law usually, that's how democracy works. Otherwise why would gay marriage have been approved? Why are there beef bans in some states in India?

 

[Theanonymousone]

That's not how it works. Changing laws is a more laborious process than changing govts. But the reality is, in a democracy, what the majority wants will end up becoming law usually, that's how democracy works. Otherwise why would gay marriage have been approved? Why are there beef bans in some states in India?

I think the examples you mentioned itself demonstrates that democracy needs flexible laws.

I cannot agree that what majority wants will become a law. In defining a law, there will be positive rights and negative rights.
Laws such as gay marriages and other woke aspects fall under negative rights. Its a non-interference for other people as it doesn't affect them.

Even the beef ban too, it is only contentious because it may hurt religious feelings. But again, its not a nationwide law which again points out the flexibility in the law system.

But enacting, religious based laws will take away that flexibility. Even more so with Shariat law. I dont know if people here agree or not, but one of the characteristics of Islam is its inflexibility I feel.

While I dont know whole of Shariat law, what muslims claim is its a god-made law. So, everything will be derived from your religious perspective which will not fit in for other religious perspective.

And democracy is not for who will be in majority. It’s for all the people in the country. And you are clearly confusing the two. If its for the majority, then what you are implying is that, rights of minority population are not equal to rights of majority. Then how is that a democracy??

So, unless 100% population is muslims, there wont be a possibility of Shariat law in any democracy.

 

[Theanonymousone]

Religious lunatics have zero power in Pakistan.

They are just pawns used by you know who. Religion is used to achieve their goals that’s it. The western powers weaponized religion in the late 70s and now the establishment uses that weapon on its own people.

I think BJP kind of took a leaf out of their book to get in power in India. of course they don’t have the unbridled power the Pakistani establishment wields but the strategy was very similar.

If religious lunatics have zero power, how are they becoming political tools?

Its only because of their power, they are being used.

Owaisi is clear example in Hyderabad. I cannot tell you how under-developed the old city is compared to other parts of Hyderabad. What has he done other than consolidating his power for a common muslim man? The gap is >100X because, they dont want development which will lead to people challenging their power.

And I am indifferent to Hindu religious lunatics too. The day, Yogi will contend as a PM candidate, is the day I will stop preferring BJP over congress.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I think the examples you mentioned itself demonstrates that democracy needs flexible laws.

I cannot agree that what majority wants will become a law. In defining a law, there will be positive rights and negative rights.
Laws such as gay marriages and other woke aspects fall under negative rights. Its a non-interference for other people as it doesn't affect them.

Even the beef ban too, it is only contentious because it may hurt religious feelings. But again, its not a nationwide law which again points out the flexibility in the law system.

But enacting, religious based laws will take away that flexibility. Even more so with Shariat law. I dont know if people here agree or not, but one of the characteristics of Islam is its inflexibility I feel.

While I dont know whole of Shariat law, what muslims claim is its a god-made law. So, everything will be derived from your religious perspective which will not fit in for other religious perspective.

And democracy is not for who will be in majority. It’s for all the people in the country. And you are clearly confusing the two. If its for the majority, then what you are implying is that, rights of minority population are not equal to rights of majority. Then how is that a democracy??

So, unless 100% population is muslims, there wont be a possibility of Shariat law in any democracy.

But that is you who is arguing that what majority wants should become law, we have never argued it. All we have said is that Muslims can desire something in a democracy whether majority or a minority just like anyone else. There is not even any tangible evidence that Muslims in a democracy want theocratic rule in the first place.

 

[RexRex]

Perhaps you should read carefully. There is no death sentence and I am not defending the death sentence either.

Why you lie ? All four schools of islamic jurisprudence are clear on this -> death penalty.

 

[Stewie]

Why you lie ? All four schools of islamic jurisprudence are clear on this -> death penalty.

Did you read the link I posted? I am not sure where you are getting your information from, what I am reading is saying something completely different. Perhaps you are a bigger expert on this than I am, I don't know. I am no expert, I have never claimed to be an expert. Maybe give me some evidence and I can look at it while you look at the link I posted as well.

Don't assume subterfuge here on my part. I assure you I have no such intentions.

 

[Stewie]

If religious lunatics have zero power, how are they becoming political tools?

Its only because of their power, they are being used.

Owaisi is clear example in Hyderabad. I cannot tell you how under-developed the old city is compared to other parts of Hyderabad. What has he done other than consolidating his power for a common muslim man? The gap is >100X because, they dont want development which will lead to people challenging their power.

And I am indifferent to Hindu religious lunatics too. The day, Yogi will contend as a PM candidate, is the day I will stop preferring BJP over congress.

I guess it is hard for a foreigner to really understand how our political landscape works.

It is all about manipulating a few factors here and there for the establishment. If religious lunatics or religious political parties had power, they would have won elections, formed governments at either provincial level or in the center. But in the history of Pakistan this has never happened. How would you explain that?

They are a tool used to rile up public emotions, hold rallies, get media coverage, do "tor phor" - TLP is a very good example of that, they are temporarily bigged up by the establishment to go break a popular party's votes to make them fall in line with the uniforms, etc.

Maulana Fazlu aka Diesel is probably the most recognizable figure on the religious political side and he is almost always sitting in the opposition. Now he is part of a coalition of basically every tom, dick and harry against IK.

I don't know how you interpret all this, to me that means they don't have power. In fact nobody has power except for the military establishment.

 

[Theanonymousone]

But that is you who is arguing that what majority wants should become law, we have never argued it. All we have said is that Muslims can desire something in a democracy whether majority or a minority just like anyone else. There is not even any tangible evidence that Muslims in a democracy want theocratic rule in the first place.

Where did say that in democracy, what majority wants should become a law?

I said, that is what Muslims argue when campaigning for Shariat law and that is what the pushes other religious communities to be apprehensive of this situation.

And there have been campaigns for Shariat law in UK and Canada and from there discussion started.

Muslim convert who agitated for sharia state in UK given groundbreaking asbo | Crime | The Guardian

Jordan Horner told by Old Bailey judge to stop preaching in public – a legal first – after promoting extreme versions of Islam

amp.theguardian.com

I dont accuse you of wanting Sharia law but there is tangible evidence albeit smaller campaigns for the same and a simple google search can provide you the evidence.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Where did say that in democracy, what majority wants should become a law?

I said, that is what Muslims argue when campaigning for Shariat law and that is what the pushes other religious communities to be apprehensive of this situation.

And there have been campaigns for Shariat law in UK and Canada and from there discussion started.

Muslim convert who agitated for sharia state in UK given groundbreaking asbo | Crime | The Guardian

Jordan Horner told by Old Bailey judge to stop preaching in public – a legal first – after promoting extreme versions of Islam

amp.theguardian.com

I dont accuse you of wanting Sharia law but there is tangible evidence albeit smaller campaigns for the same and a simple google search can provide you the evidence.

How is that any different from people who campaign for laws for female rights or laws to allow gay marriage?

 

[Champ_Pal]

If religious lunatics have zero power, how are they becoming political tools?

Its only because of their power, they are being used.

Owaisi is clear example in Hyderabad. I cannot tell you how under-developed the old city is compared to other parts of Hyderabad. What has he done other than consolidating his power for a common muslim man? The gap is >100X because, they dont want development which will lead to people challenging their power.

And I am indifferent to Hindu religious lunatics too. The day, Yogi will contend as a PM candidate, is the day I will stop preferring BJP over congress.

The only way Owaisis can cling on to power is if he can keep his voter base poor and backward. That way he can strut among them as their sole hope and savior.

 

[RexRex]

Did you read the link I posted? I am not sure where you are getting your information from, what I am reading is saying something completely different. Perhaps you are a bigger expert on this than I am, I don't know. I am no expert, I have never claimed to be an expert. Maybe give me some evidence and I can look at it while you look at the link I posted as well.

You said in another thread that 'Sharia is beautiful and is the perfect law for me; now you claim you're not an expert and don't know anything.

 

[Champ_Pal]

But that is you who is arguing that what majority wants should become law, we have never argued it. All we have said is that Muslims can desire something in a democracy whether majority or a minority just like anyone else. There is not even any tangible evidence that Muslims in a democracy want theocratic rule in the first place.

There are lots of videos on youtube of Muslims demanding Sharia law in Europe.

 

[RexRex]

How is that any different from people who campaign for laws for female rights or laws to allow gay marriage?

Sharia law is not the same as other human rights laws.

 

[Stewie]

You said in another thread that 'Sharia is beautiful and is the perfect law for me; now you claim you're not an expert and don't know anything.

I m not sure where the disparaging comments are coming from. You assume everyone with a differing viewpoint has some malicious or dishonest intent here. Not sure why

The whole point of these discussions is to share various viewpoints. Sometimes they can convince you to review your stance in topics. How is that a bad thing? If I become absolutely rigid in light of new evidence and convincing argument, I am an idiot but if I am convinced and change my views, I am a "sly fox"? Well you know quite honestly, I would much rather be a sly fox than a sly Hindu pretending to be an atheist.


Find that quote for me, please. I don't remember it but we can look at the overall context. I have never ever claimed to be an expert at Shariat but my faith dictates to me that I agree with whatever is said in the Quran and Sunnah. Now if there is no clear instruction and consensus, its not Shariat, You will cry yourself hoarse claiming it is, but that doesn't make it so.

I continue to research this when I have time and will share further thoughts on it but specifically for the blasphemy law, I can safely comment that Islamic direction is not absolutely rock solid about punishments. Once again, I urge you to read the article I had linked in a previous post. At best each case needs to be looked at on individual basis based on the historical context when punishments were handed out.

 

[Stewie]

There are lots of videos on youtube of Muslims demanding Sharia law in Europe.

Post them here if there are so many. We would all like to review them.

 

[Theanonymousone]

How is that any different from people who campaign for laws for female rights or laws to allow gay marriage?

They are not claiming for a parallel society. A separate jurisdiction.

Female rights and gay rights are the fundamental human rights and the campaigns objective is to not get discriminated against.

Gay marriage - You can take India for example. While Gay rights are not contentious, legalizing gay marriage has not been favored by law. Now most of the legal discussion is based on interpretation of our constitution and amendments for it.

But asking for Shariat law is to change the interpretation of laws from constitution to religious book. Should I explain further on it?

There is already a parallel society in India for Muslims and for which government is striving hard for UCC (Uniform civil code). Why should citizens under the same country have different laws?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

They are not claiming for a parallel society. A separate jurisdiction.

Female rights and gay rights are the fundamental human rights and the campaigns objective is to not get discriminated against.

Gay marriage - You can take India for example. While Gay rights are not contentious, legalizing gay marriage has not been favored by law. Now most of the legal discussion is based on interpretation of our constitution and amendments for it.

But asking for Shariat law is to change the interpretation of laws from constitution to religious book. Should I explain further on it?

There is already a parallel society in India for Muslims and for which government is striving hard for UCC (Uniform civil code). Why should citizens under the same country have different laws?

Sorry to interrupt your civilized discussions. But that law is called personal law available for every minority atleast in South Asian states

 

[Theanonymousone]

The only way Owaisis can cling on to power is if he can keep his voter base poor and backward. That way he can strut among them as their sole hope and savior.

If anyone doubts whether India is a secular country, one can point out to Owaisi. People point fingers at Yogi (UP CM), but Owaisi clearly takes the cake.

 

[Stewie]

Sorry to interrupt your civilized discussions. But that law is called personal law available for every minority atleast in South Asian states

Personal law? What is that?

 

[Theanonymousone]

Sorry to interrupt your civilized discussions. But that law is called personal law available for every minority atleast in South Asian states

Yes. I was quoting the personal laws. For that matter, even criminal laws for muslims comes under different boards in India.

Having these the personal laws will never help people of different religions to truly integrate into one system. And that is what UCC was trying to achieve.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Personal law? What is that?

Personal laws are derived not from the Constitution but from the religious scriptures.

https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/42606/chapter/357548357#:~:text=Personal%20laws%20are%20derived%20not,if%20they%20violate%20fundamental%20rights.

 

[Stewie]

Personal laws are derived not from the Constitution but from the religious scriptures.

https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/42606/chapter/357548357#:~:text=Personal%20laws%20are%20derived%20not,if%20they%20violate%20fundamental%20rights.

Thats interesting, I did not know about that. I guess this is the part the Hindutva clan want to get rid of for Muslims.

 

[RexRex]

I m not sure where the disparaging comments are coming from. You assume everyone with a differing viewpoint has some malicious or dishonest intent here. Not sure why.

No disparagement or malice on my part, it's a slow day here at work .. so I thought I'd stir up some debate.

Regarding sharia, I asked sharia expert @LordJames in his muti-page Dawah thread about this and he confirmed the punishment for blasphemy, apostasy, gay people and adultery is DEATH, he had no doubts about this.

Knowing this now, I want to see you completely disavow Sharia and say that it is a completely unfit & medieval system for any society on earth today or in the future.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Post them here if there are so many. We would all like to review them.

In Germany

In Canada

In Belgium

In US

https://youtu.be/e6QC_qEyl0Q?si=_2AsjMh6xh_It-qC

In UK
https://youtu.be/G4QDlIdkjpo?si=UNnZOb4REGDtT3l4
https://youtu.be/rcsG-u2GtZE?si=fEJE99GVMlFhVyS-
https://youtu.be/aEXUYbXx3NQ?si=F5oPFne6P1l7N-2Q

In France
https://youtu.be/wNQb75PwOHE?si=f5ZHcaPPtEy4wP6M

I can't waste anymore time in digging up videos.

Listen to what UAE minister is saying.
https://youtu.be/-dV4m43xZmY?si=zQU2JAeqGL-nGOUX

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Thats interesting, I did not know about that. I guess this is the part the Hindutva clan want to get rid of for Muslims.

In Pakistan even Hindus have separate personal laws for them that even govern the distribution of inheritance among them but hindutva supporters in India have problem with personal laws for Muslim in India

 

[Stewie]

No disparagement or malice on my part, it's a slow day here at work .. so I thought I'd stir up some debate.

Regarding sharia, I asked sharia expert @LordJames in his muti-page Dawah thread about this and he confirmed the punishment for blasphemy, apostasy, gay people and adultery is DEATH, he had no doubts about this.

Knowing this now, I want to see you completely disavow Sharia and say that is completely unfit system for any society on earth today or in the future.

Dude I don't know how to get through to you. Its like saying the same thing over and over and over again and it has no impact whatsoever. You just WANT TO, NEED TO believe that Sharia is the most cruel and ugly and "insert all other negative adjectives here" thing ever. You are not even willing to consider that there are several interpretations and what may be passed as Shariat in some cases could not be a correct or accepted interpretation.

I listed to a scholar called Javed Ghamidi sometimes and he believed blasphemy laws have no place in Shariat. So what does that mean?
You also claimed that the punishment for blasphemy is death in "ALL FOUR SCHOOLS" post #1951, and that was a lie or incorrect statement. I have included the following interpretations, and look at what the Hanafi school says.

So my point is there are so many variations and I am myself learning more about this. There is no clear and undisputed law here in my take. Yes there are definitely supporting voices for the death penalty, I cannot argue about that but to say they are DE FACTO Shariat is incorrect.

We simply don't seem to have consensus. At best, this is to be reviewed on a case by case basis. I have not seen enough to convince me otherwise so far. Now that could change in future and when it does, I guess you will be labelling my a sly fox again, you sly Hindu atheist.

Blasphemy, defined as insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, the Prophet Muhammad, or sacred Islamic tenets, is addressed with serious consequences in Islamic jurisprudence. However, the interpretation and punishment for blasphemy vary across the four major Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali. Here's a summary of their perspectives:

1. Hanafi School:​

• Blasphemy by Muslims: According to the Hanafi school, blasphemy is considered a severe offense. The general ruling is that a Muslim who commits blasphemy should be punished by death. However, there is an allowance for repentance. If the individual repents sincerely, the punishment can be waived.
• Blasphemy by Non-Muslims (Dhimmis): Non-Muslims living under Muslim rule (dhimmis) who commit blasphemy are not automatically subject to the death penalty, though they can be punished. The punishment could vary and might include imprisonment or other penalties, but there is also room for pardon.

2. Maliki School:​

• Blasphemy by Muslims: The Maliki school views blasphemy as an offense that warrants the death penalty for a Muslim, without the possibility of repentance waiving the punishment. According to the Malikis, once the offense is committed, the punishment must be carried out.
• Blasphemy by Non-Muslims: In the case of non-Muslims (dhimmis), the Maliki position also holds that the offender should be executed if they insult the Prophet Muhammad. However, this is primarily for repeated offenses; for the first offense, the punishment could vary.

3. Shafi'i School:​

• Blasphemy by Muslims: The Shafi'i school also prescribes the death penalty for a Muslim who commits blasphemy, but, similar to the Hanafi position, there is an opportunity for the offender to repent. If repentance is deemed sincere, the punishment can be lifted.
• Blasphemy by Non-Muslims: Non-Muslims are treated similarly to Muslims in this school. The Shafi'i scholars generally hold that a non-Muslim who insults Islam or the Prophet Muhammad should be punished by death, though there might be some consideration for repentance.

4. Hanbali School:​

• Blasphemy by Muslims: In the Hanbali school, blasphemy is treated as an unforgivable crime that mandates the death penalty for Muslims, with no opportunity for repentance to avoid the execution. The Hanbalis are very strict in this regard.
• Blasphemy by Non-Muslims: Like the other schools, Hanbalis prescribe the death penalty for non-Muslims who commit blasphemy. However, some Hanbali scholars have argued that non-Muslims should be given the opportunity to repent, especially if they are new to the faith or the Islamic state.

 

[Theanonymousone]

Thats interesting, I did not know about that. I guess this is the part the Hindutva clan want to get rid of for Muslims.

Why do you think Hindus want to get rid of rights of Muslims?

Let me give you some example: As for marriage, Hindu law recognizes only one marriage but for Muslims polygamy is allowed.

Look at this from female rights activists. Because, you are born as a muslim, your partner is allowed polygamy is allowed and marry another person?

Be it on marriage, adoption, inheritance, why should one be judged on separate laws in a single country?

Uniform civil code is also for citizens of other religion. While if people believe some laws of UCC are not good, what we should strive for is to the best of all worlds. Not for a parallel society.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

There are lots of videos on youtube of Muslims demanding Sharia law in Europe.

This is like saying there are lots of videos of hindus in India shouting Pakistan ya Murdabad.

 

[Champ_Pal]

This is like saying there are lots of videos of hindus in India shouting Pakistan ya Murdabad.

What Indians do in India is their matter.

But immigrant Muslims trying to have their way and rules in Europe is something else. That is where Islamophobia comes from.

 

[Stewie]

Why do you think Hindus want to get rid of rights of Muslims?

Let me give you some example: As for marriage, Hindu law recognizes only one marriage but for Muslims polygamy is allowed.

Look at this from female rights activists. Because, you are born as a muslim, your partner is allowed polygamy is allowed and marry another person?

Be it on marriage, adoption, inheritance, why should one be judged on separate laws in a single country?

Uniform civil code is also for citizens of other religion. While if people believe some laws of UCC are not good, what we should strive for is to the best of all worlds. Not for a parallel society.

If you want to be fair to all, sure but then make sure there is 100% separation of church and state. On one hand you guys want UCC but then you also want cow protection? How fair is that?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Post them here if there are so many. We would all like to review them.

What you will get is videos from around the world of small groups of Muslim trolls, mostly with Al Muhajiroun connections whose sole purpose is to get on camera calling for Islam or caliphate by waving placards. You won't even find a video with 100 people in one group on camera because they don't represent average Muslims.

 

[Stewie]

In Germany

In Canada

In Belgium

In US

https://youtu.be/e6QC_qEyl0Q?si=_2AsjMh6xh_It-qC

In UK
https://youtu.be/G4QDlIdkjpo?si=UNnZOb4REGDtT3l4
https://youtu.be/rcsG-u2GtZE?si=fEJE99GVMlFhVyS-
https://youtu.be/aEXUYbXx3NQ?si=F5oPFne6P1l7N-2Q

In France
https://youtu.be/wNQb75PwOHE?si=f5ZHcaPPtEy4wP6M

I can't waste anymore time in digging up videos.

Listen to what UAE minister is saying.
https://youtu.be/-dV4m43xZmY?si=zQU2JAeqGL-nGOUX

most of these videos are not even about Shariat. I see maybe one or two and they are in German.

There will always be an outlier here and there asking for it, I cannot deny that part but does the overwhelming majority of Muslims favor it?

I do see that one guy in Canada is talking about stuff that says when we are in majority. I am not sure if that will ever happen but even if it does what Shariat is he talking about? there is absolutely zero consensus on it. There are four schools of thought with varying views and laws, the Sunnis and shiites disagreements, etc, etc. These are just rants of idiots and practically speaking something like this will never happen.

But I do see how the extremists can/have/will cause Islamophobia. But I think using what happens outside of the subcontinent, as an excuse for Islamophobia in India is also pretty rich coming from Hindus. You guys don't get to put yourselves in the same shoes as them. You have lived with and under Muslims for centuries.

India is not in the same boat as Europe/UK/US/Canada. Your dynamic is totally different.

 

[Stewie]

What you will get is videos from around the world of small groups of Muslim trolls, mostly with Al Muhajiroun connections whose sole purpose is to get on camera calling for Islam or caliphate by waving placards. You won't even find a video with 100 people in one group on camera because they don't represent average Muslims.

that's exactly correct. these are troll videos, some are edited, manufactured, some show very small crowds here and there and the effort is to make it seem like a widespread movement by RW nutjobs in the west which the Hindus hungrily latch on to.

I have been in the states for over 35 years and have lived in several cities and frequented several masjids and I have never ever seen one demonstration by Muslims demanding Shariat.

 

[Champ_Pal]

most of these videos are not even about Shariat. I see maybe one or two and they are in German.

There will always be an outlier here and there asking for it, I cannot deny that part but does the overwhelming majority of Muslims favor it?

I do see that one guy in Canada is talking about stuff that says when we are in majority. I am not sure if that will ever happen but even if it does what Shariat is he talking about? there is absolutely zero consensus on it. There are four schools of thought with varying views and laws, the Sunnis and shiites disagreements, etc, etc. These are just rants of idiots and practically speaking something like this will never happen.

But I do see how the extremists can/have/will cause Islamophobia. But I think using what happens outside of the subcontinent, as an excuse for Islamophobia in India is also pretty rich coming from Hindus. You guys don't get to put yourselves in the same shoes as them. You have lived with and under Muslims for centuries.

India is not in the same boat as Europe/UK/US/Canada. Your dynamic is totally different.

Bottomline is they believe in Sharia law reigns over all man made laws. If given a choice they will choose Sharia.

You can call them anything. It is part of their faith and nothing can alter it.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What Indians do in India is their matter.

But immigrant Muslims trying to have their way and rules in Europe is something else. That is where Islamophobia comes from.

But Indians in the UK also support hindutva, that is why you get Modi getting rock star welcomes at Wembley stadium. That is why you get hindutva trolls celebrating deaths of Palestinians on anonymous social media channels. Is that really any better than a few Muslims abroad trolling the locals by waving placards for caliphate or Sharia law?

 

[Champ_Pal]

that's exactly correct. these are troll videos, some are edited, manufactured, some show very small crowds here and there and the effort is to make it seem like a widespread movement by RW nutjobs in the west which the Hindus hungrily latch on to.

I have been in the states for over 35 years and have lived in several cities and frequented several masjids and I have never ever seen one demonstration by Muslims demanding Shariat.

They are all Muslim trolls trying to malign Islam. Perfect.