What's new

''We need to talk about Love Jihad''

Bhai he is being charged with many dubious charges

Like kidnapping, breaking and entering, rape, and the some love jihad type law I don't know about

I don't think he lied about his relegion
he is an above Average looking guy, was going to the US, had property in his name

He was a catch for the female, I don't think he had to lie about his relegion to have a relationship with her infact she was lucky to have one with him

And the whole family speaks nastalik urdu with big persian words

No Hindu speak hindi with urdu nastalik accent and persian words

I highly doubt that he was duping the girl, it just doesn't add up

In FIR, anyone can alleged of another person of doing something and that doesn't constitute as truth. the charge sheet will be made based upon which courts will provide opportunity to the defendent to prove his innocence.

That's how law proceeds. he shouldn't be crying about why the girls family made such allegations. he should be preparing to defend himself against the charge sheet.

charge sheet isn't a verdict.
 
Uttar Pradesh...Enough said. This guy should have been more careful while marrying a non Muslim there.

The cowbelt area is not completely safe for muslims be it rich or poor.

one of my friends who is a muslim is finally marrying a hindu guy. I was opposed to her marrying a hindu, but this guy comes from a big shot family who regularly come on tv news. He could have married anyone, but he truly loves her. So I gave my affirmation when she asked. Her family is also ok, but people of her religion are not. I told her if there is any problem, let me know. Can always arrange people in UP.
 
Caste driven Honour killing among Hindus is just another level. Common in Southern Indian states.

Thankfully new age film directors like Pa Ranjith, Mari Selvaraj, etc., are creating films talking about caste discrimination like Kaala, Pariyerum Perumal, Karnan, etc., and the good thing is that they are received well by the audience, much to the chagrin of the dominant castes.

Guess what did they do in reply. They created a movie about how dominant caste girls are tricked by the lower caste boys and titled it Draupadi, and it did decently well in the rural areas. So yeah it's an ongoing struggle and need more woke film directors to create awareness and make people socially conscious.
 
Thankfully new age film directors like Pa Ranjith, Mari Selvaraj, etc., are creating films talking about caste discrimination like Kaala, Pariyerum Perumal, Karnan, etc., and the good thing is that they are received well by the audience, much to the chagrin of the dominant castes.

Guess what did they do in reply. They created a movie about how dominant caste girls are tricked by the lower caste boys and titled it Draupadi, and it did decently well in the rural areas. So yeah it's an ongoing struggle and need more woke film directors to create awareness and make people socially conscious.

Nothing wrong with endogamy. All communities practice it.
 
one of my friends who is a muslim is finally marrying a hindu guy. I was opposed to her marrying a hindu, but this guy comes from a big shot family who regularly come on tv news. He could have married anyone, but he truly loves her. So I gave my affirmation when she asked. Her family is also ok, but people of her religion are not. I told her if there is any problem, let me know. Can always arrange people in UP.

If she has no problem and her family also approves it, why would anybody care? Live and let others live.

Unemployment is the root cause for all this revenge mindset and evil thoughts.
 
Thankfully new age film directors like Pa Ranjith, Mari Selvaraj, etc., are creating films talking about caste discrimination like Kaala, Pariyerum Perumal, Karnan, etc., and the good thing is that they are received well by the audience, much to the chagrin of the dominant castes.

Guess what did they do in reply. They created a movie about how dominant caste girls are tricked by the lower caste boys and titled it Draupadi, and it did decently well in the rural areas. So yeah it's an ongoing struggle and need more woke film directors to create awareness and make people socially conscious.

movies and real lives are different. People who will support some ideology in others cases will go against when it comes to their own family.
 
movies and real lives are different. People who will support some ideology in others cases will go against when it comes to their own family.

But it has gotten a lot better compared to the older times with the influx of Social media. Not like UP which is still stuck in stone age.
 
Nothing wrong with endogamy. All communities practice it.

Agreed that many communities follow endogamy and there's nothing wrong with it per se.

But there's a difference between I'll marry within my own community to preserve my cultural habits and customs, and I'll not marry outside my community lest my racial purity becomes impure due that said marriage.
 
But it has gotten a lot better compared to the older times with the influx of Social media. Not like UP which is still stuck in stone age.

UP has a history and past scars way more than other states. so it will take some time.
 
Agreed that many communities follow endogamy and there's nothing wrong with it per se.

But there's a difference between I'll marry within my own community to preserve my cultural habits and customs, and I'll not marry outside my community lest my racial purity becomes impure due that said marriage.

Both are same and just playing with words.
 
My thoughts exactly. I get it now. Still trying to figure out the mask that Technics slips though!

You will see it trust me, no sane person can support right wing Western racists in the West and act holier than thou. :))
 
In FIR, anyone can alleged of another person of doing something and that doesn't constitute as truth. the charge sheet will be made based upon which courts will provide opportunity to the defendent to prove his innocence.

That's how law proceeds. he shouldn't be crying about why the girls family made such allegations. he should be preparing to defend himself against the charge sheet.

charge sheet isn't a verdict.
Ok so the conclusion is
Go to the courts fight these flimsy charges for more than decade or two as this is how the judicial system is there

In the meantime keep paying huge bribes to police for protection if not than some mob will kill you

You or your family will also get tortured here and there to keep the girls family happy

Couldn't have asked for a better arrangement

A decade long arrangement that is :ua
 
Agreed that many communities follow endogamy and there's nothing wrong with it per se.

But there's a difference between I'll marry within my own community to preserve my cultural habits and customs, and I'll not marry outside my community lest my racial purity becomes impure due that said marriage.

How do you find out why endogamous marriages happen? Why do jatavs marry within jatavs, and meenas within meenas? Why do doctors prefer doctors? is this neo casteism?

This is typical left loonie fascism. nothing else.
 
Ok so the conclusion is
Go to the courts fight these flimsy charges for more than decade or two as this is how the judicial system is there

In the meantime keep paying huge bribes to police for protection if not than some mob will kill you

You or your family will also get tortured here and there to keep the girls family happy

Couldn't have asked for a better arrangement

A decade long arrangement that is :ua

He dug his hole by himself with violating the existing law and giving the opportunity to the girls family. Had he went through the official route, none of the girls family claims would have mattered. You have given the leeway to them so now it's your responsibility to bear the consequences.
 
tell me the difference with an example.

If a Marathi or a Bengali chooses to marry a fellow Marathi or Bengali to preserve his culture in his next generation, that's not really wrong.

But if you don't want your son or daughter marrying someone from a lower caste, it simply means you don't want the caste purity of your bloodline getting affected by marrying someone of a lower caste. Culture and customs are just a front.
 
If a Marathi or a Bengali chooses to marry a fellow Marathi or Bengali to preserve his culture in his next generation, that's not really wrong.

But if you don't want your son or daughter marrying someone from a lower caste, it simply means you don't want the caste purity of your bloodline getting affected by marrying someone of a lower caste. Culture and customs are just a front.

But by Indian tradition, marriage is not just a bond between two people but two families bringing together which pillars the institution. if the family puts objection, based upon existing custom of Indian traditional marriage, shouldn't families have right to oppose?

Or are you saying this Indian traditional marriage concept is flawed and should be discontinued?
 
If a Marathi or a Bengali chooses to marry a fellow Marathi or Bengali to preserve his culture in his next generation, that's not really wrong.

But if you don't want your son or daughter marrying someone from a lower caste, it simply means you don't want the caste purity of your bloodline getting affected by marrying someone of a lower caste. Culture and customs are just a front.

asking again as you did not answer. When jatavs marry jatavs and meenas marry meenas, is it for any racial purity?
 
How do you find out why endogamous marriages happen? Why do jatavs marry within jatavs, and meenas within meenas? Why do doctors prefer doctors? is this neo casteism?

This is typical left loonie fascism. nothing else.

I'm assuming the jatavs and meenas are north Indian dalit castes. They are part of the same caste system that all other castes are, and just because they're at the bottom of the pyramid doesn't mean they aren't programmed to think that way through years of caste structure inculcated into their brains.

Rather than trying to understand why people do endogamous marriages, it's much easier to understand why people don't. How many times have you read a headline of a dalit family hacking an upper caste guy to death because of a two sided relationship with their daughter and how many times you've read the headline the other way around. How many times have you read news of honour killings of doctors for marrying with engineers..?
 
But by Indian tradition, marriage is not just a bond between two people but two families bringing together which pillars the institution. if the family puts objection, based upon existing custom of Indian traditional marriage, shouldn't families have right to oppose?

Or are you saying this Indian traditional marriage concept is flawed and should be discontinued?

Oh bhai, if it wasn't clear, I've been for a long time saying that the caste system is by far the most regressive part of Indian culture and should be done away with. I mean, Indians use their caste names as surnames and flaunt it with pride as if it's some sort of educational achievement.
 
Oh bhai, if it wasn't clear, I've been for a long time saying that the caste system is by far the most regressive part of Indian culture and should be done away with. I mean, Indians use their caste names as surnames and flaunt it with pride as if it's some sort of educational achievement.

You didn't answer my question. what I asked was, traditional Indian marriage institution. nothing about caste.
 
as for caste name goes, why shouldn't one be proud about their caste?

I am descendent from ahom tribe which ruled our state for over 600 years. are you saying I shouldn't be proud about my tribe and the surnames that I have been given which actually has practical meaning in our rituals?
 
You didn't answer my question. what I asked was, traditional Indian marriage institution. nothing about caste.

You didn't read my answer well.

You asked, "if the family puts objection, based upon existing custom of Indian traditional marriage, shouldn't families have right to oppose?

I replied that the existing custom based on which you reject the marriage is a B S custom and need to be done away with. I couldn't have been clearer.
 
as for caste name goes, why shouldn't one be proud about their caste?

I am descendent from ahom tribe which ruled our state for over 600 years. are you saying I shouldn't be proud about my tribe and the surnames that I have been given which actually has practical meaning in our rituals?

No you shouldn't be proud that's the dumbest s*** people pull

What did you do? We're you the one ruling the state

It's nothing more than a name for your documents, it has no bearing on your life unless you forceably try to make it an important part of your identity

Like I don't know why people think you should be proud of what your ancestors did in 21st century (and in all likelyhood you're not even 1/5 of the tribe you're identity with
After 600 years there's so much mixing that you're nothing like those guys(not that it matters even if you were)
Unless y'all were inbreeding)
 
No you shouldn't be proud that's the dumbest s*** people pull

What did you do? We're you the one ruling the state

It's nothing more than a name for your documents, it has no bearing on your life unless you forceably try to make it an important part of your identity

Like I don't know why people think you should be proud of what your ancestors did in 21st century (and in all likelyhood you're not even 1/5 of the tribe you're identity with
After 600 years there's so much mixing that you're nothing like those guys(not that it matters even if you were)
Unless y'all were inbreeding)

^
Also I love when muslims put Lodhi in front of thier name some Indians get all butt hurt

You're hindu, pray goumata, you don't respect your routes
Ah out him on fire already!!

But than end up getting proud off of what thier ancestors did 1000s of years ago (even though I am 1000 % they're not your ancestors if you do DNA testing)

And what did they do...

They conquered, raped, pillaged just like Lodhis of the world during middle ages
 
Sure you can be a proud Ahom or proud Assamese or proud Indian or even a proud Pastafarian if you want..

But if that pride prohibits you from believing in the notion that all human beings are born equal (and that includes the Ahom tribe that you're proud of), then it's no longer pride and it transforms into bigotry.
 
No you shouldn't be proud that's the dumbest s*** people pull

What did you do? We're you the one ruling the state

It's nothing more than a name for your documents, it has no bearing on your life unless you forceably try to make it an important part of your identity

Like I don't know why people think you should be proud of what your ancestors did in 21st century (and in all likelyhood you're not even 1/5 of the tribe you're identity with
After 600 years there's so much mixing that you're nothing like those guys(not that it matters even if you were)
Unless y'all were inbreeding)

This is not about "ethnicity" but about "caste" or "clans"

It's ok to identify with your ethnicity (although being "proud" still doesn't sit well with me but it's not something that big a deal as people going bizzerk over thier clans,castes)
 
I'm assuming the jatavs and meenas are north Indian dalit castes. They are part of the same caste system that all other castes are, and just because they're at the bottom of the pyramid doesn't mean they aren't programmed to think that way through years of caste structure inculcated into their brains.

Rather than trying to understand why people do endogamous marriages, it's much easier to understand why people don't. How many times have you read a headline of a dalit family hacking an upper caste guy to death because of a two sided relationship with their daughter and how many times you've read the headline the other way around. How many times have you read news of honour killings of doctors for marrying with engineers..?

I didn't even bring upper castes here. Why don't jatavs and meenas, or any dalit group marry within each other? Why are they endogamous.
 
as for caste name goes, why shouldn't one be proud about their caste?

I am descendent from ahom tribe which ruled our state for over 600 years. are you saying I shouldn't be proud about my tribe and the surnames that I have been given which actually has practical meaning in our rituals?

You should if you want. Tribalism is human nature.
 
I didn't even bring upper castes here. Why don't jatavs and meenas, or any dalit group marry within each other? Why are they endogamous.

I just said they're programmed to do so, because of the caste based society they have grown up in over centuries that precludes mixing of blood from different castes/sub castes/clans/sub clans. Doesn't make it any legitimate though.
 
I just said they're programmed to do so, because of the caste based society they have grown up in over centuries that precludes mixing of blood from different castes/sub castes/clans/sub clans. Doesn't make it any legitimate though.

Culture is often result of years of programming. Why do you think their endogamous practice is illegitimate?
 
Culture is often result of years of programming. Why do you think their endogamous practice is illegitimate?

I already said. Because of the notion that marrying out of their caste will affect their caste purity, or sub caste in the case of your example.
 
I already said. Because of the notion that marrying out of their caste will affect their caste purity, or sub caste in the case of your example.

So a marathi marrying a marathi is legitimate, and you don't think it is because of ethnic purity, but a lower caste community being endogamous is illegitimate and is because of caste purity? How did you decide that in first case it is just culture and not ethnic purity, and in the second case it is not culture but caste purity?
 
I already said. Because of the notion that marrying out of their caste will affect their caste purity, or sub caste in the case of your example.

If a muslim married a muslim, is it because some notion of religious purity and not because of cultural reason? How do you go about deciding which is a case of what?
 
So a marathi marrying a marathi is legitimate, and you don't think it is because of ethnic purity, but a lower caste community being endogamous is illegitimate and is because of caste purity? How did you decide that in first case it is just culture and not ethnic purity, and in the second case it is not culture but caste purity?

Finding the true intentions of people doing something is difficult. It's much easier to understand why people don't do certain things.

It's why I said much earlier in my post that "Rather than trying to understand why people do endogamous marriages, it's much easier to understand why people don't". A marathi choosing not to marry with a non marathi has different connotations to a a casteist person choosing not to marry outside of caste.

Of course, needless to say, this is presuming that the marathi person chooses to not marry outside of marathi ethnicity for practical purposes, i.e., language, culture, customs, etc. If it is to maintain the so called ethnic purity of his marathi blood, then that's messed up thinking as well.
 
Finding the true intentions of people doing something is difficult. It's much easier to understand why people don't do certain things.

It's why I said much earlier in my post that "Rather than trying to understand why people do endogamous marriages, it's much easier to understand why people don't". A marathi choosing not to marry with a non marathi has different connotations to a a casteist person choosing not to marry outside of caste.

Of course, needless to say, this is presuming that the marathi person chooses to not marry outside of marathi ethnicity for practical purposes, i.e., language, culture, customs, etc. If it is to maintain the so called ethnic purity of his marathi blood, then that's messed up thinking as well.

So you concede you don't know why people are endogamous. You are only assuming the reasons. But how come your first choice reason is different when it comes to a tamilian marrying a tamilian, but is opposite when a jatav marries a jatav. I am trying to understand why your assumption is changing in the other case.

Also what do you mean by this: Rather than trying to understand why people do endogamous marriages, it's much easier to understand why people don't.
Are you saying it is easier to understand why people don't do endogamy?
 
So a marathi marrying a marathi is legitimate, and you don't think it is because of ethnic purity, but a lower caste community being endogamous is illegitimate and is because of caste purity? How did you decide that in first case it is just culture and not ethnic purity, and in the second case it is not culture but caste purity?

Difference between ethnicities is a lot more procounced than castes, clans

In my family people are ok with marrying different casts, clans and is treated like it's nothing - there's barely a conversation on that

But marrying a punjabi is still a taboo (not that you're going to get lynched for it but people in the family will make "faces" if someone is proposing a punjabi girl for marriage-marriage still takes place tho) with the locals not because of racism because most of the people you grew up with and are friends with are that ethnicity, and in no way is it a superiority complex

But since as Muhajir we are a minority that fear of uncontrolled assimilation and losing our culture stops that relationship from happening which I believe may come across as racist but I think it's ok preserving your way of life is important for everyone and as long as it's not coming from

"Hey I am better than your kind" than it's ok

But differences between clans are not that big for it to be comparable to a inter ethnic relationship
 
If a muslim married a muslim, is it because some notion of religious purity and not because of cultural reason? How do you go about deciding which is a case of what?

Why do you ask me this question as if I'm a muslim. I don't believe in organised religion and believe these markers such as hindu, muslim, brahmin, kshatriya are all man made and don't have any actual spiritual relevance beyond the cultural habits they follow in a ritualistic manner. I don't think any barriers should exist between two consenting adults, be it religion, or caste, or ethnicity.

That said, I'll answer the question anyway. A muslim choosing not to marry with a non-muslim or a christian choosing not to marry with a non-christian is very different from a brahmin choosing not to marry a non-brahmin, although it might look similar on a superficial level. There are of course different levels of discrimination but have you ever wondered why discriminating against say a poor person doesn't get the same level of condemnation as opposed to say a white person discriminating against a person of colour which is considered as outright bigotry. The former person would be considered as a classist jerk but the latter would be considered as an outright racist.

It is because, in the case of the former, he is discriminating against your quality, which is your wealth. A poor person if he receives wealth overnight, wouldn't be a poor person anymore and his quality changes overnight. Whereas in the case of the latter, while you can change your wealth, you cannot change the colour you're born with at birth and the person discriminates against the very identity of you, which you can never change. You can change your beliefs and become a muslim or christian overnight but you can never change your birth or caste in the eyes of a casteist person no matter what you do and he will always think of you as beneath him. So while a muslim or a christian choosing to not marry outside of his religion is still regressive thinking in my opinion, it is still not racist as a casteist person choosing to not marry outside of his or her caste.
 
Why do you ask me this question as if I'm a muslim. I don't believe in organised religion and believe these markers such as hindu, muslim, brahmin, kshatriya are all man made and don't have any actual spiritual relevance beyond the cultural habits they follow in a ritualistic manner. I don't think any barriers should exist between two consenting adults, be it religion, or caste, or ethnicity.

That said, I'll answer the question anyway. A muslim choosing not to marry with a non-muslim or a christian choosing not to marry with a non-christian is very different from a brahmin choosing not to marry a non-brahmin, although it might look similar on a superficial level. There are of course different levels of discrimination but have you ever wondered why discriminating against say a poor person doesn't get the same level of condemnation as opposed to say a white person discriminating against a person of colour which is considered as outright bigotry. The former person would be considered as a classist jerk but the latter would be considered as an outright racist.

It is because, in the case of the former, he is discriminating against your quality, which is your wealth. A poor person if he receives wealth overnight, wouldn't be a poor person anymore and his quality changes overnight. Whereas in the case of the latter, while you can change your wealth, you cannot change the colour you're born with at birth and the person discriminates against the very identity of you, which you can never change. You can change your beliefs and become a muslim or christian overnight but you can never change your birth or caste in the eyes of a casteist person no matter what you do and he will always think of you as beneath him. So while a muslim or a christian choosing to not marry outside of his religion is still regressive thinking in my opinion, it is still not racist as a casteist person choosing to not marry outside of his or her caste.

When I asked you questions about jatavs and meenas you didn't say that why am I asking as you are neither of these two castes. But when I use the muslim example, somehow you think I should not ask that?

Marrying has to involve "discrimination", just like there is "discrimination" whenever you have to make a choice. This is called discernment, not discrimination. When looking for a person you want to spend your entire life with, why shouldn't you be discerning? You have to check how many boxes you both tick together. The more cultural similarity, the more your inclination towards that person. The cultural similarity can be a wide concept. eg a doctor preferring a doctor. or an english speaking white marrying an asian who speaks good english. It is easier to communicate when you share many common things.

But when one community exercizes this discernment you call it racial/caste purity, when someone else does it you call it cultural reasons.

You cannot even change your ethnicity, so a tamilian marrying a tamilian is doing for ethnic purity?
 
So you concede you don't know why people are endogamous. You are only assuming the reasons. But how come your first choice reason is different when it comes to a tamilian marrying a tamilian, but is opposite when a jatav marries a jatav. I am trying to understand why your assumption is changing in the other case.

Also what do you mean by this: Rather than trying to understand why people do endogamous marriages, it's much easier to understand why people don't.
Are you saying it is easier to understand why people don't do endogamy?

Well my brother married a malayali girl. Initially my family wanted to see a Tamilian girl for him for practical reasons like communication, customs, etc. But then they came around that and she is not much different to any Tamilian girl if we had made an arranged marriage for him. A Tamilian marrying a non-Tamilian doesn't have the same taboo as a Gounder or a Vanniyar marrying a Paraiyar, and as someone who was born and brought up in India, I'm sure you know it as well.
 
Well my brother married a malayali girl. Initially my family wanted to see a Tamilian girl for him for practical reasons like communication, customs, etc. But then they came around that and she is not much different to any Tamilian girl if we had made an arranged marriage for him. A Tamilian marrying a non-Tamilian doesn't have the same taboo as a Gounder or a Vanniyar marrying a Paraiyar, and as someone who was born and brought up in India, I'm sure you know it as well.

The girl would have ticked more boxes for your brother. and that is fine. But even a tamilian cannot change their ethnicity, so when tamils prefer tamils, are they doing it for ethnic purity.

When your brother married a malayali, was he doing it for dravidian purity? See how easy it is so throw around labels accusing people of being against other humans.
 
When I asked you questions about jatavs and meenas you didn't say that why am I asking as you are neither of these two castes. But when I use the muslim example, somehow you think I should not ask that?

Marrying has to involve "discrimination", just like there is "discrimination" whenever you have to make a choice. This is called discernment, not discrimination. When looking for a person you want to spend your entire life with, why shouldn't you be discerning? You have to check how many boxes you both tick together. The more cultural similarity, the more your inclination towards that person. The cultural similarity can be a wide concept. eg a doctor preferring a doctor. or an english speaking white marrying an asian who speaks good english. It is easier to communicate when you share many common things.

But when one community exercizes this discernment you call it racial/caste purity, when someone else does it you call it cultural reasons.

You cannot even change your ethnicity, so a tamilian marrying a tamilian is doing for ethnic purity?

Sure, I understand the practical reasons why one chooses certain markers for marrying another person, perfectly understandable. But you're passing those markers like education, language, profession, etc., which are all qualities you attain after your birth with caste which is something that is part of you even before your birth when you're in your mother's womb. You can change or achieve more qualifications like an mbbs degree, proficiency in new language, etc., but caste is something that you're blessed or cursed with depending on your caste.

And like I said in my previous post, a Tamilian marrying a non Tamilian doesn't have the same taboo in our society than a brahmin or a kshatriya marrying a Dalit, you probably knew it anyway.
 
Sure, I understand the practical reasons why one chooses certain markers for marrying another person, perfectly understandable. But you're passing those markers like education, language, profession, etc., which are all qualities you attain after your birth with caste which is something that is part of you even before your birth when you're in your mother's womb. You can change or achieve more qualifications like an mbbs degree, proficiency in new language, etc., but caste is something that you're blessed or cursed with depending on your caste.

And like I said in my previous post, a Tamilian marrying a non Tamilian doesn't have the same taboo in our society than a brahmin or a kshatriya marrying a Dalit, you probably knew it anyway.

So far this is the gist:

You differentiate between discrimination based on identities by birth vs one you acquire after birth. And are somehow tolerant towards the one you acquire after birth.

So the question follows: When a muslim is discriminated by hindu majority, will you say that it is lesser discrimination, as the muslim can always change his religion?

Assuming you think that being a muslim one gets after birth. If you think otherwise, then it raises the other question: do you think muslims intermarry because of some notion of purity?

So which one is it?
 
So far this is the gist:

You differentiate between discrimination based on identities by birth vs one you acquire after birth. And are somehow tolerant towards the one you acquire after birth.

I'm not tolerant of the latter. That's still a sh*tty thing to do. Only the former is more terrible from a moral perspective.

So the question follows: When a muslim is discriminated by hindu majority, will you say that it is lesser discrimination, as the muslim can always change his religion?

Assuming you think that being a muslim one gets after birth. If you think otherwise, then it raises the other question: do you think muslims intermarry because of some notion of purity?

So which one is it?

You are equating two non equivalent events here. One event is a person choosing "not" to marry with a certain person based on his or her religion. That's still regressive, but that's not harming the second person.

The other event you talk of is a muslim person discriminated against by a hindu majority. Now I'm not sure what discrimination you're implying here. If it's bodily harm you're talking about, then that is automatically much worse than the former because in the former event, by rejecting marriage with the said person, you aren't harming him, while you are actively doing so in the latter. Even if one rejects marriage with another person based on his or her caste, it's still not as bad as actively harming another person based on his or her identity.
 
Last edited:
I'm not tolerant of the latter. That's still a sh*tty thing to do. Only the former is more terrible from a moral perspective.



You are equating two non equivalent events here. One event is a person choosing "not" to marry with a certain person based on his or her religion. That's still regressive, but that's not harming the second person.

The other event you talk of is a muslim person discriminated against by a hindu majority. Now I'm not sure what discrimination you're implying here. If it's bodily harm you're talking about, then that is automatically much worse than the former because in the former event, by rejecting marriage with the said person, you aren't harming him, while you are actively doing so in the latter. Even if one rejects marriage with another person based on his or her caste, it's still not as bad as actively harming another person based on his or her identity.


If a muslim not marrying a non muslim is not harming the other person, why does a jatav not marrying a meena harms the other person?

let me get this straight. A tamil preferring a tamil as a partner over non tamils is a shtty thing to do?
 
If a muslim not marrying a non muslim is not harming the other person, why does a jatav not marrying a meena harms the other person?

let me get this straight. A tamil preferring a tamil as a partner over non tamils is a shtty thing to do?

You're conflating caste with ethnicity. Let's not beat around the bush here. What you're basically asking me is, since I said discrimination based on things that cannot changed ever, i.e., your caste/sub caste, is considered more regressive in society than discrimination based on things like religion, education, wealth, etc., that can be changed over time (though it is still a regressive thing nonetheless), you're asking me if preference of marriage based on ethnicity is morally right..

Here's the thing. Ethnicity is a fluid concept and can be changed over time. There are various types of ethnic groups - based on religion, language, social customs, etc., but since we're talking about linguistic ethnic groups here..What makes a Tamil a Tamil? Him or her speaking Tamil as a first language at home is generally who's considered as a Tamil person. There's not a huge racial difference between a Tamil and a Telugu person apart from the fact that both speak different languages at home. And even then, plenty of Telugus have migrated over the years to Tamil Nadu and have practically subsumed the Tamil identity now. They have tamil names, follow tamil festivals, speak tamil as a first language at home and practically consider themselves as Tamils rather than Telugus. There are plenty such examples in TN and I'm sure there might be examples of the same happening vice versa.

So in that case, a Tamil person choosing to marry a fellow Tamil person is simply for practical purposes, you would generally choose to marry someone from your own linguistic group. A Tamil is differentiated from a Telugu or a Kannadiga based on the language he speaks as a first language at home. Even still, plenty of Tamil-Telugu or Tamil-Malayali and even Tamil-Punjabi marriages happen. But what really differentiates a Jatav or a meena person from each other, so much so that it's considered so taboo to marry outside of their caste and sub caste?
 
No you shouldn't be proud that's the dumbest s*** people pull

What did you do? We're you the one ruling the state

It's nothing more than a name for your documents, it has no bearing on your life unless you forceably try to make it an important part of your identity

Like I don't know why people think you should be proud of what your ancestors did in 21st century (and in all likelyhood you're not even 1/5 of the tribe you're identity with
After 600 years there's so much mixing that you're nothing like those guys(not that it matters even if you were)
Unless y'all were inbreeding)

You and I have different frame of reference for which constitutes something that one can feel proud about. it doesnt make any sense to you but it does to me. just like same way many Islamic principles doesn't make any sense to me but as a Muslim, you will follow it by heart.

So we can agree to disagree here.
 
You're conflating caste with ethnicity. Let's not beat around the bush here. What you're basically asking me is, since I said discrimination based on things that cannot changed ever, i.e., your caste/sub caste, is considered more regressive in society than discrimination based on things like religion, education, wealth, etc., that can be changed over time (though it is still a regressive thing nonetheless), you're asking me if preference of marriage based on ethnicity is morally right..

Here's the thing. Ethnicity is a fluid concept and can be changed over time. There are various types of ethnic groups - based on religion, language, social customs, etc., but since we're talking about linguistic ethnic groups here..What makes a Tamil a Tamil? Him or her speaking Tamil as a first language at home is generally who's considered as a Tamil person. There's not a huge racial difference between a Tamil and a Telugu person apart from the fact that both speak different languages at home. And even then, plenty of Telugus have migrated over the years to Tamil Nadu and have practically subsumed the Tamil identity now. They have tamil names, follow tamil festivals, speak tamil as a first language at home and practically consider themselves as Tamils rather than Telugus. There are plenty such examples in TN and I'm sure there might be examples of the same happening vice versa.

So in that case, a Tamil person choosing to marry a fellow Tamil person is simply for practical purposes, you would generally choose to marry someone from your own linguistic group. A Tamil is differentiated from a Telugu or a Kannadiga based on the language he speaks as a first language at home. Even still, plenty of Tamil-Telugu or Tamil-Malayali and even Tamil-Punjabi marriages happen. But what really differentiates a Jatav or a meena person from each other, so much so that it's considered so taboo to marry outside of their caste and sub caste?

You say ethnicity is a fluid concept and can change over time. How much time will a person take to change his ethnicity.Is it possible to change it within a life time, let alone ones marriageable age?

If not, then for all intents and purposes it is a static.

So why shouldnt a tamil marrying a tamil be thought of as a marriage of ethnic purity?
 
You say ethnicity is a fluid concept and can change over time. How much time will a person take to change his ethnicity.Is it possible to change it within a life time, let alone ones marriageable age?

If not, then for all intents and purposes it is a static.

So why shouldnt a tamil marrying a tamil be thought of as a marriage of ethnic purity?

I answered the same in my last paragraph.

So in that case, a Tamil person choosing to marry a fellow Tamil person is simply for practical purposes, you would generally choose to marry someone from your own linguistic group. A Tamil is differentiated from a Telugu or a Kannadiga based on the language he speaks as a first language at home. Even still, plenty of Tamil-Telugu or Tamil-Malayali and even Tamil-Punjabi marriages happen. But what really differentiates a Jatav or a meena person from each other, so much so that it's considered so taboo to marry outside of their caste and sub caste?
 
I don't see you mentioning the time frame of changing ones ethnicity. How long will it take me, to become a tamil by ethnicity.

You talk of ethnic purity in the case of a Tamil as if it's some sort of racial purity when Tamils are just a linguistic group. A Tamil is simply one who speaks Tamil a first language at home. There is no concept of something in your bloodline for a linguistic group like the concept of caste purity.

It's why I'm asking you a practical question. In your opinion, people marrying outside of their linguistic ethnicity is more common or people marrying outside of their caste? Do honour killings happen when a Tamil marries a Malayali or a Marathi; or when a Dalit marries an upper caste person?
 
You talk of ethnic purity in the case of a Tamil as if it's some sort of racial purity when Tamils are just a linguistic group. A Tamil is simply one who speaks Tamil a first language at home. There is no concept of something in your bloodline for a linguistic group like the concept of caste purity.

It's why I'm asking you a practical question. In your opinion, people marrying outside of their linguistic ethnicity is more common or people marrying outside of their caste? Do honour killings happen when a Tamil marries a Malayali or a Marathi; or when a Dalit marries an upper caste person?

Quite the opposite. I am not attributing any ethnic purity to tamil endogamy. I think people marry based on fundamental similarities and culture. Many castes have their own culture, their own customs, their own deities and food habits. So makes sense why castes are endogamous just like any other community.

I am just asking why in this case you think it is racial purity but not in the case of ethnic based endogamy. Why don't you call it dravidian purity then when a tamilian marries a malayali? This double standards is what I want to understand.

You still havent answered. You said ethnicity is a fluid concept. So how long will it take me to become a tamil by ethnicity?
 
Quite the opposite. I am not attributing any ethnic purity to tamil endogamy. I think people marry based on fundamental similarities and culture. Many castes have their own culture, their own customs, their own deities and food habits. So makes sense why castes are endogamous just like any other community.

I am just asking why in this case you think it is racial purity but not in the case of ethnic based endogamy. Why don't you call it dravidian purity then when a tamilian marries a malayali? This double standards is what I want to understand.

You still havent answered. You said ethnicity is a fluid concept. So how long will it take me to become a tamil by ethnicity?

That's the interesting bit I didn't know about, and most certainly can't relate to as I haven't experienced anything like it...

This is the question for both of you [MENTION=139664]street cricketer[/MENTION]

A- is this the norm or you're talking about exception to the rule to prove your point?
B- Even within the same ethnic/linguistic group differences in customs and traditions between different castes,clans are so different that it's hard for the couple to live together,?
 
Quite the opposite. I am not attributing any ethnic purity to tamil endogamy. I think people marry based on fundamental similarities and culture. Many castes have their own culture, their own customs, their own deities and food habits. So makes sense why castes are endogamous just like any other community.

I am just asking why in this case you think it is racial purity but not in the case of ethnic based endogamy. Why don't you call it dravidian purity then when a tamilian marries a malayali? This double standards is what I want to understand.

You still havent answered. You said ethnicity is a fluid concept. So how long will it take me to become a tamil by ethnicity?

You're right that one can't change one's ethnicity in the span of one lifetime. Let's for argument's sake assume that you're right in that there's not much difference between intra-ethnic marriages and intra-caste marriages from a moral standpoint.

I just want you to explain me why honour killings often happen in the case of inter-caste marriages and not in the case of inter-ethnic marriages.
 
You're right that one can't change one's ethnicity in the span of one lifetime. Let's for argument's sake assume that you're right in that there's not much difference between intra-ethnic marriages and intra-caste marriages from a moral standpoint.

I just want you to explain me why honour killings often happen in the case of inter-caste marriages and not in the case of inter-ethnic marriages.

Do you have any data to support this. Only when we agree on this, can we think of explaining it.

Do you think someone who can kill his child because of marrying outside caste, will not kill when in same caste but different ethnicity or religion? If a brahmin from UP kills his son for marrying a non brahmin, will he not kill if the son marries a brahmin from TN or Bengal? A gujar hindu who kills his daughter for marrying a non gujar will not kill if the daughter marries a muslim gujar?
 
That's the interesting bit I didn't know about, and most certainly can't relate to as I haven't experienced anything like it...

This is the question for both of you [MENTION=139664]street cricketer[/MENTION]

A- is this the norm or you're talking about exception to the rule to prove your point?
B- Even within the same ethnic/linguistic group differences in customs and traditions between different castes,clans are so different that it's hard for the couple to live together,?

A - It is true that different castes have different customs, deities and food habits. I mean, culture is nothing but a set of habits that you develop over a period of time. It is not surprising that when Indian society was divided into different castes that hardly mingled with each other, each group and sub group developed a set of their own habits and lifestyle.

Talking purely about the Tamil society, the differences are more accentuated in the case of brahmins and other castes, i.e., brahmins tend to follow a strict vegetarian diet, their style of dressing is a bit different from the non brahmins, both in case of males and females, and even their way of speaking Tamil tends to stand out. The differences are not so much in case of non brahmins, who generally tend to be non vegetarians, and more or less tend to have same habits and lifestyles except minor differences in customs. Each clan has a sort of local deity called kula deivam (literally clan god), like a guardian angel I suppose, that is specific to each clan. Otherwise more or less, the culture tends to be similar.

B - The question is whether it's hard to live together because of those differences in culture and customs or differences in caste. Minor differences in customs and culture do exist between each caste and sub caste even within a same ethnic group, but the differences in culture tends to be vast between say a Tamil and a Punjabi, as opposed to different castes within the Tamil society. Yet, you wouldn't see many honour killings with Tamils marrying Punjabis or Bengalis as opposed to a lower caste person marrying a dominant caste person. Which means those differences in culture/customs, etc. etc., are just a front and the difference in caste is actually the primary reason why castes don't marry with each other.
 
Do you have any data to support this. Only when we agree on this, can we think of explaining it.

Do you think someone who can kill his child because of marrying outside caste, will not kill when in same caste but different ethnicity or religion? If a brahmin from UP kills his son for marrying a non brahmin, will he not kill if the son marries a brahmin from TN or Bengal? A gujar hindu who kills his daughter for marrying a non gujar will not kill if the daughter marries a muslim gujar?

Sure, it might happen. The person who kills his son or daughter for marrying outside caste might well kill them for marrying outside state. But I'm asking why you don't read many headlines of honour killings for inter ethnic marriages as opposed to inter caste marriages..

I'll answer that as well. Parents don't normally kill their children. The primary reason why a father kills his son or daughter in honour killings is not because he or she married outside his or her ethnicity or state, it is because he or she married someone from a lower caste who the father feels is too beneath them to provide a progeny to his caste/clan and the shame he feels due to his pride being supposedly hurt by inter caste marriages pushes the seemingly normal father to become a bloodthirsty murderer. It is why you don't often see honour killings when a Tamil marries a Marathi or a Bengali but almost always when a Dalit marries a dominant person's child, particularly daughter, no matter in what part of India.
 
Sure, it might happen. The person who kills his son or daughter for marrying outside caste might well kill them for marrying outside state. But I'm asking why you don't read many headlines of honour killings for inter ethnic marriages as opposed to inter caste marriages..

I'll answer that as well. Parents don't normally kill their children. The primary reason why a father kills his son or daughter in honour killings is not because he or she married outside his or her ethnicity or state, it is because he or she married someone from a lower caste who the father feels is too beneath them to provide a progeny to his caste/clan and the shame he feels due to his pride being supposedly hurt by inter caste marriages pushes the seemingly normal father to become a bloodthirsty murderer. It is why you don't often see honour killings when a Tamil marries a Marathi or a Bengali but almost always when a Dalit marries a dominant person's child, particularly daughter, no matter in what part of India.

Show the data to support it. I have seen an honour killing (didnt witness but was in the next house when it happened) of a dalit father who strangled his daughter because she wanted to marry an agarwal boy. Your assumption that it is high caste and low caste issue is flawed (unless you present data).

People who kill their kids for this reason will not kill when they marry in same caste but otherwise different identities? The problem is with people, not caste or any other cultural identity.
 
Show the data to support it. I have seen an honour killing (didnt witness but was in the next house when it happened) of a dalit father who strangled his daughter because she wanted to marry an agarwal boy. Your assumption that it is high caste and low caste issue is flawed (unless you present data).

People who kill their kids for this reason will not kill when they marry in same caste but otherwise different identities? The problem is with people, not caste or any other cultural identity.

Reminds me of the "it's not the guns, but the bad people who wield the guns" argument.
 
Read this article in the NY Times on Pakistani Muslim female dating a Indian Hindu male.

We started texting during the early months of the pandemic, going back and forth every day for hours. The stay-at-home order created a space for us to get to know each other because neither of us had any other plans.

We built a friendship founded on our love of music. I introduced him to the hopelessly romantic soundtrack of my life: Durand Jones & The Indications, Toro y Moi and the band Whitney. He introduced me to classic Bollywood soundtracks, Tinariwen and the bass-filled tracks of Khruangbin.

He was eccentrically passionate in a way that barely annoyed me and often inspired me. Our banter was only curtailed by bedtimes we grudgingly enforced at 3 a.m., after eight straight hours of texting.

We had met on a dating app for South Asians called Dil Mil. My filters went beyond age and height to exclude all non-Muslim and non-Pakistani men. As a 25-year-old woman who grew up in the Pakistani-Muslim community, I was all too aware of the prohibition on marrying outside of my faith and culture, but my filters were more safeguards against heartbreak than indications of my religious and ethnic preferences. I simply did not want to fall for someone I couldn’t marry (not again, anyway — I had already learned that lesson the hard way).

[Sign up for Love Letter, our weekly email about Modern Love, weddings and relationships.]

How a passionate, quirky, ambitious, 30-year-old, Hindu Indian American made it through my filters — whether by technical glitch or an act of God — I’ll never know. All I know is that once he did, I fell deeply in love with him.

He lived in San Francisco while I was quarantining seven hours south. I had already planned to move up north, but Covid and the forest fires delayed those plans. By August, I finally made the move — both to my new home and on him.

He drove two hours to pick me up bearing gag gifts that represented inside jokes we had shared during our two-month texting phase. I already knew everything about this man except his touch, his essence and his voice.

After two months of effortless communication, we approached this meeting desperate to be as perfect in person. The pressure to be nothing less overwhelmed us until he turned some music on. Dre’es’s “Warm” played and everything else fell into place — soon we were laughing like old friends.

We went to the beach and shopped for plants. At his apartment, he made me drinks and dinner. The stove was still on when my favorite Toro y Moi song, “Omaha,” came on. He stopped cooking to deliver a cheesy line that was quickly overshadowed by a passionate kiss. In this pandemic, it was just us, with our favorite music accompanying every moment.

On our fourth date, he transformed his apartment into The Fillmore venue to create a concert at home. He scanned my fake ticket, took my coat, made a gaudy cocktail and ushered me to the dimly lit dance floor where we danced terribly, but always in each other’s arms.

He ended the set with Leon Bridges’s song, “Beyond,” one I had heard many times. He held me tight and whispered, “I was afraid to show you this song, but here it is.”

We swayed slowly as I listened to the lyrics: “I’m scared to death that she might be it … That the love is real, that the shoe might fit …”

I avoided eye contact with him, but I gripped the back of his flannel shirt tighter because I knew what line was coming: “Will she be my wife?”

He wasn’t crazy, and it was not too soon, because I felt the same. After having endured several dead-end relationships with non-Muslims and Muslims alike, here he was at last, the man I was supposed to be with. I knew it was time to have the big conversation with him — the one in which I remind him that I am Muslim.

On our fifth date, we drank white wine on a semi-quiet San Francisco street corner. I asked if he was ready to hear more about my family and religion.

“Yes,” he said.

I said, “Do you understand what it means to be with a Muslim girl?”

He began to ramble about his academic curiosity for the Quran and spirituality, and his eagerness to raise children in an interfaith household.

“If we decide to be together,” I said, “you need to understand that the only way forward is for you to convert. It won’t make things easy, but it will make things possible.”

His answer came too fast for comfort: “I’m game.”

How could he be so certain?

“Sometimes,” he said, “you are willing to change your whole future for one person.”

He and I continued to date for the rest of the year, fleeing from the societal expectations of our families and communities — fleeing, really, from any expectations at all. In our Covid bubble, we said “I love you” too soon, didn’t listen to our friends when they urged us to take it slow and ignored the harsh familial realities ahead of us.

I hadn’t told my mother anything about him, not a word, despite being months into the most consequential romantic relationship of my life. But Thanksgiving was fast approaching, when we each would return to our families.

This love story may have been his and mine, but without my mother’s approval, there would be no path forward. She was born and raised in Karachi, Pakistan. To expect her to understand how I fell in love with a Hindu would require her to unlearn all the traditions and customs with which she had been raised. I promised myself to be patient with her.

I was scared to raise the subject, but I wanted to share my happiness. With just the two of us in my bedroom, she began complaining about Covid spoiling my marriage prospects, at which point I blurted the truth: I already had met the man of my dreams.

“Who?” she said. “Is he Muslim?”

When I said no, she shrieked.

“Is he Pakistani?”

When I said no, she gasped.

“Can he speak Urdu or Hindi?”

When I said no, she started to cry.

But as I spoke about my relationship with him, and the fact that he had pledged to convert for me, she softened.

“I have never seen you talk about anyone like this,” she said. “I know you’re in love.” With these words of understanding, I saw that her strict framework was ultimately less important than my happiness.

When I told him that my mother knew the truth, he celebrated the momentum this development promised. However, in the coming weeks, he grew anxious that her approval was entirely predicated on him converting.

We each returned home once more for the December holidays, and that’s when I felt the foundation of my relationship with him begin to crack. With every delayed response to my texts, I knew something had changed. And indeed, everything had.

When he told his parents that he was thinking of converting for me, they broke down, crying, begging, pleading with him not to abandon his identity. We were two people who were able to defy our families and lean on serendipitous moments, lucky numbers and astrology to prove we belonged together. But we only searched for signs because we ran out of solutions.

Finally, he called, and we spoke, but it didn’t take long to know where things stood.

“I will never convert to Islam,” he said. “Not nominally, not religiously.”

More quickly than he had declared “I’m game” on that sunny San Francisco afternoon all those months ago, I said, “Then that’s it.”

Many people will never understand the requirements of marrying a Muslim. For me, the rules about marriage are stubborn, and the onus of sacrifice lies with the non-Muslim whose family is presumably more open to the possibility of interfaith relationships. Many will say it’s selfish and incongruous that a non-Muslim must convert for a Muslim. To them I would say I cannot defend the arbitrary limitations of Muslim love because I have been broken by them. I lost the man I thought I would love forever.

For a while I blamed my mother and religion, but it’s hard to know how strong our relationship really was with the music turned off. We loved in a pandemic, which was not the real world. Our romance was insulated from the ordinary conflicts of balancing work, friends and family. We were isolated both by our forbidden love and a global calamity, which surely deepened what we felt for each other. What we had was real, but it wasn’t enough.

I have since watched Muslim friends marry converts. I know it’s possible to share a love so endless that it can overcome these obstacles. But for now, I will keep my filters on.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/style/modern-love-muslim-hindu-dating.html
 
Read this article in the NY Times on Pakistani Muslim female dating a Indian Hindu male.



https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/16/style/modern-love-muslim-hindu-dating.html

This was always going to happen and both should've known before getting romantically involved. True hindu-muslim interfaith marriages are incredibly rare in India. I know quite a few hindus do marry muslims in India but almost always only after converting to Islam. That's not really an interfaith marriage in its truest sense which means a marriage of two people belonging to two different religions, it's just an intra faith marriage like every other normal muslim marriage.

I know a few hindu-christian interfaith marriages but the only hindu-muslim interfaith marriages I know, where the couple follow their respective religions even after marriage or remain agnostic, are of film celebrities. The hindu and muslim religious beliefs are so polar apart that it would require a major sacrifice from a religious standpoint for that marriage to work, more so from the muslim.
 
Last edited:
This was always going to happen and both should've known before getting romantically involved. True hindu-muslim interfaith marriages are incredibly rare in India. I know quite a few hindus do marry muslims in India but almost always only after converting to Islam. That's not really an interfaith marriage in its truest sense which means a marriage of two people belonging to two different religions, it's just an intra faith marriage like every other normal muslim marriage.

I know a few hindu-christian interfaith marriages but the only hindu-muslim interfaith marriages I know, where the couple follow their respective religions even after marriage or remain agnostic, are of film celebrities. The hindu and muslim religious beliefs are so polar apart that it would require a major sacrifice from a religious standpoint for that marriage to work, more so from the muslim.

Whether inter faith or intra faith, both are meaningless labels. They only have meaning for the wokes who get ecstatic at inter caste or inter religious marriages, and have problem with people preferring their own coumminity for marriages. that is why copywood (and kollywood and all such crapwood) glorify these inter community marriages.
 
Meh. the girl doesn't want to break out of shell yet expects the guy to convert.

What did she expect?

What was surprising to me was she was not religious at all, yet she still wanted the guy to convert. Not even the hey just do a nikkah for show to make my parents happy, she actually wanted him to become Muslim.


Per the article she drinks, has dated multiple guys in the past, shared a "passionate" kiss with this guy, yet then remembered her Muslim values. Seems strange.
 
What was surprising to me was she was not religious at all, yet she still wanted the guy to convert. Not even the hey just do a nikkah for show to make my parents happy, she actually wanted him to become Muslim.


Per the article she drinks, has dated multiple guys in the past, shared a "passionate" kiss with this guy, yet then remembered her Muslim values. Seems strange.

Not strange. She may be low on islam as religion, but may be big on islam as a culture.
 
Not strange. She may be low on islam as religion, but may be big on islam as a culture.

So true and weird too!
Cause of rules of probability you end up saying something right

Many people in the west are not practicing "muslims" but proudly identify themselves as muslim due to culture
 
Not strange. She may be low on islam as religion, but may be big on islam as a culture.

Then she could have married him, and raised the children as cultural Muslim. Why the need to make the guy convert?

Perhaps this is sexist, but their is no stigma if the girl converts to another religion to marry a man. However a man who converts to another religion to marry a girl is viewed as a beghairat.

And this particular girl is average at best in looks. If you are going to lose your izzat, at least do it for a girl who looks better.
 
Then she could have married him, and raised the children as cultural Muslim. Why the need to make the guy convert?

Perhaps this is sexist, but their is no stigma if the girl converts to another religion to marry a man. However a man who converts to another religion to marry a girl is viewed as a beghairat.

And this particular girl is average at best in looks. If you are going to lose your izzat, at least do it for a girl who looks better.
(The izzat part is a bit controversial dude...)
I feel that Pakistani people in Pakistan are better looking than most pakistanis in the US...

Lahore crowd > anything you'll ever see in the MSA
 
(The izzat part is a bit controversial dude...)

Well i did say it may be sexist. But is it wrong? If a Pakistani guy married a Hindu girl, converted to Hinduism, did the 7 circles around the fire, how much respect would he have in community?

Thats what in essence she was asking of the Hindu guy. Which would have humiliated him and his family.

I feel that Pakistani people in Pakistan are better looking than most pakistanis in the US...

Lahore crowd > anything you'll ever see in the MSA

Thats cause Lahore has 20 times the population of Pakistanis in the USA. So when you in Lahore you will obviously see a higher number of attractive women, but percentage wise it would be the same.
 
This was always going to happen and both should've known before getting romantically involved. True hindu-muslim interfaith marriages are incredibly rare in India. I know quite a few hindus do marry muslims in India but almost always only after converting to Islam. That's not really an interfaith marriage in its truest sense which means a marriage of two people belonging to two different religions, it's just an intra faith marriage like every other normal muslim marriage.

I know a few hindu-christian interfaith marriages but the only hindu-muslim interfaith marriages I know, where the couple follow their respective religions even after marriage or remain agnostic, are of film celebrities. The hindu and muslim religious beliefs are so polar apart that it would require a major sacrifice from a religious standpoint for that marriage to work, more so from the muslim.

They were from the US though, and here so many Pakistani women have married non Muslims. Usually white men. Same thing for Hindu women. So the precedent has already been set.

Usually the girls who marry out are pretty liberal, not religious, or just cultural Muslim/Hindu. Just like this girl.

However when it comes to desi marriages, even in the west, it seems to be a higher number of Muslim man Hindu women marriages, then vice versa.
 
Then she could have married him, and raised the children as cultural Muslim. Why the need to make the guy convert?

Perhaps this is sexist, but their is no stigma if the girl converts to another religion to marry a man. However a man who converts to another religion to marry a girl is viewed as a beghairat.

And this particular girl is average at best in looks. If you are going to lose your izzat, at least do it for a girl who looks better.

Maybe she is more interested in having a common culture with her husband, than with the kids.

Agreed, it should the girl who should convert. But if the guy is a hindu, then makes sense to convert him. Hindus are docile when facing muslims anyway.
 
They were from the US though, and here so many Pakistani women have married non Muslims. Usually white men. Same thing for Hindu women. So the precedent has already been set.

Usually the girls who marry out are pretty liberal, not religious, or just cultural Muslim/Hindu. Just like this girl.

However when it comes to desi marriages, even in the west, it seems to be a higher number of Muslim man Hindu women marriages, then vice versa.

I may be wrong here but I get the feeling it's much easier for hindus and muslims to adjust their religious values with white people than with each other.

Also the equation for marrying out between hindus and muslims is not always the same. While it's difficult for hindus to marry out too, it's often much more difficult for muslims because the religious obligation for marrying within their own religious community is not as hard and fast as it is for a muslim. And it's doubly difficult for a muslim girl seeking to marry out than a hindu girl.
 
I may be wrong here but I get the feeling it's much easier for hindus and muslims to adjust their religious values with white people than with each other.

Also the equation for marrying out between hindus and muslims is not always the same. While it's difficult for hindus to marry out too, it's often much more difficult for muslims because the religious obligation for marrying within their own religious community is not as hard and fast as it is for a muslim. And it's doubly difficult for a muslim girl seeking to marry out than a hindu girl.

You say that for muslim girls to marry hindus is double difficult. Is that due to religious purity and supremacy or because of cultural reasons?
 
Religious purity. So it is evil in your book? Do you think it is bigotry towards other religion folk?

Religion is fundamentally different from caste. Religion is a set of beliefs. Caste is something you're born with according to caste system. You can convert to an another religion but you cannot convert to another caste.
 
Back
Top