What If series: In case of a war between your country of origin and residence, where will your loyalties lie?

[DeadlyVenom]

We have taken an oath to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the nation even if it means taking up arms.

modifying laws here and there to suit their religious beliefs is different to overthrowing the entire law and putting a new order in place.

If Hindus demand tomorrow in the west that cow meat should be banned, they should do it in a democratic way.

But if Hindus demand that western secular law should be replaced by Manu Smriti or some other religious law it becomes really problematic.

If they do it democratically then there is no real difference modifying one law or attempting to modify them all.

 

[RexRex]

Great, the one time an elected official actually listened to the people who voted for them. Democracy, checks and balances are alive and kicking… I guess

Well, it's better than nothing I guess ?

The good-quality democracies actually listen to their people. Another exampe - I won't say India is a good quality democracy but I do recall India's defense minister repeatedly rejecting US requests to join their war in Afghanistan and send troops, because opposition political parties at home and their own MPs were vehemently against it.

 

[Stewie]

So if the secular law provides an option to undermine itself, you would do it and vote secular law out in favor of Sharia law.

Good to know.

And therein lies the gist of it. If a system truly believes it works why would it give the option to undermine itself?

Will India ever do it? Will USA ever do it? Heck, will Pakistan ever do it? There are societies and democracies around the world who believe their system works better and will never give you such an option because there is no need for it.

The Sharia law is incumbent upon the government to enforce. Not the average citizens. We have discussed this enough and its like kicking a dead horse. You keep wanting to bring this up over and over again because somehow you feel you will get something scandalous out of it. You conveniently ignore the fact that thousands of not millions of your fellow Hindus live under Sharia law and making a decent living under Sharia law in a number of countries (even though in my view its no the appropriate interpretation of sharia law). they don't seem to complain too much about it and yet here we are with a Hindu American living in a free society where Muslims exist and yet he wants to poke holes into the Muslim mode of governance intended for majority Muslim states.

Ignorance is bliss but there are somethings which you should really educate yourself for fear of sounding completely daft.

 

[Stewie]

So? You'll blame them for everything wrong in India? I certainly have never liked the anti Muslim speeches by them since 2014, or the bulldozer justice they have adopted. Plenty of things I don't like about them. But I hate Congress even more, so much that I can't even put into words. I reluctantly voted for BJP in the last election.​

you guys do the same with us. Pakistani or not, Muslims are not the same as Indian Muslims. It seems to me like most Hindus here are butt hurt over their Muslim countrymens' insistence on putting Sharia laws in place in India.


Most Muslims outside of India will probably shrug this off as a nuisance. They are fine with living under laws of the land and don't lose any sleep over not having Shariat in place.

 

[Champ_Pal]

And therein lies the gist of it. If a system truly believes it works why would it give the option to undermine itself?

Will India ever do it? Will USA ever do it? Heck, will Pakistan ever do it? There are societies and democracies around the world who believe their system works better and will never give you such an option because there is no need for it.

The Sharia law is incumbent upon the government to enforce. Not the average citizens. We have discussed this enough and its like kicking a dead horse. You keep wanting to bring this up over and over again because somehow you feel you will get something scandalous out of it. You conveniently ignore the fact that thousands of not millions of your fellow Hindus live under Sharia law and making a decent living under Sharia law in a number of countries (even though in my view its no the appropriate interpretation of sharia law). they don't seem to complain too much about it and yet here we are with a Hindu American living in a free society where Muslims exist and yet he wants to poke holes into the Muslim mode of governance intended for majority Muslim states.

Ignorance is bliss but there are somethings which you should really educate yourself for fear of sounding completely daft.

You resort to insults when put in a corner. It’s your style I guess.

We are only discussing hypothetical scenarios. You guys clearly have conflict of interests and instead of answering the question, you are asking why would the law allow such a clause that undermines itself.

We are only talking about hypothetical scenarios. If it allows, would you replace it with your religious law. All I want is a Yes or No in response.

 

[Hitman]

you guys do the same with us. Pakistani or not, Muslims are not the same as Indian Muslims. It seems to me like most Hindus here are butt hurt over their Muslim countrymens' insistence on putting Sharia laws in place in India.


Most Muslims outside of India will probably shrug this off as a nuisance. They are fine with living under laws of the land and don't lose any sleep over not having Shariat in place.

Can't disagree with the first line of your post. But not over this forum because it's highly regulated. I'm speaking of Indians over social media.

 

[Champ_Pal]

you guys do the same with us. Pakistani or not, Muslims are not the same as Indian Muslims. It seems to me like most Hindus here are butt hurt over their Muslim countrymens' insistence on putting Sharia laws in place in India.


Most Muslims outside of India will probably shrug this off as a nuisance. They are fine with living under laws of the land and don't lose any sleep over not having Shariat in place.

It just India. It is happening in several parts of the world and it was attempted in UK too. Of course, it got denied.

 

[RexRex]

You resort to insults when put in a corner. It’s your style I guess.

We are only discussing hypothetical scenarios. You guys clearly have conflict of interests and instead of answering the question, you are asking why would the law allow such a clause that undermines itself.

We are only talking about hypothetical scenarios. If it allows, would you replace it with your religious law. All I want is a Yes or No in response.

Careful now, the guy gets triggered easily and over the most trivial things. You'll be accused of having a thousand agendas

 

[HalBass9]

You resort to insults when put in a corner. It’s your style I guess.

We are only discussing hypothetical scenarios. You guys clearly have conflict of interests and instead of answering the question, you are asking why would the law allow such a clause that undermines itself.

We are only talking about hypothetical scenarios. If it allows, would you replace it with your religious law. All I want is a Yes or No in response.

Didn't he just break it down in plain, elementary-school English about what Islamic law says? You know, like 'Hey folks, follow the law of the land!' How much simpler can it get?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

It just India. It is happening in several parts of the world and it was attempted in UK too. Of course, it got denied.

When did the majority or infact a sizeable population try to impose sharia. Let us all know because that's something new to me

 

[Stewie]

You resort to insults when put in a corner. It’s your style I guess.

We are only discussing hypothetical scenarios. You guys clearly have conflict of interests and instead of answering the question, you are asking why would the law allow such a clause that undermines itself.

We are only talking about hypothetical scenarios. If it allows, would you replace it with your religious law. All I want is a Yes or No in response.

Do you even know what conflict of interest means?

Define conflict of interest and explain to me how it applies here?

 

[Stewie]

It just India. It is happening in several parts of the world and it was attempted in UK too. Of course, it got denied.

And then what happened?

Care to explain?

 

[cricketjoshila]

You may get riled up but its my personal opinion that they would side with Pakistan in a potential future war as Modi and BJP has antagonized them upto infinite proportions

Ayub Khan
Yahya Khan

And others thought the same.

Indian Muslim will fight a Indian Hindu or Sikh or Christian to have his religious supremacy, but only a negligible percentage will betray the country for Pakistan.

 

[Stewie]

Careful now, the guy gets triggered easily and over the most trivial things. You'll be accused of having a thousand agendas

It’s true. So far I have seen zero evidence of you guys not wracking up thousands of posts on a Pakistani forum mainly in discussions questioning Islam and Muslims purely for altruism or sense of gaining knowledge.

You live side by side with Muslims in your own country and you can receive all that information from them but the agenda to stir on a Pakistani forum is obviously the agenda here.

Either that or you do this in response to anti Hindutva threads on PP

you gotta eat cows for developing thick skins, parosees.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Do you even know what conflict of interest means?

Define conflict of interest and explain to me how it applies here?

Another red herring.

Anyways, in this scenario, one is a citizen of a country and has to obey the laws. But the personal faith comes in between and situation demands to choose one over the other.

 

[Champ_Pal]

And then what happened?

Care to explain?

Nothing. Numbers are not there to force a change.

 

[cricketjoshila]

A certain percentage probably would because of the rampant hate they have received from BJP and Hindus since 2014. But I don't believe all of them would.

Point is how many of these traitors will actually be Indian Muslims?

 

[Champ_Pal]

When did the majority or infact a sizeable population try to impose sharia. Let us all know because that's something new to me

I vaguely remember some groups shouting Sharia for UK a while ago. Thankfully they don’t have the numbers to cause any change to the law.

 

[Stewie]

Another red herring.

Anyways, in this scenario, one is a citizen of a country and has to obey the laws. But the personal faith comes in between and situation demands to choose one over the other.

See this is where your ineptitude and lack of common sense is coming into play.

It has been explained several times before that shariat is not incumbent upon a civilian Muslim to impose. You should really write it down somewhere.
As a citizen of America, it is not my business or my responsibility. It is only a responsibility of Muslim the leader or leaders of a country. How do you conclude any of this is conflict of interest?

It will never come to a point where they even give us the option. But if they do, it will most likely be for my own person or other Muslims and not the society at large so of course I will say yes to it. Why would I want it applied on others? If it’s a democratic process and someone says pick shariat or commonwealth law, as Muslim why would I not pick shariat? Of the due process is followed and most people pick shariat, I fail to see how that would be a problem.

Bottom line is: none of this goes against the modern values of democratic governance. If the majority want it it will be applied. If not, nobody here is supportive of enforcing it.

So how is that a conflict? What you guys do in India by banning cow slaughter… now that’s forcing others to your laws.
Not what I just explained.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I vaguely remember some groups shouting Sharia for UK a while ago. Thankfully they don’t have the numbers to cause any change to the law.

But the way you described things above it appeared as if majority was behind it. Trust me they were way fewer than those who went crazy for a cow head and vowed to take revenge from 200000 individuals.

 

[Stewie]

Nothing. Numbers are not there to force a change.

Exactly.. so what exactly is continuing to bother you?

 

[Champ_Pal]

Didn't he just break it down in plain, elementary-school English about what Islamic law says? You know, like 'Hey folks, follow the law of the land!' How much simpler can it get?

I know he is referring to Surah an Nisa

Here it is below. I need some clarification with this.

The verse below says, you have to obey the authority among you.
“ You “ here means Muslims. Am I correct? Will be happy if you can answer.

O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.

Surah An-Nisa - 59 - Quran.com

O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messe...

quran.com

 

[Champ_Pal]

Exactly.. so what exactly is continuing to bother you?

Just the demand itself

 

[RexRex]

It’s true. So far I have seen zero evidence of you guys not wracking up thousands of posts on a Pakistani forum mainly in discussions questioning Islam and Muslims purely for altruism or sense of gaining knowledge.

You live side by side with Muslims in your own country and you can receive all that information from them but the agenda to stir on a Pakistani forum is obviously the agenda here.

Either that or you do this in response to anti Hindutva threads on PP

you gotta eat cows for developing thick skins, parosees.

Triggered again for no reason .. for simple questions being asked. Weird.

 

[Stewie]

I know he is referring to Surah an Nisa

Here it is below. I need some clarification with this.

The verse below says, you have to obey the authority among you.
“ You “ here means Muslims. Am I correct? Will be happy if you can answer.

O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.

Surah An-Nisa - 59 - Quran.com

O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messe...

quran.com

well I don't think Quran will be addressing a Modi bhakt in mind here, what do you think?

 

[Stewie]

Just the demand itself

First of all its a foolish demand. But second, why does the demand concern you? Did they violate any local laws or democratic process by making such a demand? I am not entirely sure how UK's legislative process works but what bone do you have to pick with just the fact they demanded or requested it?

 

[Stewie]

Triggered again for no reason .. for simple questions being asked. Weird.

The whole scene here is weird, Bharati. You are on a Pakistani forum asking questions you already know or should know the answers to. You should be doing something better with your time. Read the Quran for instance if you are so curious about what we follow or believe. It will really be enlightening.

 

[HalBass9]

I know he is referring to Surah an Nisa

Here it is below. I need some clarification with this.

The verse below says, you have to obey the authority among you.
“ You “ here means Muslims. Am I correct? Will be happy if you can answer.

O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.

Surah An-Nisa - 59 - Quran.com

O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messe...

quran.com

So let me break it down for you in simple, elementary English, again. 'Follow the law of the land.' But hey, if that doesn’t satisfy you and you’re fishing for a different answer, I can totally lie to match your preconceived notions. Whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside!

 

[Stewie]

So let me break it down for you in simple, elementary English, again. 'Follow the law of the land.' But hey, if that doesn’t satisfy you and you’re fishing for a different answer, I can totally lie to match your preconceived notions. Whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside!

just wait he is going to come back in a few minutes and pretend he has amnesia and does not remember anything discussed so far here.. and then @RexRex will come and tell you that you are getting riled up for nothing. and thhat he is a hard core believer of secularism and supports it through and through.

but then a few minutes later half a dozen of them will show up here complaining about how they don't want their Muslim countrymen killing cows because it hurts their "feewings"!

 

[Hitman]

Point is how many of these traitors will actually be Indian Muslims?

Hmmm, good point. I certainly don't expect any type of loyalty from the illegal immigrants here.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I know he is referring to Surah an Nisa

Here it is below. I need some clarification with this.

The verse below says, you have to obey the authority among you.
“ You “ here means Muslims. Am I correct? Will be happy if you can answer.

O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.

Surah An-Nisa - 59 - Quran.com

O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messe...

quran.com

For civilians it would translate into Muslim personnel law unless they don't become the rulers. Don't know why sometimes you keep asking simple stuff.

When Muslims rule a country then it's incumbent upon the leaders to implement the sharia law. And it's the most just and human friendly law if one ponders over it objectively sans biases.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

just wait he is going to come back in a few minutes and pretend he has amnesia and does not remember anything discussed so far here.. and then @RexRex will come and tell you that you are getting riled up for nothing. and thhat he is a hard core believer of secularism and supports it through and through.

but then a few minutes later half a dozen of them will show up here complaining about how they don't want their Muslim countrymen killing cows because it hurts their "feewings"!

Sorry for distraction but sometimes I love to witness this funny trend

 

[Stewie]

Sorry for distraction but sometimes I love to witness this funny trend

not to mention they will also suddenly pivot to a different point or quote a completely unrelated verse from Quran asking you to explain it all over again and when you express frustration over their lack of common sense or comprehension skills, they will again ask you smugly why you are getting riled up.

but if you mention to them you had a cheeseburger at McDonald's for lunch from their 99 cent menu, that will probably really anger them.

By the way now that I happened to mention it, I am just curius if you can get a big Mac in India. I find it hilarious how they will claim it goes against the modern western values if some gori chamri wala cannot openly drink alcohol in Pakistan but somehow it will be perfectly normal to them if he has to stuff his cravings for a nice juicy big Mac deep down and wait for the flight out of India to get one.

 

[Champ_Pal]

well I don't think Quran will be addressing a Modi bhakt in mind here, what do you think?

Thanks. I know Quran does not care about us Veggie munchers.

But in the verse I posted, what is Holy Quran meaning when it says “Obey Authority among you”?
Is it referring to Muslim rulers or non-Muslim authority?

Please answer.

 

[Champ_Pal]

not to mention they will also suddenly pivot to a different point or quote a completely unrelated verse from Quran asking you to explain it all over again and when you express frustration over their lack of common sense or comprehension skills, they will again ask you smugly why you are getting riled up.

but if you mention to them you had a cheeseburger at McDonald's for lunch from their 99 cent menu, that will probably really anger them.

By the way now that I happened to mention it, I am just curius if you can get a big Mac in India. I find it hilarious how they will claim it goes against the modern western values if some gori chamri wala cannot openly drink alcohol in Pakistan but somehow it will be perfectly normal to them if he has to stuff his cravings for a nice juicy big Mac deep down and wait for the flight out of India to get one.

What you do in your country in this case either India or Pakistan is not for me to question. Whether someone eats Halal or no-beef menu, it is up to the country and its laws.

I never question why Afghans ban female education. I don’t question why Pakistanis declared Amedis as non-Muslims. I only question issues related to secular societies.

 

[Stewie]

Thanks. I know Quran does not care about us Veggie munchers.

But in the verse I posted, what is Holy Quran meaning when it says “Obey Authority among you”?
Is it referring to Muslim rulers or non-Muslim authority?

Please answer.

actually it does care about you veggie munchers and any other kind of munchers or non munchers when it considers they would be authority and that a Muslim has to obey their authority. Its all really simple.

I am actually pretty proud of you now being so curious and all about Quran. You should read the whole book with tafseer if Allah gives you himmat and the courage. It may be life changing for you.

 

[RexRex]

just wait he is going to come back in a few minutes and pretend he has amnesia and does not remember anything discussed so far here.. and then @RexRex will come and tell you that you are getting riled up for nothing. and thhat he is a hard core believer of secularism and supports it through and through.

but then a few minutes later half a dozen of them will show up here complaining about how they don't want their Muslim countrymen killing cows because it hurts their "feewings"!

Still triggered ?!! oh.. carry on...

 

[Stewie]

What you do in your country in this case either India or Pakistan is not for me to question. Whether someone eats Halal or no-beef menu, it is up to the country and its laws.

I never question why Afghans ban female education. I don’t question why Pakistanis declared Amedis as non-Muslims. I only question issues related to secular societies.

Secular societies have their Democratic processes. Its foolish to even pose hypothetical scenarios that have no grounding in reality. It is also foolish to try and draw parallels to what happens in India with Muslim Hindu relations to Muslim relations in the western lands.

By most standards Muslims in foreign lands have a much harmonious life than those living in India. Indian Muslims may have issues or bones to pick with the democratic society they live in (possibly because they don't feel its entirely democratic or fair to them?) than say UK, US etc. There is really no comparison.

 

[Champ_Pal]

actually it does care about you veggie munchers and any other kind of munchers or non munchers when it considers they would be authority and that a Muslim has to obey their authority. Its all really simple.

I am actually pretty proud of you now being so curious and all about Quran. You should read the whole book with tafseer if Allah gives you himmat and the courage. It may be life changing for you.

According to you, when Quran says Obey Authority Among You, it means non-Muslims.

I will get back with you. I am a willing learner.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Still triggered ?!! oh.. carry on...

Their wear their religion on their sleeve.

I always hear Pakistanis calling all India defenders as triggered Modi Andh Bhakts.

But little do they know that no one comes close to them when it comes to getting triggered

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Guys no more off topic stuff, thread already seems derailed. Plz post only if relevant to thread otherwise simply ignore.

 

[KingKhanWC]

We have taken an oath to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the nation even if it means taking up arms.

modifying laws here and there to suit their religious beliefs is different to overthrowing the entire law and putting a new order in place.

If Hindus demand tomorrow in the west that cow meat should be banned, they should do it in a democratic way.

But if Hindus demand that western secular law should be replaced by Manu Smriti or some other religious law it becomes really problematic.

Taking up arms in a just cause is fine .

Let me put it another way .

If US called you up for a tour of India , ie invasion to bomb & destroy the government & forces but you have family or friends in those institutions, you’d happily help kill them for this oath

 

[Stewie]

According to you, when Quran says Obey Authority Among You, it means non-Muslims.

I will get back with you. I am a willing learner.

Good! I would recommend reading the verses in their context. I am not a scholar but I know how this impacts me living in a western democracy and what are my responsibilities. So I may not know everything but just enough. Which is why I keep suggesting you read the Holy Quran with a decent English tafsir yourself. Trust me, you will thank me.

that goes for you as well @RexRex. Surely you don't want to put up with the triggered old me

 

[Champ_Pal]

Taking up arms in a just cause is fine .

Let me put it another way .

If US called you up for a tour of India , ie invasion to bomb & destroy the government & forces but you have family or friends in those institutions, you’d happily help kill them for this oath

I may not be happy, but I will not protest in the streets and take over university campuses. I will still stand by USA.

Thankfully India is a democracy and a super power in the making. Chances are remote that US or any other country will dare attack it.

 

[HalBass9]

I may not be happy, but I will not protest in the streets and take over university campuses. I will still stand by USA.

Thankfully India is a democracy and a super power in the making. Chances are remote that US or any other country will dare attack it.

WTH

You need to read up the US constitution.

 

[HalBass9]

I may not be happy, but I will not protest in the streets and take over university campuses. I will still stand by USA.

Thankfully India is a democracy and a super power in the making. Chances are remote that US or any other country will dare attack it.

Why would you, a U.S. citizen, want India to be a superpower? Are you secretly hoping India will out-superpower the U.S. while enjoying the perks of being USA citizen of Indian origin?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I know he is referring to Surah an Nisa

Here it is below. I need some clarification with this.

The verse below says, you have to obey the authority among you.
“ You “ here means Muslims. Am I correct? Will be happy if you can answer.

O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.

Surah An-Nisa - 59 - Quran.com

O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messe...

quran.com

Surah Nisa isn't the topic of discussion here.

Muslims must abide by an oath whether that oath is made to Muslim or Non Muslim.

By accepting citizenship you accept the terms and conditions of the country.

Muslim have as much right as any group to pursue their rights according to the legal traditions of the country. However they don't have the right to rebel with force or cause violence as this constitutes treason.

You are complicating a very simple topic.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Secular societies have their Democratic processes. Its foolish to even pose hypothetical scenarios that have no grounding in reality. It is also foolish to try and draw parallels to what happens in India with Muslim Hindu relations to Muslim relations in the western lands.

By most standards Muslims in foreign lands have a much harmonious life than those living in India. Indian Muslims may have issues or bones to pick with the democratic society they live in (possibly because they don't feel its entirely democratic or fair to them?) than say UK, US etc. There is really no comparison.

They want democracy for everyone else but want to limit the democracy of Muslim citizens.

 

[Stewie]

I may not be happy, but I will not protest in the streets and take over university campuses. I will still stand by USA.

Thankfully India is a democracy and a super power in the making. Chances are remote that US or any other country will dare attack it.

How long have you been a citizen here? Maybe you are not fully aware of the freedoms and rights you have under a western democracy. You are well within your right to go protest. It’s not illegal or wrong.

I have seen white people protesting US support of Israel resulting in death of children. It’s not wrong and it’s your right.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I may not be happy, but I will not protest in the streets and take over university campuses. I will still stand by USA.

Thankfully India is a democracy and a super power in the making. Chances are remote that US or any other country will dare attack it.

So Muhammad Ali did wrong when he refused to shed blood of ppl in Vietnam??

 

[Stewie]

If US wants to go against a superpower, by the way, they will. China, Russia, etc are just a couple. They went against UK as well historically.

It’s all about power and hegemony and maintaining your interests. If US thinks India or anyone is getting too big for its britches, it will go after them. We have seen that and we are still seeing that. Right now India is merely a country with a lot of cheap labor for them. They don’t offer anything else. If they had oil, we will be having an entirely different conversation right now.

 

[Champ_Pal]

So Muhammad Ali did wrong when he refused to shed blood of ppl in Vietnam??

It’s his decision.

 

[Champ_Pal]

How long have you been a citizen here? Maybe you are not fully aware of the freedoms and rights you have under a western democracy. You are well within your right to go protest. It’s not illegal or wrong.

I have seen white people protesting US support of Israel resulting in death of children. It’s not wrong and it’s your right.

I should have added burning US flags during protests.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Why would you, a U.S. citizen, want India to be a superpower? Are you secretly hoping India will out-superpower the U.S. while enjoying the perks of being USA citizen of Indian origin?

It’s not whether I wish or not, it is bound to happen just as China is now.

Wishing is when i say that BD will be a prosperous nation in a decade or two.

In a couple of decades, India will be a monster of an economy that no one can ignore.

 

[Stewie]

It’s not whether I wish or not, it is bound to happen just as China is now.

Wishing is when i say that BD will be a prosperous nation in a decade or two.

In a couple of decades, India will be a monster of an economy that no one can ignore.

China is miles ahead and even with them it’s not a monster of an economy. But even if by chance India gets there, it will be another threat to the US.

I should have added burning US flags during protests.

That’s illegal. So your right to protest does not cover it. I’m sure you will be arrested for that.

You should have studied harder for your green card exam.

 

[HalBass9]

It’s not whether I wish or not, it is bound to happen just as China is now.

Wishing is when i say that BD will be a prosperous nation in a decade or two.

In a couple of decades, India will be a monster of an economy that no one can ignore.

Absolutely not! While India may climb into the top 5 economies, the notion of it becoming a ‘supar pawar’ is as far-fetched as a Bollywood plot.

Historically, currently, and into the foreseeable future, the United States won’t just sit back and let that happen. Now, hypothetically speaking, if India ever poses an economic or military threat to the U.S., where do your loyalties lie?

Right now, India plays the loyal lapdog to the West, and if the removal of Sheikh Hasina as Bangladesh’s Prime Minister has Uncle Sam’s fingerprints on it, then guess what? The U.S. is already pulling India’s strings.

So, why haven’t you thrown your weight behind the U.S. in this case? After all, it would be in America’s interest, wouldn’t it?

 

[rpant_gabba]

That’s illegal. So your right to protest does not cover it. I’m sure you will be arrested for that.

You should have studied harder for your green card exam.

Supreme Court says otherwise

Loading…

www.lawinfo.com

R u sure u studied for yours?

 

[Stewie]

Supreme Court says otherwise

Loading…

www.lawinfo.com

R u sure u studied for yours?

I failed that question apparently. But here you go this is even better. Champs can burn as many flags now as he wants. Lol

 

[CricketCartoons]

China is miles ahead and even with them it’s not a monster of an economy. But even if by chance India gets there, it will be another threat to the US.


That’s illegal. So your right to protest does not cover it. I’m sure you will be arrested for that.

You should have studied harder for your green card exam.

When did it become illegal? I had a US army major as colleague who had served in Iraq, and said that he hates when someone burns the american flag, but they can't do anything because of the laws.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I failed that question apparently. But here you go this is even better. Champs can burn as many flags now as he wants. Lol

so you just made stuff about what is illegal?

BTW, given that US doesn't recognize dual citizenships and expects full allegiance of its citizen.

Are Us citizens who maintain dual citizenship committing perjury?

 

[Bhaijaan]

I always turn the news to non Muslims related things when my domestic helper is at our house. We are kind to her and she’s alright but knowing the fact that she’s a muslim one is just never sure what might happen. She might poison us. Frankly I was against the decision to hire her and wanted to look for a Hindu helper only because of trust factor.

Same thing while in Uber when the driver is Muslim. I refrain from talking about Pakistan or Bangladesh during that time. There is always this threat and they might pull a knife out of nowhere.

When i am at the salon, and you know it’s mostly Muslims there then also it’s bit uncomfortable for me.

Frankly this is an average Bharatiya’s daily life. Muslims are everywhere but their loyalties are extremely questionable. Despite decades and centuries spent in Bharat and making a living from here, you wouldn’t trust them when it comes to political discussions because you know their loyalties lie with their religion and not towards their country.

Harsh but bitter reality.

 

[Bhaijaan]

I must point out that in the Middle East where I have travelled a lot and to mostly all nations that are safe to go to, I have never felt that kind of discomfort at all while dealing with Muslims.

I keep on mentioning very specifically that the Bharatiya Muslims are among the worst, most unattractive, least educated, with little to no family values and etiquette among all Muslims in the world. They’re more identical to Bangladeshi Muslims (well a lot of them are Bangladeshi in actual because of decades long illegal migrations from them). Pakistanis are much better people. The Pakistanis I have met and befriended in the Middle East and Europe were extremely likeable people. I consider them brothers and cut from the same cloth because of our Sindhu Ghaati connection.

 

[Red-Indian]

Another red herring.

Anyways, in this scenario, one is a citizen of a country and has to obey the laws. But the personal faith comes in between and situation demands to choose one over the other.

You're unnecessarily pushing them into a corner.

Obviously living under Islamic rule, under Quranic law, maybe under a Caliph is an article of faith and no Muslim will deny that he would prefer to live in those circumstances.

However in most cases, in their secret hearts, most know that the better way to live in the modern world is under secular law with sepration of mosque and state under a democratically elected government.

They just cannot fully accept it so the more enlightened will say that no country has been able to implement true Islamic law as prescribed in the Quran. So for now, this modern secular law is acceptable

 

[CricketCartoons]

You're unnecessarily pushing them into a corner.

However in most cases, in their secret hearts, most know that the better way to live in the modern world is under secular law with sepration of mosque and state under a democratically elected government.

They just cannot fully accept it so the more enlightened will say that no country has been able to implement true Islamic law as prescribed in the Quran. So for now, this modern secular law is acceptable

How did you know what muslims think in the secret hearts?

Have you ever seen any movement, ok forget that, even a discussion that there should be secular state in muslim countries?

You will NEVER see a movement for secularism in any muslim country. If at all you find a few secular laws, that would be imposed by a dictator or king.

Muslim countries CANNOT have separation of state and church because Islam is the State and Islam is the Church. That is why Q-e-A's secular vision died with him. Kemal's Turkey went back to Islam first. Liberal Iran reverted after Islamic Revolution. Even next door pretentious Bangladesh, has Islam as the state religion.

Yes, muslims like secularism in other countries where they are minorities, because that gives them freedom.

Again, please tell how did you know what muslims think in their secret hearts?

 

[rpant_gabba]

this is getting ridiculous, its the same damn posters, same damn jahil and loaded questions to bait us into giving them something provocative to chew on.

I strongly urge all Pakistanis and Muslims to beware of the nasty BHARATI elements here. You will be spending or wasting a lot of time being forced to defend yourself if you walk into that trap. Most of these guys don't feel like they are wasting their time, they probably feel its their national Bharati duty to do this sort of stuff.

the highest posts/day ratios on this forum belongs to Bharatis. Some of them have multiple accounts and still average higher than the average Pakistani posters.

look at the OP. Not indian.

So either thread was created to generate traffic or it is genuine topic worthy of discussion in the opinion of the OP

which one is it IYO?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Another red herring.

Anyways, in this scenario, one is a citizen of a country and has to obey the laws. But the personal faith comes in between and situation demands to choose one over the other.

This in itself is a red herring. When has personal faith demanded to choose one over the other? Can you give any examples?

 

[rpant_gabba]

If US wants to go against a superpower, by the way, they will. China, Russia, etc are just a couple. They went against UK as well historically.

It’s all about power and hegemony and maintaining your interests. If US thinks India or anyone is getting too big for its britches, it will go after them. We have seen that and we are still seeing that. Right now India is merely a country with a lot of cheap labor for them. They don’t offer anything else. If they had oil, we will be having an entirely different conversation right now.

Don't think you have been paying attention. there has been plenty of action in the background by US against india dating back to 2011.

• the Kudankulam nuclear protest was orchestrated by US via scandinavian NGO's
• the creation of a new political party: AAP, becos they knew congress was dead and Modi will be more difficult to deal with than MMS

a lot in between

then there is the WB initiating action on IWT outside the scope of the treaty

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Don't think you have been paying attention. there has been plenty of action in the background by US against india dating back to 2011.

• the Kudankulam nuclear protest was orchestrated by US via scandinavian NGO's
• the creation of a new political party: AAP, becos they knew congress was dead and Modi will be more difficult to deal with than MMS

a lot in between

then there is the WB initiating action on IWT outside the scope of the treaty

The US sees India primarily as a huge market rather than a threat. There is no evidence that Modi will be difficult to deal with, the Americans have already cracked the whip and got him scurrying to hug the Ukraine leader who looked like he was holding his breath in order not to inhale something malodorous.

 

[rpant_gabba]

The US sees India primarily as a huge market rather than a threat. There is no evidence that Modi will be difficult to deal with, the Americans have already cracked the whip and got him scurrying to hug the Ukraine leader who looked like he was holding his breath in order not to inhale something malodorous.

India has had this balancing act for long time. you play the cards you have.

Beats getting droned, raided and regime changed on a regular as is the case in south asia

 

[Red-Indian]

The US sees India primarily as a huge market rather than a threat. There is no evidence that Modi will be difficult to deal with, the Americans have already cracked the whip and got him scurrying to hug the Ukraine leader who looked like he was holding his breath in order not to inhale something malodorous.

Lot of Pakistanis and overseas Pakistanis seem to believe the main reason for the India-US relationship is the Indian market size. In reality, the US makes very few things that India buys and India runs a massive trade surplus with the States.

If anything, India's a huge market for China. We bought over a $120Bn worth of stuff from China direct last year Vs. $42B. Even companies like Apple make more in India than they sell.

I know you hate to acknowledge it but there's plenty of other reasons for the pretty good diplomatic relations between India and the States - we're both strong democracies, secular nations and have common interests against authoritarian China. Of course, plenty of differences as well but solid common cause to be natural allies. Even the legacy socialist leanings in India are gone. Both nations are naturally going to be cautious - us because of the US' tendency to abandon developing country allies. Them because of our strong relationship with Russia but we're naturally going to draw closer over the next 10-15 years.

 

[Red-Indian]

now you are being a glutton for punishment.

watch the goal posts get shifted.

To be fair, over the last 6 months-ish of posting here, I've realised there's a decent group of logical Pakistanis and overseas Pakistanis who're okay to have a reasonably clear-headed conversation even about divisive topics like India and religion. It's one of the reasons I come on here - to step out of the echo chambers in India - either rabid pro-Hindutva and BJP or radical leftist BJP-haters. Even the inveterate, illogical India haters like Hallbass serve a purpose for a different perspective on how India is viewed as long as you don't get too drawn into the discussion.

My "glutton for punishment" comment was in the context of more abstract discussion like religion and the logic underlying it which is anyway built on shifting sands and can be interpreted by everyone in a manner best suited to them with none being wrong. To argue logic in those circumstances is utterly pointless when there is no fixed frame of reference, common definitions or rules of engagement at all.

 

[rpant_gabba]

To argue logic in those circumstances is utterly pointless

So is engaging the cap.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

You're unnecessarily pushing them into a corner.

Obviously living under Islamic rule, under Quranic law, maybe under a Caliph is an article of faith and no Muslim will deny that he would prefer to live in those circumstances.

However in most cases, in their secret hearts, most know that the better way to live in the modern world is under secular law with sepration of mosque and state under a democratically elected government.

They just cannot fully accept it so the more enlightened will say that no country has been able to implement true Islamic law as prescribed in the Quran. So for now, this modern secular law is acceptable

I agree to an extent however not many would advocate for total secularism - the preference would be for a more liberal system but within an Islamic framework.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

How did you know what muslims think in the secret hearts?

Have you ever seen any movement, ok forget that, even a discussion that there should be secular state in muslim countries?

You will NEVER see a movement for secularism in any muslim country. If at all you find a few secular laws, that would be imposed by a dictator or king.

Muslim countries CANNOT have separation of state and church because Islam is the State and Islam is the Church. That is why Q-e-A's secular vision died with him. Kemal's Turkey went back to Islam first. Liberal Iran reverted after Islamic Revolution. Even next door pretentious Bangladesh, has Islam as the state religion.

Yes, muslims like secularism in other countries where they are minorities, because that gives them freedom.

Again, please tell how did you know what muslims think in their secret hearts?

He isn't far off but there is sometimes a conflation between "secularism" and "liberal" or "progressive". In the subcontinent it usually means the same thing but they are quite different.

I think a general theme is that whenever there is elections in Muslim states in most cases hard right religious parties do not win. In the case of the Arab dictatorships are they pushing more conservative laws onto their populace or pushing for relaxation? Is the public demand for increased morality policies for example or less?

This may be an imperfect measure but it can give an indication as to what is in the hearts of the masses.

 

[Red-Indian]

I agree to an extent however not many would advocate for total secularism - the preference would be for a more liberal system but within an Islamic framework.

Then we get into a discussion of degrees. I don't want to name names but even in this forum

- Some will argue for Western style democracy and on paper separation of Mosque and State but with free speech limits, criminalisation of homosexuality, clothing decency laws etc. - i.e. strong Islamic rules
- Some like you for liberal system within an Islamic framework
- Some for live and let live Scandinavia style democracy but maybe minor restrictions like protecting sacred figures (among them - your prophet) from ridicule to not inflame the public

Not everyone will be in complete agreement but a simple indicator is that there's no rush of immigration of Muslims away from the west to say the Gulf. No difference in economic circumstances but definitely a difference in the degree of convergence of religion and state. Where you choose to live to an extent indicates how much under non-secular law you would like to live.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Then we get into a discussion of degrees. I don't want to name names but even in this forum

- Some will argue for Western style democracy and on paper separation of Mosque and State but with free speech limits, criminalisation of homosexuality, clothing decency laws etc. - i.e. strong Islamic rules
- Some like you for liberal system within an Islamic framework
- Some for live and let live Scandinavia style democracy but maybe minor restrictions like protecting sacred figures (among them - your prophet) from ridicule to not inflame the public

Not everyone will be in complete agreement but a simple indicator is that there's no rush of immigration of Muslims away from the west to say the Gulf. No difference in economic circumstances but definitely a difference in the degree of convergence of religion and state. Where you choose to live to an extent indicates how much under non-secular law you would like to live.

Completely agree.

 

[CricketCartoons]

He isn't far off but there is sometimes a conflation between "secularism" and "liberal" or "progressive". In the subcontinent it usually means the same thing but they are quite different.

I think a general theme is that whenever there is elections in Muslim states in most cases hard right religious parties do not win. In the case of the Arab dictatorships are they pushing more conservative laws onto their populace or pushing for relaxation? Is the public demand for increased morality policies for example or less?

This may be an imperfect measure but it can give an indication as to what is in the hearts of the masses.

The hard right is only a relative measure, because even the so called left in muslim countries, doesn't demand that Islam be abolished as state religion.

The most famous leftist of Pakistan, Faiz, used Islamic imagery to talk about revolution ( bas naam rahega Allah ka). The left in muslim countries start with Islam. The left in other countries start anti to the main religion of their country.

There is no movement for secularism in muslim countries, because there CANNOT be secularism in muslim countries.

I can only see what is on the ground. Not what is inside the secret heart of muslims, which apparently Red-Indian can see.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Not everyone will be in complete agreement but a simple indicator is that there's no rush of immigration of Muslims away from the west to say the Gulf. No difference in economic circumstances but definitely a difference in the degree of convergence of religion and state. Where you choose to live to an extent indicates how much under non-secular law you would like to live.

Wrong indicator. Do the muslims living in west want secularism in the muslim countries they have left? NO.

They want those islamic countries to PRESERVE their islamic nature. They only want secularism in the western countries which they live in.

It is no any hypocrisy. It is consistency. Because this way their civilization grows.

You would have a point, ONLY, if muslims were demanding secularism in the muslim countries. Show me how many you know of, since you can see through peoples secret hearts.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

The hard right is only a relative measure, because even the so called left in muslim countries, doesn't demand that Islam be abolished as state religion.

The most famous leftist of Pakistan, Faiz, used Islamic imagery to talk about revolution ( bas naam rahega Allah ka). The left in muslim countries start with Islam. The left in other countries start anti to the main religion of their country.

There is no movement for secularism in muslim countries, because there CANNOT be secularism in muslim countries.

I can only see what is on the ground. Not what is inside the secret heart of muslims, which apparently Red-Indian can see.

I disagree with Red Indian on the part of secularism but this is a term with many meanings. If it's the dictionary definition then I believe he is incorrect but the more general understanding in the subcontinent about progressive or more liberal policies being secular policies.

The general gist of his post in the context of the thread is correct. Most Muslims don't want to live in a theocratic religious state.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I disagree with Red Indian on the part of secularism but this is a term with many meanings. If it's the dictionary definition then I believe he is incorrect but the more general understanding in the subcontinent about progressive or more liberal policies being secular policies.

The general gist of his post in the context of the thread is correct. Most Muslims don't want to live in a theocratic religious state.

His interpretation is wrong. Why do most muslims don't want to live in an Islamic nation? Do they want secular nation?

Do they want Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Qatar etc to become secular nations?

NO and NO.

They want all muslim countries to PRESERVE their islamic nature.

@Red-Indian thinks that because muslims have migrated to western secular countries, somehow they love secularism.

Muslims love secularism, yes. but ONLY when in minority.

No muslim country is seeing any demand for secularism. People have other demands, but having a secular nation, is not one of them.