Why anti Muslim bias is so profound among Hindutva supporters?

[RexRex]

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

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

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

 

[Champ_Pal]

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

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

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

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

 

[Champ_Pal]

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

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

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

 

[deltexas]

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

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

g with it, in my view.

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

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

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

michiganadvance.com

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

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

www.theguardian.com

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

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

www.gbnews.com

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

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

wdet.org

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

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

www.gbnews.com

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

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

michiganadvance.com

Hamtramck council approves Islamic animal sacrifices at home

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

www.freep.com

Mich. town upholds Muslim call to prayer

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

www.nbcnews.com

Or do you want more ???

 

[deltexas]

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

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

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

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

 

[Stewie]

Ok thank you, @RexRex

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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

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

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

michiganadvance.com

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

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

www.theguardian.com

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

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

www.gbnews.com

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

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

wdet.org

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

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

www.gbnews.com

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

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

michiganadvance.com

Hamtramck council approves Islamic animal sacrifices at home

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

www.freep.com

Mich. town upholds Muslim call to prayer

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

www.nbcnews.com

Or do you want more ???

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

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

 

[IndoorCricket]

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

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

 

[RexRex]

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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

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

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


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

 

[RexRex]

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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

How is this shariat then?

 

[RexRex]

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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

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

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

These are just some of the facts you can research.

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

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

 

[Stewie]

For further reading:

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

An excerpt:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

[RexRex]

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

My point flew over your head.

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

 

[Stewie]

My point flew over your head.

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

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

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

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

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

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

 

[Theanonymousone]

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

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

 

[Theanonymousone]

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

How is this shariat then?

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

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

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

 

[Theanonymousone]

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

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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

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

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

Religious lunatics have zero power in Pakistan.

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

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

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

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

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

 

[Theanonymousone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Theanonymousone]

Religious lunatics have zero power in Pakistan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RexRex]

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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Theanonymousone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

amp.theguardian.com

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

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

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

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

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

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

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

amp.theguardian.com

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

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

 

[Champ_Pal]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RexRex]

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

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

 

[Champ_Pal]

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

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

 

[RexRex]

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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

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

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


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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

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

 

[Theanonymousone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[The Bald Eagle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Theanonymousone]

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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

Personal law? What is that?

 

[Theanonymousone]

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

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

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

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Personal law? What is that?

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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

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

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

 

[RexRex]

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

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

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

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

 

[Champ_Pal]

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

In Germany

In Canada

In Belgium

In US

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

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

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

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

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

 

[The Bald Eagle]

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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Hanafi School:​

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

2. Maliki School:​

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

3. Shafi'i School:​

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

4. Hanbali School:​

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

 

[Theanonymousone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

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

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

 

[Champ_Pal]

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

What Indians do in India is their matter.

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

 

[Stewie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

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

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

 

[Stewie]

In Germany

In Canada

In Belgium

In US

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Stewie]

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

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

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

 

[Champ_Pal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What Indians do in India is their matter.

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

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

 

[Champ_Pal]

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

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

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

 

[Champ_Pal]

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

What people support in their homeland is their business.
As long as they don't challenge the authority and law of England. Captain Saab, you are smarter than this. You know what it is, but trying to play Nadaaan.

 

[Stewie]

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

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

well the democratic institutions in the west are strong enough to not allow such an eventuality. They should teach and promote quality democratic and secular values.. not like the ones in India where they preach that stuff on one hand but then cater to Hindu nationalists on the other.

If you do that and not alienate minorities, the west has really nothing to worry about. Indians to say the very least should have no concern about it. they should worry about their own country first.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

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

It's just some people giving an opinion they would prefer Shariah law, they aren't breaking any laws. No one is forced to agree with them any more than you would be expected to agree with women asking for changing nappies to become a solely male duty.

 

[Champ_Pal]

well the democratic institutions in the west are strong enough to not allow such an eventuality. They should teach and promote quality democratic and secular values.. not like the ones in India where they preach that stuff on one hand but then cater to Hindu nationalists on the other.

If you do that and not alienate minorities, the west has really nothing to worry about. Indians to say the very least should have no concern about it. they should worry about their own country first.

Everyone knows west has better laws and strong governance. That is not the point. The point is Muslims even if they are a small minority among them does not want secular western laws. They want their religious law in the west. This means if a day comes when west is in loggerheads with Islamic extremists, these people will not be supporting west.
This is where suspicion of intentions comes into picture and even a liberal Muslim like you who does not want sharia law in the west will get clubbed in the same group of fringe elements. This leads to Islamophobia.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What people support in their homeland is their business.
As long as they don't challenge the authority and law of England. Captain Saab, you are smarter than this. You know what it is, but trying to play Nadaaan.

I am talking about hindus living in the UK supporting israeli genocide. Not those in their homeland.

Neither is Musims calling for Shariah - however dumb or provocative - breaking laws or challenging the authority of England. Not sure you are smart enough to understand this.

 

[Champ_Pal]

I am talking about hindus living in the UK supporting israeli genocide. Not those in their homeland.

Neither is Musims calling for Shariah - however dumb or provocative - breaking laws or challenging the authority of England. Not sure you are smart enough to understand this.

Hindus supporting Israel has nothing to do with extremists challenging western laws and authority.
you know what I am saying, but it’s hard for you to accept.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Hindus supporting Israel has nothing to do with extremists challenging western laws and authority.
you know what I am saying, but it’s hard for you to accept.

Waving placards on a public street is not challenging western laws and authority. Certainly not if it is a handful of people. At most it will annoy people and they will grumble about it, but there are all types of kooks out there waving placards and no one takes it too seriously as long as it's done within the law. Do you understand this?

 

[Stewie]

Everyone knows west has better laws and strong governance. That is not the point. The point is Muslims even if they are a small minority among them does not want secular western laws. They want their religious law in the west. This means if a day comes when west is in loggerheads with Islamic extremists, these people will not be supporting west.
This is where suspicion of intentions comes into picture and even a liberal Muslim like you who does not want sharia law in the west will get clubbed in the same group of fringe elements. This leads to Islamophobia.

you base your opinion on the basis of a few loud ones. Most of us don't eat, drink and pray for Shariat, go to bed at night and pray for Shariat before falling asleep, wake up in the morning and worry about not having Shariat.

I find it amusing that you and other Hindus have actually taken to the narrative of the RWing nationalists of the west like fish to water when it comes to that stuff. These are the exact anti immigration talking points in the west used against Muslims. For someone who has lived with Muslims and under them in India for centuries, you guys should know a vast majority of Muslims are like any other human being, they just want to put food on the table for their families, they want prosperity, they want good lives for themselves, etc. If I don't get asked this Shariat nonsense stuff on PP, I don't even worry or think about it in my daily life (or know much about it to be quite honest as I am discovering myself)

This is really a non-issue, just a talking points used for political motives, nothing else. And the funny thing is Hindus in the west are all great with the immigration policies when it benefits them but somehow when it comes to Muslims, they align with the other side and start shouting "Shariat this Shariat that"

This even speaks more to the inherent and prevalent Islamophobia within Hindu Indians if you ask me.

 

[deltexas]

you base your opinion on the basis of a few loud ones. Most of us don't eat, drink and pray for Shariat, go to bed at night and pray for Shariat before falling asleep, wake up in the morning and worry about not having Shariat.

I find it amusing that you and other Hindus have actually taken to the narrative of the RWing nationalists of the west like fish to water when it comes to that stuff. These are the exact anti immigration talking points in the west used against Muslims. For someone who has lived with Muslims and under them in India for centuries, you guys should know a vast majority of Muslims are like any other human being, they just want to put food on the table for their families, they want prosperity, they want good lives for themselves, etc. If I don't get asked this Shariat nonsense stuff on PP, I don't even worry or think about it in my daily life (or know much about it to be quite honest as I am discovering myself)

This is really a non-issue, just a talking points used for political motives, nothing else. And the funny thing is Hindus in the west are all great with the immigration policies when it benefits them but somehow when it comes to Muslims, they align with the other side and start shouting "Shariat this Shariat that"

This even speaks more to the inherent and prevalent Islamophobia within Hindu Indians if you ask me.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/09/style/muslims-in-america-photography/index.html

OK , so these are some of the tidbits and bits about challenging some misconceptions in Islam. Release these in any Islamic country with Islamic laws and see see the calls for fatwa, blasphemy etc etc

 

[Stewie]

Waving placards on a public street is not challenging western laws and authority. Certainly not if it is a handful of people. At most it will annoy people and they will grumble about it, but there are all types of kooks out there waving placards and no one takes it too seriously as long as it's done within the law. Do you understand this?

the whole premise of his argument is that Muslims deserve Islamophobia because they want Sharia. LOL this is how they are justifying it. if you follow the trail of every single argument here that's what all Hindus have said, (practicing, non practicing, atheists, etc)

they actually believe that we have dedicated our lives and our life goals to make this reality. Even some of the really silly questions they have asked are along similar lines such as the one that took comedy gold "if given the choice will you vote for shariat?"

What does that even mean. are you asking me to express my democratic opinion on what laws I want implemented on myself? are you telling me the western governments will actuall humor me and be open to something like this? if I say yes, will they do it? is it just for me or is it for everyone? why would everyone even want it if they are not Muslims?

But no, you are not supposed to ask or even think about those quesions like a normal, sane intelligent person. NO, you just answer in yes and no. this is how they present this to you. They put words in your mouth and then they go.. "haaa see .. I told you .. Shariat Shariat Shariat!"

they have made it into a boogieman.

 

[Stewie]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/09/style/muslims-in-america-photography/index.html

OK , so these are some of the tidbits and bits about challenging some misconceptions in Islam. Release these in any Islamic country with Islamic laws and see see the calls for fatwa, blasphemy etc etc

what bits are we talking about here? you make it seem like this is a huge laundry list.

I don't see anything in that link that stands out except for LGBTQ and there are LGBTQ opposers even in the west. What is your point?

 

[Champ_Pal]

what bits are we talking about here? you make it seem like this is a huge laundry list.

I don't see anything in that link that stands out except for LGBTQ and there are LGBTQ opposers even in the west. What is your point?

What is the punishment for rainbow people in a strict Islamic country?

What is the punishment for adultery?

 

[deltexas]

what bits are we talking about here? you make it seem like this is a huge laundry list.

I don't see anything in that link that stands out except for LGBTQ and there are LGBTQ opposers even in the west. What is your point?

The pics as one item. Too risque and blasphemous for the Islamic world I suppose..

 

[deltexas]

What is the punishment for rainbow people in a strict Islamic country?

What is the punishment for adultery?

They will be coached in a madrasa that it was not intended for humans, cleanse them , enlighten them , change their thought and make them into a model Muslims.

 

[Stewie]

What is the punishment for rainbow people in a strict Islamic country?

so why make it sound like there is a whole world of whatever out there. just come out and say its the LGBTQ issue. Let us not worry ourselves with the punishment in an Islamic country. the topic of the thread is Islamophobia within the Hindutva supporters.

Whatever happens in Islamic countries is based on their laws, I have never seen a muslim here in the US advocating for a homosexual to be stoned to death.

 

[Stewie]

The pics as one item. Too risque and blasphemous for the Islamic world I suppose..

You need to get out more. There are far more risque pictures I have seen of Pakistani actresses in Pakistani magazines and films and stage dramas, etc. This is absolutely nothing. The Turkish are even more flexible. What does this prove or where are you getting at?

You guys have flip flopped so much, I have no clue what we are even talking about anymore. Maybe we need to re-orient ourselves back to the main topic. Last few posts have been namby pamby idiotic insinuations without any substance, sorry to say.

 

[Champ_Pal]

so why make it sound like there is a whole world of whatever out there. just come out and say its the LGBTQ issue. Let us not worry ourselves with the punishment in an Islamic country. the topic of the thread is Islamophobia within the Hindutva supporters.

Whatever happens in Islamic countries is based on their laws, I have never seen a muslim here in the US advocating for a homosexual to be stoned to death.

They do not advocate sharia punishments for the fear of being labeled an extremist.

When we have some Muslims openly advocating for Sharia law, what will a non-Muslim who knows about the rules of sharia law think? They will be vary of it and the intentions of Muslims in general.
There is no issue with moderate Muslims who want to integrate into the larger society. Unfortunately you cannot tell who is moderate and who is a hardliner. Everyone gets painted by the same brush of suspicion. It’s not fair, but that is how things go.

Hindutva or west, Islamophobia exists for a reason. Moderate peaceful ones face the phobia more often than not.

 

[deltexas]

They do not advocate sharia punishments for the fear of being labeled an extremist.

When we have some Muslims openly advocating for Sharia law, what will a non-Muslim who knows about the rules of sharia law think? They will be vary of it and the intentions of Muslims in general.
There is no issue with moderate Muslims who want to integrate into the larger society. Unfortunately you cannot tell who is moderate and who is a hardliner. Everyone gets painted by the same brush of suspicion. It’s not fair, but that is how things go.

Hindutva or west, Islamophobia exists for a reason. Moderate peaceful ones face the phobia more often than not.

Maybe an introspection is needed by Muslims I guess. You dont hear talk of Christianphobia, Hinduphobia, Judaphobia etc etc. Why is it only Islamophobia ? Everyone is wrong except us victim mentality..

 

[Stewie]

They do not advocate sharia punishments for the fear of being labeled an extremist.

When we have some Muslims openly advocating for Sharia law, what will a non-Muslim who knows about the rules of sharia law think? They will be vary of it and the intentions of Muslims in general.
There is no issue with moderate Muslims who want to integrate into the larger society. Unfortunately you cannot tell who is moderate and who is a hardliner. Everyone gets painted by the same brush of suspicion. It’s not fair, but that is how things go.

Hindutva or west, Islamophobia exists for a reason. Moderate peaceful ones face the phobia more often than not.

So you understand that, good, the outliers exist everywhere. We feel the same way about Hindutva supporters. No matter how you guys frame yourselves, it seems like the whole ideology is architected to marginalize Muslims. I am great we are making some headway on this discussion now.

We have (as in the peace loving "moderate" muslims) disavowed extremism, the idea of imposing Sharia in the west, the blasphemy law (I have personally looked at it all and believe it has no place for it, etc). All these are "reactions" or "behaviors" we are lead to believe are expected of us as human beings wherever we live, Muslims, non Muslims alike living in the west or east.

So will the sensible and educated Hindutva guys (if there is any such thing) stand up and forsake the Islamophobic and anti-muslim rhetoric and narrative and practice what they preach?