Why did Hindus become Islamophobic?

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The reason for the question is, because there is also a claim that Buddhism is also a Dharmic faith which arose from Hinduism, yet Buddhists seem to have a holistic view of Islam as part of a wider world which is accepted same as any other belief.

Yet Hindus seem singularly hostile to Islam, although in my view this was not always the case. Previous Indian govts have tended to protect Muslim sentiments for example, refusing to publish the Satanic Verses and supporting the Palestinians against being ethnically cleansed from their own homeland.

Do posters feel that the broader wisdom in Hindu teachings have become narrowed down to a more reactive and defensive posture in the last century?

 

[emranabbas]

Hindu's are generally weak people who like to blame others for their problems, their security failed them big time terrorists can enter and leave India freely with no issue what's so ever. such a napunsak country because they couldn't catch real terrorists they started picking fights with everyone else and fighting everyone else and blaming everyone else for their specially Muslims for problems they can't solve at home but at the same time they like licking backsides of Arab Muslims

 

[RexRex]

Previous Indian govts have tended to protect Muslim sentiments for example, refusing to publish the Satanic Verses

The right question to ask is - why muslim sentiments need special protection when other religions don't.

 

[Bhimja turtle]

The reason for the question is, because there is also a claim that Buddhism is also a Dharmic faith which arose from Hinduism, yet Buddhists seem to have a holistic view of Islam as part of a wider world which is accepted same as any other belief.

Yet Hindus seem singularly hostile to Islam, although in my view this was not always the case. Previous Indian govts have tended to protect Muslim sentiments for example, refusing to publish the Satanic Verses and supporting the Palestinians against being ethnically cleansed from their own homeland.

Do posters feel that the broader wisdom in Hindu teachings have become narrowed down to a more reactive and defensive posture in the last century?

Wo qatl bhi krte hai to charcha nhi hoti hum aah bhi bharte hai to ho jaate hai badnaam

 

[Bhimja turtle]

Hindu's are generally weak people who like to blame others for their problems, their security failed them big time terrorists can enter and leave India freely with no issue what's so ever. such a napunsak country because they couldn't catch real terrorists they started picking fights with everyone else and fighting everyone else and blaming everyone else for their specially Muslims for problems they can't solve at home but at the same time they like licking backsides of Arab Muslims

Based on what ,irony of this statement is Muslims across world blame others of being islamophobes when actually they should be the first one to introspect , calling other napunsak when u can't stop india from dividing u in two parts, Americans entering pak and killing laden real napunsak are those who kill innocent people in Mumbai , attack people in trains grooms innocent young girls they are the real napunsak people idolizing invaders

 

[HalBass9]

The right question to ask is - why muslim sentiments need special protection when other religions don't.

It does not, at least not in the Western world. Freedom of religion and the right to practice it are protected for all religions.

 

[rpant_gabba]

It does not, at least not in the Western world. Freedom of religion and the right to practice it are protected for all religions.

Sure, that’s why in UK they campaigning for Islamophobia laws and KSA is pushing for blasphemy laws.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

The secular project in India died when the majority Hindus (even previously liberal/secular ones) perceived that the secularisation of Indian Muslim society was simply not progressing at the pace of any other faith group despite receiving the most concessions from the Indian state.

Muslims were allowed AIMPLB for their domestic affairs where other religions had civil laws.

Everything from family planning to raising the age of marriage for girls to compulsory girls' formal education/equal property rights faced much more opposition from Muslim religious organisations than they did from anyone else.

In addition to that , the Indian state was funding and paying salaries to madrassahs and the ulamas for even religious instruction even when the students of these madrassahs had plenty of non Muslims, Hajj subsidy etc.

Whereas for other religions , reservations in colleges and government jobs were on the basis of caste , some states reserved a certain portion for all Muslims by blindly classifying them as Other Backward Caste, which was principally wrong.

And at least in the southern states (where Im from) even gender mixing was extremely one sided where Muslim society frowned upon and in many cases even threatened Muslim girls who would fraternise with the opposite sex . And I'm not talking about backward areas of the country. I'm talking about even the more upwardly mobile cities and neighborhoods.

I suppose individually these could've been seen as acceptable concessions but when taken on the whole and with experience over the years of the failure of this secular project, somewhat of a consensus that Islam and secularism are completely incompatible. And I've heard of endless number of Muslim theologians pretty much say the same and classical schools of jurisprudence also don't support any idea of a secular state.

Sure you'll have people who hate Muslims anyway just like you do in the rest of non Islamic world, but a lot of this "hatred" comes from the 2010's when the status quo became completely unacceptable for the majority.

The pendulum is now swinging the other way and already some states have stopped funding madrassahs and religious teachers (not all) and have converted them into formal schools (Assam)

I guess what at least some of the saner members of the current incumbent government want is somewhat of a preferred state belief system (Dharmic) with others having protected minority status where the minorities can practice their faith but with zero state funding and the inability to prosletyse to dharmics .

Ironically , that would make it the Dharmic equivalent of a modern Muslim state, lol.

At least that seems to be the long term agenda

 

[HalBass9]

Sure, that’s why in UK they campaigning for Islamophobia laws and KSA is pushing for blasphemy laws.

Did you forget how to read?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The right question to ask is - why muslim sentiments need special protection when other religions don't.

That is a seperate topic in itself which there are probably threads for. I was looking for contributions on the overall gist of the topic.

 

[Technics 1210]

Jealousy.

Muslims have an identity and bestowed an identity upon India, whereas Hinduism lacks both an identity and cornerstone - in summary what Hinduism failed to achieve in 5000 years (and still failing), Islam achieved in 100 years.

 

[Suleiman]

The right question to ask is - why muslim sentiments need special protection when other religions don't.

You’re joking right? Living in India, how you can get jumped for no reason because some hindu took some behavior you might not even think twice about as disrespect toward his religion?

All the censorship that goes in US media and in Israel if something is insulting to Judaism.

You can go to jail if you simply question the holocaust in Germany- not even deny it, just question.

Just because your religion is not important to you doesn’t mean others can’t or won’t take theirs seriously.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The secular project in India died when the majority Hindus (even previously liberal/secular ones) perceived that the secularisation of Indian Muslim society was simply not progressing at the pace of any other faith group despite receiving the most concessions from the Indian state.

Muslims were allowed AIMPLB for their domestic affairs where other religions had civil laws.

Everything from family planning to raising the age of marriage for girls to compulsory girls' formal education/equal property rights faced much more opposition from Muslim religious organisations than they did from anyone else.

In addition to that , the Indian state was funding and paying salaries to madrassahs and the ulamas for even religious instruction even when the students of these madrassahs had plenty of non Muslims, Hajj subsidy etc.

Whereas for other religions , reservations in colleges and government jobs were on the basis of caste , some states reserved a certain portion for all Muslims by blindly classifying them as Other Backward Caste, which was principally wrong.

And at least in the southern states (where Im from) even gender mixing was extremely one sided where Muslim society frowned upon and in many cases even threatened Muslim girls who would fraternise with the opposite sex . And I'm not talking about backward areas of the country. I'm talking about even the more upwardly mobile cities and neighborhoods.

I suppose individually these could've been seen as acceptable concessions but when taken on the whole and with experience over the years of the failure of this secular project, somewhat of a consensus that Islam and secularism are completely incompatible. And I've heard of endless number of Muslim theologians pretty much say the same and classical schools of jurisprudence also don't support any idea of a secular state.

Sure you'll have people who hate Muslims anyway just like you do in the rest of non Islamic world, but a lot of this "hatred" comes from the 2010's when the status quo became completely unacceptable for the majority.

The pendulum is now swinging the other way and already some states have stopped funding madrassahs and religious teachers (not all) and have converted them into formal schools (Assam)

I guess what at least some of the saner members of the current incumbent government want is somewhat of a preferred state belief system (Dharmic) with others having protected minority status where the minorities can practice their faith but with zero state funding and the inability to prosletyse to dharmics .

Ironically , that would make it the Dharmic equivalent of a modern Muslim state, lol.

At least that seems to be the long term agenda

I think the last line of your reply "Ironically , that would make it the Dharmic equivalent of a modern Muslim state" sums it up nicely. Back in my early student days I was a vehement opponent of Islamic parties in Pakistan, but a colleague used to trip me up on my own hypocrisy similar to what is happening in India.

I think if India kept to a strictly secular view as say France attempted, then would be easier to crack down on Islam, but because India itself has adopted a quasi-religious flavour, it is less convincing to pretend at secularism.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Nice question.

A religion that came as a conquering force, refused to integrate with local traditions even after centuries of co-existence and manages to carve some land out of original landmass, still dreams of taking the entire land someday in the future is nothing to be afraid of.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I think the last line of your reply "Ironically , that would make it the Dharmic equivalent of a modern Muslim state" sums it up nicely. Back in my early student days I was a vehement opponent of Islamic parties in Pakistan, but a colleague used to trip me up on my own hypocrisy similar to what is happening in India.

I think if India kept to a strictly secular view as say France attempted, then would be easier to crack down on Islam, but because India itself has adopted a quasi-religious flavour, it is less convincing to pretend at secularism.

Indian secularism was never French secularism. It tried to be a soft , watered down secularism which tried to pander to a Muslim minority that wanted to govern itself and have a separate but equal status. But it didnt work. While I won't blame the state for trying , it only succeeded in polarising the communities further

For what it's worth , it's not worked in France either and there's some data that Muslims are leaving France after that huge backlash on the wearing of the hijab etc.

I don't think there's even a quasi religious secularism anymore. It looks like it's definitely headed towards a Dharmic version of a soft Islamic state at the very least.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Nice question.

A religion that came as a conquering force, refused to integrate with local traditions even after centuries of co-existence and manages to carve some land out of original landmass, still dreams of taking the entire land someday in the future is nothing to be afraid of.

Which local traditions did they refuse to integrate with?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Indian secularism was never French secularism. It tried to be a soft , watered down secularism which tried to pander to a Muslim minority that wanted to govern itself and have a separate but equal status. But it didnt work. While I won't blame the state for trying , it only succeeded in polarising the communities further

For what it's worth , it's not worked in France either and there's some data that Muslims are leaving France after that huge backlash on the wearing of the hijab etc.

I don't think there's even a quasi religious secularism anymore. It looks like it's definitely headed towards a Dharmic version of a soft Islamic state at the very least.

So is the admission of a Dharmic version of a soft Islamic state an admission that Islam got it right?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

The secular project in India died when the majority Hindus (even previously liberal/secular ones) perceived that the secularisation of Indian Muslim society was simply not progressing at the pace of any other faith group despite receiving the most concessions from the Indian state.

Muslims were allowed AIMPLB for their domestic affairs where other religions had civil laws.

Everything from family planning to raising the age of marriage for girls to compulsory girls' formal education/equal property rights faced much more opposition from Muslim religious organisations than they did from anyone else.

In addition to that , the Indian state was funding and paying salaries to madrassahs and the ulamas for even religious instruction even when the students of these madrassahs had plenty of non Muslims, Hajj subsidy etc.

Whereas for other religions , reservations in colleges and government jobs were on the basis of caste , some states reserved a certain portion for all Muslims by blindly classifying them as Other Backward Caste, which was principally wrong.

And at least in the southern states (where Im from) even gender mixing was extremely one sided where Muslim society frowned upon and in many cases even threatened Muslim girls who would fraternise with the opposite sex . And I'm not talking about backward areas of the country. I'm talking about even the more upwardly mobile cities and neighborhoods.

I suppose individually these could've been seen as acceptable concessions but when taken on the whole and with experience over the years of the failure of this secular project, somewhat of a consensus that Islam and secularism are completely incompatible. And I've heard of endless number of Muslim theologians pretty much say the same and classical schools of jurisprudence also don't support any idea of a secular state.

Sure you'll have people who hate Muslims anyway just like you do in the rest of non Islamic world, but a lot of this "hatred" comes from the 2010's when the status quo became completely unacceptable for the majority.

The pendulum is now swinging the other way and already some states have stopped funding madrassahs and religious teachers (not all) and have converted them into formal schools (Assam)

I guess what at least some of the saner members of the current incumbent government want is somewhat of a preferred state belief system (Dharmic) with others having protected minority status where the minorities can practice their faith but with zero state funding and the inability to prosletyse to dharmics .

Ironically , that would make it the Dharmic equivalent of a modern Muslim state, lol.

At least that seems to be the long term agenda

Interestingly, the Muslims are the villains in your long winded hypothesis too.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

So is the admission of a Dharmic version of a soft Islamic state an admission that Islam got it right?

Its an admission that Indian secularism has failed . Whether Islam has got it right or not can be judged from the many Muslim countries and is honestly not the point

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Interestingly, the Muslims are the villains in your long winded hypothesis too.

No. OP asked why Muslims are hated by many Hindus nowadays and I just pointed out the reasons why. These are the perceptions of Muslims and the "appeasement" by previous Indian governments by a significant percentage of Hindus from whatever I've seen and observed.

Never said I agreed with it .

I never made any value judgement of my own

 

[Hitman]

Jealousy.

Muslims have an identity and bestowed an identity upon India, whereas Hinduism lacks both an identity and cornerstone - in summary what Hinduism failed to achieve in 5000 years (and still failing), Islam achieved in 100 years.

Most of us not living under a rock know exactly what that identity is.

 

[RexRex]

Just because your religion is not important to you doesn’t mean others can’t or won’t take theirs seriously.

Who has stopped from you taking your religion seriously ? Nobody.

 

[Bhimja turtle]

Regarding Hindu's becoming islamophobes,they realised which can be summed up by this chaupai of sundar kand composed by Tulsidas ji in ramcharit manas when lord rama addressed sea with rage and I quote
"Sathth san vinay,kutil san Preeti"
(U don't show politeness to arrogant,not do u show affection to cunning)
"Sahaj kripn san sundar neeti"
(U dont teach charity to miser,)
"Mamta rat san Gyan kahani "
(U don't share knowledge with someone who is trapped in too much Love)
"Ati lobhi san birithi bakhani"
(Don't talk about detachment with greedy)
"Krodhi san kamahi hari katha"
(Talking about god to person with anger issue is like)
"Usar beej baye fal jatha"
(Expecting infertile seeds to bear fruits)

 

[rpant_gabba]

Its an admission that Indian secularism has failed . Whether Islam has got it right or not can be judged from the many Muslim countries and is honestly not the point

Cruel bro. True, but cruel. I like it.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Because they keep remembering the selective periods from last 1000 years.

 

[HalBass9]

Most of us not living under a rock know exactly what that identity is.

Na, you've lost your identity as a human when you supported ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide.

And then you doubled down by backing a cult that’s openly intent on trampling over your own religious traditions and that support driven from your hatred for Muslims is far greater than your fellow Christians right to practice their religion with dignity.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Its a dying religion and they're salty about it.

 

[Suleiman]

The responses in these sort of threads is exactly why being a Muslim, you just wear your faith on your sleeve and then just forget about managing the perception of anyone as long as you’re a law abiding and upstanding citizen.

The how and why doesn’t matter from the opposition. Clarify your stance once, then let them deal with their mental gymnastics and preconceived notions which is fueled by movies and masala news channels. At the end of the day falsehood and truth cannot mix. Don’t need a shred of sympathy from any Indian let alone a Hindu.

Yes paganism is wrong. Associating partners with God is the ultimate sin and we refuse to “integrate” with your beliefs.