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.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

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

Maybe they should remember it more fondly. India was the wealthiest nation on earth as the Mughal Empire.

They went from the wealthiest to one of the poorest under their British Raj...saaar!

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Maybe they should remember it more fondly. India was the wealthiest nation on earth as the Mughal Empire.

They went from the wealthiest to one of the poorest under their British Raj...saaar!

@Rajdeep

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

@Rajdeep

Should have tagged @Hitman as well but as he is a chicken he will pretend he hasn't seen it.

 

[Obaidd]

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

Poet: Akbar Prayagraji (Allahabadi)
The irony of this

 

[globetrotter]

Why Islamists are slammed every part of the world? Why Islamists Islamophbic against their own Muslim nations... we saw Iran Vs Iraq and now Iran vs soudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Oman

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Why Islamists are slammed every part of the world? Why Islamists Islamophbic against their own Muslim nations... we saw Iran Vs Iraq and now Iran vs soudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Oman

It's called national interest. It also proves that Islamist countries aren't as Islamist as you like to imagine.

All that is probably another topic anyway. Do you have any thoughts on the actual subject matter?

 

[globetrotter]

It's called national interest. It also proves that Islamist countries aren't as Islamist as you like to imagine.

All that is probably another topic anyway. Do you have any thoughts on the actual subject matter?

Islamists are jihadis, they want to run the world as per their whims.... how many converts n jihadis condemns any terrilorist act... after kullung Khomeini and bin laden there was sympathy wave in jihadi n converts world

 

[BunnyRabbit]

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

wasn't secularism one of the core principles of India? I may be wrong but from what i read, the people against the partition kept telling Muslims their faith will be respected in subcontinent and there was no need for another country for them?
And say, if partition hadn't happened, would the United India (hypothetically) in today's world just ditch the whole secular thing?

 

[rpant_gabba]

wasn't secularism one of the core principles of India? I may be wrong but from what i read, the people against the partition kept telling Muslims their faith will be respected in subcontinent and there was no need for another country for them?
And say, if partition hadn't happened, would the United India (hypothetically) in today's world just ditch the whole secular thing?

US is secular (set aside the current madness) Can you explain what aspect of US laws disrespects Islam?

 

[BunnyRabbit]

US is secular (set aside the current madness) Can you explain what aspect of US laws disrespects Islam?

US never underwent mass Muslim emigration or partition. India according to @Nikhil_cric saw rise in Islamophobia in 2010s.

 

[rpant_gabba]

US never underwent mass Muslim emigration or partition. India according to @Nikhil_cric saw rise in Islamophobia in 2010s.

Answer the question that was asked or admit you were BSing.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Answer the question that was asked or admit you were BSing.

Look at the name of the thread or you're blind.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Look at the name of the thread or you're blind.

So Muslims want special privileges in India which they don’t care for in western countries. Got it.

If that is the case, it’s no phobia (unreasonable fear) is it? You are implying that Islam and Muslims are a virus which will kill the host, as seen by green on green violence.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

So Muslims want special privileges in India which they don’t care for in western countries. Got it.

If that is the case, it’s no phobia (unreasonable fear) is it? You are implying that Islam and Muslims are a virus which will kill the host, as seen by green on green violence.

Well now you're just spewing venom! The most obnoxious thing about you slithering lot is you just have too much venom that even you guys find it difficult to contain inside so you go everywhere and make every forum, streets, uninhabitable.

Follower of every religion has a right to practice his', not just Muslims. With having a Islamic country, atleast we're clear about it. We do not go on about "please no partition, we will live peacefully together" and then start going back on your words.

P.S By this piece of garbage "kind" i mean the low life extremists, that are particularly getting louder these days especially on this forum.

 

[emranabbas]

hindu's are just upset because Muslims ruled over them for over 600 years and then split India in to 3 pieces India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and then occupied half of Kashmir.

I think that's a big humiliation but some how Indians will spin this into a win for them.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Well now you're just spewing venom! The most obnoxious thing about you slithering lot is you just have too much venom that even you guys find it difficult to contain inside so you go everywhere and make every forum, streets, uninhabitable.

Follower of every religion has a right to practice his', not just Muslims. With having a Islamic country, atleast we're clear about it. We do not go on about "please no partition, we will live peacefully together" and then start going back on your words.

P.S By this piece of garbage "kind" i mean the low life extremists, that are particularly getting louder these days especially on this forum.

It’s challenging to follow your view when you Muslims constantly put on the victim and oppressor suit at the same time.

Answer a simple question. Is Islam compatible with a secular society with any special dispensation?

If not, are the likes of @LordJames @Stewie @rickroll given up on Islam

If yes, are Muslims being racist ******** demanding special privileges in India?

 

[shaz619]

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

Good insight without the usual garbage being spewed by numpties other then yourself as usual. I agree that the madrassas etc shouldn’t need the funding & be able to operate themselves freely. However, on the whole, and you can even see it on this forum since Modi came into power, the bigger & larger influence of Islamophobia is far-right Hinduvta ideology, the current regime has established its political footing through this & brainwashed the masses through exploiting their insecurities, and this has led to blind hatred.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Good insight without the usual garbage being spewed by numpties other then yourself as usual. I agree that the madrassas etc shouldn’t need the funding & be able to operate themselves freely. However, on the whole, and you can even see it on this forum since Modi came into power, the bigger & larger influence of Islamophobia is far-right Hinduvta ideology, the current regime has established its political footing through this & brainwashed the masses through exploiting their insecurities, and this has led to blind hatred.

I think the Congress elite simply imposed the ideal of secularism without really understanding what it took for Europe and America to secularise their societies and what India had to do to achieve it . Or at least they did not have the will to act on it.

That includes everything from healthcare, education and even the right kind of urban planning (using force if necessary to ensure that there were no cultural ghettos in cities) etc.

I disagree with that last bit. The fault lines were always there . It was only a matter of time if India didn't course correct. And we didn't .

It's why I keep reiterating that the Indian version of secularism has failed spectacularly.

 

[deltexas]

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

A great summary of the reality. But none of the pak posterd hetr and the resident runners will reply because they then cant claim victimhood..

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Islamists are jihadis, they want to run the world as per their whims.... how many converts n jihadis condemns any terrilorist act... after kullung Khomeini and bin laden there was sympathy wave in jihadi n converts world

No offence bro, but can you type in English?

 

[globetrotter]

No offence bro, but can you type in English?

Its your problem to think items in Urdu

 

[Cricfan8920]

Great question. Muslims are so peaceful. Never kill a fly, respect all religions whereas Hindus, Jews and Christians are basically terrorists and keep blaming Muslims for all their bad deeds. Why have all non-Muslims have become Islamophobics?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

hindu's are just upset because Muslims ruled over them for over 600 years and then split India in to 3 pieces India, Pakistan and Bangladesh and then occupied half of Kashmir.

I think that's a big humiliation but some how Indians will spin this into a win for them.

Muslims didn't split India into 3 pieces, that was the British Raj. In fact it was Muslims who united India as one nation whereas previously it had been several warring kindoms. Not only that, but it was during the Mughal reign that India became the wealthiest country in the world.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Great question. Muslims are so peaceful. Never kill a fly, respect all religions whereas Hindus, Jews and Christians are basically terrorists and keep blaming Muslims for all their bad deeds. Why have all non-Muslims have become Islamophobics?

Muslims are peaceful. But like every other society, including whichever one you live in, they will defend themselves when attacked by invaders.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

@Cpt. Rishwat

 

[rpant_gabba]

I think the Congress elite simply imposed the ideal of secularism without really understanding what it took for Europe and America to secularise their societies and what India had to do to achieve it . Or at least they did not have the will to act on it.

That includes everything from healthcare, education and even the right kind of urban planning (using force if necessary to ensure that there were no cultural ghettos in cities) etc.

I disagree with that last bit. The fault lines were always there . It was only a matter of time if India didn't course correct. And we didn't .

It's why I keep reiterating that the Indian version of secularism has failed spectacularly.

I'm hoping you misspoke here. Becos congress never imposed secularism.

It was alwasy an appeasement project starting with Mohandas. who can forget his fasting nonosense for te sake of Pakistan. It continued well inthe 80's with congress paying active role to kill secularization of the country e.g. Shah bano case and PM interference.

India would have been better of if Nehru and Gandhi had died together couple of year before independence

 

[rpant_gabba]

It’s challenging to follow your view when you Muslims constantly put on the victim and oppressor suit at the same time.

Answer a simple question. Is Islam compatible with a secular society with any special dispensation?

If not, are the likes of @LordJames @Stewie @rickroll given up on Islam

If yes, are Muslims being racist ******** demanding special privileges in India?

Damn. didn't realize it was that difficult a post.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

@Cpt. Rishwat @deltexas

https://twitter.com/x/status/2038914346940875188

 

[Cover Drive Six]

Tell me, which religion do Muslims not have issues with?

You have problems with Christians, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, and have issues with everyone, yet you question why Hindus have issues with you and why not Buddhists?

You can’t live peacefully with any other religion. In fact, you can’t even live peacefully among yourselves without Sunni-Shia, Ahamedees bla bla sects ...that’s why 90% of your countries sucks.


You are a dumb if you think Buddhists don’t have issues with you? They kicked out all Rohingyas, who ran away with their half lungis to survive, spread across subcontinent with almost nothing. Lol.

That's said you can’t live peacefully with any other religion. Period

 

[pillionrider]

I think the Congress elite simply imposed the ideal of secularism without really understanding what it took for Europe and America to secularise their societies and what India had to do to achieve it . Or at least they did not have the will to act on it.

That includes everything from healthcare, education and even the right kind of urban planning (using force if necessary to ensure that there were no cultural ghettos in cities) etc.

I disagree with that last bit. The fault lines were always there . It was only a matter of time if India didn't course correct. And we didn't .

It's why I keep reiterating that the Indian version of secularism has failed spectacularly.

There is a significant class angle to it too. The elite in the Congress didn't care about Muslims deeply enough. It was lip service. They were least bothered about the further ghettoisation of Muslims because significant Muslims were already from a class they didn't care about. When Pakistan was formed, MA Jinnah took plenty of Muslim elites with him.

So when you don't really care deeply about someone or something, you do stuff randomly and without much thought. The net result was a feeling among the Hindus they were being taken for granted and being held to higher standards. Modi was just an opportunist at the right time and right place to capitalize. The thing though is how true Dawkins idea of memes holds true. Around the time in India this was happening among Hindus, you saw the same happening in the western world where the majority whites were also developing a pushback against their governments from a perceived feeling of being given second-class treatment in "their own land."

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Tell me, which religion do Muslims not have issues with?

You have problems with Christians, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, and have issues with everyone, yet you question why Hindus have issues with you and why not Buddhists?

You can’t live peacefully with any other religion. In fact, you can’t even live peacefully among yourselves without Sunni-Shia, Ahamedees bla bla sects ...that’s why 90% of your countries sucks.


You are a dumb if you think Buddhists don’t have issues with you? They kicked out all Rohingyas, who ran away with their half lungis to survive, spread across subcontinent with almost nothing. Lol.

That's said you can’t live peacefully with any other religion. Period

You say Muslims can't live peacefully with any other religion yet even in the example you gave, it was the Buddhists, not the Muslims who instigated the violence. The ethnic cleansing in Palestine, Bosnia and Myanmar was carried out by non-Muslims in each case.

This is not really the question I asked but you are really just making my case for me.

 

[SherWaqar]

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.

Jeets go around bullying old people, pulling their beards, hitting them and forcing them to chant their slogans…

 

[GOSH11]

Insecurity.

Identity crisis.

Want to be accepted and think they are actually liked by the mainstream caucasians.


Etc.

 

[Stewie]

So Muslims want special privileges in India which they don’t care for in western countries. Got it.

If that is the case, it’s no phobia (unreasonable fear) is it? You are implying that Islam and Muslims are a virus which will kill the host, as seen by green on green violence.

there is a historical context to it.

I am going to give you my views only, I am not one of those who will preach to you or other indians how "secularism" should be practiced, but I will like to point out that the indian flavor of secularism is different from how secularism is perceived or treated around the world.

For instance, in post partition India, secularism is more focused on allowing/respecting all faiths. The historical context i mentioned earlier comes into play here las described by @BunnyRabbit as well above. Once again, not judging, just telling you how I see it. The spirit of this interpretation is you "accommodate" everyone. Muslims were definitely "accommodated" at that time based on the sensitive nature of how the country was breaking apart. So "if you stay with us, we will take care of you" if you will.

Now compare this "flavor" of secularism to how the west interprets it. Its basically "yeah you are free to practice your religion, but we will do a separation of church and state" - so what this implies is you can practice your faith at home but it wont supercede the laws of the land.

India for the last 70 years, which by the way is a long long time, has operated differently. India basically said "we will make certain accommodations for your faith in our laws".

So, I hope you see my point and where I am going with this, whether right or wrong, thats how it has been and now when you want to invoke a Uniform CC, those impacted will resist.

Whereas that was never promised to them in western secular countries. So the expectation and overall reaction is different.


Hope that makes sense.

 

[rpant_gabba]

there is a historical context to it.

I am going to give you my views only, I am not one of those who will preach to you or other indians how "secularism" should be practiced, but I will like to point out that the indian flavor of secularism is different from how secularism is perceived or treated around the world.

For instance, in post partition India, secularism is more focused on allowing/respecting all faiths. The historical context i mentioned earlier comes into play here las described by @BunnyRabbit as well above. Once again, not judging, just telling you how I see it. The spirit of this interpretation is you "accommodate" everyone. Muslims were definitely "accommodated" at that time based on the sensitive nature of how the country was breaking apart. So "if you stay with us, we will take care of you" if you will.

Now compare this "flavor" of secularism to how the west interprets it. Its basically "yeah you are free to practice your religion, but we will do a separation of church and state" - so what this implies is you can practice your faith at home but it wont supercede the laws of the land.

India for the last 70 years, which by the way is a long long time, has operated differently. India basically said "we will make certain accommodations for your faith in our laws".

So, I hope you see my point and where I am going with this, whether right or wrong, thats how it has been and now when you want to invoke a Uniform CC, those impacted will resist.

Whereas that was never promised to them in western secular countries. So the expectation and overall reaction is different.


Hope that makes sense.

Lets me summarize your post, India was infected with a heavy dose of GNV, two utter losers who put the country on the backfoot in every which way possible where coddling communal clown was sold successfully as secularism.

that angle is no longer selling. Too bad if Indian muslims dont like

 

[Stewie]

Lets me summarize your post, India was infected with a heavy dose of GNV, two utter losers who put the country on the backfoot in every which way possible where coddling communal clown was sold successfully as secularism.

that angle is no longer selling. Too bad if Indian muslims dont like

You didn’t summarize my post by the way. You just gave your POV, which is the other side of the picture.

That’s the gist of what India is facing right now. Two severely opposing factions. But the funny thing is while extreme religiosity and pandering to one group is being absolutely denounced, the same standards are not being applied on the other group.

For example I read recently a group of Muslims breaking fast during Ramadan on a boat on Ganges were arrested because they were throwing bones in it (allegedly)
But even if they were and the country wants to be “areligious” so to speak then why is one group allowed to use the river for the dead and one cannot even throw animal bones in it based on the other groups religious sensitivity?

This time I am not giving a perspective I’m actually sharing a stark reality here.

If you want it to be truly areligious, secular or whatever phrase floats your boat then make sure it’s across the board. If not you are just copying us (Pakistan) haha.

 

[rpant_gabba]

You didn’t summarize my post by the way. You just gave your POV, which is the other side of the picture.

That’s the gist of what India is facing right now. Two severely opposing factions. But the funny thing is while extreme religiosity and pandering to one group is being absolutely denounced, the same standards are not being applied on the other group.

For example I read recently a group of Muslims breaking fast during Ramadan on a boat on Ganges were arrested because they were throwing bones in it (allegedly)
But even if they were and the country wants to be “areligious” so to speak then why is one group allowed to use the river for the dead and one cannot even throw animal bones in it based on the other groups religious sensitivity?

This time I am not giving a perspective I’m actually sharing a stark reality here.

If you want it to be truly areligious, secular or whatever phrase floats your boat then make sure it’s across the board. If not you are just copying us (Pakistan) haha.

You are comparing state policy to vigilantes/idiots.

Am in favor of river being polluted for any religious reason? F No.

The stark reality you are running away from is that Indian under the nehru dynasty has been one of muslim appeasement at a policy level. If it takes some societal "turbulunce" to end it, so be it

 

[HalBass9]

India isn’t secular, and it’s difficult to see it becoming one. What’s increasingly promoted isn’t coexistence, but dominance, asserting control over Muslims while electing leaders who excuse or ignore violence, even over something like a cow. Thousands could be slaughtered over such issues, and many have already been lynched.

 

[RizwanT20Champ]

Lets me summarize your post, India was infected with a heavy dose of GNV, two utter losers who put the country on the backfoot in every which way possible where coddling communal ******** was sold successfully as secularism.

that angle is no longer selling. Too bad if Indian muslims dont like

Says a guy with a flag of country that has Brampton. Arguably most unhygenic city in the West thanks to certain demographic.

 

[Stewie]

You are comparing state policy to vigilantes/idiots.

Am in favor of river being polluted for any religious reason? F No.

The stark reality you are running away from is that Indian under the nehru dynasty has been one of muslim appeasement at a policy level. If it takes some societal "turbulunce" to end it, so be it

Correct me if I am wrong but the police arrested those people breaking their fast. Or am I Missing something?

I am not in favor of whether you choose to pollute your rivers or not. I don’t have any business telling you what to do. I also don’t care about nehru or whatever, doesn’t concern me.

All I am pointing out to is a hypocrisy. You want UCC as long as it doesn’t affect the majority. When it comes to majority you guys become “secular” when it comes to minority you guys complain about UCC.

Be fair. But can you be fair? If you were, you can’t defend Hindus taking all these landmarks under the pretext of them being historical Hindu sacred places. Because soon as you do that, you are not secular anymore.

Personally I’m don’t care about the right to have four wives or all your other talking points about waqf board this and that so don’t waste your breath bringing that nonsense up. Just own up to the fact there is hypocrisy going on there like I will admit Muslims should not complain about UCC if it’s truly fair and secular in nature, “meaning with no grounding in any religion”

 

[Stewie]

the definition of secularism in and outside of India are different. Hope you know what I am talking about. Indian “secularism” is not the same as western secularism

 

[Rafale Nidhal Fan]

because their religion is made by a guy who got bored and decided to write up a religion for fun. Their religion doesn't wish peace of non-believers. They have the so called Law of Karma which is manipulated (no surprises there) against non believers.

Muslims, Christians are all hated by hindus. They are u can say the farthest religion to be called "religion of peace"

bottom line: its a made up religion and have no concrete evidence or background. The reason they bend over to zionist is because they have a lot similarities and they have common enemies.

 

[Obaidd]

I see posters mention INC’s politics of ‘minority appeasement’ as a reason for the Islamophobia but I’ve struggled to see concrete examples of the same. Can some Ind posters please provide some examples of that appeasement at a policy level? Please no whatsapp level examples but serious issues that actually affected the lives of Ind Hindus in a negative way to favour the minority groups.

 

[Bhaijaan]

We are partly responsible for the hatred we receive from Hindus for our refusal to coexist with them peacefully and respectfully.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Correct me if I am wrong but the police arrested those people breaking their fast. Or am I Missing something?

If it did happen, the laws are in take action against the police.

I am not in favor of whether you choose to pollute your rivers or not. I don’t have any business telling you what to do. I also don’t care about nehru or whatever, doesn’t concern me.

Of course you don't. Becos Nehru dynasty communalism (sold as, what do you call it, "Indian Secularism") suited you as a muslim.

All I am pointing out to is a hypocrisy. You want UCC as long as it doesn’t affect the majority. When it comes to majority you guys become “secular” when it comes to minority you guys complain about UCC.

Then you should be able to answer what aspect of Western Secularism (which most likely will be a blue print for UCC in India) will favor Hindus and deny muslims.

I asked before before. didn't get an answer, Let me ask you again

Is Islam compatible with a secular society (As in France, USA) without any special dispensation?

Is US separation of church and state (as imperfect as it is) affect you ability to practice islam as its meant to be?

If not, have you traded islam for the western comforts?

Be fair. But can you be fair?

Of course I can. The irony is the question coming from a muslim living in the US.

If you were, you can’t defend Hindus taking all these landmarks under the pretext of them being historical Hindu sacred places. Because soon as you do that, you are not secular anymore.

Have I defended it? Hell no. Why do yo assume that I make special exceptions for Hinduism?

Personally I’m don’t care about the right to have four wives or all your other talking points about waqf board this and that so don’t waste your breath bringing that nonsense up.

Of course you don't , as it disrupts the "we are victims" narrative muslims like to peddle. All the relevant stuff you can't defend needs to be brushed aside and you have the gall to tale about fair.

Just own up to the fact there is hypocrisy going on there like I will admit Muslims should not complain about UCC if it’s truly fair and secular in nature, “meaning with no grounding in any religion”

As in France? I'm all for it.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

We are partly responsible for the hatred we receive from Hindus for our refusal to coexist with them peacefully and respectfully.

There is no refusal to coexist with Hindus peacefully. But if you feel differently then give examples by all means.

 

[Bhaijaan]

There is no refusal to coexist with Hindus peacefully. But if you feel differently then give examples by all means.

To begin with, the concept of Haram in our culture gives every non believer the identity of a sinner.
The interpretation of this has for centuries been exploited by politically motivated sects to not only persecute those who do not merge with us but even justify violence on them and their places of worship.

 

[HalBass9]

I see posters mention INC’s politics of ‘minority appeasement’ as a reason for the Islamophobia but I’ve struggled to see concrete examples of the same. Can some Ind posters please provide some examples of that appeasement at a policy level? Please no whatsapp level examples but serious issues that actually affected the lives of Ind Hindus in a negative way to favour the minority groups.

That’s not the real reason. Just think about what a politician like Yogi Adityanath would do once the narrative of so called “appeasement” disappears. They still need something to justify their ideology and a sense of superiority, and too often, that validation comes through exclusion or bigotry.

So when even something as harmless as celebrating Christmas draws hostility in parts of India, it raises a broader question, what exactly is being threatened by it?

 

[Obaidd]

That’s not the real reason. Just think about what a politician like Yogi Adityanath would do once the narrative of so called “appeasement” disappears. They still need something to justify their ideology and a sense of superiority, and too often, that validation comes through exclusion or bigotry.

So when even something as harmless as celebrating Christmas draws hostility in parts of India, it raises a broader question, what exactly is being threatened by it?

I agree. I am not convinced by the ‘appeasement leading to Islamophobia’ argument at all. People talking about shah bano case, or Muslim personal law etc. how’s that offensive to hindus? How could these issues justify hate and persecution.

I think it’s more a case of portraying the Muslim as the bogeyman and blaming him for the genuine structural socio-economic issues that exist in Ind like any other developing nation. It’s just easy and convenient to blame muslims for all the troubles.

Still hoping some Ind posters can provide some concrete examples of INC’s appeasement policies and how exactly those came at the expense of majority community.

The narrative being spewed that appeasement led to Islamophobia is too simplistic to be taken seriously.

 

[Stewie]

If it did happen, the laws are in take action against the police.

Of course you don't. Becos Nehru dynasty communalism (sold as, what do you call it, "Indian Secularism") suited you as a muslim.

Then you should be able to answer what aspect of Western Secularism (which most likely will be a blue print for UCC in India) will favor Hindus and deny muslims.

I asked before before. didn't get an answer, Let me ask you again

Is Islam compatible with a secular society (As in France, USA) without any special dispensation?

Is US separation of church and state (as imperfect as it is) affect you ability to practice islam as its meant to be?

If not, have you traded islam for the western comforts?


Of course I can. The irony is the question coming from a muslim living in the US.

Have I defended it? Hell no. Why do yo assume that I make special exceptions for Hinduism?

Of course you don't , as it disrupts the "we are victims" narrative muslims like to peddle. All the relevant stuff you can't defend needs to be brushed aside and you have the gall to tale about fair.

As in France? I'm all for it.

India is not USA/France is it? You are once again dodging the point in #62 by assuming Indian governnce is fair.

And yes I have the freedoms to call it unfair, you might consider it gall because you seem to hang on the the same notions of control the authoritarian regime in india does. First fix that part internally and then you can claim the high moral ground you seem to think you are standing on. You, as an individual might not be in favor of the special exceptions hindus are currently enjoying, but that does not mean they are not there. As long as they are there, the hypocrisy will exist. If you can somehow make the preferential religious treatment and control of hindus go away, alongside the existential threat to Muslims in your land, then you can continue running your mouth as you are.


Millions of us live in foreign lands and we exercise the same rights as extended to others. We dont need any special dispensation. India's situation had a historical context and if you want to blame it on Nehru, Gandhi, Pillsbury doughboy, Martians, etc, is a moot point, the key is that there were certain decision and gaurantees made at the time of partition, and if the local populace feels aggrieved because a nationalist hindu govt wants to bring about a change, you cannot blame them entirely.

 

[Stewie]

I agree. I am not convinced by the ‘appeasement leading to Islamophobia’ argument at all. People talking about shah bano case, or Muslim personal law etc. how’s that offensive to hindus? How could these issues justify hate and persecution.

I think it’s more a case of portraying the Muslim as the bogeyman and blaming him for the genuine structural socio-economic issues that exist in Ind like any other developing nation. It’s just easy and convenient to blame muslims for all the troubles.

Still hoping some Ind posters can provide some concrete examples of INC’s appeasement policies and how exactly those came at the expense of majority community.

The narrative being spewed that appeasement led to Islamophobia is too simplistic to be taken seriously.

Well @rpant_gabba will have you believe that "you have special dispensation, so i am going to lynch you and hate your religion" logic is supreme intellectualism.

haha

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

To begin with, the concept of Haram in our culture gives every non believer the identity of a sinner.
The interpretation of this has for centuries been exploited by politically motivated sects to not only persecute those who do not merge with us but even justify violence on them and their places of worship.

You are thinking with the libertarian atheist mindset bro, where everyone must all be on the same page with feminism, LGBTQ, etc.

We Muslims believe in multiculturalism, therefore haram only applies to us, not an infidel. So if Tommy Gubbins wants to eat a pork sandwich in his own home, then that is not our business.