"Woken up by Azaan in the morning. When will this forced religiousness end in India?" : Sonu Nigam

[Yossarian]

Firstly, apologies for the late response because I have been too busy to visit this part of the forum. I understand where you are coming from, but I think that you need to look at wuzu and prayer with different lens because the wuzu itself is not an act of worship; it is an act of cleansing yourself in order to prepare yourself for the prayer, and that is relative to your environment. The definition of hygiene today is not what it was 1,400 years ago.

However, the prayer is a fundamental act of worship, not bounded by any era or time. That itself makes it illogical, because you cannot make any logical deductions about why God needs our prayers and why we have to perform it five times a day. It is nothing but faith, and faith starts where logic ends. How can you expect a reasonable/logical explanation from me when there is no logic involved in the first place?
The

Forgot to add:
Even though I understand where you're coming from re-why prayer is a requirement, however, does there have to be a set ritual vis-a-vis the method? I know there are very slight variations in the actual method (some as slight as whether or not your elbows touch the ground whilst performing sajdah) amongst various communities and sects/branches, and yet these insignificant variations have been known to throw acusations of blasphemy! (I myslef have have seen fighting in mosques just because someone's feet were slightly at the wrong angle during prayer, or the big toe was pointing backwards as opposed to pointing downwards during sajdah).

My question is (and this is a genuine question):
If one were to accept your argument vis-a-vis wuzu, then should the same not apply to the method/ritual of prayer (as opposed to praying itself), ie leave each to his/her own method, depending how they feel most comfortable offering their prayers (if the intention is to remember God)?

 

[Mamoon]

My question is (and this is a genuine question):
If one were to accept your argument vis-a-vis wuzu, then should the same not apply to the method/ritual of prayer (as opposed to praying itself), ie leave each to his/her own method, depending how they feel most comfortable offering their prayers (if the intention is to remember God)?

It could, but since it a form of worship, I know better than to fiddle with it. In my perspective, there is room for doings things at your own convenience as long as they don't fall under the umbrella of worship, because worshipping begins with faith and that is the end of logic. I would still probably do wuzu 9/10 times because it is not a big deal for me, but I am quite convinced in my mind that it is not necessary, and neither is the azaan. For the same reason, I don't believe in the significance of growing beards because it was fashionable at that time. Even the staunchest enemies of Islam had beards.

One can make a justification against any form of worship and not just prayer. One can justify why it is not necessary to fast or perform Hajj, but that leaves the faith in tatters.

 

[Yossarian]

[/b]

It could, but since it a form of worship, I know better than to fiddle with it. In my perspective, there is room for doings things at your own convenience as long as they don't fall under the umbrella of worship, because worshipping begins with faith and that is the end of logic. I would still probably do wuzu 9/10 times because it is not a big deal for me, but I am quite convinced in my mind that it is not necessary, and neither is the azaan. For the same reason, I don't believe in the significance of growing beards because it was fashionable at that time. Even the staunchest enemies of Islam had beards.

One can make a justification against any form of worship and not just prayer. One can justify why it is not necessary to fast or perform Hajj, but that leaves the faith in tatters.

You appear to be arbitrarily deciding, according to your own rules, as to what falls under the umbrella of worship and what does not.

You argue that azaan, wuzu, growing beards and such are not necessary, but anything that falls under the umbrella of 'worship' must be adhered to. And in that regard, does Islam specifically outline the method/set rituals of prayer, or is it simply the case that it's purely down to following the examples of how the Prophet prayed?

If the latter, then isn't that the same argument used by those that say men must keep beards? And in that regard, surely the same argument can be extended to wuzu, azaan .. or even the Arabic form of dress!

All I see is that everyone, from the most liberal minded, to the most fanatical who insist that Sharia must be followed right down to the last letter of the law otherwise you're a kafir, set their own arbitrary rules as to where, and in what aspect, to set the boundary lines. And sorry to say, you're doing exactly the same.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Those things happen every month ,have u not visited Delhi? Jagratas are a common happening and goes for the whole night.

Also im not sure how Azaan works as an alarm clock,never woke me up all those years eventhough my home was pretty neargo the mosque.

Either their should be blanket ban or no ban at all but as the posts have said above it cannot be banned in India,those dandiya dance in outdoors,Ganesh idols being carried to sea,or multiple religious things like those will always be inconvenience to certain sections of society.

Respect to you for your comment man.

 

[ExpressPacer]

There is a tiny mosque deep within Table Mountain in Cape Town. You can only reach this mosque by taking an hours walk up table mountain. The Azaan in the mountain echoes and can be heard throughout the city. The experience is truly magical

Below is another Azaan from Table Mountain

The amazing thing of these Azaan calls are they recited without any loudspeakers

You really love Cape Town..

 

[Tera Gawaandi]

I never liked Sonu Nigam, he is a good singer but too soft a person.

Hindu's are worst, their Pandals, Jag-raatas are loudest. and those guy who go on pilgrimage to Amarnath and other places, they dance all the way blocking traffic. During Holi and other festivals cities come to a standstill due to them.

 

[Slog]

Ban everything but church bells .. it doesn't have the shrill , eardrum perforating mayhem of a loudspeaker and its done only on weekends, for the sunday mass.

Don't have much to add but this convenient logic caught my eye

 

[dildildalwalla]

India, a secular nation

 

[kdoversmg]

India, a secular nation

nah. Once they have a uniform civil code, then we talk about secularism.

 

[dildildalwalla]

nah. Once they have a uniform civil code, then we talk about secularism.

I was being sarcastic lol

 

[cricketjoshila]

India, a secular nation

Secularism doesnt mean you get to break rules.

 

[dildildalwalla]

Secularism doesnt mean you get to break rules.

Do you know what secularism means?

 

[rahulrulezz]

Do you know what secularism means?

A feeling a Pakistani can't know or feel or have been ever been part of.
At least India tries their best to be inclusive and secular. Yes we are not the best, we commit mistakes but ATLEAST WE TRY to be secular. Not hide under the umbrella "hey we have always maintained that we are the Islamic republic of .., so don't expect us to treat your religion same but you better treat us good" Imagine Hindus and Ahmedis have loudspeakers in every street of Lahore chanting Om Bhur Bhuv Savs and have billboards of Krishna on the streets of Rawalpindi.

 

[dildildalwalla]

A feeling a Pakistani can't know or feel or have been ever been part of.
At least India tries their best to be inclusive and secular. Yes we are not the best, we commit mistakes but ATLEAST WE TRY to be secular. Not hide under the umbrella "hey we have always maintained that we are the Islamic republic of .., so don't expect us to treat your religion same but you better treat us good" Imagine Hindus and Ahmedis have loudspeakers in every street of Lahore chanting Om Bhur Bhuv Savs and have billboards of Krishna on the streets of Rawalpindi.

Again, answer my question. Do you know what secularism means?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

A feeling a Pakistani can't know or feel or have been ever been part of.
At least India tries their best to be inclusive and secular. Yes we are not the best, we commit mistakes but ATLEAST WE TRY to be secular. Not hide under the umbrella "hey we have always maintained that we are the Islamic republic of .., so don't expect us to treat your religion same but you better treat us good" Imagine Hindus and Ahmedis have loudspeakers in every street of Lahore chanting Om Bhur Bhuv Savs and have billboards of Krishna on the streets of Rawalpindi.

I don't get this. If India is secular, why compare with an Islamic republic? The hypocrisy is all on your side here. You need to hold yourself to the standards of other secular nations not say effectively, it's okay because we are more secular than non-secular nations. I hope you can see how silly this is.

 

[Mian]

A feeling a Pakistani can't know or feel or have been ever been part of.
At least India tries their best to be inclusive and secular. Yes we are not the best, we commit mistakes but ATLEAST WE TRY to be secular. Not hide under the umbrella "hey we have always maintained that we are the Islamic republic of .., so don't expect us to treat your religion same but you better treat us good" Imagine Hindus and Ahmedis have loudspeakers in every street of Lahore chanting Om Bhur Bhuv Savs and have billboards of Krishna on the streets of Rawalpindi.

What a defensive post comparing a so called secular country with an islamic republic to justify your acts lol why not compare with other secular nations and see where you stand.

 

[kdoversmg]

Again, answer my question. Do you know what secularism means?

Why don't you tell us?

To me it means not having a code of law which doesn't worry which fairy tale you believe in.

Yes, it would me no ban on cow slaughter to appease a certain religious. It would also mean no separate civil code for a particular religious group or no subsidies for fancy foreign travel or not being able to dump you wife with triple T and not pay alimony.

hope this helps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

 

[kdoversmg]

To me it means not having a code of law which doesn't worry which fairy tale you believe in.

OOPS! Meant to say "Having code of law which doesn't worry which fairy tale you believe in".

 

[troodon]

What a defensive post comparing a so called secular country with an islamic republic to justify your acts lol why not compare with other secular nations and see where you stand.

Religious people always try to hide under the religious umbrella.

So basically what you are saying is in Pakistan minorities have no rights to put loud speakers and blast their own fairly tale music.

Answer to the question. Will you be ok if some one puts out a loud speaker yelling in it that Krishna or Jesus or Buddha is the only God or savior?

 

[cricketjoshila]

I don't get this. If India is secular, why compare with an Islamic republic? The hypocrisy is all on your side here. You need to hold yourself to the standards of other secular nations not say effectively, it's okay because we are more secular than non-secular nations. I hope you can see how silly this is.

I dont get this what right do people of a Islamic Republic have to give sermons of secularism.What we need to hold ourselves is our concern,we are not there to please any other nation or to conform to their wishes.

 

[cricketjoshila]

What a defensive post comparing a so called secular country with an islamic republic to justify your acts lol why not compare with other secular nations and see where you stand.

Its a mirror.See yourself then point fingers at others.Indians dont tell you what to do in your country.You follow Islamic law,whetehr correctly or wrongly is your concern.We are secular and we follow our laws and its our concern.

 

[Madplayer]

What has gotten into sonu? i thought he was better than this although he did behave like a tool earlier as well buy now he is taking it to another level.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I dont get this what right do people of a Islamic Republic have to give sermons of secularism.What we need to hold ourselves is our concern,we are not there to please any other nation or to conform to their wishes.

I don't live in an Islamic republic. Even if I did, there's no law against questioning why do Indians claim it to be a secular country when you have beef bans and the like. You will find Pakistanis questioning their own country's secular credentials, so they certainly don't need your permission to question yours.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I don't live in an Islamic republic. Even if I did, there's no law against questioning why do Indians claim it to be a secular country when you have beef bans and the like. You will find Pakistanis questioning their own country's secular credentials, so they certainly don't need your permission to question yours.

India can claim whatever it wants doesnt need Pakistan's permission or certificates on that.Secondly a Islamic nation questioning someone else's secularism is hypocritical and is a joke.Thirdly you do need permission from someone if you are going to question him about his ownself.India isnt answerable to anyone but its own people regarding what laws it has and what it does inside its own territory.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

India can claim whatever it wants doesnt need Pakistan's permission or certificates on that.Secondly a Islamic nation questioning someone else's secularism is hypocritical and is a joke.Thirdly you do need permission from someone if you are going to question him about his ownself.India isnt answerable to anyone but its own people regarding what laws it has and what it does inside its own territory.

Pakistan doesn't claim to be a secular nation, so if a Pakistani should wish to understand India from India's perspective, then of course they should be quite free to do so. There is no hypocrisy here whatsoever since the ]Pakistani hasn't made any claims that Pakistan is secular.

Understand the difference between querying India's credentials based on their own claims and giving lectures on something that has never been claimed on Pakistan's behalf.

As you can see, I am once again questioning without permission. This is not an Indian website where you can demand a poster refrains from making perfectly reasonable comments.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Pakistan doesn't claim to be a secular nation, so if a Pakistani should wish to understand India from India's perspective, then of course they should be quite free to do so. There is no hypocrisy here whatsoever since the ]Pakistani hasn't made any claims that Pakistan is secular.

There is a difference between understanding and pointing fingers.Pakistanis point fingers.

Understand the difference between querying India's credentials based on their own claims and giving lectures on something that has never been claimed on Pakistan's behalf.

Again India can claim and its not answerable to you.You can keep giving lectures. Those who want to understand the laws of any country are most welcome.But no self respecting country allows foreigners to poke their noses in their internal affairs.

As you can see, I am once again questioning without permission. This is not an Indian website where you can demand a poster refrains from making perfectly reasonable comments.

You can throw stones at the stars, abuse the mountains do they care? Same.A foriegner can say 100 things about a country sitting in his own country.Does anyone care?.Because they dont have credibility.Just like Pakistanis have none when they question other countries about secularism.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

There is a difference between understanding and pointing fingers.Pakistanis point fingers.



Again India can claim and its not answerable to you.You can keep giving lectures. Those who want to understand the laws of any country are most welcome.But no self respecting country allows foreigners to poke their noses in their internal affairs.



You can throw stones at the stars, abuse the mountains do they care? Same.A foriegner can say 100 things about a country sitting in his own country.Does anyone care?.Because they dont have credibility.Just like Pakistanis have none when they question other countries about secularism.

Obviously you do care, that's why you are on a Pakistani site to defend India's secular credentials which are being questioned all over the world. But can you stop someone from raising perfectly valid queries? Take care to take note: no one is throwing stones or abusing mountains. Merely asking the query with regard to India's secular claims. If you feel this is breaking some PP rules feel free to alert the admin.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Obviously you do care, that's why you are on a Pakistani site to defend India's secular credentials which are being questioned all over the world. But can you stop someone from raising perfectly valid queries? Take care to take note: no one is throwing stones or abusing mountains. Merely asking the query with regard to India's secular claims. If you feel this is breaking some PP rules feel free to alert the admin.

1.India doesnt need any defending againist what Pakistanis think,simply dont care.That has been made clear ample number of times by official acts of GOI and many other organisations.

2.I am merely here for a discussion.It doesnt make any difference to India what is discussed here.

3.Pakistan isnt all over the world.

4.Merely asking questioners will be very well asked to clean their own houses before pointing fingers at others.Hypocrisy has no credibility.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

1.India doesnt need any defending againist what Pakistanis think,simply dont care.That has been made clear ample number of times by official acts of GOI and many other organisations.

2.I am merely here for a discussion.It doesnt make any difference to India what is discussed here.

3.Pakistan isnt all over the world.

4.Merely asking questioners will be very well asked to clean their own houses before pointing fingers at others.Hypocrisy has no credibility.

Again you are getting defensive. Firstly, I have already made it clear I am not a Pakistani. I am reading these stories in British newspapers, if you want to ask us to clean our own house then it might come across as slightly comical.

Secondly, even if the questioner was Pakistani, since they aren't claiming to be secular, then how can they clean house even if they were asking the question? Do you see now where the hypocrisy lies?

Here's a clue if you are still unclear:

Country A citizen claims country A is secular. Then defends beef ban in some states because it hurts religious sentiments of country A's citizens. What are you smelling here? A whiff of...?

 

[Nostalgic]

...then defends beef ban in some states because it hurts religious sentiments of country A's citizens. What are you smelling here? A whiff of...?

Steak?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Again you are getting defensive. Firstly, I have already made it clear I am not a Pakistani. I am reading these stories in British newspapers, if you want to ask us to clean our own house then it might come across as slightly comical.

I know exactly what i am telling you.You know it as well.

Secondly, even if the questioner was Pakistani, since they aren't claiming to be secular, then how can they clean house even if they were asking the question? Do you see now where the hypocrisy lies?

Basically "your" home is filled with rubbish but you will say i know its dirty and i wont clean it but i want to talk about the small marks of black on someone else's wall.

This hypocrisy.Just because you accept you are dirty and wont clean yourself doesnt give you the right to question people who are far more cleaner,without being called a hypocrite.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

I actually agree with Nigam. If I were non muslim I wouldn't want to hear it.

But I also want to grill a New York strip in Delhi without some BJP mob beating me up as a proof of ahimsa.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I know exactly what i am telling you.You know it as well.



Basically "your" home is filled with rubbish but you will say i know its dirty and i wont clean it but i want to talk about the small marks of black on someone else's wall.

This hypocrisy.Just because you accept you are dirty and wont clean yourself doesnt give you the right to question people who are far more cleaner,without being called a hypocrite.

But you are the one who is claiming to live in a spotless house while in fact on closer examination your house is even filthier than the one who makes no such claims. This is the hypocrisy and why it's so important to keep the spotlight firmly shining, shining.

 

[imrankhannsu]

Sonu Nigam has played a great PR stunt here.

You make controversial statement which includes Islam/Muslims, you will get lots of reaction from the press. Ofcourse now he is saying his focus was on something else, but personally I think his intentions was to get publicity. Even other celebs have come out and spoken of this and the media has gotten also involved

 

[cricketjoshila]

But you are the one who is claiming to live in a spotless house

No one lives in a spotless house.Such houses dont exist.

while in fact on closer examination your house is even filthier than the one who makes no such claims. This is the hypocrisy and why it's so important to keep the spotlight firmly shining, shining.

Who is making these examinations and publishing these results?Who is keeping the spot light? As i said those living in glass houses shouldnot throw stones on glass windows of others.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I actually agree with Nigam. If I were non muslim I wouldn't want to hear it.

But I also want to grill a New York strip in Delhi without some BJP mob beating me up as a proof of ahimsa.

Sure you must be allowed to grill and eat.Problem is whenever the issue of having a common civil code is raised,Muslim clergy oppose it tooth and nail.They want their polygamy,triple talaq practices to be preserved.They want their Haj pilgrimage to be subsidised by the govt. In face of this the Hindus want some concession as well and that has come as a cow slaughter ban.

 

[90MPH]

Sonu Nigam has played a great PR stunt here.

You make controversial statement which includes Islam/Muslims, you will get lots of reaction from the press. Ofcourse now he is saying his focus was on something else, but personally I think his intentions was to get publicity. Even other celebs have come out and spoken of this and the media has gotten also involved

100% agree.

This was a well calculated attention seeking statement. He knew the reaction it would generate.
I believe he is talking a load of horse crap when he says he was awaken by it. He just finds it annoying so he added some suger coating to justify his statement.

Certainly I have lost so much respect for him.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Sure you must be allowed to grill and eat.Problem is whenever the issue of having a common civil code is raised,Muslim clergy oppose it tooth and nail.They want their polygamy,triple talaq practices to be preserved.They want their Haj pilgrimage to be subsidised by the govt. In face of this the Hindus want some concession as well and that has come as a cow slaughter ban.

Once again the defence mechanism kicks in along the usual lines: "Muslim this....Pakistan that......"

Perhaps you should learn that values like secularism aren't tied to your neighbours or a different religion. They stand for themselves, you don't need to define them by Islamic standards. Unless of course you value Islamic standards so highly you think they should be the benchmark for secular thought. I disagree, but each to their own.

 

[Thomaskutty]

Don't have much to add but this convenient logic caught my eye

Yep , the sensible criteria which the public wouldn't mind is weekly religious calls , no early hours and minimal non-electronic decibels and voila.. the only enitity that fit the parameters were church bells. No convenience or bias ,just being reasonable

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Sure you must be allowed to grill and eat.Problem is whenever the issue of having a common civil code is raised,Muslim clergy oppose it tooth and nail.They want their polygamy,triple talaq practices to be preserved.They want their Haj pilgrimage to be subsidised by the govt. In face of this the Hindus want some concession as well and that has come as a cow slaughter ban.

Why does the majority in power need concessions? For example why should Bangladeshi mullahs demand hindus observe burqa since Durga Puja is a federal holiday? How is such a *** for tat make India any better than Saudi or Pakistan?

Not to mention polygamy and talaq arent being imposed on nonbelievers but beef ban is.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Why does the majority in power need concessions? For example why should Bangladeshi mullahs demand hindus observe burqa since Durga Puja is a federal holiday? How is such a *** for tat make India any better than Saudi or Pakistan?

Not to mention polygamy and talaq arent being imposed on nonbelievers but beef ban is.

No one needs to be given any concessions. If Muslims want to have their own laws in a secular republic they will have to give concessions elsewhere.Hindus are ready for a common civil law to apply to everyone.

Believer/Non believer doesnt matter.Separate laws for religion cannot happen.If a particular group is hell bent on having special treatement somewhere,they will have to give up something.Thats how the world works.

 

[MenInG]

Guys - see the topic of this thread and stick to it.

 

[DHONI183]

"Woken up by the Azaan in the morning. When will forced religiousness end in India?":Sonu Nigam

I once attended a wedding and after that we were supposed to sleep at their place. Tired by midnight, I inserted earplugs and went to bed, but the noise was still too much.

In frustration I said to myself, "Shaadi kar ke mujh pe ehsaan kiya hai! Sonay marrney tou do!" The groom´s sister was in the room to get something from the drawer at the same time!

So I´d never recommend earplugs to Sonu.

 

[IAJ]

I once attended a wedding and after that we were supposed to sleep at their place. Tired by midnight, I inserted earplugs and went to bed, but the noise was still too much.

In frustration I said to myself, "Shaadi kar ke mujh pe ehsaan kiya hai! Sonay marrney tou do!" The groom´s sister was in the room to get something from the drawer at the same time!

So I´d never recommend earplugs to Sonu.

Lol, but be glad Allah accepted your 'soune' Wali wish and not 'marne' wali.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

No one needs to be given any concessions. If Muslims want to have their own laws in a secular republic they will have to give concessions elsewhere.Hindus are ready for a common civil law to apply to everyone.

Believer/Non believer doesnt matter.Separate laws for religion cannot happen.If a particular group is hell bent on having special treatement somewhere,they will have to give up something.Thats how the world works.

Well lets take off the BJP gujrat riot helmet for a second and look at it this way:

Believer/unbleiever is actually the crux of the matter.

Beef ban is forcing Hindu religious law upon Muslims - thereby eroding Indian "secularism". In this case the hinduvta goons have it right, it is pseudo-secularism. Except its because India is in part acting as a Hindu theocracy would. No different than Iran banning alcoholl for non-muslims - which actually has medical, legal, and societal benefits unlike a beef ban, which is frankly, preposterous.

Polygamy and triple talaq aren't imposing any elements of Islam upon anyone who doesn't want it to. Hell, even a secular muslim can screw the shariah edicts and go it through the secular court if he or she wishes.

Tell me again, how polygamy or triple talaq impacts your life [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]? Because I can tell you how a beef ban would affect me if I lived in India.

Now we are getting to the interesting aspects.

Hajj subsidy and the azaan is similarly stupid because its imposing something upon non-Muslims. Unless the Hajj subsidy only comes from the zakat from wealthy Indian Muslims, it has no place in a non-muslim majjority country like India. Same with Azaan. It affects people's sleep whether they are muslim or not, or intend to pray or not. Both of these are fine in Bangladesh, but not suitable in India.

But polygamy and triple talaq are only opposed by Islamophobes and/or rabid BJP types, and usually the two are one and the same.

 

[Subaltern]

Well lets take off the BJP gujrat riot helmet for a second and look at it this way:

Believer/unbleiever is actually the crux of the matter.

Beef ban is forcing Hindu religious law upon Muslims - thereby eroding Indian "secularism". In this case the hinduvta goons have it right, it is pseudo-secularism. Except its because India is in part acting as a Hindu theocracy would. No different than Iran banning alcoholl for non-muslims - which actually has medical, legal, and societal benefits unlike a beef ban, which is frankly, preposterous.

Polygamy and triple talaq aren't imposing any elements of Islam upon anyone who doesn't want it to. Hell, even a secular muslim can screw the shariah edicts and go it through the secular court if he or she wishes.

Tell me again, how polygamy or triple talaq impacts your life [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]? Because I can tell you how a beef ban would affect me if I lived in India.

Now we are getting to the interesting aspects.

Hajj subsidy and the azaan is similarly stupid because its imposing something upon non-Muslims. Unless the Hajj subsidy only comes from the zakat from wealthy Indian Muslims, it has no place in a non-muslim majjority country like India. Same with Azaan. It affects people's sleep whether they are muslim or not, or intend to pray or not. Both of these are fine in Bangladesh, but not suitable in India.

But polygamy and triple talaq are only opposed by Islamophobes and/or rabid BJP types, and usually the two are one and the same.

Beef ban is a constitutional issue, since Indian constitution recognizes cows as 'critical to farming industry and shall not be slaughtered'.

There is two ways one can be secular :

a) No religion influences the laws of the nation. This is western secularism
b) Every religion gets to keep its own laws in all acts but criminal prosecution, all religions have right to equal representation in government interests. That is Indian secularism.

I agree, India should adopt option a) and abandon option b).

 

[Shutdown Corner]

Beef ban is a constitutional issue, since Indian constitution recognizes cows as 'critical to farming industry and shall not be slaughtered'.

That might just be the propaganda in order to make beef ban look more palatable (no pun intended). Here's why?

Beef ban exists in 22 states. That means 7 states, including West Bengal, have not imposed a beef ban. Are those 7 states under a different constitution than the other 22?

a) No religion influences the laws of the nation. This is western secularism
b) Every religion gets to keep its own laws in all acts but criminal prosecution, all religions have right to equal representation in government interests. That is Indian secularism.

I agree, India should adopt option a) and abandon option b).

To be fair, true secularism is a myth. In a world where 90% of people claim to believe in some form of religion, secularism is impossible. "Yes I believe my religion is the one true path, but others are free to do as they wish," is just wishful thinking.

Take the US for example. Leaders of the free world, secularism, and democracy. Yet half of the country's population is deeply motivated by the Christian religion and the fundemental ideology of the Republican party blends that version of Christianity with a dallop of capitalistic greed and racism.

Even in Europe, the most secular place on earth, there is a remarkable rise of the far-right, and its no coincidence that the migrants in their crosshairs are not impoverished Slavs from Eastern Europe (fellow Christians) but migrants from heathen lands.

 

[hafeezrocks]

No Secular Western country is completely out of the influence of religion either.

 

[Subaltern]

That might just be the propaganda in order to make beef ban look more palatable (no pun intended). Here's why?

It is easily verfiable in the Indian constitution, that cows are to be protected. I myself do not agree with beef ban, but it has to be addressed legally, not through populist illegal ways.

Beef ban exists in 22 states. That means 7 states, including West Bengal, have not imposed a beef ban. Are those 7 states under a different constitution than the other 22?

Because in those 7 states, the constitutionality of cow protection has not been implemented. Just because something is said in your constitution, doesn't mean it will be enforced. There is also a 'grey area' in the constitution regarding protection of cows as critical farm animals and disposal of old cows unsuited for farm procedures. That grey area is why states fall on either side of the beef ban.

To be fair, true secularism is a myth. In a world where 90% of people claim to believe in some form of religion, secularism is impossible. "Yes I believe my religion is the one true path, but others are free to do as they wish," is just wishful thinking.

Secularism is not a myth in USA or Canada or most of western Europe or Japan. You can believe whatever you wish, but secularism is only impacted/failed when religious belief plays a part in laws of the nation. The US constitution & federal laws, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, etc. have zero influence on their constitution or legal body from religion, hence they are true secular nations.

Take the US for example. Leaders of the free world, secularism, and democracy. Yet half of the country's population is deeply motivated by the Christian religion and the fundemental ideology of the Republican party blends that version of Christianity with a dallop of capitalistic greed and racism.

I don't care if 50% or 100% of USA is christian or muslim or hindu. Until US constitution and its legal system remains free from influence of any religion, it is a secular nation.
Secular nation doesnt mean lack of religion- that would be an atheist nation. Secular nation means, the laws of the nation are not affected by religion.

Even in Europe, the most secular place on earth, there is a remarkable rise of the far-right, and its no coincidence that the migrants in their crosshairs are not impoverished Slavs from Eastern Europe (fellow Christians) but migrants from heathen lands.

Racism is irrelevant to the topic here.

 

[Subaltern]

No Secular Western country is completely out of the influence of religion either.

Yes, they are. Until you can demonstrate any law in the secular west that is directly influenced by a religion and serves a religious/moral/ethical purpose, you have no case.

 

[Shutdown Corner]

It is easily verfiable in the Indian constitution, that cows are to be protected. I myself do not agree with beef ban, but it has to be addressed legally, not through populist illegal ways.




Because in those 7 states, the constitutionality of cow protection has not been implemented. Just because something is said in your constitution, doesn't mean it will be enforced. There is also a 'grey area' in the constitution regarding protection of cows as critical farm animals and disposal of old cows unsuited for farm procedures. That grey area is why states fall on either side of the beef ban.

The question can be asked then that if 7 states can exist without implementing the constitutional ban, why can't the other 22 states? Those 7 states aren't collapsing into a dystopia.

It may also be an interpretation of that part of the constitution. All constitutions get interpretted and the same sentence may be seen to mean two different things to two different readers.

Secularism is not a myth in USA or Canada or most of western Europe or Japan. You can believe whatever you wish, but secularism is only impacted/failed when religious belief plays a part in laws of the nation. The US constitution & federal laws, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, etc. have zero influence on their constitution or legal body from religion, hence they are true secular nations.

I don't care if 50% or 100% of USA is christian or muslim or hindu. Until US constitution and its legal system remains free from influence of any religion, it is a secular nation.
Secular nation doesnt mean lack of religion- that would be an atheist nation. Secular nation means, the laws of the nation are not affected by religion.

I can really only comment about the United States. A solid 50% of Americans will agree that the US was "founded on Judeo-Christian" values. Another 50% will vehemently dispute that. So it really is a matter of ideology (as is pretty much anything).

Many states have, or until recently had, the 10 Commandments posted on courthouses.

In many (mostly southern) states, things like **** sex are technically illegal under sodomy laws, even if they are rarely prosecuted or considered minor misdemeanours. Furthermore, Utah as a Mormon majority state was forced to outlaw polygamy before they were allowed to join the US...again that is the very definition of anti-secularism whereby the majority (mainstream Christians) forced/convinced/persuaded a minority (Mormons) to alter their religion and laws for a political purpose.

Just look at how the new Trump administration attempted to prioritize Christian refugees before the courts struck that down as unconstitutional. But his defunding of Planned Parenthood is based almost purely on religions sentiment. Recently the same could be said with the resistance to marriage equality for homosexuals, and the ongoing controversy over transgender bathrooms.

The US for sure is NOT 100% secular. I don't know enough about the EU or Japan, but my guess would be they aren't either.

Racism is irrelevant to the topic here.

What I meant to say the anti-refugee sentiment is almost purely religious according to those like Marine le Pen and Geert Van Wilders. Its not that different from things Narendra Modi said a couple of years back, the only difference is the former are whites who come from countries which have been largely secular for 100 years or so. In fact, one can easily argue that Wilders and Le Pen are even less secular than Modi.

 

[Subaltern]

The question can be asked then that if 7 states can exist without implementing the constitutional ban, why can't the other 22 states? Those 7 states aren't collapsing into a dystopia.

Preference of either side of the legal grey area. That is the consequence of legal grey areas: un-uniform implementation of said law.

I can really only comment about the United States. A solid 50% of Americans will agree that the US was "founded on Judeo-Christian" values. Another 50% will vehemently dispute that. So it really is a matter of ideology (as is pretty much anything).

It does not matter what 50% or 100% or 2% of Americans believe. What matters are the facts.
Here are two facts for you:
a) US constitution has clear, categoric reference in itself as separation of legalism and religion. It also does not reference a religious verdict or recommends a religiously sanctioned verdict- in ANY of its law.
b) The author of US constitution and many of the signatories of it are on actual provable record stating the US constitution is not based on Judeao-Christian beliefs. Not a single signatory to the US Constitution has ever made the statement that US constitution is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

People's opinions don't determine facts, sorry.

Many states have, or until recently had, the 10 Commandments posted on courthouses.

Sure. They are not part of the legal system. I can put Thor's hammer on a courthouse too if i wish. Those are irrelevant to the law.

In many (mostly southern) states, things like **** sex are technically illegal under sodomy laws, even if they are rarely prosecuted or considered minor misdemeanours. Furthermore, Utah as a Mormon majority state was forced to outlaw polygamy before they were allowed to join the US...again that is the very definition of anti-secularism whereby the majority (mainstream Christians) forced/convinced/persuaded a minority (Mormons) to alter their religion and laws for a political purpose.

No, that is the very definition OF secularism : Utah was forced to remove religion-based law from its constitution.

You are simply confusing between 'getting a legally valid judgement that doesnt violate your religious sentiments' with 'the law is based on the religion'. No state in US has ever rendered a verdict stating sodomy is outlawed because it is un-christian.

The US for sure is NOT 100% secular. I don't know enough about the EU or Japan, but my guess would be they aren't either.

The laws and constitution of the US are 100% secular. You are confusing legal secularism with people not having a religion or trying to pass laws that satisfies their religious sentiments in practice. That doesn't make the law based on religion.
For eg, if you can get a law passed saying one must drink wine on Easter, it satisfies most Christian sentiments, but the law can be based on a whole host of other reasons. That is how, in practice, the 'christian friendly' laws come about in Secular nations. The law itself is secular. Religious people can enact law that in effect, suits their religion, to a limited degree.

What I meant to say the anti-refugee sentiment is almost purely religious according to those like Marine le Pen and Geert Van Wilders. Its not that different from things Narendra Modi said a couple of years back, the only difference is the former are whites who come from countries which have been largely secular for 100 years or so. In fact, one can easily argue that Wilders and Le Pen are even less secular than Modi.

Wilders or LePen are not Netherlands or France. The laws and constitution of Netherlands are secular and will remain so, until such a time, where it isn't.

 

[dhump]

Same statement everywhere.From Imran Tahir to Sonu Nigam.

Same problem everywhere in india from cricket to everything what shall I do.

 

[Muhammad10]

A Class VI textbook for Indian schools says:

 

[Hornbill]

A Class VI textbook for Indian schools says:


View attachment 75413

This is right Azaan starts around 4 AM, From 5 AM onwards temples starts playing devotional songs and some of the churches will join the party if they are conducting special prayers on days other than Sunday, all these stupidity happening in a country where the use of loud speakers is banned between 10 PM and 7AM

 

[Hornbill]

^They should include the pics of temple and chruch in that book

 

[pillionrider]

It's pretty much like music. Someone who likes pop will find extreme metal repulsive and vice versa.

 

[MenInG]

^They should include the pics of temple and chruch in that book

which I believe is the issue.

 

[kaayal]

which I believe is the issue.

Neither muslims are saint tbh. There is a Peace International School in Kochi (supposed to be 'secular' with 9 non muslim students in it) published this in Class 2 textbooks....



Thankfully Police filed an FIR against the management.

 

[TM Riddle]

Neither muslims are saint tbh. There is a Peace International School in Kochi (supposed to be 'secular' with 9 non muslim students in it) published this in Class 2 textbooks....

View attachment 75417

Thankfully Police filed an FIR against the management.

Option E. Eat Halal Chicken.

 

[Abdullah719]

This has reignited the debate.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is to put on record that I totally agree with all those including Sonu Nigam who want that Loud speakers should not be used by the mosques and for that matter by any place of worship in residential areas .</p>— Javed Akhtar (@Javedakhtarjadu) <a href="https://twitter.com/Javedakhtarjadu/status/961178605593047041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Traveller55]

He's correct. religion should not interfere in public life except, at-most on a few chosen religious holidays.
Day-to-day, religion should stay in the personal domain, not the domain of the public, which is controlled by the state apparatus.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

This has reignited the debate.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This is to put on record that I totally agree with all those including Sonu Nigam who want that Loud speakers should not be used by the mosques and for that matter by any place of worship in residential areas .</p>— Javed Akhtar (@Javedakhtarjadu) <a href="https://twitter.com/Javedakhtarjadu/status/961178605593047041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

India has much bigger problems to focus on than this.

 

[CricketCartoons]

India has much bigger problems to focus on than this.

This is a big problem as it creates divisions in the society and gives rise to hatred. And can be solved if the state showed some will power.

 

[OneTip-OneHand]

Loud speakers should be banned completely irrespective of religion. Temples, Mosques, Churches (if they have any), Gurudwara etc. Even the Marriage functions etc.

Yesterday there was a marriage function in my neighbourhood and this DJ thing went on for whole night(I don’t know how because as per law it shouldn’t be there after 10 pm in residential areas). And its Pune City. I was supposed to work on a project which i need to submit in office on Monday. Couldn’t do a damn thing.

My friend cracked up a joke and I found it hilarious- Are they trying to tell the world that the couple can officially have sex from tomorrow onwards.

 

[Madplayer]

This is a big problem as it creates divisions in the society and gives rise to hatred. And can be solved if the state showed some will power.

So you want Modi ji to ban loud speakers in Temples? BLASPHEMY!!!

 

[OneTip-OneHand]

So you want Modi ji to ban loud speakers in Temples? BLASPHEMY!!!

I don’t care if it’s blasphemy or any other phemy for that matter. Gods dont need loudspeakers for prayers reaching to them.

 

[Varun]

So you want Modi ji to ban loud speakers in Temples? BLASPHEMY!!!

I'll throw a booze-party if/when this happens. That's the only B-word that will be relevant, because those loudspeakers are enough to drive anybody up the wall.

 

[CricketCartoons]

So you want Modi ji to ban loud speakers in Temples? BLASPHEMY!!!

That is not blasphemy and that is not sanatan dharma to cause nuisance. loud speakers must be banned and those who oppose should be given danda.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

India has much bigger problems to focus on than this.

Progress in several areas can happen simultaneously.

 

[MenInG]

One reason why I chose to live in the Middle East is so I can hear the azaan 5 times a day. Personal choice but an important one for me.

 

[gani999]

A lot depends on how the said azaan is recited.

Last year I transited Dubai Airport during the month of Ramzan. They played the azaan on the public address system. It was one of the most soothing things I had ever listened to. I could listen to it non-stop.

In comparison, the azaan in Indian mosques makes one feel like covering one's ears and running for cover.

 

[AssassinatedDevil]

This is a big problem as it creates divisions in the society and gives rise to hatred. And can be solved if the state showed some will power.

It does create a division in society but that's because people are intolerant about the religions of other people. If India is truly working towards a progressive vision then the goverment should reinforce this message and spread awareness about how being tolerant towards each other's religion will serve everyone well in the end.

Progress in several areas can happen simultaneously.

Progress can happen simultaneously but mindshare should be given to multiple issues of utmost importance. Banning a harmless thing like azaan on loudspeakers would lead to a backlash by the muslim community and rightly so, since they aren't disrtupting anyone's lives in a major way. If they disturb the residents of the area too much, then limits on how loud the loudspeakers can be can be put in place, but banning entirely is unnecessary.

 

[CricketCartoons]

It does create a division in society but that's because people are intolerant about the religions of other people. If India is truly working towards a progressive vision then the goverment should reinforce this message and spread awareness about how being tolerant towards each other's religion will serve everyone well in the end.

People are naturally uncivilized, should not be left to themselves. Best way to control people is the danda. Make them fear the cops and they will learn how to behave. Not like the current situation in india, where law bows before any mob and they can get away with anything.

 

[MenInG]

A lot depends on how the said azaan is recited.

Last year I transited Dubai Airport during the month of Ramzan. They played the azaan on the public address system. It was one of the most soothing things I had ever listened to. I could listen to it non-stop.

In comparison, the azaan in Indian mosques makes one feel like covering one's ears and running for cover.

I agree. Although the purpose of Azaan was to alert worshipers that its time. When 30 or so go together loudly on speakers next to each other, one wonders if that is some sort of competition!

 

[cricketjoshila]

Loudspeakers are banned from 10pm to 6am. BANNED. No exceptions be it Mosque,Temple,Gurudwara,Church,Marriage or whatever.

At the most allowance can be made for days like last day of Ramzan or Id or Diwali or Dusshera.

 

[TM Riddle]

Loudspeakers are banned from 10pm to 6am. BANNED. No exceptions be it Mosque,Temple,Gurudwara,Church,Marriage or whatever.

At the most allowance can be made for days like last day of Ramzan or Id or Diwali or Dusshera.

Yeah right. Tell that to community house near my flat which was playing Sapna Choudhary's songs all night yesterday.
Loudspeakers should be banned simple as that. If Muslims (or hindus for that matter) are so much concerned about the issue then it clearly shows where their priorities lie.
Stop shoving your religion down our throats.

 

[R3verse Swing]

I'm willing to bet Sonu Nigam would not have a problem hearing his own voice over loud speakers across towns and cities India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yeah right. Tell that to community house near my flat which was playing Sapna Choudhary's songs all night yesterday.
Loudspeakers should be banned simple as that. If Muslims (or hindus for that matter) are so much concerned about the issue then it clearly shows where their priorities lie.
Stop shoving your religion down our throats.

That community house was operating illegally.

 

[TM Riddle]

That community house was operating illegally.

It's wedding season in North these days and every other night there are loudspeakers playing Punjabi and Haryanvi songs , sometimes even till 3 am. And it's Delhi I'm talking about and not some small tier 3 town.
Thankfully no temple or mosque near my place. Although there's one gurudwara nearby but those guys prefer to keep it at low unlike hindus or muslims who feel the need to tell the entire colony about Ambe Jagdambe or Allah o Akbar every morning at 5.