SecondSlip Posted March 17, 2020 Posted March 17, 2020 Both Democracy and Secularism is 'kufr '(disbelief) in Islam according to orthodox literal view. Muslims are not supposed to make any of these a system of their lives. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient. (Quran 5:47) In India, Muslims are allowed to live under these laws only because it allows them to practice their religion better in a non-Muslim majority country. But Muslims are not supposed to make these systems part of their lives and in heart should hate these laws. If a Muslim loves these laws knowing it is completely against what Allah revealed then he has committed disbelief. raki05 and Alam_dar 2
MechEng Posted March 17, 2020 Posted March 17, 2020 @SecondSlip the amount of anti muslim threads you make indicates either of 2 things: 1.) In childhood your muslim friends never gave you turn for batting or bowling and made you field all the time in a gully cricket match. 2.) You had crush on a very attractive muslim girl, but knew that you can never approach her because of religious differences. Alam_dar, diga, raki05 and 6 others 9
SecondSlip Posted March 17, 2020 Author Posted March 17, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, MechEng said: @SecondSlip the amount of anti muslim threads you make indicates either of 2 things: 1.) In childhood your muslim friends never gave you turn for batting or bowling and made you field all the time in a gully cricket match. 2.) You had crush on a very attractive muslim girl, but knew that you can never approach her because of religious differences. Edited March 17, 2020 by SecondSlip mishra and MechEng 2
coffee_rules Posted March 17, 2020 Posted March 17, 2020 (edited) BD was around 22% Hindu in 1947. Now Hindus are 8%. So, no, I will not be a secular nation Edited March 17, 2020 by coffee_rules raki05 and Gollum 2
Alam_dar Posted March 17, 2020 Posted March 17, 2020 Things in Muslim world are moving towards the negative direction unfortunately. In Pakistan, may be 90% of them want Sharia. In the Western Secular societies, perhaps still the majority of Muslim want Sharia to rule the country.
Popular Post Laaloo Posted March 17, 2020 Popular Post Posted March 17, 2020 17 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Things in Muslim world are moving towards the negative direction unfortunately. In Pakistan, may be 90% of them want Sharia. In the Western Secular societies, perhaps still the majority of Muslim want Sharia to rule the country. Moving towards negative? Lol abe chutiye tum log pehle kab positive secular thei BC MC Vilander, diga, Jimmy Cliff and 8 others 11
Gollum Posted March 18, 2020 Posted March 18, 2020 7 hours ago, MechEng said: @SecondSlip the amount of anti muslim threads you make indicates either of 2 things: This isn't an anti-Muslim thread. Stop trying to be PC. Muslim societies never giving two hoots about secularism/tolerance or having abnormally high TFR....these may be politically incorrect or in some cases difficult topics for snowflakes but not anti-Muslim. Just like how discussing caste atrocities doesn't make someone anti-dharmic. Norman, Laaloo, Pratik77 and 5 others 8
Popular Post Gollum Posted March 18, 2020 Popular Post Posted March 18, 2020 Had Muslims been at 80% and Hindus at 15% post partition, by now there would be <5% Hindu pop in India. Difference in TFR combined with status of kafirs in Muslim society, plus I am pretty sure we would have seen many 1971 type genocides and KP type exoduses. You and me would have long departed for safer lands, maybe even as refugees. JK had around 60% Muslim pop in 1951, how did that state turn out? In Muslim majority villages in Bengal, Durga Puja is banned, women's football is banned, Hindu women with sindoor have been repeatedly targeted in hate (rape) crimes....and Bong Muslims are comparatively more chilled out. Remember this, Muslims are a difficult minority and tyrannical majority. All communities get cocky when they have majoritarian privilege, but Muslims aim to wipe out others when they are in majority, then they start fighting among themselves about who is more Muslim or the correct kind of Muslim. Look at so called 'progressive' Malaysia, there is a complete ban on Shia Islam. Stradlater, Laaloo, sergio04 and 7 others 10
Gollum Posted March 18, 2020 Posted March 18, 2020 1946 Indian provincial elections Province Muslim Seats Muslim League % Of Muslim Seats won by Muslim League Assam 34 31 91% Bengal 119 113 95% Bihar 40 34 85% Bombay 30 30 100% Central Provinces 14 13 93% Madras 29 29 100% North West Frontier Province 36 17 47% Orissa 4 4 100% Punjab 86 74 86% Sind 34 28 82% United Provinces 66 54 82% Total 492 429 87% Pray tell me why we wouldn't have been another Pakistan? Talking about OP's question. 100% in Orissa, Bombay, Madras, don't tell me all those Muslims migrated to Pakistan. What exactly has changed in the last 70 years? SecondSlip, sergio04, raki05 and 2 others 1 4
sukhoi Posted March 18, 2020 Posted March 18, 2020 (edited) would be the same fate as Jogendranath Mandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jogendra_Nath_Mandal Jogendranath Mandal (Bengali: যোগেন্দ্রনাথ মণ্ডল; 29 January 1904 – 5 October 1968), was one of the central and leadingFounding Fathers[1] of modern state of Pakistan, and legislator serving as country's first minister of law and labour Edited March 18, 2020 by sukhoi
SecondSlip Posted March 18, 2020 Author Posted March 18, 2020 3 hours ago, Stan AF said: Stupid question. Sorry OP. Apologies accepted Rice Bag Stradlater 1
Stan AF Posted March 18, 2020 Posted March 18, 2020 If it was 80% christians it would still be democratic though. nevada 1
sandeep Posted March 18, 2020 Posted March 18, 2020 14 hours ago, Aiden said: India is not a secular nation. You can say anything you want, like a fart in the wind. But such nonsense is difficult to substantiate. In India, the law of the land is unambiguously and firmly secular. And it shall remain so, for generations to come. A muslim is more "azaad" in India than in Pakistan. In spite of the mainstreaming of prejudice in the past few years. That's the blunt reality. But blind greenbros are not able to see or accept the actual reality. Because given the sshitshow their country is, the only consolation they have for their traitorous "divorce" from their own Watan, is that the lie, that at least "muslims are safe here". Ironically, nothing could be further from the truth. beetle, Vickydev and Stradlater 1 2
sandeep Posted March 18, 2020 Posted March 18, 2020 7 hours ago, Gollum said: 1946 Indian provincial elections Province Muslim Seats Muslim League % Of Muslim Seats won by Muslim League Assam 34 31 91% Bengal 119 113 95% Bihar 40 34 85% Bombay 30 30 100% Central Provinces 14 13 93% Madras 29 29 100% North West Frontier Province 36 17 47% Orissa 4 4 100% Punjab 86 74 86% Sind 34 28 82% United Provinces 66 54 82% Total 492 429 87% Pray tell me why we wouldn't have been another Pakistan? Talking about OP's question. 100% in Orissa, Bombay, Madras, don't tell me all those Muslims migrated to Pakistan. What exactly has changed in the last 70 years? Is voting for a party perceived to represent 'their' interests, some kind of original sin that can never be forgiven? I think its simplistic to interpret every vote for the ML pre-independence, as evidence of support for Partition. I don't disagree that a lot of folks stayed back in India who supported the idea of partition. But to claim that all ML voters did, is simplistic and inaccurate. Let's also keep in mind, that the idea of 'Pakistan' wasn't fleshed out in the 1940s, it could have just as easily ended up being an "autonomous" province, a confederate. It is human nature to follow tribal instinct, and vote for "your" party. Takes education, knowledge and critical thinking to identify the issues at hand accurately and vote accordingly. Hell, people fail to do that today - that generation did not have those luxuries - they were in a fight for survival and independence. At some point, you have to accept that this is water under the bridge. It has flowed. It is history.
Yoda-esque Posted March 18, 2020 Posted March 18, 2020 Such a redundant questionSent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
coffee_rules Posted March 18, 2020 Posted March 18, 2020 1 hour ago, sandeep said: Is voting for a party perceived to represent 'their' interests, some kind of original sin that can never be forgiven? I think its simplistic to interpret every vote for the ML pre-independence, as evidence of support for Partition. I don't disagree that a lot of folks stayed back in India who supported the idea of partition. But to claim that all ML voters did, is simplistic and inaccurate. Let's also keep in mind, that the idea of 'Pakistan' wasn't fleshed out in the 1940s, it could have just as easily ended up being an "autonomous" province, a confederate. It is human nature to follow tribal instinct, and vote for "your" party. Takes education, knowledge and critical thinking to identify the issues at hand accurately and vote accordingly. Hell, people fail to do that today - that generation did not have those luxuries - they were in a fight for survival and independence. At some point, you have to accept that this is water under the bridge. It has flowed. It is history. This is negation of history, ML campaigned for Partition of the country and a vote for them was a vote on Pakistan. This is from historical accounts of elections at that time from even left historians. If we want to move on and if it is water under the bridge, we need a reconcilliation to move forward. We need to make sure we could trust and not make it happen again. Norman 1
SecondSlip Posted March 18, 2020 Author Posted March 18, 2020 2 hours ago, sandeep said: Is voting for a party perceived to represent 'their' interests, some kind of original sin that can never be forgiven? I think its simplistic to interpret every vote for the ML pre-independence, as evidence of support for Partition. I don't disagree that a lot of folks stayed back in India who supported the idea of partition. But to claim that all ML voters did, is simplistic and inaccurate. Let's also keep in mind, that the idea of 'Pakistan' wasn't fleshed out in the 1940s, it could have just as easily ended up being an "autonomous" province, a confederate. It is human nature to follow tribal instinct, and vote for "your" party. Takes education, knowledge and critical thinking to identify the issues at hand accurately and vote accordingly. Hell, people fail to do that today - that generation did not have those luxuries - they were in a fight for survival and independence. At some point, you have to accept that this is water under the bridge. It has flowed. It is history. Let me ask you one thing. If you surveyed every Muslim in India that is above 18 years old and had only 2 options on the survey, which one would get the majority of votes? Here are the 2 options: A) Should India be a secular republic OR B) Should India be a Islamic republic I can guarantee you that 97% of Indian Muslims today in year 2020 will vote for the Islamic republic. Seeing sickulars like you defend these people with all your might is really funny to see.
Recommended Posts