Insiders, not invaders

[Galaxy]

Large number of Indian Muslims failed to assimilate in Indian society at least in North/West India.

Long back, Atal Bihari vajpayee said "If Muslims have to choose between Mecca or Islam and India you must choose India".

Thousands of Temples were destroyed by Barbaric Islamic Invaders including Birth place of Lord Rama, Lord Krishna and two of the most important Jyotirlinga of Lord Shiva (Varanasi and Somnath). Why Muslims don't come forward and say "Build Temples" ? But No, Most of them will spilt venom everywhere and talk rubbish. They have positive opinion on KSA or Iran or even Palestine but not the same when it comes to Indian culture. Even today, Many Muslims consider themselves as More Arabi than Indian. They should understand their ancestors were Hindus who were converted forcefully and not rapist from Central Asia. If Muslims could have Indicized long back, then there was no reason for Rightist Hindu group to rise. It's reactionary group to counter such mentality!!

 

[Sukerchakia]

Large number of Indian Muslims failed to assimilate in Indian society at least in North/West India.

Long back, Atal Bihari vajpayee said "If Muslims have to choose between Mecca or Islam and India you must choose India".

Thousands of Temples were destroyed by Barbaric Islamic Invaders including Birth place of Lord Rama, Lord Krishna and two of the most important Jyotirlinga of Lord Shiva (Varanasi and Somnath). Why Muslims don't come forward and say "Build Temples" ? But No, Most of them will spilt venom everywhere and talk rubbish. They have positive opinion on KSA or Iran or even Palestine but not the same when it comes to Indian culture. Even today, Many Muslims consider themselves as More Arabi than Indian. They should understand their ancestors were Hindus who were converted forcefully and not rapist from Central Asia. If Muslims could have Indicized long back, then there was no reason for Rightist Hindu group to rise. It's reactionary group to counter such mentality!!

Why should a Muslim have to choose between Mecca and India? What is the reason for such a question? Cant an Indian Muslim coexist with both of these options? The former is his religious point of reference while the latter is karmabhoomi..! Why should one impose his idea of India and Indians on everyone else?

 

[A chauhan]

First of all, the title of the thread is misleading , it should be "Insiders, not Outsiders", it has mixed two different senses into one sentence. It is a proven and accepted fact that Muslims were "Invaders" and claimed genetic study has proved the existence of local genes so conversion (forceful) is the alone possible factor for having such a large Muslim population in Bharat. Majority of them may be "Insiders" by genes, but they accepted Islam and its ideology so they are "Outsiders" by ideology.

 

[Virendra]

First of all, the title of the thread is misleading , it should be "Insiders, not Outsiders"., it has mixed two different senses into one sentence.

Bang on target.

 

[Galaxy]

Why should a Muslim have to choose between Mecca and India? What is the reason for such a question? Cant an Indian Muslim coexist with both of these options? The former is his religious point of reference while the latter is karmabhoomi..! Why should one impose his idea of India and Indians on everyone else?

You didn't understood the context.

Why Muslims have opinion on Osama ? There has been many protest on that in Banglaore, Kolkatta, Delhi.

Why Muslims protested in Indian cities in support of Palestine ? Because they are Muslims and did for the sake of "Muslim Brotherhood". As i said, for some Muslims "Muslims outside matters more". Even there are many Indian Muslims who are Pro-Pakistani. You can find such Muslims everywhere including Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad.

 

[Sukerchakia]

First of all, the title of the thread is misleading , it should be "Insiders, not Outsiders", it has mixed two different senses into one sentence. It is a proven and accepted fact that Muslims were "Invaders" and claimed genetic study has proved the existence of local genes so conversion (forceful) is the alone possible factor for having such a large Muslim population in Bharat. Majority of them may be "Insiders" by genes, but they accepted Islam and its ideology so they are "Outsiders" by ideology.

So you are assuming that similarity of genetic make up of Indian Muslims vis-a-vis other populations means they were forcefully converted.

While instances of forceful conversion are indeed well documented, most conversions have been peaceful. Traders in Kerala, Sufis in the north are but a few examples of peaceful conversions to Islam. Besides, many communities converted to gain favors and advance their careers in a primarily Muslim court.

And how far back do we wish to take the invader logic? How do we view Jatts, Gujjars which were part of later wave if Indo-European migrations into India?

 

[Sukerchakia]

You didn't understood the context.

Why Muslims have opinion on Osama ? There has been many protest on that in Banglaore, Kolkatta, Delhi.

Why Muslims protested in Indian cities in support of Palestine ? Because they are Muslims and did for the sake of "Muslim Brotherhood". As i said, for some Muslims "Muslims outside matters more". Even there are many Indian Muslims who are Pro-Pakistani. You can find such Muslims everywhere including Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad.

For some! That's the keyword. Hence lets not paint everyone with the same brush and ask them to choose Mecca or Delhi.

 

[Adux]

You didn't understood the context.

Why Muslims have opinion on Osama ? There has been many protest on that in Banglaore, Kolkatta, Delhi.

Why Muslims protested in Indian cities in support of Palestine ? Because they are Muslims and did for the sake of "Muslim Brotherhood". As i said, for some Muslims "Muslims outside matters more". Even there are many Indian Muslims who are Pro-Pakistani. You can find such Muslims everywhere including Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad.

Though I am in agreement with you on this, how is this any different from Tamils supporting Sri Lankan Tamils? Or North Indian Hindu's and Sikhs batting for their kind in Pakistan, trying to get them a better deal, and even offer asylum in India?

 

[Galaxy]

Though I am in agreement with you on this, how is this any different from Tamils supporting Sri Lankan Tamils? Or North Indian Hindu's and Sikhs batting for their kind in Pakistan, trying to get them a better deal, and even offer asylum in India?

I don't support. I don't care for SL Tamils. They are not Indian. It's matter between SL Government and them. LTTE was terrorist group. Many of my Tamils friend don't like my opinion on this is what i feel and always said.

India was divided on religious line. Many Hindus were left in Pak/BD and Many Muslims left in India who wanted to go to neighbouring country during partition but it was difficult time. They are coming to India because of persecution of Hindus there. If any Muslims going to Pak or Hindus coming to India. I don't see problem. Indeed, Even GoI supported such migration for 6 decades!!

 

[Sukerchakia]

You are mostly correct my friend, except on the Ram janmabhoomi issue, IMO.

It was not a new found issue that was put to test by the right wing -- the dispute has always existed for about 200 years or more and it just exploded in full force on Dec 1992.

The dispute wasnt a major issue, IMO. If not for the right wing, it would have remained at the back-burner and we could have avoided the faultlines that we see today.

 

[A chauhan]

So you are assuming that similarity of genetic make up of Indian Muslims vis-a-vis other populations means they were forcefully converted.

While instances of forceful conversion are indeed well documented, most conversions have been peaceful. Traders in Kerala, Sufis in the north are but a few examples of peaceful conversions to Islam. Besides, many communities converted to gain favors and advance their careers in a primarily Muslim court.

And how far back do we wish to take the invader logic? How do we view Jatts, Gujjars which were part of later wave if Indo-European migrations into India?

So you are assuming that similarity of genetic make up of Indian Muslims vis-a-vis other populations means they were forcefully converted.

It's not an assumption it's a fact ! :-

During the Muslim conquests starting from the 11th Century AD, Islam gained many converts on the Indian sub-continent primarily from Hinduism or Buddhism, the two dominant local religions, primarily by forced conversion. Most of the Muslim rulers looked down upon the idea Hinduism as having Iconodulistic religious practices, and were to various degrees iconoclastic. Hindu–Islamic relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Writer Fernand Braudel wrote... On occasion there were forced conversions. If ever there were an uprising, it was instantly and savagely repressed: houses were burned, the countryside was laid waste, men were slaughtered and women were taken as slaves.

Iconoclasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, there were peaceful conversions too, but they were very limited in numbers.They not only converted people but the religious buildings too lol.

And how far back do we wish to take the invader logic? How do we view Jatts, Gujjars which were part of later wave if Indo-European migrations into India?

Past can not be changed and truth is a truth,so we are not taking invader logic anywhere just having a discussion on it, Jatts and Gujjars have mixed and Indicized so no point in calling them outsiders.

 

[SHURIDH]

the spread of islam in bengal region of british india was not fourceful.bengal does not have strong delhi mughle rule.conversion to islam from hinduism continue in bengal till early 20th centuri.
and if islam spread mainly by fourcefully than delhi,agra which was center of mughle rule would be predominately muslim.but thats not in case.

 

[Sukerchakia]

It's not an assumption it's a fact ! :-



Yes, there were peaceful conversions too, but they were very limited in numbers.They not only converted people but the religious buildings too lol.



Past can not be changed and truth is a truth,so we are not taking invader logic anywhere just having a discussion on it, Jatts and Gujjars have mixed and Indicized so no point in calling them outsiders.

I think we disagree on the extent of forceful conversion vis-a-vis peaceful conversions. I say the latter was more prevalent because as others point out, 600 yrs of continuous Muslim rule was enough to Islamicize the entire North by the sword; yet it didn't happen. The Muslim population was hardly 30% in the North when the partition lines were drawn up.

Why forceful conversion takes so much attention then? Because its evidences are more visible. Temples converted into Mosques, as you pointed out, defaced idols and documented instances. Sikhism remembers its two Gurus and two princes martyred for refusal to convert. So are other instances. Yet, I believe these instances werent the norm but the isolated acts of crazed emperors and raged invaders.

 

[SHURIDH]

Shuridh, absolutely. Indian Muslims are as Indian as Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists or any others. The independence movement did not envisage a partition of India along religious lines at all. Swami Vivekananda [my personal hero from Bengal] imagined a free India with the strength of Islam and the spirit of Hinduism and as Ejaz has quoted, even Sawarkar, the father of Hindutva, did not think of Muslims as aliens and of Bahadur Shah Alam as the leader of the 1857 movement. It is only in the past 2-3 decades that Hindus have started becoming more militant and I think there are reasons for that and those not because of what Indian Muslims have or have not done. Consider our ex-President Sri Abdul Kalam is loved and respected by all Indians without exception for his patriotism and his scholarship. The average citizen is more concerned with rozi-roti than hate mongering. Keep posting friend and take care!

but hinduvta activist describe indian muslim as forgien race in 80s and early 90s.its only few years after gentic study when their claim prove false they change their stand.

 

[Galaxy]

People who defend native, liberal, tolerant traditions are not "right-wing." Actually, Islamists, Marxists, evangelicals are "right-wing." Most of the "right-wing" hindu group is actually quite moderate compared to even mainstream muslim/christian groups.

The Hindu reaction to alleged Muslim expansionism has been quite pronounced. There are various reason behind it. The jihadi ambience in the neighborhood, and both Pakistan's and Bangladesh's involvement in the hate-Hindu tirades and violent activities have increased the existing level of suspicion in Hindu minds about Muslim loyalty to India. In addition, Illegal Bangladeshi Muslims, Growing Muslims population, Muslim appeasement, No visible efforts to address the problems of Hindu reactionism considered like three Temples (Varanasi, Mathura, Ayodhya), Rehabilitation of Kashmiri Pundits, Abolish Article 370. etc.

It appears that India's destiny hangs in the balance and that somehow the societies have to live uneasily in separate ideological worlds in apparently irreconcilable legacy of two worlds for two peoples!!

 

[LurkerBaba]

I think we disagree on the extent of forceful conversion vis-a-vis peaceful conversions. I say the latter was more prevalent because as others point out, 600 yrs of continuous Muslim rule was enough to Islamicize the entire North by the sword; yet it didn't happen.

That was due to resistance (physical and ideological) of local populace rather than some kind of benevolence.

In the subcontinent, why didn't Islam spread 'peacefully' to say Nepal or Assam ?

Kerala's case is different though.

 

[The Messiah]

People who defend native, liberal, tolerant traditions are not "right-wing." Actually, Islamists, Marxists, evangelicals are "right-wing." Most of the "right-wing" hindu group is actually quite moderate compared to even mainstream muslim/christian groups.

The Hindu reaction to alleged Muslim expansionism has been quite pronounced. There are various reason behind it. The jihadi ambience in the neighborhood, and both Pakistan's and Bangladesh's involvement in the hate-Hindu tirades and violent activities have increased the existing level of suspicion in Hindu minds about Muslim loyalty to India. In addition, Illegal Bangladeshi Muslims, Growing Muslims population, Muslim appeasement, No visible efforts to address the problems of Hindu reactionism considered like three Temples (Varanasi, Mathura, Ayodhya), Rehabilitation of Kashmiri Pundits, Abolish Article 370. etc.

It appears that India's destiny hangs in the balance and that somehow the societies have to live uneasily in separate ideological worlds in apparently irreconcilable legacy of two worlds for two peoples!!

marxists are rightwing ?

 

[Galaxy]

marxists are rightwing ?

Well Marxist are leftist but the way they used religious issues intensively in few Indian states surely indicates rightist approach. In Kerala, They used "Hindu card" and in W.B., They used "Muslim card". That is not communist ideology nor even socialist. That is religious opportunist ideology to strengthen Bangladeshi Muslims and weaken native Hindus. On economical front, They are leftist as per their political position!

 

[Sukerchakia]

That was due to resistance (physical and ideological) of local populace rather than some kind of benevolence.

In the subcontinent, why didn't Islam spread 'peacefully' to say Nepal or Assam ?

Kerala's case is different though.

Muslim rule was a necessary factor in the spread of Islam. There was definitely state support. Was that support by violent means? I don't think that was the most common case.

And what resistance? If it came to violent means, and en edict was passed on formal conversion - a la Muslim Spain. Would a temple priest or a bania be able to resist and counter by force?

The hard palatable truth is that in spite of the support to the spread of Islam,.medieval India was a fairly heterogeneous society where person was allowed to practice his faith.

 

[A chauhan]

I think we disagree on the extent of forceful conversion vis-a-vis peaceful conversions. I say the latter was more prevalent because as others point out, 600 yrs of continuous Muslim rule was enough to Islamicize the entire North by the sword; yet it didn't happen. The Muslim population was hardly 30% in the North when the partition lines were drawn up.

Why forceful conversion takes so much attention then? Because its evidences are more visible. Temples converted into Mosques, as you pointed out, defaced idols and documented instances. Sikhism remembers its two Gurus and two princes martyred for refusal to convert. So are other instances. Yet, I believe these instances werent the norm but the isolated acts of crazed emperors and raged invaders.

I think we disagree on the extent of forceful conversion vis-a-vis peaceful conversions.

I think yes.

600 yrs of continuous Muslim rule was enough to Islamicize the entire North by the sword; yet it didn't happen.

You see it's not so easy to convert people to other faiths, Sai Baba of Shirdi said "changing the religion is like changing one's father", i too will convert only if threatened to death, but come back to my religion later on safe times.
Islamic books were written in Arabic/Urdu etc. and even today many people do not understand those languages, and without reading those books i do not get how one would convert peacefully in such an adverse circumstance! one has to read and understand the principles of a faith or to know them by heart for a long period before converting to such faith.And in that period of illiteracy i don't think it could have happened.

Sikhism remembers its two Gurus and two princes martyred for refusal to convert

When they didn't leave the leaders, how can they leave the common people ?!