Islam and extraterritorial loyalties

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Even if we assume that they're all children (which I know isn't the case, but I'm assuming it for the sake of discussion), and that only one percent of them retain their opinions, and everyone else discards them, that leaves 650,000 people who are willing to provide some sort of support to SIMI-like anti-national organisations.

Yeah but it leaves about 1.4 million who are willing to hunt them down and kill them. If this group can manage to eke out even a 1:2 kill ratio when they finally come into conflict you're still covered, so no worries mate.

Perhaps the next poll should ask whether their conflict should be televised. I smell big bucks here.

[Lancer]

aneeshm, give it time, be patient. If what you are saying is true then the moslems themselves will convince the masses.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re the OP -- Here's what strikes me: one would assume that you are a reasonably representative voice of young, educated India, and yet you spend an inordinate amount of your free time Muslim-bashing on the Internet.

If you're the future of India, why wouldn't an Indian Muslim value his religion above his country?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm


Do I really need to explain why putting religion above country is a bad thing?

Except for Hindu chauvinists, presumably.

Just watched a fascinating documentary on BBC2 about meals eaten in some of the world's more interesting places.

The intrepid reporter was in rural Bihar, eating meals with some Dalits.

The lucky Dalits who gathered in the rice crop, were paid in rice. Unfortunately, they weren't given anything to go with the rice, which even pre-pubertal children had been toiling to bring in for upwards of nine hours a day.

So the 'sauce' to go with the rice was rice water. That is, the liquid which the rice had been cooked in.


The less fortunate Dalits were those who trapped and ate the rats in the rice fields, vermin which might otherwise eat the rice of the 'lucky' Dalits.

They were kindly allowed to eat the rats which they caught.

Any Dalits (rice gatherers or rat catchers) who attempted to hoard any rice were usually informed upon by higher castes, and then the landlords or landowners would punish the food hoarders.

TThe "Untouchables" are not allowed to eat in the same places or even touch the same plates of other castes.

Stefan ventures to India's most lawless state, Bihar, to meet Dalits who work the land. He meets a particular sub-caste known as "Rat-Eaters" and joins them in the fields where they live up to their name: catching, roasting and eating rat.

But it is not only poverty and discrimination they face. Stefan tracks down an "upper caste army" whose aim is to keep the Dalits in their place, often violently attacking them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/cooking_in_the_danger_zone/6567717.stm

I liked the rationale for this:

Stefan Gates (presenter) :

There are three harvests a year between which she
gets nothing. By keeping the villagers on the verge of
starvation the landowners maintain total control over
them.

Too hungry to revolt.


Rat, anyone ?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

Re the OP -- Here's what strikes me: one would assume that you are a reasonably representative voice of young, educated India, and yet you spend an inordinate amount of your free time Muslim-bashing on the Internet.

First of all, I'm probably completely non-representative of a young and educated Indian (meaning that I'm young and educated, but not representative, not that I'm not old or uneducated ). Most people among my peers don't give a damn about anything further than the next six months, or the next step.

TBH, an analysis of different religions and their impacts on India takes up only a very, very small fraction of my time. But that's the only bit you see, because that's the only bit which I post here, mostly. The vast majority of my time is spent on other, much more constructive interests, such a reading all sorts of technical and non-technical stuff, trawling the internet for interesting things, meeting interesting people (in real life, not the internet), and so on. Everything - the analysis of religions and cultures, the interest in science and technology, in doing and building interesting new things, all of these are geared towards building a coherent view of the world, and gaining knowledge and wisdom, which may be then used for whatever purpose I see fit.

It's been quite difficult so far, and will probably get more difficult with time.

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

If you're the future of India, why wouldn't an Indian Muslim value his religion above his country?

I'm not the future of India. I'm a part of that insignificantly small minority who will actually try to do something about problems confronting the nation instead of sitting on our asses and doing nothing when disaster stares us in the face. We may succeed, we may fail, I don't know, but I can only try and hope.

When certain ideologies get in the way of progress (Islam meddles so much with the material world that it should not be dignified with the name "religion"), I feel quite irritated, and try to find a solution.

The solution is not hatred, not bigotry, not alienation, but reform. But that can happen only when people at large acknowledge that a problem exists. By obstinately hiding our head in the sand, maintaining that "Islam teh peace teh!!!", and blaming either "outside elements" or "people wanting to disturb the peace" or "the fringe" or "communal elements", basically everything but the ideology itself, and not facing reality, we impede the reform process. The problem is that to reform, Islam must destroy itself, because the minute you admit that Mohammed made a goof, that's it, the entire authoritarian structure collapses. So what is to be done? I don't know, but I try to do my bit by trying to make people acknowledge that at least a problem exists.




And I don't have double standards, as most people do in these cases. I've seen far too many Hindus defending bull**** if it is there in one of their favoured books. Spineless cowards, I call them. If Chanakya could disagree with everyone who went before, and single-handedly engineer two golden ages, what prevents us from doing the same? If something is wrong, then it is wrong irrespective of who says it is right. So if there are chauvinist and anti-feminine elements in the Puranas, then I denounce those elements. If there is a wrong injunction in an ancient law-book, I don't try to defend it like the Bible-thumpers do. I don't have to. My tradition doesn't care if all the books are thrown out. It's not built on authority. It's built on a search for truth, and its manifestation in this world, dharma. Dharma is not affected if I reject a book. What is right and wrong does not change with a book's endorsement or opposition.

I accept no authority but my own.

It is very difficult to admit that you or your tradition was wrong, but it has to be done, if you want to move on to greater things. Within Hinduism, this most difficult step has been taken - all the great teachers, saints, seers, of this century, and the past century, too, have admitted that the evils that existed (and still sometimes exist) in the Indic system are wrong, and should be removed. And it hasn't been an apologetic admission that it may have been wrong,, or that those times were different - it's been strident, and consistent, that what is corrupt is corrupt, and what is bad is just plain bad, no matter the time.

How long, I wonder, before the Muslims have the courage to admit - "Mohammed goofed"?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by molly bloom




Except for Hindu chauvinists, presumably.

Just watched a fascinating documentary on BBC2 about meals eaten in some of the world's more interesting places.

The intrepid reporter was in rural Bihar, eating meals with some Dalits.

The lucky Dalits who gathered in the rice crop, were paid in rice. Unfortunately, they weren't given anything to go with the rice, which even pre-pubertal children had been toiling to bring in for upwards of nine hours a day.

So the 'sauce' to go with the rice was rice water. That is, the liquid which the rice had been cooked in.


The less fortunate Dalits were those who trapped and ate the rats in the rice fields, vermin which might otherwise eat the rice of the 'lucky' Dalits.

They were kindly allowed to eat the rats which they caught.

Any Dalits (rice gatherers or rat catchers) who attempted to hoard any rice were usually informed upon by higher castes, and then the landlords or landowners would punish the food hoarders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/cooking_in_the_danger_zone/6567717.stm

I liked the rationale for this:




Too hungry to revolt.


Rat, anyone ?

These are precisely the sort of injustices and problems I want to remove from India. Whoever is responsible for this is a total a$$hole, and has to be brought to book.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm


These are precisely the sort of injustices and problems I want to remove from India. Whoever is responsible for this is a total a$$hole, and has to be brought to book.

Gosh. Good luck...

In India Stefan visits some of the world's poorest and most oppressed people.

More than 160 million people in the country are classed as Dalits and are considered "Untouchable".

Tainted by their birth they enter a caste system that condemns them to an inescapable cycle of poverty, illiteracy and oppression.

Nowhere is this discrimination more evident than with food.

The "Untouchables" are not allowed to eat in the same places or even touch the same plates of other castes.

Stefan ventures to India's most lawless state, Bihar, to meet Dalits who work the land. He meets a particular sub-caste known as "Rat-Eaters" and joins them in the fields where they live up to their name: catching, roasting and eating rat.

But it is not only poverty and discrimination they face. Stefan tracks down an "upper caste army" whose aim is to keep the Dalits in their place, often violently attacking them.

aneeshm versus the 'upper caste army'...

How the poor die:

In turn, higher-caste landholders have retaliated by forming private militias, known as senas (armies), to fight the Naxalites and terrorize and kill low-caste villagers whom they believe to have provided support to the Naxalites, or who have organized to demand better wages and other reforms. Hundreds of Dalits have been killed in sena attacks since the early 1990s. The attacks frequently take place at night; in many cases, the victims, including women and children, have been shot in their beds while they were sleeping. Members of the senas have also raped women and girls during the attacks. They have often claimed responsibility for the attacks and have even announced beforehand which villages they planned to target. However, because the senas enjoy the patronage of powerful elites, they operate with impunity.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/india/India994-06.htm

Have guns, will massacre:

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by molly bloom



Gosh. Good luck...



aneeshm versus the 'upper caste army'...

How the poor die:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/india/India994-06.htm

Have guns, will massacre:

That militia is called the Ranvir Sena. It consists mostly of middle-caste landowners, who want to continue the feudal system which has been banned. Their actions are totally abhorrent.

But I don't like this clubbing of Naxalites with Harijans. Harijans are oppressed in rural areas, far too much.

Naxalites are just commie scum. They have attacked police installations, unprovoked, and killed every person there, even when unarmed, who had nothing to do with them. They kill people who they think may support the Indian police or state in any way. They extract a "tax" from farmers (it's basically give us this money or die). They need to be wiped out to the last man.

[EyesOfNight]

For those of you saying aneeshm's poll isn't scientific, then what about the polls conducted in Europe, Lond specifically asking muslims the same question? Interestingly, those numbers on there aren't far off from what they found in London. It's the same here in the US as well. You can keep on preaching about how Muslims are tolerant and all around great people, but the fact is the majority of them at least sympathize with the terrorist cause, a sizeable amount actually support the terrorist cause, and pretty much all of them hold loyalty to their religion before the country that they virally migrate to. They're a god damn disease, they'll never be able to integrate into western society, and they'll always be at odds with us. We should be looking for the cure instead of trying to nationbuild and "free" people who are clearly undeserving. Let them live in their Islamic utopias.

[Kuciwalker]

The Muslims in Europe are immigrants, or their relatively recent descendents. The Muslims in India are native.

[Elok]

Those polls were also not conducted over the internet.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
They're a god damn disease, they'll never be able to integrate into western society, and they'll always be at odds with us. We should be looking for the cure .

Gosh, don't you sound familiar...

Don't think that one can fight against disease without killing the cause, without exterminating the germ; and don't think that one can fight against racial tuberculosis without taking care that the peoples be freed of the germ of racial tuberculosis.

[Lul Thyme]

Re: Islam and extraterritorial loyalties

Heck I'm not religious but if I were I would put my religion above my country?
Why wouldn't I?
I don't see what's no great about nationalism in the first place.

Also it's nice to see that your definition of "concrete evidence" is about as "scientific" as usual.