Defending Hindu Honour from Liberalistanis

I have to go but I’m sharing about how I got schooled by Vikram on Twitter. This Pakistani lady made some derogatory remarks about Hinduism and initially I defended her right to do so.

However after a few messages with Vikram (I’m reflexively a TNT loving Paknationalist at my deepest core) I realised this lady was being munafiq.

If Ms. Zakariya made the same tweet: “Islam is a primitive and backward religion for allowing Hazrat Asia to rot in jail” then and only then should she be allowed to make such derogatory attacks on India & Hinduism.

0

70 thoughts on “Defending Hindu Honour from Liberalistanis”

  1. We cannot be overreacting to random messages in the internet, some of which can be sincere individual ideologues (however nasty they are) and some troll armies set up by unknown powers with an agenda to mislead.

    1+
      1. true but that in part is true for all religions and ideologies, in case of Islam, i must say thats mostly what there is. If Islam had the theological resources, it would be evident by now. All the information there is in the world now is incredible than compared to what Hindu reforms had 100-150 yrs before or What xtians had for past 300 yrs. So if information is not the issue, its about making convincing story. And the most convincing story in Islam seems to be the one that fundamentalists/conservatives prefer. If mohammad was a buddha or mahavira would we even be having this discussion?. If Islam was polytheistic like Hinduism or shintoism/confucianism or helenic/romans we wouldnt be having this discussion. There is sufi mysticism which has nothing to do with laws/rules hence for all the rumi poetry, nothing of that will translate into good legislation, then there is mutazalites. Reason isnt enough, xtians turned jesus into moral example. That + reason + state church separation+ internal competition+ finance, it was the combination of all of that. The legitimacy of king/council being able to make new rules and laws is the difference, xtians had this, so do Hindus. Jews on other hand are not proselytizers , a drop in the ocean is what they are by numbers. The question is, from where do they draw legitimacy for internal critique?.

        0
  2. Also, I contest using the world “liberal” to them, making liberal critique of one side doesnt make one a liberal. One must take away this mask and expose them, we have to deny them this mask, that is necessary. So on that front you are right. But call them what they are, pseudo liberals . In India pseudo secularism has become very stinging critique and one can do the same .

    1+
  3. Doesn’t the lady have freedom of speech? Pakistanis have as much right to criticize the mangal sutr or sindoor (not that I think it’s a particularly important issue) as Indians have to criticize Islam. “Derogotary remarks” are very subjective. For example, I didn’t like when “Hazrat Aasia’s” alleged remarks about the wives of the Prophet of God were repeated. Some could argue that your repetition of them was “derogatory”

    I think there is a bit of an unbalanced attitude on this site about Hinduism and Islam. We are supposed to be very sensitive to Hindu issues (calling Sri Hanuman a “monkey god” raised some feathers) but we can call the Prophet of God by his first name. It’s your site and it’s for you to set the rules, but the double standard is definitely being noted.

    Also, spending a lot of time worrying about what people say on Twitter doesn’t seem very useful to me. It doesn’t seem to be a very good medium for substantive conversation.

    Finally, criticizing the entire religion of Islam is not an intellectually justifiable position. Your problem is with Pakistani law and with a particular interpretation of Islam. Otherwise, I could say that the entire religion of Hinduism is “primitive” because of the inhumane caste system.

    Honestly, I wish we can move beyond the Hinduism vs. Islam comparisions.

    0
    1. Show me the Hindu version of Hazrat Aasia

      I don’t care if Hazrat Aasia made the point that Muhammad had peophiliac tendencies (he consummated a marriage with a 9year old girl by today’s standards that is pedophiliac).

      Hazrat Asia is the Joan of Arc of Liberalstan; if we fail to fall for her now, Liberalistan forever dies.

      0
      1. Honestly, I think you are taking an extreme position. Calling the Prophet of God a pedophile would certainly be considered “derogatory” by Muslims. If you are so concerned about not offending one community, perhaps you should also tone down what you say about the other one?

        Anyway, I’m not interested in these comparisions of Hinduism and Islam and this constant India vs. Pakistan tit for tat. People on Twitter have the right to say whatever they like, even if you don’t like it.

        0
          1. You are admitting you are not objective. Thanks for your honesty.

            The price of that is that even liberal not really practicing Pakistani Muslims are going to be turned off by your double standards.

            For the record, I have always said that the Pakistani government making concessions to TLP was wrong. But I also don’t want to read or hear the nasty things supposedly said about the Prophet of God. People don’t like their parents being disrespected. It’s a thousand times worse when it is your Prophet.

            Mutual respect should not be this difficult–if not in the world at large, at least on this blog.

            0
          2. Wow Kabir – so u r comparing the false and unfair imprisonment of an innocent woman to some random remarks about some dead chap (whoever it may be Bahaullah or Mo)

            Seriously mate –

            6+
          3. The Prophet of God is not “some dead chap”. That remark is deeply offensive to Muslim sentiments. You may refer to your own prophet however you like, but we do not refer to the Prophet of God as “Mo”.

            I have already said that the Pakistani Supreme Court’s acquittal should have been honored, despite the TLP’s threats. The government’s backing down to the religious right was shameful.

            We’ll have to agree to disagree on this issue. But I do not like your increasingly Islamophobic tone.

            0
          4. She should not have been imprisoned in the first place – and she should be disproportionately compensated for time lost + apologised to.

            Who cares about Islamophobia; it’s not a lifeform

            0
          5. Islamophobia is like racism–not acceptable.

            It’s ironic that you get so worked up about Hindu “honor” on Twitter of all things but don’t give a damn about attacking our entire religion. Your double standards are glaring.

            The Supreme Court’s acquittal is a recognition that the sentencing was wrong and justice was not followed. You disagree with the Blasphemy Law and that is legitimate (so do I) but the reality is that Pakistan is an “Islamic Republic”. The Court took a very brave stand to acquit her (some of us weren’t even expecting that much).

            0
  4. What is up with the Mangalsutra and Sindoor comments? Are wedding bands for men also oppressive signs of ownership of men by women by same token?

    These are extremely insensitive comments from folks that don’t live/know the culture. I won’t pretend I know everything either, but the items like Mangalsutra and Shakhapola have a spiritual/alchemist thought behind them down to their colors and materials, just like wedding band in western culture is supposed to be worn on left hand because of direct arterial connection to the heart. Why needlessly shit on cultural tropes if you don’t live by it or care to know about it?

    Like I wouldn’t even shit on some Papuan tribes where the boys have to drink the elder male’s semen in a ritual to become grown men. Semen has spiritual properties, the Papuans might have as a culture developed some wisdom about this practice. I don’t subscribe to it for myself or my family, but they’re not coming to me telling me or my sons to drink their semen LOL. I on the other hand would not find any missionary zeal to “liberate” their culture by berating it. I will afford them mutual respect…

    Most real rural traditional conservative sanskari Hindus do not shit on Muslims on their regressive practices but rather give mutual respect. This is why triple talaq and Muslim polygamy etc bans never took off, because frankly we don’t give two craps about what happens behind the veil. These things are now finding currency finally because the Lutyens is finding commonality with the sanskari since they’re realizing that polygamy and triple T lead to higher Muslim demographic power… Now THAT is alarming. Recently there was a study by Indian army’s Border Security Force that found the entire border belt with Pakistan in Rajasthan is turning radical Muslim majority. This is where we care and will posture reactively on behalf of our Muslim bahenjis lol, otherwise dgaf

    6+
    1. The point is that people have the right to criticize whatever they like on Twitter, even if their criticisms are stupid. The mangal sutra is a sign of patriarchy for what it’s worth but all (most?) religions are deeply patriarchal.

      If we make ourselves the defenders of Hindu (or Muslim) “honor”, when are we ever going to have time to do anything productive?

      0
      1. Yes but Pakistanis have no right to say anything about Hinduism until and unless we clear up Hazrat Asia’s issue.

        It is a clear violation of the values of the Enlightenment..

        0
        1. Anyone has the right to say anything about whatever they want. Some mutual respect would be nice, but we can’t gurantee that. Such is life. Free speech is also an Enlighenment value.

          You want to police 210 million Pakistanis, I guess that’ll keep you very busy. Good luck to you!

          0
          1. ” Free speech is also an Enlighenment value”

            Pakistan doesnt believe in this, neither does India. Difference is that criticism of Hinduism is allowed in India, criticism of Islam isnt allowed in pakistan.

            0
  5. women like jewelry not men , marriage and sign(sindhoor) of being married are historically important for women. Nowadays there is engagement ring. Basic common sense , one ends up attacking others because one cannot defend. And call for reciprocity and accusation of bigotry on others is doubly laughable(though good strategy I guess). criticizing all of Islam is correct as Islam doesnt believe in settling the differences through civic means and allowing the rival factions to have a voice. That is the crucial difference between Islam and other religions. There was a time when xtian sects wouldnt allow other xtian sects or rival groups(religious or non religious) to have a voice. That is where Islam is right now. This idea of there being multiple sects of Islam with different views is therefore a meaningless point but good propaganda value I guess.

    0
    1. I could criticize all of Hinduism for upholding the caste system, which is completely unacceptable in the 21st century. But my taking that position would be as ridiculous as your position on Islam.

      There is a difference between wedding rings (worn by both partners) and the sindoor which only the woman is required to wear. But again, to me this is not really an important enough issue to get upset about.

      0
      1. you can hold it entirely against Hinduism as a whole regardless as many already do . Regardless of the fact that there are many texts and it is in the interest of a large section of hindus to not believe in Caste system. As I said, Historically and even now, men do not need jewelry and men are different from women in that marriage isnt an accomplishment socially as politically incorrect as it might seem . And I myself have critiqued this to a woman once and it was she who took offence to this. Let all the nasty arguments bloom and let society to reason it out, it will be painful, there is no avoiding it. Y must you have a problem with critique of Islam, mohammad if u believe in your words to allow even “stupid criticism of hinduism?”. Muslims shouldnt dictate to others on this.

        0
        1. I think your views on religion are essentialist. But you can hold them if you wish.

          Some women may defend sindoor and mangal sutra, it doesn’t mean that other women can’t find a feminist argument against them. Many Muslim women defend the hijab and burka while others are outraged by them.

          0
          1. sindhoor and mangalsutra arent hijab or burkha , stop the false equivalency. My views are essentailist in the only sense it matters to me, does it have real affect on the world?. Yes they do. And does it matter that they do, absolutely. How much does it matter?. All our freedoms and the very way of our life are affected by them. It matters that much. Religion is a force, it has been a shaper of human destiny. People do challenge it.

            3+
  6. As person who actually has mangalsutra, let me correct the notion that it is equivalent to hijab or burka. Because none of my colleagues know I have one. The good practice is to hide it from public. Harischandra play tells you that his wife is surprised when a stranger ( her incognito husband) mentions her mangalsutra. Because only her husband is aware/ able to see it.

    None of the Southern women have sindoor , even my great grandmother.

    Let the crazies continue…..

    7+
    1. Violet,

      I think the mangalasutra is called a thali among the Tamils. Made of gold and handed down to the sons.

      My mother got hers from my fathers mother. Its supposed to be given to me the only son. My mother almost never wore it, its in some bank vault. I wont be given it as I “might give it to some woman !!”.

      Same with my sisters, the thali given by their husbands is in a bank. They consider it too ostentatious as does my mother.

      1+
  7. Why do Pakistani spell it as “mangal sutar “ rather than mangalsutra? Lol Anyway I see pakistani elites now recycling the same Indian left argument about Hinduism. So there is no novelty in there.

    0
    1. This seems like one of those typical liberal balancing act statements.
      Indian liberals will sometimes mildly criticise Islam to maintain their position as ‘equal oppotunity offenders’ or whatever.

      IMO Ms. Zakariya knows that she is attacking a very weak strawman. Maybe she didn’t think it would provoke the kind of reaction it did because she might have seen Indian liberals regularly make such statements and live.

      0
  8. I wanted to say here that I do support Ms. Zakariya’s right to criticize any religion. My own curiosity was about the word “atleast”.

    This is a word I have heard H1B Indians use many, many times. Atleast, Americans — nahin karte. Atleast, America main — nahin hota.

    To me it signifies that the speaker is still not able to psychologically separate him/herself from India, and still has it as a reference point. 10000 miles away, India is still casting a shadow on their expectations and fears.

    I see a similar sentiment here with reference to Hinduism. Whats surprising though is that Sabahat’s family probably converted to Islam centuries ago. By this time, Hindu traditions (including patriarchal ones) should be a mere curiosity for her (especially given Hindus are only 1.6% of the population in Pak, and not very prominent) and Hindu traditions should no longer cast a shadow on her own reference points.

    I am genuinely surprised by this. It appears that Pakistani elites(?) still fear Hinduism and need to reassure themselves of their distance from it. Its possible that this fear is less prominent among the Pakistani Muslim masses.

    I would have also thought the position of Hindus as a minuscule, marginalized minority might have made her more sympathetic to them. Usually liberals desist from such sweeping remarks about a minority group in their country.

    9+
    1. The point is that she has the right to make whatever criticisms she likes. People are free to ignore them. Requiring her to say nasty things about Islam before saying anything about Hinduism is quite ridiculous.

      What was the context of her tweet? Perhaps someone had said something disparaging Islam, so she said “at least Islam doesn’t do this” (not that that is a good argument). Also, Pakistanis have quite a lot of exposure to Hindu traditions from your movies and soap operas so it’s not strange that she picked up on sindoor and mangal sutr.

      0
      1. well if she does have the right to criticize as she likes, why not reciprocate and accept others too have the same right with regards to Islam, why do people bitch so much.

        1+
          1. No one said it is fine to be “Hinduphobic”. If you used the same language about Hinduism that you’ve used about Islam (“primitive” and “backward”) many of your Hindu commenters would probably be quite offended.

            It seems Muslims are the one remaining group of people in the West that it is OK to be bigoted towards.

            Asking for an entire religion to not be reduced to generalizations like “primitive” doesn’t seem like too much to me.

            0
          2. The ship sailed on the “liberal Islamic Republic” long ago.

            It is possible to be against the Blasphemy Law and Islamophobia at the same time.

            It is very difficult to engage with someone who refers to Islam as “primitive” and “backward”. Ask yourself if you would so easily make such a generalization about Christianity for example.

            0
          3. @Zack
            “Christianity imprisoned someone for blasphemy for a decade”

            It is not just the idea of blasphemy or punishing for blasphemy. It is just using these laws to lynch someone , with the legal process being so deficient . If blasphemy trials in Pakistan are conducted in the same way highway speeding proceedings are conducted , that would be half-fine. I don’t mind any country having it’s own set of laws , including blasphemy. But given that, a fair and decent legal process should be conducted . In any case, judicial process should not be cowed down or arm twisted by mobs or threatened with violence and should be conducted calmly. Judges and witnesses should be free from fear or favour.

            1+
          4. There is a blasphemy law ongoing in Spain at the moment for some reason I’m rather sanguine about it.

            I sense there is a golden mean; one should be liberal but not post-modern.. haha

            0
          5. Would you say the same things about Jesus Christ as you are saying about the Prophet of God?

            It’s fine to be against specific laws and angry about a miscarriage of justice. Generalizing about an entire religion is a bit more problematic.

            0
        1. Of course people can criticize Islam. I was just pointing out the double standard on BP where we have to be extremely sensitive to Hindu issues but can disrespect the Prophet of God.

          I’m not policing Twitter to defend Muslim “honor”.

          0
          1. We are not sensitive to Hindu issues at all-
            In fact I am quite partisan to the Mughals, Pakistan & Islam.
            I just cannot forgive Pakistan on the Hazrat Asia case and if I have to choose between Pakistan or Liberalistan, I will choose Liberalistan.

            0
          2. Really? Remember when Sri Hanuman could not be called a “monkey God”?

            But the Prophet of God can be called a pedophile? Double standard much?

            “Liberalistan” doesn’t exist.

            0
          3. Show me a person imprisoned in India for calling Lord Sri Hanuman a monkey god.

            Rest assured if there were such an incident I would be super-scathing about Hinduism simply to prove a point for liberty and freedom.

            Just as Pakistan insists that every Indo-Pak issue circles back to Kashmir; I must insist every discussion about Pakistan circles back to Hazrat Asia. It’s the least we owe her.

            Islam and Mo deserves zero respect when there’s an innocent woman imprisoned in their name.

            Yes and Hazrat Asia makes a very valid point maybe Mo married Hazrat Khadijah (I like her; I am her direct descendant after all) simply for her money.

            Why can’t we discuss these things freely?

            1+
          4. You got super upset about Sri Hanuman being called ” monkey God”. Your bias is showing.

            I’m done here. The level of Islamophobia on this blog is becoming very disturbing to me.

            0
          5. Hazrat Asia’s unlawful imprisonment is very disturbing to me.

            Her safety and security trumps your discomfort buddy.

            I wish more “liberal” Pakistanis would recognise that rather than be collaborators with the regime.

            0
          6. I agree with you about “Hazrat Aasia’s” prison sentence. She should have been let go after her acquittal. Hopefully, she will get asylum in a Western country.

            But that doesn’t excuse nasty comments about the Prophet of God or his wives. It was Hazrat Khadija who proposed to the Prophet of God, so no he didn’t marry her for her money.

            All I can do is to stop reading and commenting on this blog. You are welcome to continue disrespecting Islam but then you will lose the entire Pakistani audience, even those of us who are otherwise on your side.

            0
          7. Unfortunately I don’t get paid to blog, tweet or write so I don’t really care who my audience is..

            Yes but Pakistanis must not only agree about the prison sentence but stand with her. Remove the Qanun and compensate her (generously) for 10yrs of lost life.

            It is only when Pakistanis are shocked do they understand that their claims of Islamophobia are hollow. Let’s clean up our own house; ur earlier suggestions as to why I still identify as a Pakistani are intriguing.

            0
          8. I don’t know what the big deal is about calling Hanuman a monkey god (technically, he’s the son of the Wind God, and worshiped not for being a god but for faithfully serving one: Rama.)

            The term used to describe Hanuman (and Sugreeva and Vali and the rest) is “Vaanar”, which literally means “anthropomorphic monkey” (or at least that’s what I’ve always believed.)

            3+
          9. The basis of dialogue can only be mutual respect. If you are nasty about our religion, which is a–perhaps the–major aspect of our culture and identity, then we cannot engage with you.

            Removing the Blasphemy Law is beyond my or any other individual Pakistani’s abilities. Islamic laws cannot be removed in an “Islamic Republic”. That’s unfortunately not how reality works.

            0
          10. Every Pakistani has a part to play. The understandable outrage you feel at the insult of your religion must be equalled/exceeded by the outrage over the Blasphemy case.

            Until and unless Liberalistanis don’t grasp that we will never become a Liberal Islamic Republic (which is not a contradiction look at nos ancetres ces Mughlais)

            0
          11. @Zack

            “I am her direct descendant after all”

            Out of interest: have you actually looked at your genetic make-up? Or is this more of family lore (which could be totally factual too, of course, just untested)?

            And is the descent from Khadijeh from her offspring from previous marriages or do you descend from Mohamed too?

            0
  9. Criticism of ‘mangal sutra’ (married pendant) and ‘sindoor’ (vermilion marriage mark) is very welcome! Symbols of patriarchy have no place in societies of future. Such criticism will help Hinduism in remaining relevant and thrive in future. Afterall, it’s the ever changing and evolving nature of Hinduism that enabled it to thrive for so long.

    1+
  10. “To me it signifies that the speaker is still not able to psychologically separate him/herself from India, and still has it as a reference point.”

    It has to do with what is perceived as mainstream “Indian” culture in the West/ out side of India is “Hindu” culture only. There is no exclusive muslim/buddhist/christian culture specific to the subcontinent(which is popular) ,so automatically everything related to India/Subcontinent is “Hindu” culture (Yoga/Vegetarianism/Holi/Diwali) . This manifests even in the criticism of Indic culture as criticism of hinduism. In India/West Left its “Brahminical patriachy” (Mangalsutra, Sindoor) while in Muslim majority country their untouchables(chooras) culture they again draw it from the caste system. Mohammed Hanif , quite liberal, too drew that inference. Recently a western journalist linked Blasphemy to caste.

    I dont think they fear hinduism as much as defending Islam, we too have our share of “Hindu atheist” type folks who defend Hinduism by labeling the wrongs as to “foreign” influence , Sabahat is also doing the same. In my interaction i have seen conservatism manifests differently for man and woman, and even if women might not be that aggressive in matters of faith their conservatism comes through with how much rights/freedom/modern their religion affords a woman and stuff.

    ” Afterall, it’s the ever changing and evolving nature of Hinduism that enabled it to thrive for so long.”

    Hinduism thriving or not has nothing to with its evolving / non evolving nature. This is something we Hindus have told our self to feel good. There are other real life/world factors (Demographic,caste,military,economic) but hinduism supposed liberalism has nothing to do with why it has survived.

    1+
    1. I am not sure that Ms. Zakariya is conflating Hinduism with India, as a lot of Westerners and Middle Easterners are prone to do. She speaks Urdu, and surely she knows that language comes from India and is a marker of Indian Muslim culture. I think the comparison here is specific and sharp to Hindu religion.

      But it could defending Islam. Although I am not sure what threat Hinduism holds for Pakistani Muslims. How many has she even possibly met in her lifetime, in Pakistan ? Or is it the influence of Pakistani textbooks ?

      0
      1. Majority of liberals on either side sub consciously do make the hindu-india/ muslim-pakistan connection. Its not strange at all. On urdu i think you are taking a leap by thinking that she feels that urdu is a “Indian” muslim thing (Note in her tweet she says “muslim” culture and not Indian “muslim” culture. ). For Pakistani mughal/ urdu etc need not be a Indian thing since India does not proactively claim/contest its Urdu/Mughal past with Pakistan.

        India officially sort of gave up Urdu as soon as Pakistan made it its official language. So for a Pakistani its a Pakistani thing irrespective of where it originated. Similar to how Sri Lanka can claim a monopoly on sub continental Buddhism irrespective of where it originated.

        1+
        1. Let me put it another way. 2nd and 3rd generation Indian Americans are unlikely to think about their lives and expectations by making comparisons to India. This is why they differ so much from their parents. They are Americans, while they may have Indian heritage, India is not a reference point for them in terms of marriage, gender relations and career/life expectations.

          You wont hear many 3rd generation Indian Americans say, hey I will take this crappy work arrangement, at least I am not having to deal with Indian —.

          Here we have an nth generation Pakistani Muslim who grew up in a 98% Muslim country, with possibly more contact with Christians and Chinese than Hindus. Yet she is seemingly reconciling herself with patriarchy in Pakistan by telling herself that Hindu women have it worse.

          1+
          1. But I will say this in Pakistan’s defense; what India has done in Kashmir in 1947 is something that has scarred the national psyche.

            I don’t think anyone can understand just how passionately the Pakistani Qaum feels about Kashmir; think about the French feelings on Alsace-Lorraine between 1871 (?) and 1917..

            What is academic for most Indians (ex the Pandits) is very real to all Pakistanis..

            I have to be fair to both sides..

            0
          2. I don’t think she is necessarily saying “Hindu women have it worse”.

            Someone must have said something negative about Islam so she countered with criticizing Hinduism–a pretty typical move in India Pakistan debates. She used an example based on who she was responding to. It’s not as weird as if she just pulled it out of thin air.

            There’s nothing wrong with her point that sindoor etc is a sign of patriarchy just as burqa is. In another tweet, she says that even wedding rings are a sign of patriarchy. All religions are patriarchal to a certain extent.

            0
  11. “No one said it is fine to be “Hinduphobic” ”

    it is you who defended her by saying it is ok for people to criticize, even if it is “stupid comments”.

    “Removing the Blasphemy Law is beyond my or any other individual Pakistani’s abilities. Islamic laws cannot be removed in an “Islamic Republic”. That’s unfortunately not how reality works.”
    “…nothing excuses insult for islam/mohammad”
    ” you will lose ‘liberal pakistani readership'”.
    “…one shouldnt call bangladesh ‘genocide’ of 1971 as ‘genocide’ “.
    “…practical reality is that there is nothing we can do about it”
    “The ship sailed on the “liberal Islamic Republic” long ago.
    It is possible to be against the Blasphemy Law and Islamophobia at the same time.”

    A selection of phrases and statements one can use to identify statements of shurg it light fake liberal. Can save time

    2+
    1. Look, everyone has the right to criticize. I don’t believe in going around and policing Twitter.

      At the same time, people can only engage in dialogue if there is some basis of mutual respect. Derogatory comments about people’s religions are not a good basis for a respectful conversation.

      Recognizing the fact that once so-called Islamic laws are introduced, it is very difficult if not impossible to remove them doesn’t make someone a “fake” liberal.

      I’m just arguing for consistent standards to be applied. We shouldn’t be super respectful of one community and have a free for all when it comes to the other.

      0
  12. few more statements of fake liberal.
    “Look, everyone has the right to criticize. I don’t believe in going around and policing Twitter.”

    “At the same time, people can only engage in dialogue if there is some basis of mutual respect. Derogatory comments about people’s religions are not a good basis for a respectful conversation.”

    “Recognizing the fact that once so-called Islamic laws are introduced, it is very difficult if not impossible to remove them doesn’t make someone a “fake” liberal.”

    “I’m just arguing for consistent standards to be applied. We shouldn’t be super respectful of one community and have a free for all when it comes to the other.”

    “Recognizing the fact that once so-called Islamic laws are introduced, it is very difficult if not impossible to remove them doesn’t make someone a “fake” liberal”

    It is impossible to remove them is it?. With likes of you it is. Thankfully majority of people arent like you in this world so progress did happen.

    Play these dialectical games with fellow apologists, doesnt work here. when you have Equated criticism of Islam by pleading helplessness with regard to islamic laws and call for reciprocity and mutual respect, you have betrayed your priorities. It is this reason for which criticism of Islam is necessary as it provides the legitimacy to all those laws and horror. You know this very well and have convinced yourself that all you are asking for is “mutual respect & reciprocity”, no you are not.

    No reciprocity should be given as long as laws are bigoted. The things that cause harm has to be brought to an end first. “Islamophobia” is your tool to deflect and defend the attack on this islamic legitimacy that provides means to harm non muslims. That is also the reason I do not take this ” you have an essentialist view on Islam” seriously. Because it is you who has an essentialist view on Islam and wish to protect it from criticism and thereby perpetuate the harm on non muslims. You just dont say it but we see it for what it is nonetheless.

    2+
    1. It is very difficult to remove “Islamic” laws in a country which calls itself an “Islamic Republic”. The backlash to Aasia Bibi’s acquittal should tell you how easy it is for religious extremists like the TLP to bring Pakistan to a standstill. It shouldn’t be that way but it is. Reality has to be recognized whether we like it or not.

      Some people undertand nuance. Too bad you aren’t one of them.

      0
        1. There are certain stereotypes about Pakistan which persist. Mobs shutting down the country doesn’t do us any favors.

          But you can criticize a country and certain of its laws without going so far as to call an entire religion “primitive”.

          0
      1. compendium of statements of fake/pseudo liberal.

        “Look, everyone has the right to criticize. I don’t believe in going around and policing Twitter.”

        “At the same time, people can only engage in dialogue if there is some basis of mutual respect. Derogatory comments about people’s religions are not a good basis for a respectful conversation.”

        “Recognizing the fact that once so-called Islamic laws are introduced, it is very difficult if not impossible to remove them doesn’t make someone a “fake” liberal.”

        “I’m just arguing for consistent standards to be applied. We shouldn’t be super respectful of one community and have a free for all when it comes to the other.”

        “Recognizing the fact that once so-called Islamic laws are introduced, it is very difficult if not impossible to remove them doesn’t make someone a “fake” liberal”

        “Removing the Blasphemy Law is beyond my or any other individual Pakistani’s abilities. Islamic laws cannot be removed in an “Islamic Republic”. That’s unfortunately not how reality works.”
        “…nothing excuses insult for islam/mohammad”
        ” you will lose ‘liberal pakistani readership’”.
        “…one shouldnt call bangladesh ‘genocide’ of 1971 as ‘genocide’ “.
        “…practical reality is that there is nothing we can do about it”
        “The ship sailed on the “liberal Islamic Republic” long ago.
        It is possible to be against the Blasphemy Law and Islamophobia at the same time.”

        ” It shouldn’t be that way but it is.Reality has to be recognized whether we like it or not.”

        “Some people undertand nuance. Too bad you aren’t one of them.”

        I find this “nuance” laughable and amusing. Also, it is “understand”, not “undertand”. Your english skills are going for a toss?. Oh, I do get the nuance you are trying to sell as cleverly as possible. The least you should do is credit me for identifying it.

        “But you can criticize a country and certain of its laws without going so far as to call an entire religion “primitive”.”

        Actually you can call it if it provides the source for those laws and in part explains negative spiral of that country.

        1+

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.