From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: We Need A Hindu-Muslim Dialog (Was: Re: Muslim situation in India)
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 04:42:22 GMT


In article <s7kimINNem3@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, 
misra@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Boo!) writes:

> 	I think anil's point was that living in saudi arabia, the author
> had really no basis for saying what he did since the very country 
> he lives in practices the very things is says in his article. 

I don't see why.  He may live in Saudi Arabia, but he is an Indian
citizen who was writing on the state of affairs in India, not Saudi
Arabia.  The fact that he lives in Saudi Arabia means he cannot
comment on what is happening in India?  Clearly, we all live in the
U.S. right now, does that mean that we have no basis for discussing
anything in South Asia?  By that logic, this very discussion is
pointless.

In article <1992Apr11.214825.25064@midway.uchicago.edu>,
trivedi@curie.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:

> In article <1992Apr11.205003.20390@cs.yale.edu> ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

> >Your "tit for tat" comments totally missed the point and represent the
> >very bigotted perspective that may well be the cause of many of the problems.

> You obviously have no understanding of what caused the problems in the
> first place and what is fuelling them today. Or maybe you like to avoid
> looking the problem in the eye.

Not at all.  By all means, please do tell us how the state of affairs
in Saudi Arabia and Iran is the cause of the problems in India today.

> >What relevance does the situation in Saudi Arabia or Iran
					   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >have to the issues that were raised in the original article?  Did the
> >author say anything about other Islamic societies?  

> Well, the author lives in Saudi Arabia.
> Yes, he did bring up other Islamic societies.
> Yes, all Islamic societies which influence Indian muslims are relevant.

> >Is this not a classic example of pointing
> >fingers elsewhere to divert attention from the real issues?  

> No, it an example of pointing fingers to some of the real issues. :-)

> >sticking to the topic on hand... 

> You mean, only other people get to decide what is relevant? :-)
> >Snide remarks about distant societies ....

> Anyway, I didn't say anything nasty about Bangladesh. :-)
> Don't be so sensitive about Saudi Arabia or Iran; or do you not like 
> to hear the truth about them. You are not claiming that what I said
> is INCORRECT, are you? Only that I shouldn't have said it? :-)

What I object to is that you pick two "Islamic" societies and use this
as a basis for lumping all Islamic societies together.  You correctly
note above that you didn't say anything nasty about Bangladesh.  Why?
Malaysia and Bangladesh are both Islamic societies, and yet their
problems with minorities seem less numerous than those in India.
Clearly, your pointing fingers at Saudi Arabia and Iran as examples of
inevitable Islamic society attitudes towards minorities is unfair.
Indeed, if you would care to look into the religion itself, you will
find precise guidelines on tolerance towards minorities.

I digress.  I'm falling into the trap you built which was designed to
divert attention from the actual topic on hand, namely the status of
Muslims in India.  What I disliked most about your "tit for tat" style
is that it wasn't "tit for tat."  Instead, you went off on a tangent
of fingerpointing and stereotyping other peoples in far away places as
a means of justifying what you did not agree with.  Surely, if you
disagree with something the author said, you should be able argue your
case by telling us how he was wrong by pointing to *what he said* or
*facts that are relevant to the issue of Muslims in India*?  But no,
you tell us that the author is wrong because he lives in Saudi Arabia
which has a lousy record of dealing with a non-existent minority.
What kind of logic is this?  Who cares where he lives?  Tell us why
what he said is wrong by looking at what he said, not where he lives.

-- Shakil