From: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed A Khan)
Subject: Re: On Hatred towards Muslims
Reply-To: jakhan@IASTATE.EDU (Javed A Khan)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 17:59:51 GMT

In article <Apr.17.11.59.46.1992.22809@blaze.rutgers.edu>,
kumarv@blaze.rutgers.edu (kumar vadaparty) writes:
> 

[stuff deleted]
 
> (i). 
> [Historical]
> 
> Muslims ruled, with almost no respect to other religions except
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Why is the rule of these rulers classified as muslim rule? Just because they
were muslims? Was the British or the French rule called the *Christian* era?

Unjustfied identification of their rule as muslim rule has been instrumental
in marking the muslims as somehow responsible for the deeds of these rulers.
That these rulers had no respect for other religions does not potray the 
attitude that muslims in general have towards other religions. 




> in exceptions like Akbar's later era, for at least 500+ years (basic
> history). 
> 
> A number of temples were destroyed. Either under the name of "money"
> or hatred for religion or both.  In as much as current govt
> attrocities on people are being misrepresented by Ansari as hatred
> towards muslims either because of his paranoia or whatever, the Hindus
> can easily interpret such distrcutions to a deeprooted muslim hatred
> to Hinduism than mercinery reasons (how many mosques did Ghori destroy
> in India or Persia?).




Is it being implied that the non-ruling muslim citizenry took an active part
in the destruction of these temples?


Is there any doccumented proof which shows that the entire muslim community
conspired to do away with these temples?



> 
> (ii). 
> [Pre partition]
> When there was a freedom struggle for democracy, few muslims
> joined initially, many supported the british rule, and some even
> formed Muslim league whose primary goal was to support the British
> (Azad, a muslim says so).


Theres no doubt that there were many of them.

But there were muslims who believed in India.
Azad supported the Independence movement and the integrity of India.
He was a muslim too. There are muslims who didnt agree with the idea of
Pakistan. The proof is the millions who stayed back. That there were
few muslims visible among the leadership for Independence does not imply that
all muslims supported the idea of Pakistan. The constant 'suspicion of loyalty'
does not in any way help in solving problems. 



> 
> (iii). 
> [Currently]
> In the current India, the likes of Ansari, state that the
> distruction of temples is "a myth", and Arun never says a single
                             ^^^^^^^

Thats his view. His view cannot be taken to represent the views of the entire 
muslim community. There have been temples which were destroyed by invaders.
Thats a matter of shame. But why are muslims being blamed for the deeds of
these
invaders ? 

In any case he was probably reffering to the Babri masjid-RJB issue.




> sentence about this claim (not RJB, but general distruction of
> temples, my friend).
> 
> Posting these articles by ansari are justified on Freedom of speech.
> However, saying that (as AKG says) finally ansari concludes that "all
> the problems are actually the ruled versus the rulers, not so much
> religious" makes no sense. He clearly, clearly indicated that there
> was a muslim-hatred and then how can he say that religious hatred is
> not a problem. Is he stating these essays over a period of ten years,
> or something, so that he can be expected to change or evolve or
> whatever?
> 
> Trying to pretend as if there is no messup caused the muslims is a
> basic nonsense. So is the case from Hindus. Let us accept with open
> heart the messups and then try to forge collectively towards a solution.
> 
> Dont kid us, Mr Ansari. Thank you.

> 
> kumar.
> -- 


--Javed
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian