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: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:26:10 GMT


In article <1992Apr12.220553.20107@midway.uchicago.edu>, trivedi@curie.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) writes:

> SA:
> > Lest you have forgotten
> > what we are talking about, the topic is the status of Muslims in India.
> 
> I find it bizzare that you insist on define "the topic" for me to stick
> to. 

Alright, fine, let's have it your way then.  Since you have said
absolutely nothing on the original topic, we can safely conclude that
you have no comments which would dispute anything the author, Siddiqui,
said in his article.  Let us move on then, to a topic that you
*really* want to discuss, namely "Islamic societies west of India."
This, of course, includes Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Niger, and a host
of other countries and peoples, and not just Iran and Saudi Arabia.

> SA:
> >The author is an Indian citizen who happens to be a professor of
> >Economics at a Saudi Arabian university.  You conclude from this that
> >he is "financed by the Saudis" to lecture to Indian Hindus?  
>                                 ^^
> Nope. Read that again. I said he is financed by Saudis *and* he is
> lecturing to us. THAT IS TRUE.

No it's not.  As V. Nagarajan pointed out, Siddiqui's audience was quite
obviously the Muslim community in India.  To say that he is "financed
by the Saudis" is a very misleading statement.  He is an economics
professor at a university in Saudi Arabia and hence his salary comes
from the Saudis for his function as a professor of economics.
Similarly, if one is a professor of something-or-other in the US, one
is paid by Americans.  This does not mean one is "financed" by
Americans to do whatever one does outside of one's function as
professor.

> You want to know how emotional people can get about such things?
> Saudis actually kidnapped a person who was lobbying abroad for democracy 
> back home (he wasn't even in Israel), brought him home, and put him in jail. 
> Don't know if he is alive or not.

Dangling another carrot in front of me...  Saudi Arabia is not a
democracy.  We all know that.  It's a monarchy, a concept which is not
permitted by Islam.  But unpopular monarchies are not limited to the
Saudi Arabia.  We can look at South Asia itself.  Do Nepal and Bhutan
sound familiar?  What are the dominant religions there?

> >Once more, all you do is discuss why Saudi Arabia has a dismal record
> >of treating minorities.  Of course, the fact that there is basically
> >no religious minority in Saudi Arabia
> 
> So bloody what? The few that are there cannot practise their religion
> freely. 

Please answer the following questions -- I am genuinely interested:

1.) Which are the minorities you are talking about?
2.) What are their numbers and religions?
3.) In what ways can they not practice their religions?
4.) Are you implying that the large number of foreign workers are
forced to convert to Islam?
5.) What laws under Saudi constitution prevent these minorities (which
you will hopefully identify in answer to (1)) from following their
religions?

> Wrong again. I don't know who is your "WE".
> I am NOT just discussing the Muslims's complaints.
> I am talking about the Hindu-Muslim problem from our angle as well.

I see.  Well your angle seems to lead you rather far away from India,
well beyond the "Hindu-Muslim" dialogue you so strongly pushed for and
yet completely ignored in favor of pointing fingers at *two* countries
west of India where the majority is Muslim.

> >the history of how various regions in
> >India have been invaded by different groups 
> 
> No euphemisms please: not "groups", but MUSLIM ARMIES.

So you are restricting it to the Muslim armies who "invaded" parts of
India, ignoring of course, the British, the Portuguese, whatever.
Fine.  

> >as if all that somehow justifies or explains the discrimination ...
> 
> Does not justify, but EXPLAINS a lot.
> Only a complete fool can fail to appreciate the connection.

Only a complete fool, huh?  I'll leave it to the discretion of the
readers to decide on that one.  It seems to me that the majority of
Indians are of Indo-Aryan descent which would mean they are originated
from invading peoples.  After all, it appears that the Dravidians were
in the area first.  Given that, why is it that the Muslim migration
sticks out in your opinion, and what exactly does it explain?

> I am not "disputing" the author. He is telling his side, I mine. 
> I was saying that there is another side: THERE IS.

Indeed?  So the other side you are referring to is not in India, but
far away in remote Saudi Arabia?

> >An attempt at character defamation on the basis of where the character lives
> 
> This is not a birthday party where we all have to be sweet and nice
> and only agreeable. We are talking about important social issues.
> I said I do not find the fellow credible: I DO NOT. 
> You are free to take a different stand. Those who discuss important
> issues should be able to tolerate disagreement.

I could tolerate disagreement, but that's not what you're doing.
You're talking about completely different things.  You don't find
Siddiqui credible, and yet the only reason you gave for that is that
he happens to live in a particular country.  You did not point *at
what he said* to show why he is not credible.

> >stating that Islamic societies have the worst record of treating
> >minorities.  
> 
> I said Islamic societies *WEST* of India.  I DO STAND BY THAT.
> IF YOU COULD JUST GET OFF YOUR DEFENSIVENESS OR SLAVE MENTALITY
> FOR ONE MOMENT, YOU MIGHT RECALL THAT ONE OF THEM BUTCHERED 3 MILLION
> OF YOUR OWN PEOPLE, WHILE THE REST OF THEM SUPPORTED IT.

The "rest" had little knowledge of what was really happening in
Bangladesh.  But yes, 3 million Bangladeshis were annihilated by the
Pakistani forces.  But your claim was that Islamic societies have the
*worst* record of treating minorities.  It is news to me that Hitler
was a Muslim, or that Cortez was a Muslim, or that the church of Spain
was Islamic, or that the British were Muslims in disguise who went and
tortured much of the world, or that all the European colonizers were
Muslims.  The Japanese who invaded Manchuria and demonstrated one of
the most brutal eras in history, were, of course, Muslims, as were the
various regimes in Vietnam and Cambodia.  The current Burmese
"administration" that is driving out Muslims, is itself, obviously
Muslim.  The Chinese crackdowns in Tibet were nothing other than a
massive Muslim plot, and Stalin was actually Muslim in faith.  The
white South African supremists were inspired by their faith, which,
how could it be otherwise, was Islam.  The former Argentinian junta
and Pinochet's Chile were purely Islamic in nature, and World War II,
the war where the largest number of minorites were massacred was a
totally Muslim affair.  The Soviets that marched into Prague or
Budapest and brutally cracked down any attempts at rebelling, were
actually Muslims, just like the Europeans who went westwards across
North America several hundred years ago, shooting everything in sight.
What the Australians did to the Aborigines, was because of their
Islamic faith, and the Dutch exploits in Indonesia were a result of
the *Dutch* being Muslim.  It was the Muslims who brought millions of
slaves from Africa to the Americas and worked them to death.

The list is endless.  Indeed, from the above, it would seem that the
whole world is Muslim.  My honest recommendation to you would be to
read up on history.

> Please don't rush to point out just how irrelevant such little details
> are. Because I'll tell you to buzz off any way.

Indeed, that seems to be the extent of your argument.

> >they are discriminated against, and if they are, why that is so.
> 
> The discrimination is fuelled by suspicion, and hostility.
> Each has its roots in history and each has its dynamics.
> You are too defensive to discuss details at present.

Please, I did not even say whether I thought there was or was not
discrimination, so there is no question of being too defensive.  If
you could bring yourself to address the discrimination question as it
relates to India, this discussion might even lead somewhere.

> >If you are merely going to go off on another world tour of criticizing 
> >random societies
> 
> You do have a problem reading. Try again: 
> 
> (i)	Not just criticizing, but citing HISTORY RELEVANT TO US.
>    	I.e., I am not criticizing their costumes, music, or cuisines,
>         but THEIR PAST AGRESSION  and  PRESENT SUPPORT FOR
>         FUNDAMENTALISM. 

Please define "fundamentalism."

> (ii)	Not random societies, JUST ISLAMIC SOCIETIES WEST OF INDIA.

Fine.  Shall we start in Egypt or Morocco?  Or would you like to
address the large Muslim society in South Africa (over one million)?
Or the very large Muslim community in the U.S. or Canada?  It's up to
you -- please do tell us all about the various Islamic societies west
of India and how they are so evil that it results in problems in
India.

-- Shakil