That's very true. Some of the liveliest political debates I've ever witnessed have been between 2 Hindus. 'Far-right' has also served as a convenient label, in many cases.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
India: Muslim Teenager in UP Arrested Under 'Love Jihad' Law for Walking With a Hindu Friend
- Thread starter danieldemol
- Start date
-
- Tags
- arrest india love jihad
That's very true. Some of the liveliest political debates I've ever witnessed have been between 2 Hindus. 'Far-right' has also served as a convenient label, in many cases.
stvdv
Veteran Member
I did not hear others complain, so it's maybe just Holland which is excluded from viewing
stvdv
Veteran Member
I found a simple solution though ... I installed a portable TOR-browser under "Windows10".
TOR-browser is great for these blocked sites. Finally I could read your linked site
I have a few important notes on this article though (my opinions of course):
1) Jihad means any effort to promote Islam
I totally disagree with this POV. I don't follow Imams with their faulty concepts on Jihad (external fight). KEY in Spirituality is always introspection
Originally "Jihad" means "fight your inner enemies (introspection) ... so kill your ego (desire, jealousy, anger, hate etc), not to kill others".
But understandable that Muslims in 700 did not understand this concept. People rather point fingers at others (fight others). Introspection is much more difficult. The real Emperor is not the one who conquers another country, but the one who conquers his inner enemies; e.g. anger, desire etc.
2) Love Jihad is only between Muslim men and non-Muslim women
I also disagree with this POV.
Originally "Love Jihad" means to fight your inner desires and when you conquer them, automatically "Love" emerges out of this inner battle. Love has always been there, but your inner enemies (e.g. desire, jealousy, lust, anger, hate etc.) veiled the Love which has been dormant inside all the time
Again understandable that in the time of barbarians they did not get the deeper meaning of "fight your enemies", and only looked outside
3) marriage between Muslims and non-Muslims seems one-way traffic
I agree with this, and this is a dangerous concept. I applaud India to STOP this at the root. Religions who try to evangelize, using the method of making babies with non-Muslim women is sick, and it should be stopped. So, I totally support the new laws in India. Ban evangelizing is a good first step towards Peace. Evangelizing, esp. using external Jihad means War, not Peace.
They believe there will be only Peace if all are converted to Islam. And Christians in general believe that there will be Peace only after all have heard of Jesus (or converted). Many believe that Jesus will only return to Earth after all humans on earth have heard about Jesus, hence their fanaticism in evangelizing.
And this is not only dangerous for other "non evangelizing" faiths, but also for Atheists and Humanists etc. And because the West is a democracy, you will gradually maneuver your self into Islam (if Islam grows fastest; otherwise Christianity). Because the majority determines the Law. IF majority is Muslim THEN Sharia Law will be the default Law. In Holland this question was asked in an interview, and the expert said "Yes, we are a democracy, so IF the majority is Muslim THEN Sharia will be the Law". This we should avoid at all costs.
Note: But, we need not worry about this I think. Because the Scientists have computers now, so they have plenty simulation programs on this issue, and they know by now that IF they don't STOP this, Science will be Islamic/Religious very soon. So, I am convinced they found already a solution to stop this from happening
I don't see it quite that way. I see it as being about the free competition of ideas vs anticompetitive means of coercion such as love jihad.
Also if you were to simply use the word prosletysation most non-religious people would be against it, because it carries connotations of coercion in the English language as far as I'm aware.
However if one were simply to define proselytising as the right to criticise the practices and principles of religion I'm inclined to think that many non-religious and secular humanists would agree that it is fair play.
In other words there is some nuance there and it is not a straightforward Abrahamic / Dharmic dichotomy.
Nothing is straightforward with regard to India, and these issues.
stvdv
Veteran Member
RF is a good example that it works to have a Law "Do not proselytize" ...."to not impose". We should not even try to lead others away of their (non) faith.
My Master takes it one step further "it's easy to not evangelize, but to encourage the other in his (non) faith shows "real respect" for the other's (non) faith"
It's interesting to me that only 8 of India's 29 states even have such laws currently. Here's another long document for anyone looking to research it. The folks who oppose such laws are making a lot of noise, and will continue to do so in the years to come.
State Anti-conversion Laws in India
stvdv
Veteran Member
Thank you for this link. Good one. It clearly shows that India allows other religions to practise their religion BUT not to evangelize.
That is Perfect. And India shows the world the right example. India can do this, because the majority is Hindu. In Holland the majority is Christian, so they can't do that. So, it seems India is in it's right with the new Law. And my common sense says that this is the correct way. Works well on RF too.
Riders
Well-Known Member
Which one was arrested Muslim or Hindu? Its mean, I hear about the God and Godesses of love from the Hare Krishnas and I've been to a Hindu service on the net, itś disappointing but I am not surprised.
Did this take place in AMerica?
Riders
Well-Known Member
Itś an ok law but arresting this young person is not ok.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Yes, I don't like people being arrested over friendship either, I also don't like lawsuits etc.
Just don't allow them to marry, if that is the Law
And if the girl says they are just friends; not planning to marry
Then no need to put the boy in jail I would think
Last edited:
The Muslim boy according to my understanding.
It took place in India, although as I understand it both were escorted to the police station by the mob.
It took place in India, and was reported as an arrest. It wasn't a conviction. Police were suspicious when they saw a young couple. one of them Muslim, and one Hindu. So they made an arrest. Most likely the young man was released a few hours later.
ajay0
Well-Known Member
I totally support inter-caste, inter-religious and international marriages as I believe this will help to blur and finally eliminate the artificial lines dividing humanity.
However such marriages should be based on love and mutual respect and understanding. Love bombing to increase the numbers of one's religion through interreligious marriages will only create conflict and misunderstanding in society rather than reduce it.
A Zoroastrian woman named Kamalrukh has also recently complained of her muslim husband and family's coercion to convert her to Islam and to leave her zoroastrian religion after marriage. She attributes such coercion of damaging her subsequent family life .
Wajid Khan’s wife Kamalrukh alleges in-laws forced her to convert to Islam
Islam during the times of Muhammad was highly progressive in terms of women's empowerment, as he banned female foeticide and ensured the rights to own property, marital and inheritance rights for women.
Muhammad Was A Feminist | HuffPost
However, Islamic society was not able to follow up on the reforms instituted by Muhammad, and this is one of the reasons why we have the likes of the barbaric Taliban and ISIS in the midst of world civilization.
Kemal Ataturk is the only muslim leader in recent times who created reforms in Turkey empowering women. His foster-daughter Sabiha Gökçen was the world's first female fighter pilot.
Ataturk is creditted with changing Turkey from being the 'sick man of europe' (as it was derisively called then) to a strong and progressive nation through his groundbreaking reforms, similar to Muhammad's own reforms in his time.
Here I must also say that honour killings in Hinduism are also taking place in case of inter-caste marriages within the hindu fold and other ridiculous reasons, especially in rural areas. And consequently Hinduism can also not claim to be a progressive religion at present till all such issues come to an end and properly accounted for administratively and legally speaking, and women's empowerment is promoted vigorously.
Women's empowerment will go a long way in raising mankind from primitive barbarism to a higher state of human culture and civilization marked by peace and prosperity.
However such marriages should be based on love and mutual respect and understanding. Love bombing to increase the numbers of one's religion through interreligious marriages will only create conflict and misunderstanding in society rather than reduce it.
A Zoroastrian woman named Kamalrukh has also recently complained of her muslim husband and family's coercion to convert her to Islam and to leave her zoroastrian religion after marriage. She attributes such coercion of damaging her subsequent family life .
Wajid Khan’s wife Kamalrukh alleges in-laws forced her to convert to Islam
Islam during the times of Muhammad was highly progressive in terms of women's empowerment, as he banned female foeticide and ensured the rights to own property, marital and inheritance rights for women.
Muhammad Was A Feminist | HuffPost
However, Islamic society was not able to follow up on the reforms instituted by Muhammad, and this is one of the reasons why we have the likes of the barbaric Taliban and ISIS in the midst of world civilization.
Kemal Ataturk is the only muslim leader in recent times who created reforms in Turkey empowering women. His foster-daughter Sabiha Gökçen was the world's first female fighter pilot.
Ataturk is creditted with changing Turkey from being the 'sick man of europe' (as it was derisively called then) to a strong and progressive nation through his groundbreaking reforms, similar to Muhammad's own reforms in his time.
Here I must also say that honour killings in Hinduism are also taking place in case of inter-caste marriages within the hindu fold and other ridiculous reasons, especially in rural areas. And consequently Hinduism can also not claim to be a progressive religion at present till all such issues come to an end and properly accounted for administratively and legally speaking, and women's empowerment is promoted vigorously.
Women's empowerment will go a long way in raising mankind from primitive barbarism to a higher state of human culture and civilization marked by peace and prosperity.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Nice perspective. Indeed ALL religions have accumulated messed up habits, and until all these are sorted out, there will not be Peace. There will be no real Islam
You could try viewing the article in Tor Browser, which hides your country of residence.
In my own tradition girls are also discouraged from marrying outside of their own tradition but men are not. So that should then also be considered as "love jihad". The aim is to protect the continuation and propagation of one's own tradition.
Mixing religion and politics always spoils both.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Thank you, I got the same idea, after I posted "I can't view it", and indeed it worked perfectly. I used the portable Tor Browser version, not even need to install in windows, making it extra safe also (less or almost no change to be hacked anymore or privacy issues (grabbing passwords))
Yes, I agree. Though, the real "Love Jihad" I see a:
"my fight/war against my inner enemies (as lust, desire, hate, anger), and when won that war real Love emerges as the real conqueror"
Yes, this view we see in many traditions. I don't have this aim of propagation of "my" tradition, as I see all humans as "Beings". Though I love different traditions, and it's good to protect your own traditions, which makes me also realize that other traditions should be protected as well.
It is understandable that some are afraid of Muslims because of the 911 attack and the many bombings around the world (especially in Israel).
That fear motivates political decisions to limit Muslim extremists (those who join Jihads, one definition of which, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, is a fight against the enemies of Islam). Wikipedia goes further and says that a Jihad is a war against non-Muslims.
Indeed, Solmon Rushdie's book "Satanic Verses," which cast the beleaguered Islamic religion in an even worse light, resulted in a fatwa to assassinate him.
Christians should find it in their hearts to forgive those who fear and try to limit the power of a group of people who have been proven to make attacks.
To be politically correct, one must not blame the actions of all for the actions of a few (such actions would be construed as bigotry, despite the large numbers of incidents of terrorism).
Some cite the Muslim religion, itself, with issuing orders to fight enemies of Islam, and claim that it is a part of their bibles (or holy teachings).
Islam and violence - Wikipedia
Sharia Law has remedies such as beheading, flogging, and stoning. It seems rather mild for a teen to be merely arrested and questioned for possibly being involved in a jihad. Surely asking questions is not a serious breach of politically correct etiquette?
In many people's opinion, freedom of religion is fine as long as it doesn't result in the murder or maiming of those outside of the religion.
Would it be blasphemy to try to worship something other than the Muslim religion if one lived in a Muslim country, and would it be fair for them to have a beheading if someone was accused of blasphemy? Wikipedia (link above) says "The hadiths, which are another source of Sharia, suggest various punishments for blasphemy, which may include death."
Violence in the Quran - Wikipedia
The link above discusses violence in the Quran. Of course even the Christian bible has various incidents of violence, as well.
That fear motivates political decisions to limit Muslim extremists (those who join Jihads, one definition of which, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, is a fight against the enemies of Islam). Wikipedia goes further and says that a Jihad is a war against non-Muslims.
Indeed, Solmon Rushdie's book "Satanic Verses," which cast the beleaguered Islamic religion in an even worse light, resulted in a fatwa to assassinate him.
Christians should find it in their hearts to forgive those who fear and try to limit the power of a group of people who have been proven to make attacks.
To be politically correct, one must not blame the actions of all for the actions of a few (such actions would be construed as bigotry, despite the large numbers of incidents of terrorism).
Some cite the Muslim religion, itself, with issuing orders to fight enemies of Islam, and claim that it is a part of their bibles (or holy teachings).
Islam and violence - Wikipedia
Sharia Law has remedies such as beheading, flogging, and stoning. It seems rather mild for a teen to be merely arrested and questioned for possibly being involved in a jihad. Surely asking questions is not a serious breach of politically correct etiquette?
In many people's opinion, freedom of religion is fine as long as it doesn't result in the murder or maiming of those outside of the religion.
Would it be blasphemy to try to worship something other than the Muslim religion if one lived in a Muslim country, and would it be fair for them to have a beheading if someone was accused of blasphemy? Wikipedia (link above) says "The hadiths, which are another source of Sharia, suggest various punishments for blasphemy, which may include death."
Violence in the Quran - Wikipedia
The link above discusses violence in the Quran. Of course even the Christian bible has various incidents of violence, as well.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
@Clara Tea i really like what you write here, non judgmental and fact based in my view.
The only thing i want to add is when you speak of jihad, there is one other way of jihad too. The jihad from within each one of us, to fight our own demons, hate, anger, jealosy and so on, so we never hate others or our self. The internal battle to purify our own heart and mind.
That is the most important jihad in my view