The Quran insists that that while there are differences among faiths, it is up to Allah, and not man, to be the judge. For man, there is a clear principle (Surah 2:256): “La iqra fi al deen (Let there be no compulsion in religion).” (This instruction, incidentally, comes just after Ayat ul Kursi, a magnificent evocation to the power of Allah and his protection of man.) A second principle is equally unambiguous: “Lakum deen-e kum wal ya deen (Your religion for you and my religion for me).” It was not an accident that Ottoman Sultans gave shelter to Spanish Jews after they were driven out by the Catholic Inquisition.

This article touches on Tablighi Jamaat and also talks abt Deobandis:

http://indianmuslims.in/introduction-to-islam-in-contemporary-india/

and if this is how it actually is on the ground, is no cause for worry:

“…Now, the Tablighi movement offers a very unique version of Islam. It basically combines the immense importance of tawhid (oneness of God) with the Sufi concept of connecting to God at an individual level. Scholars like Yoginder Sikand have argued this in detail. For Tablighi Jamaat adherents, namaaz is but a means to connect to God (pray as if you are talking to Him) and also their overwhelming emphasis on islaah-e-nafs (cleansing of soul). Many of their leaders abhor the term Tablighi Jamaat as it gives an impression that they are preaching to others whereas the focus is in fact on one’s own self. The movement has borrowed heavily from the practices of traditional Sufism like individual azkaar (recitation of God’s name) and sometimes under the tutelage of a Sheikh (teacher). …”

That doesnt quite square with:

“… the growing appeal of Tabligue Jamaat’s severe, auster, and generally intolerant vision of Islam….”

though it could have gotten to that somehow from where it started out, I guess. Maybe RSS also has noble and elevating goals in its charter. I kind of remembered something from this article when I launched the first comment. But I know NIL abt this and Mohib and the others are ignoring your comments.

So we will likely not have any meaningful discussion on this and whether there is any divergence from stated goal to situation on the ground, or some error or overstatement on both sides, etc.

regards,
Jai

I am not blaming every form of Islam or all of Islam. Very specifically, in the late 1800s, and early 1900s, perhaps as a result of the fall of Muslim power on the subcontinent, or perhaps in response to a growing Hindu revivalist movement, a severe, fundamentalist form of Islam began to take root. Organizations and Institutions like Tablighe Jamaat, and later, Jaamat-E-Islami, and the Deoband Semininary, began to grow. The ideologies they hatched then have created most of the violence, in the name of Islam, that we have all been subjected to for decades on end now.

Much of that violence has been against Hindus – the ethnic cleansing of Kashmir, Pakistan and Bangladesh was the result of these ideologies – but a great many Muslims have also sufferred, and are also suffering, as a result of their views, so I hope that Indian Muslims will start to wake up to this (and the Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims, too, for that matter, because our borders are hardly sealed).

The mushrooming of terrorist groups that we see now are the natural offspring of the ideologies these people have been preaching for more than a century now, and it is only getting worse, and their vision, practice, and view of Islam is now the dominant one on the subcontinent. Therefore, terrorism in the name of Islam will only continue to get worse, in India. These are the groups and the ideologies that have changed the dynamics of our culture; they are the ones that destroyed our composite culture, and they deserve censure for it. Instead, they seem to get nothing but praise for it, for the “social work” they do. Fundamentalist Hindus and Fundamentist Christians also do a tremendous amount of “social work,” but that does not excuse them from the larger, societal problems they create, and the same applies to fundamentalist interpretations of Islam.

I understand why sometimes, a moderate Muslim might feel, hey Jaamat-E-Islami is OK, these guys are on my side, and I and my religion need some protection, too. I understand this because many Hindus, including myself, can at times have a similar type of view of the RSS – I’m not really one of them, but perhaps it’s not so bad that they’re around; we need someone to stand up for us. Plus, they do charity, right? And if I oppose them, they have ways to make me pay.

But things are spinning out of control now. I’m starting to think it’s time for us all to wake up to this, and reclaim our India. And while better security, etc, is abosolutely necessary for that, in the end, this violence was created by ideas, and can only be defeated by other, more noble ideas.

Last year there were around 500 extra judicial killings by Police, interestingly:
1. All those who were killed before their trial to court were Muslims.
2. Not even a single Hindu or Sikh.

And what exactly is the religion of the Naxals taken care of by the police? Shintoism?

If the answer is NO then obviously we will not agree with Koran as it holds people who do not believe in the prophets teachings as inferior.

AND if the answer is YES, then what’s all the fuss about? Why don’t Muslim countries allow other religious practices in their country? Why do Muslims in India will never go to a temple (when Hindus don’t mind worshipping at HajiAli dargha OR any of the Churches. I myself have been to HajiAli many times). Why do Muslims consider there’s is the only right way and everything else is myth.

Why do Muslims always try to justify any terrorist attack as a reaction rather then an action ? In that case isn’t Hindu anger also justified considering how they suffered for last thousand years and still are?

I have many Muslim friends (from India and Pakistan) and have posed this question to them aswell and have not gotten a valid response.