India just redefined its citizenship criteria to exclude Muslims

originally posted by: joeraynor
a reply to: JAGStorm

The history is long and complicated, and there isn't really a unified viewpoint either side holds. There have been periods of cooperation between the two, periods of non-remarkable coexistence, and many instances of genocide perpetrated by either side against the other. There are a string of maybe 50 specific incidents over the last 50 years where tens of thousands have been slain. Bengal is another major epicenter for Hindu-Muslim friction.

The whole situation sort of resembles Southern Spain in a way, where there have been periods where Muslims and Christians have lived together peacefully, and many less peaceful times.

Not sure if you watched the movie or series. The movie is a little one sided and actually caused protests when it was released and was called anti-Muslim. The series isn't about a single viewpoint as much as a sentiment and history. The series goes into depth about what you mentioned above including some of the bigger terror incidents and the backlash. To say it's complicated is an understatement. I probably shouldn't have used a broad bush and said all Natives, since many Muslims are Natives.

originally posted by: KrankBruder
a reply to: Hecate666

If muslim countries start being more open minded and less religiously stuck in the 5th century, maybe they can get back on the list but until then they just reap what they sow.

Uh, You got your times wrong. Fifth century is 400-499. Islam begins in the 7th century (600 AD).

I didn't state anything about the age of islam, I know how old it is. It was a generic sentence. I actually wanted to go even further back like [random] BC but just arbitrarily picked the 5th century.
I merely said that they are stuck 'religiously in the 5th century' meaning they behave like [generic] peasants from that time [or earlier] [from anywhere] who believe in all sorts. But yeah they are also stuck in their own religion, but if I wanted to say that, then I would have given your time line.

originally posted by: Homefree
Wasn't Pakistan created because the Muslims and Hindus could not get along?

This occured because India wanted Its independence from the UK there

was a mass exodus of the Britains living in India in 1947. The British

Viceroy of India knew that the Hindus and Muslims couldn't live together

in peace as it was the Brits who kept the peace there. My father was one

of them.

My Grandparents, brother and self came to England in 1947. My father was

part of keeping the peace between the Hindus and Muslims. I can still

remember the riots and carnage that went on it was bloody to say the least.

My father was there for a further three years before handing the reigns over

to the Indians. Prior to this there were no Pakistanis, they were ALL Indians

after the division instead of one country India........there were two nations

India (for the Hindus) and Pakistan (for the Muslims) divided by religion.

Interesting all that time ago they were not called Muslims but Mohammedans

which apparently is now not a politically correct term!

a reply to: Hecate666

Fair enough. I just get tired of people saying "islam" and "thousands of years," as if it was really old. It is 7th century. Rome had fallen.

a reply to: Hecate666

Fair enough. I just get tired of people saying "islam" and "thousands of years," as if it was really old. It is 7th century. Rome had fallen.

a reply to: Homefree

Yup... and it was because of british patrician policy.

Go figure once again colonialism echoes into today's world. Not surprised.

Should we do this in the UK? In the US?

We did it to the Japanese, so it wouldn't be the first time.

Which exactly why the US has no say in the matter.

Here's one for you.

When a person identifies themselves by their religion before anything else. They've already separated themselves from the indigenous people.

India was just playing catch up.

a reply to: KrankBruder

When the Muslims conquered India, they treated the Hindhis (and other local religions) far, far worse than they treated people in Christian or even Jewish countries. Christians and Jews were afforded at least some nominal protections as fellow "people of the book" but the people of India had none of that.

For that reason, the further East you go, the less tolerant toward Islam the locals tend to be. They have long memories.

a reply to: Metallicus

Let’s be honest...Muslims don’t play well with others.

They tend not to. People can leave Islamic cultures, and integrate into other cultures just fine normally. I think they just sort of get culturally converted to whatever is going on in the new host country. Where there are large percentages of a place that are muslim, the narrative goes a little differently; you see much greater levels of fundamentalism and radicalization, and aggression toward other groups. Islam has traditionally been a very expansionary religion, and the way it is structured gives tools and fuel for this to happen. Modern Europe doesn't appreciate the problem they've engineered for themselves.

I think what ultimately needs to happen is for the major clerical centers of the religion to undergo a reformation period. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, etc need to change, period, and the religion may gradually chill out and be mostly a cultural background thing, like Judaism is today. We definitely aren't there yet.

a reply to: Hecate666

Why go back? This is here, this is now! who cares what happened 20 years ago let alone 2000..

a reply to: KrankBruder

Sorry, but your title does not reflect the CAB correctly!

The CAB is a law speciically aimed at 'illegal immigrants' from India's neighboring countries, secifically Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, 'who entered India on or before 31 December 2014'. The idea behind this is that religious minorities from these 3 islamic nations would not be able to go back to their home countries and re-integrate as the non-muslim population from these countries have fallen from 20+% to sub 3% since 1947 (the year of partition). Hence theis citizenship is fasttracked They will be granted fast-track Indian citizenship in six years. So far, 12 years of residence has been the standard eligibility requirement for naturalisation. Nowehere does the CAB say that Islamic immigrants from these countries will be denied citizenship, rather they will need to apply trhough the regular route of 12 years.

The MSM naration, especially from the West, suggest 'Muslim rights' have been snatched. All existing 'legal' citizens of India irrespective of their religious affinity continue to be legal citizens and enjoy all rights.

A Reply to the OP

I wonder what is driving this type of attitude.

What do you folks think?

You said “I wonder what is driving this type of attitude?”

Yes yes. We all wonder.

I, for one, wonder why this type of exclusionary tactic is never considered a ‘worrisome development’ in countries where islam is the majority?

You asked if the UK and the USA should follow suit.

If islam ever becomes a majority in the UK or anywhere else. Or even just becomes a very large minority like thirty percent or so. Do you think they’ll suddenly stop ‘being islamic’?

They won’t. They’ll do what islam says to do. They always do. And islam doesn’t say “migrate to other countries, become large in number, and then ...........assimilate and join their culture because it’s better than islam”.

It says quite the opposite. And they act on the instructions of mohammed, as a culture, as a people, 100% of the time. As can be seen by their political actions in every single country that they have ever gained majority in.

Will islam ever become a majority in the UK? Sweden?
Birth rates are nothing short of massive among islamic communities in European nations. Immigration rates and illegal immigration rates and asylum rates are enormous.

Nah. No chance that the UK or anywhere else has to worry about Islam.

It’s just islamaohobic right wing propaganda. People just need to travel more.

Look I'm from Australia. The only Muslims I don't like are radicals and extremists. Every other Muslim I have ever met to my knowledge has been very friendly to me. And I have to my knowledge never actually met a radical or extremist Muslim.


As long as their faith doesn't impede on me or others and they abide by the Australian legal system then they are fine by me.

a reply to: MarlbBlack

And that's why we're still in the middle east, huh?

Saying we should keep to ourselves makes no sense if we are not doing that.

a reply to: ketsuko

I think Muhammad waged war on the pagans. Then again, he also allowed rape as the spoils of war if i remember reading right.

The United States of America outlawed Muslim immigration with the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act.
The Act was superceded by other legislation in 1965, 1978/9 and 1990 - although some provisions remain in place.
As of the 1990 legislation, members of the Communist party were still prohibited from citizenship.
How did we end up with John Brennan running the CIA?

ganjoa

I bet India would have extended that ban to other religions had those religions attacked their nation like Islamist Terrorists have.

Imagine if terrorists from a specific religion attacked your Parliment or Congress?

2001 terror attack on Indian Parliment

Bet you wouldn't be welcoming them with open arms.

The amount of baggage that come along with importing is just not worth it.

This is such a different mentality

Why take the gamble and risk lives of your citizens

Just another country feeling the negative effects.

But you just cant bring it up.....take it and thats that