Pakistani?
Islam has had a violent past, just like other religions. If other religions have matured (or fallen away, in the eyes of a fundamentalist) I don't see why Islam cannot.
Didn't Christians see themselves as superior? How should those converts think of themselves?
The problem of self-image arises because the people in control of the Muslim religious establishment in India
still foster the view that India was a useless place before the coming of the Muslims, and that Muslims are superior by dint of their religion
even now, and that they should still have attitudes similar to the imperialist rulers of the early Muslim period - as that of foreign civilisers. But the social reality is that precisely because of this regressive attitude, the Muslims did not benefit from the modern English education which was brought to India by the Europeans, and now have fallen behind in many social and economic indicators.
This creates a clash. On the one hand, the average Muslim is told that he is superior, he is better than the people of the country he is living in, but on the other hand, he sees that he is among the poorest in the country, and his subculture is among the most backward.
This clash creates anger, and it is this anger which is threatening to engulf the Muslims of India today, and which has been responsible for all the Islamic terrorism in the world. It is this idea that even though we are superior, we are still behind others, so others must somehow be at fault, that is the driving force behind this hatred.
And this is not all. Even today, there are two social divisions among the Muslims in India, like castes. The Ashraf Muslims are the ones who claim descent from the Arab and Mughal invaders of India. The Ajlaf Muslims are the people who were locals and converted. The Ashraf consider themselves superior to the Ajlaf, and treat them badly.
This extended context will better help you understand the question. Should the Ashraf still view themselves as foreigners? Should the Ajlaf still have second-class status? How should the convert view himself?
Pakistani?
I would be highly offended if I were in your position. I know I find it offensive when I hear Islam had nothing before the west came. Sure, the Saudis were in tents but we already had one amazing Golden Age.
The problem is worse than you think. In Pakistan, the teaching of history begins with the coming of Arab raiders and Muslim armies, which is traced back to Mohammed's ascent in Arabia. The fantastically rich history before this period is simply not covered. The people of Pakistan have absolutely no affinity at all with what was probably the earliest and largest first civilisation in the world, that of the Indus valley, nor with the Hindu-Buddhist civilisation that was its successor.
This same attitude is echoed by the mainstream mullahs in India. This is extremely dangerous, too, from a national point of view - we can't have 13% of our people believing that they don't really belong in the country.
The problem is, the Indian and Muslim traditions were (or maybe still are) fundamentally incompatible, so the Muslim invasion and subsequent occupation was catastrophic for Old India and its culture. But these people refuse to accept that, and instead claim that civilisation came with the Muslims. What do you think of such a stance?
Pakistani?
React with outrage. The Mosque I attend is both Sunni and Shi'a, so none of us are fundimental. I imagine there are people like that here in Canada though
The students of the Darul Uloom are mostly theological students, who go on to become mullahs and qazis in the mosques in India. It is one of the world's premier Islamic universities, with a reputation among the orthodox faithful in India in the same league as Al-Azhar (for Sunnis) and Qum (for Shias such as yourself). They are also the most regressive arseholes imaginable. They were the guys who inspired the Taliban.
The question which arises when such things are brought up is: What comes first for a Muslim? His religion or his country? These Mullahs hold the religion even above national identity. When India was fighting a war against Pakistan, one person from the Darul Uloom refused to give his good wishes to Indian soldiers because they were fighting against Pakistani soldiers, who were Muslim.
Another question: in India, should Muslims be allowed to have their own laws when it comes to things like marriage, divorce, and inheritance? Because in India, each community is governed by its own code when it comes to matters of personal law, such as the things I stated above. This has the unfortunate consequence of putting these legal codes into the hands of these same mullahs from the Darul Uloom and other fundamentalist and regressive institutions.
Even today, a Muslim man in India can marry four wives, divorce any of them for any reason whatsoever by simply saying the word "talaq" thrice, and is not compelled to pay any alimony. The mullahs claim they can trace the origins of these laws back to the Quran and Hadith. What is your opinion on this issue?
If he created us all (however), we are all his children and he loves us all.
