Muslim clerics issue a fatwa ( edict ) against the National Song . . . .

[C~G]

Uh, no. "Father Heaven"? I've never heard that phrase before, and I wouldn't worship heaven anyway. I worship God; and the Earth is little more than his footstool; why would I worship it?

Nevermind.

 

[aussieboy]

Maybe the lyrics are just a pretext, the Muslim clerics may have different goals...

Or maybe it's just one of those 'hot button issues' of little importance like those that often plague the Western democracies.

Pretty ironic, really, since India's president is a Muslim.

 

[Winner]

Or maybe it's just one of those 'hot button issues' of little importance like those that often plague the Western democracies.

Pretty ironic, really, since India's president is a Muslim.

Probably.

But if you look at some European national anthems, you find much worse things.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

This time I'm with the Muslims. I wouldn't sing that; it's clearly identifying the land as a goddess. I'm a big fan of patriotic stuff, and I don't see why India shouldn't have their own patriotism. But I certainly wouldn't sing an American song of worship towards America. I love America, but it's not God.

Ahem. Pledge of Allegiance. Pretty ironic.

 

[Oerdin]

Thou art Durga, Lady and Queen,
With her hands that strike and her
swords of sheen,
Thou art Lakshmi lotus-throned,
And the Muse a hundred-toned,

Refrences to Durga (a Hindu goddess) clearly make the song religious. I'd say the muslims have a point about the song being religious and that it shouldn't be forced on students with different religious views.

 

[Oerdin]

Ahem. Pledge of Allegiance. Pretty ironic.

The "one nation under god" part wasn't originally in the song and it was added in by the religious right during WW2. I hope it eventually gets struck down and removed by the courts because I'm tired of the Christian extremists forcing their religion on everyone.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

The "one nation under god" part wasn't originally in the song and it was added in by the religious right during WW2. I hope it eventually gets struck down and removed by the courts because I'm tired of the Christian extremists forcing their religion on everyone.

I'm aware that it was added. I'm just pointing out how ironic it is that Muslims want to remove something that religious americans added, and Elrohir isn't on the 'expected' side of the argument.

 

[Kozmos]

I confirm and issue this fatwa against the national song of India.

 

[Shadylookin]

Why force children to sing a song in the first place let alone one that they feel degrades them? Shouldn't they be learning things like math instead?

 

[Capulet]

The more important issue here is - can Muslims be trusted if it comes to fight between their religion and their country ? If , for example , India , due to some crazy geopolitical shift , goes to war with Saudi Arabia , then can India's Muslims be trusted to side with their own country ?

Aneesh, Pakistan and India have fought three wars. There are alot of Muslims in the Indian Army.

Has there ever been a mass Muslim mutiny in the army during a war against Pakistan? No. If it hasn't happened before, I doubt it is going to ever happen. This is just a fatwa by a few misguided clerics, nothing else.

 

[Elrohir]

Ahem. Pledge of Allegiance. Pretty ironic.

Not really. The Pledge clearly refers to America as "One Nation, under God". Not as "One Nation, a God to everyone who lives in it". If it said that, I would refuse to recite it. I see a difference between saying a pledge that places your country in it's proper place (Above the individual, but below God) and one that puts the country above where it should be. (As a divine being, a goddess) As I said, I would not say any pledge to any organization, society or country that referred to anything as God, or divine, but what actually is God.

 

[7ronin]

The "one nation under god" part wasn't originally in the song and it was added in by the religious right during WW2. I hope it eventually gets struck down and removed by the courts because I'm tired of the Christian extremists forcing their religion on everyone.

The Pledge of Allegiance isn't song. The U.S. Congress did not officially recognize the pledge until late in 1945 after World War II had ended. The phrase "under God" was added to the pledge in June 1954 largely as a result of a campaign initiated by the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization for men. The KoC is hardly a Christian extremist group.

Whether you believe the words "under God" should or should not be a part of the pledge you have to understand that the mood of the United States was much different in the 1940's and the 1950's than it today. There was no religious right and there were no religious extremists as we characterize them today. The change was adopted and accepted with very little discussion; most people at the time simply took it for granted. It has only been in the last ten years or so that it has become a hot button topic.

 

[Taliesin]

Though not a Hindu, I would be comfortable singing the song, since I see nothing in it which is contrary to Christian or secular faith. If you change but a few words, it could be Wordsworth singing a celebration of England, for goodness' sake. I mean, as far as idolatrous gods go, land is a pretty benign thing to have reverence for, much more benign than money or nation at any rate. What's more, while land is not God, it is holy, and homeland (whatever it be) even more so. It is completely fair for a Hindu to talk about India being a divine mother, being Durga or Lakshmi, because that is some of the highest symbolic language of his religion: he's saying (or at least could be saying) simply that India is holy, and meaningful, and really important-- not God, but of God. If you insist on reading the song literally, then it contradicts itself, since India could hardly be two different goddesses at once; rather, the language is symbolic in a way that fundamentalist Christians and Muslims seem unable to grasp.

 

[Shaihulud]

Why does it talk about dreadful name? and it contains the name of a Hindu goddess Durga, a clear association of the country of India with her. It also idealises the concept of India with the divine, which i do not like. Imo nationalsim is a terrible thing if carried too far, its good for uniting the little people, but lets not carry it too far.

 

[The Yankee]

The song was written a long time ago , when accurate figures for the Indian population were not available .

And the problem with these religious nuts is that Muslims are already threatening to withdraw their children from schools unless the schools stop making students sing the national song !

What is wrong with that? The US has an anthem and a pledge of allegiance but the law says you cannot force a person to even stand for either. It used to be where it was mandatory, but I believe a group of Jehovah's Witnesses took it to court and won, as their religion does not allow for pledging allegiance to anyone but God.

If people don't want to sing this song for religious or even non-religious reasons, why force it?

 

[aneeshm]

Aneesh, Pakistan and India have fought three wars. There are alot of Muslims in the Indian Army.

Has there ever been a mass Muslim mutiny in the army during a war against Pakistan? No. If it hasn't happened before, I doubt it is going to ever happen. This is just a fatwa by a few misguided clerics, nothing else.

I was merely taking an extreme example to prove a point . I know that Muslims in the Indian Army can be trusted with my life , but that is because only the most nationalistic people join the army in the first place ! The more important issue here is that do Muslims feel that in a conflict between nation and religion , religion comes first ?

And another issue - does being a Muslim hinder , in any way , participation in the mainstream life of the country ?

These issues are important , because there is an ugernt need for reform within the community - they have literally tried to wall themselves off from any change . I wish their reformers good luck , and hope that the community can embrace reform before it reaches breaking point .

 

[aneeshm]

Refrences to Durga (a Hindu goddess) clearly make the song religious. I'd say the muslims have a point about the song being religious and that it shouldn't be forced on students with different religious views.

That part is not usually sung . Only the first two or three stanzas are actually sung . Only on special occasions is the whole song sung .

 

[aneeshm]

Though not a Hindu, I would be comfortable singing the song, since I see nothing in it which is contrary to Christian or secular faith. If you change but a few words, it could be Wordsworth singing a celebration of England, for goodness' sake. I mean, as far as idolatrous gods go, land is a pretty benign thing to have reverence for, much more benign than money or nation at any rate. What's more, while land is not God, it is holy, and homeland (whatever it be) even more so. It is completely fair for a Hindu to talk about India being a divine mother, being Durga or Lakshmi, because that is some of the highest symbolic language of his religion: he's saying (or at least could be saying) simply that India is holy, and meaningful, and really important-- not God, but of God. If you insist on reading the song literally, then it contradicts itself, since India could hardly be two different goddesses at once; rather, the language is symbolic in a way that fundamentalist Christians and Muslims seem unable to grasp.

Finally ! Somebody who actually grasps the spirit of the song instead of nitpicking over the words . This is what the song meant for freedom fighters , and this is the sense in which it should be taken .

 

[aneeshm]

What is wrong with that? The US has an anthem and a pledge of allegiance but the law says you cannot force a person to even stand for either. It used to be where it was mandatory, but I believe a group of Jehovah's Witnesses took it to court and won, as their religion does not allow for pledging allegiance to anyone but God.

If people don't want to sing this song for religious or even non-religious reasons, why force it?

Nobody is forcing the Muslims to sing it . They can remain silent while it is sung . But they are threatening that unless other people stop singing it , they will remove their children from schools ?