Current Events > US slams 'offensive comments' on Prophet Muhammad by BJP members in India

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/17/us-slams-offensive-comments-on-prophet-by-bjp-members-in-india

The United States has condemned remarks by Indias governing party officials about Prophet Muhammad and his wife Aisha that have sparked an uproar in the country and many Muslim-majority nations. We condemn the offensive comments made by two BJP officials and we were glad to see that the party publicly condemns those comments, State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters on Thursday. We regularly engage with the Indian government at senior levels on human rights concerns, including freedom of religion or belief, and we encourage India to promote respect for human rights, he said. Nupur Sharma, a spokeswoman for Prime Minister Narendra Modis Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), on May 26 made televised remarks about the youngest wife of the Prophet of Islam that triggered demonstrations across the Muslim world. The remarks set off diplomatic protests not only in rival Pakistan but also in wealthy Arab states that usually enjoy close relations with India. Qatar demanded a public apology from the Indian government while the influential 57-member Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) said the insults came in the context of an increasingly intense atmosphere of hatred towards Islam in India and systematic harassment of Muslims.

In damage-control mode, the BJP said it respects all religions and suspended Sharma as well as Naveen Kumar Jindal, another figure in the party who was accused of inflammatory tweets about Prophet Muhammad. However, Indian Muslims protesting against the anti-Islam remarks have seen a vicious police crackdown, as rights group Amnesty International put it, asking the government to end the excessive use of force and arbitrary detentions. Last Friday, police opened fire in the eastern city of Ranchi, killing two teenagers after demonstrators allegedly threw stones at police. Since then, homes of several people arrested or identified as protesters have been demolished with bulldozers in the state of Uttar Pradesh, which is governed by the BJPs hardline Hindu monk, Yogi Adityanath.

Lebronwon posted...

Since then, homes of several people arrested or identified as protesters have been demolished with bulldozers

They dont have freedom of protests in India wtf.

MelbuFrahma4 posted...

They dont have freedom of protests in India wtf.

The Supreme Court has stated:
Freedom of speech, right to assemble and demonstrate by holding dharnas and peaceful agitation are the basic features of a democratic system. The people of a democratic country like ours have a right to raise their voice against the decisions and actions of the Government or even to express their resentment over the actions of the government on any subject of social or national importance. The Government has to respect, and in fact, encourage exercise of such rights. It is the abundant duty of the State to aid the exercise of right to freedom of speech as understood in its comprehensive sense and not to throttle or frustrate exercise of such rights by exercising its executive or legislative powers and passing orders or taking action in that direction in the name of reasonable restrictions.

As far as my reading goes -- the homes were supposedly "illegally constructed" (which is quite common in India), according to officials, which some of the owners are disputing.
Either way, due to protesting they lost their homes (either being singled out for their illegally constructed house being bulldozed because they protested), or literally had their legal home demolished and records altered to indicate this. Both are pretty bad.

What exactly did they say

kuwab0 posted...

What exactly did they say

No one is going to repeat it, for fear of retaliation.

News like this where they won't tell you what they actually said make me incredibly suspicious.

You can criticize or make fun of anything you want. People who act like free speech is hate speech are insane.

But if they're being dicks and promoting hatred against Muslims then that's fucked.

kuwab0 posted...

What exactly did they say

In short, the politician was at a debate against somebody who made fun of Hindu culture so they called Muhammad a pedophile because, according to Islamic scripture, he married his wife Aisha when he was in his fifties and she was six and waited to consummate their marriage until she was nine.

It's a highly controversial statement because it occurs in the Hadith which are sort of like extended Canon for the Quran. Some sects of Islam believe some Hadith are the word of God and others aren't, and a lot of the big disagreements between the sects come down to which passages are true in which aren't.

Islamic scholars have defended his actions by pointing out that in that time and in that region it wasn't entirely uncommon for the to be child brides, but it's further complicated by the fact that according to Islam, Muhammad is the perfect person who should be emulated, meaning any action he did is not only meant to be emulated but put up on a pedestal. However, it's also incredibly offensive to claim that Muhammad was a flawed individual that did things that aren't acceptable by modern times, so it's a bit of a theocratic paradox where no matter what you say you're going to piss somebody off.

If they love Aisha so much, why didn't the muslim world turn on the Saudis when Aisha had a shrine that was dedicated to her in Mecca..... and the saudies bulldozed it to build a public restroom

Hey hey Argula daddy Biden's going SLAMMING! Yeah!

Zikten posted...

If they love Aisha so much, why didn't the muslim world turn on the Saudis when Aisha had a shrine that was dedicated to her in Mecca..... and the saudies bulldozed it to build a public restroom

Because Shia Muslims dislike Aisha and Sunni Muslims like her. The schism began pretty much the day Muhammad died when his followers had to determine who would inherit his massive empire and wealth. One faction rallied around Aisha and her children as blood inheritors of the prophets fortune and empire and the other faction rallied around his second in command who they felt had earned the rightful place.

In practice, this means whether Aisha is treated as a holy figure or human garbage depends entirely on which sect is dominant in the country doing the action.

Ok. I knew some of the stuff about the schism but didn't realize Shia Muslims actively hate on her.

I read an article on the BBC about the comments and the fucking news article said they wouldn't tell me what the comments were because they were offensive.

What kind of fucking bullshit is that?

Zikten posted...

Ok. I knew some of the stuff about the schism but didn't realize Shia Muslims actively hate on her.

So much so there's an entire Wikipedia article dedicated just to Shia opinions on Aisha

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_view_of_Aisha

The Shi'a view of Aisha is generally unfavourable. This is primarily due to what they see as her contempt for the Ahl al-Bayt (the Islamic prophet Muhammad's family) and her actions in the First Fitna (civil war) of the time. Her participation in the Battle of the Camel is widely considered her most significant sign of such contempt. They also do not believe that she conducted herself in an appropriate manner in her role as Muhammad's wife. Several prominent Shia accounts even report that she, along with Hafsa, brought about Muhammad's death by giving him poison.[1] Shi'a also consider Aisha to be a controversial figure because of her political involvement during her lifetime. Aisha came from a political family lineage, as she was the daughter of Abu Bakr the caliph. Aisha also played an active role in Muhammad's political life; she was known to accompany him to wars, where she learned military skills, such as initiating pre-war negotiations between combatants, conducting battles, and ending wars.[2][3]

So the US government has nuanced opinions on the age of consent?

DeadBankerDream posted...

I read an article on the BBC about the comments and the fucking news article said they wouldn't tell me what the comments were because they were offensive.

What kind of fucking bullshit is that?

Probably a fear of what the Muslims across the world would do to them if they repeated it. Remember the outrage from when the Prophet was drawn.

What did they say?

Im willing to bet they didnt even say anything that was false or untrue.

MelbuFrahma4 posted...

Probably a fear of what the Muslims across the world would do to them if they repeated it. Remember the outrage from when the Prophet was drawn.

AKA letting terrorists win.

And no Im not saying Muslims = terrorists. however I am saying people who intimidate/threaten violence to keep people from drawing or talking is.

https://youtu.be/8TMHIYDHMSE

So what did they say about the prophets wife? And was it true or false?

knightmarexx posted...

The Supreme Court has stated:
Freedom of speech, right to assemble and demonstrate by holding dharnas and peaceful agitation are the basic features of a democratic system. The people of a democratic country like ours have a right to raise their voice against the decisions and actions of the Government or even to express their resentment over the actions of the government on any subject of social or national importance. The Government has to respect, and in fact, encourage exercise of such rights. It is the abundant duty of the State to aid the exercise of right to freedom of speech as understood in its comprehensive sense and not to throttle or frustrate exercise of such rights by exercising its executive or legislative powers and passing orders or taking action in that direction in the name of reasonable restrictions.

As far as my reading goes -- the homes were supposedly "illegally constructed" (which is quite common in India), according to officials, which some of the owners are disputing.
Either way, due to protesting they lost their homes (either being singled out for their illegally constructed house being bulldozed because they protested), or literally had their legal home demolished and records altered to indicate this. Both are pretty bad.

The point of those laws is that they can be selectively enforced to make lives harder for targeted groups. There's zero public interest in it. They are just a tool the government uses to discriminate legally.

SSJPurple posted...

So what did they say about the prophets wife?

Sounds like they brought up that she was underage

And was it true or false?

I feel like you're trying to get people modded here