Religious Minorities Quotes

The Punjab had been partitioned into a Pakistani part and an Indian part. The latter was a major province of the new state. But in the political process of drawing the boundaries, Jinnah and other Muslim leaders had used fanatic Muslim terrorists to massacre Sikhs and Hindus to ethnically cleanse areas and intimidate the ruling Indian Congress Party and the British government to obtain more area and resources for the Muslim state. However, at this point he had to govern, and there were still many Sikhs and Hindus as well as Christians and Buddhists in the new Muslim state. Jinnah's new state needed all the help it could get from the U. S. and others, and Jinnah started sounding like a passionate democrat. On paper religious freedom was guaranteed in Pakistan. However Pakistan became one of the most dangerous countries in the world for non-Muslims. Most historians agree that the Muslim terrorism in the short run had worked, as it would have been unlikely that India would have been partitioned in the absence of violence. However, it set in motion a cultural pattern of religious hate, bigotry, intolerance, violence and murder which would plague Pakistan thereafter. The politicians throughout the country's history have tried to use the Muslim religious, fundamentalist, extremists for their purposes only to find that the fanatics were out of control and the entire Pakistani population has lived in fear, lest an extremist decide that what they did or say was inimical to Islam and assassinate him or her. They have assassinated even the highest levels of politicians—President, Governors of Provinces, National Legislatures as well as Journalists, writers and academics. But the average Pakistani citizen has always been at risk of brutal murder with hundreds killed every year in an atmosphere of total impunity for the murderers. They have even murdered married women who had been raped on the grounds that they were adulterers and were therefore stoned.

Turkey, even a century later, takes great offense at the terms “holocaust” or “genocide” to describe the death of so many Armenians. The censor newspapers and jail academics who even want to have conferences to study the question. This is in great contrast to Germany which faced its genocidal killings squarely and built a society and government structure to never forget it and always focus on preventing a reoccurrence,

This was a statement she made when ruling that an employment website in Israel could not run ads stating that "only Jews would be hired". Discrimination in hiring was against Israel's Prohibition of Discrimination Act.. The defendants in this case were Orthodox Jews and the judge went oiut of her way to not only cite the law but ran counter to the moral and ethical teachings of the Israeili prophets

Before the French Revolution, Jews could freely practice their own religion in France but they could not hold citizenship, become professionals, or a host of other privileges of citizenship. Clermont-Tonnerre and other liberals argued that Jews should be given citizenship. The Jacobins--conservative Catholics close to the Papacy--opposed granting citizenship to Jews or Protestants. One argument that the Jacobins gave was that each of these sects would be separate nations within France and not necessarily have French national interest as a priority. Clermont-Tonnerre gave this response which has been the French philosophy about minority citizenship since then. Their thought was that anyone may become a French citizen as an individual but he or she should do so because he/she wants to accept French values and support the French nation. This view worked quite will over the years until the large immigration of Muslims starting in the 1960s where many new immigrants just wanted to live in France and earn a living there, but did not want to identify with French national aspirations or adopt French culture or values. America, had no such demands and those immigrants who tended to identify primarily with their country or culture of origin and not assimilate were allowed to do so, but the American way of life was so attractive that many immigrants did adopt it and even if they did not, their children almost inevitably did. That has not happened in France.

Officially the caste system has been abolished by Indian legislation, and the Brahmins have no more legal rights or authority than any other people. Yet culturally, they maintain an attitude of superiority, and dominate what they refer to as the lower casts to the degree that they can. In this quotation, a major Brahmin organization was trying to secretly organize Brahmins to resist the political consciousness raising that was ongoing in the lower casts of the area. Class reform in India is very difficult because cultural tradition is often more controlling than law. And legal rights must be exercised for them to be meaningful.

The French were governing Syria under a League of Nations mandate which was about to expire in 1936. The Alawites and other minorities feared for their future once the Sunni Muslims took over the government. The petition asked the French to continue to exercise their authority. The Alawite solution was to ruthlessly seize control of the Syrian government with the support of the Christians, Jews and other minorities. Al-Assad’s son and then his grandson took over as the President (de facto dictator) of Syria. In the 2012 Syrian revolution against the Alawites, al-Assad (the grandson) fought the insurgency so brutally that many nations ended up supporting and aiding the rebels. However, the fear of what would happen if the Alawites were again relegated to minority status, drove the Alawite brutality.

This quotation is often used as the antithesis of national pluralism. When India was partitioned, there were Muslims and Hindus both who subscribed to this view. The result was vicious interethnic slaughter and ethnic cleansing. However there was a large middle ground who did not accept this monocultural view of a nation. Many millions of Indian Muslims chose to stay in India as minorities and there were 200 million Muslims in India by the beginning of the 21st century. Modern India, is along with the United States, one of the leading ethnic and cultural pluralistic countries in the world. Pakistan was and still is totally monolithic. But it was India where Muslims have much more freedom than there Islamic brothers in Pakistan which although all Islamic constantly has better strife and killings over the degree of orthodoxy the State religion should take.

Ali was arguing that India should not be a single nation but each major ethnic group should have its own country. Pakistan was later to be separated out. However, the Akhoots, Christians, Dravidians and Sikhs did not have the same desire for separatism as the Muslims and stayed in India, and today India is a pluralistic nation which even includes about the same number of Muslims who have elected to be Indian citizens rather than Pakistani.

This quotation which appears absurd on the surface given Iran’s terrible record with religious minorities provides insight to Islamic orthodox thought. For the orthodox Muslim, Sharia—Koranic Law—is the basis of the society. God defines the rights of people and their obligations. Whatever rights are provided by Sharia, Khomeini and some others wished to provide them equally to religious minorities also. However, those rights do not include the right to criticize the Islamic law or the leaders who implement it. That would be heresy if done by a Muslim, a Christian, or a Jew. A Christian church may not erect a public cross or ring bells on Sunday. That is prohibited by the Koran and is imposed on all. Bahai religious adherents are tracked down in the Islamic Republic and are often executed. ‘What about their rights?’ they ask. The answer is that the Bahai were Muslims who have become “backsliders” and heretics, and under Sharia, they must be executed for heresy; they are deemed to be heretical Muslims and not members of a minority religion.