Husain, Hinduism, Hindustan: Testing Tolerance
Farzana Versey February 16, 2006
#81 Posted by mohar11 on February 17, 2006 12:36:06 pm
Re: # 79 nasah
[...MF Husain is a definitely a one eyed jack...]
Really? A moment ago - you are hammering on ``Hussain hating`` hyenas....Now what happened? Suddenly - he is not worth defending no more?....
Anycase - MFH being blind jack is besides the point....
[...MF Husain is a definitely a one eyed jack...]
Really? A moment ago - you are hammering on ``Hussain hating`` hyenas....Now what happened? Suddenly - he is not worth defending no more?....
Anycase - MFH being blind jack is besides the point....
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#82 Posted by swarrier on February 17, 2006 12:43:33 pm
Re: # 73
mohar11
[The point is that - it`s a common for indian christians to have hindu-sounding names.....]
Yes but it has very little to do with Hinduisation. It`s more of declaring an allegiance to the land. It has been the common practice for Christians to have one Indian name and a baptismal name that is close to or similar to a Biblical name. But this has been the case for at least 15 centuries. Kerala where Christianity probably came first (and so did Islam for that matter) has always had this practice.
Notice I don`t mention Hindu or Christian names. There are no religious names. They merely reflect a certain geographical area. You could choose to use such a name if you believe it brings you closer to an area where a faith originated.
On the other hand I could choose to name my daughter Scheherezade because she`s a good story teller...
Most of Europe is Christian. Their names are not necessarily of Biblical persuasion. They are regional. Can you imagine a biblical Manfred, Lothar ... etc. Such Teutonic reverberations.
Cheerio
mohar11
[The point is that - it`s a common for indian christians to have hindu-sounding names.....]
Yes but it has very little to do with Hinduisation. It`s more of declaring an allegiance to the land. It has been the common practice for Christians to have one Indian name and a baptismal name that is close to or similar to a Biblical name. But this has been the case for at least 15 centuries. Kerala where Christianity probably came first (and so did Islam for that matter) has always had this practice.
Notice I don`t mention Hindu or Christian names. There are no religious names. They merely reflect a certain geographical area. You could choose to use such a name if you believe it brings you closer to an area where a faith originated.
On the other hand I could choose to name my daughter Scheherezade because she`s a good story teller...
Most of Europe is Christian. Their names are not necessarily of Biblical persuasion. They are regional. Can you imagine a biblical Manfred, Lothar ... etc. Such Teutonic reverberations.
Cheerio
#83 Posted by nasah on February 17, 2006 12:56:13 pm
Mohar miaN -- Freedom of Expression -- Freedom of Expression -- prevention to sketch lousy cartoon characters by the Hirsute Hyenas -- or prevention to paint tacky characters by the Hindutva Hyenas -- one and the same....
#84 Posted by KaalChakra on February 17, 2006 1:03:03 pm
mohar11, I know this is arrograntly foolish, and I promise to never do this to you again, but .... nasahji is a man whose views are to be honored and respected. We can learn a lot from considering his opinions and experience with care....
OK...I apologize. It`s not my place to offer `advice` to someone as smart as you, especially on an anonymous forum. Won`t happen again, my respect for nasahji standing on its own, of course :)
OK...I apologize. It`s not my place to offer `advice` to someone as smart as you, especially on an anonymous forum. Won`t happen again, my respect for nasahji standing on its own, of course :)
#85 Posted by nasah on February 17, 2006 1:20:02 pm
thank you Kalchakra miaN -- for overestimating Nasah ji.....:)
#86 Posted by dost_mittar on February 17, 2006 1:36:37 pm
arjun_m:
``you can`t have it both ways...either being pressured to sing Vande Mataram is bad or you shouldn`t claim the right to be equally offended by the nude painting...``
There is a subtle differene. Singing Vande Matram may be considered by some against their religion as it forbids them to offer prayer to anyone except God. But there is no such stricture against symbolically considering your homeland as mother; Indian Muslims have frequently referred to their country as ``Maadare-Watan`` or Motherland.
``you can`t have it both ways...either being pressured to sing Vande Mataram is bad or you shouldn`t claim the right to be equally offended by the nude painting...``
There is a subtle differene. Singing Vande Matram may be considered by some against their religion as it forbids them to offer prayer to anyone except God. But there is no such stricture against symbolically considering your homeland as mother; Indian Muslims have frequently referred to their country as ``Maadare-Watan`` or Motherland.
#87 Posted by mohar11 on February 17, 2006 1:52:34 pm
Re: # 84 kaal
No problem dude.... You are right - Nasah is a fine gentleman, his leftist underpinings notwithstanding:)).... It`s kind of fun to lock horns with Nasah, DM etc..... no malice was ever intended :)))
No problem dude.... You are right - Nasah is a fine gentleman, his leftist underpinings notwithstanding:)).... It`s kind of fun to lock horns with Nasah, DM etc..... no malice was ever intended :)))
#88 Posted by arjun_m on February 17, 2006 2:07:49 pm
Tolerating Islamist intolerance
KPS Gill
A great deal has been written on the `cartoon controversy`, but it is far from enough. The current storm of orchestrated violence and intimidatory protests across the world is symbolic of a deep and sustained intolerance among Muslims, and of rising levels of tolerance of Muslim intolerance, that jointly undermine the possibility of freedom in large parts of the world.
Crucially, it is precisely this tolerance of intolerance that has allowed vocal and violent radicalised Islamist minorities to silence Muslim majorities and to transform the global image of Islam into the grotesque parody of the faith that the Danish cartoons sought - perhaps indelicately - to reflect.
Offensive though these cartoons may have been - and they were not offensive to at least some Muslims, who saw in them, not an insult to the Prophet or the faith, but rather a critique of the unrelenting violence that has become the defining character of much of the Muslim world - the criminal incitement and calls to `butcher/kill/behead those who insult Islam` have only reinforced the images the cartoons reflected, ``allowing mass hysteria to define Islam`s message``.
What dishonours Islam more? A few irreverent cartoons? Or the acts of remorseless murder, of relentless violence against people of other faiths, of the intimidation and abuse of all other faiths and communities, which the Islamists - including states adhering to the Islamist ideology, such as Pakistan - routinely engage in? Why, then, does the Muslim world not rise up in rage against these fanatics and political opportunists who are bringing disgrace and disrepute to their faith? Why are the voices of criticism against extremist Islam and Islamist terrorism so muted?
Indeed, why is it that all occasional and invariably qualified criticism of these terrorists is accompanied by vague justifications of the need to `understand root causes` and the `hurt` caused to the `Muslim psyche`? Is the `Muslim psyche` uniquely susceptible to injury?
Venomous characterisations of Hindus, Jews, Christians and, generally, all kafirs, are the stock-in-trade of the discourse in some Muslim countries, often communicated through official media, such as national television channels. The ideologies of hatred against other faiths are systematically propagated in so many Muslim states - we in India are familiar with the Pakistani case, where school curricula routinely demonise non-Muslims.
And do the words or pictures or caricatures by non-Muslims do more injury to the `Islamic world` than the hideous acts of terrorism that Islamists have been inflicting on non-Muslims - and, indeed, on so many Muslims - all over the world? Worse, after so many Muslim-majority states have simply wiped out their own minorities, or are, even today, in the process of doing so, these very states go shrieking around about `hurting the sentiments of minorities` when something is said against Muslims or Islam.
Indeed, `Islamic` states oppress even their own sectarian minorities - be they non-Wahabbi Sunnis in some cases, or Shia, Ismaili, Ahmadiya, or Sufi, in others - not only through systematic denial of elementary religious rights to these sects, but, as in the case of Pakistan, through state sponsored terrorist movements against such minorities - recall that the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan was set up by General Zia-ul-Haq to target Shias in the wake of the Iranian revolution, and continued to enjoy the support of the state under successor regimes, till it got mixed up with the Al Qaeda and anti-US terrorism, and lost its status as a sarkari (state supported) jihadi organisation.
Many `Islamic` countries have institutionalised this intolerance, outlawing the public practice of any other Faith, and made the possession of any religious icon, other than Muslim, a punishable offence. Non-Muslim minorities live in abject terror of blasphemy laws in Pakistan, as in many other Muslim countries.
The truth is, the state lies behind much of the Islamist extremism and frenzy that we are witnessing today. To return to the case of the Danish cartoons, there was no `spontaneous outburst` of popular sentiment; it was only after the Organisation of Islamic Countries decided to whip up emotions around the issue, and states like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia began to incite the rabble through official statements and actions, or statements by religious leaders tied to the regimes there, disseminated through official media, that the violent street protests commenced.
In Pakistan, the protests and the violence have principally been led by the Jamaat-ud-Dawa - the reincarnation of the purportedly `banned` Lashkar-e-Toiba - which has flourished under state patronage, and that was cast by the Musharraf administration into a `leadership` role recently in the relief operations after the earthquake that devastated parts of Pakistan occupied Kashmir.
But the `cartoon crisis` is not unique. Even while this controversy was raging across the world, Shia minorities were being attacked by Sunni terrorists in Pakistan; in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, a case was registered against the local chapter of the Bible Society of India for the `grievous crime` of distributing ``gas cylinders, three water bottles, audio cassettes and a copy of the New Testament in Urdu`` to earthquake victims in a village in Uri.
In Ladakh, riots were engineered between Muslims and Buddhists because some torn pages of the Quran were recovered, leading to allegations of sacrilege. In the Aligarh Muslim University, a young girl was being threatened with collective rape for daring to protest against a diktat against wearing jeans and a T-shirt. These are only a few current and proximate examples of a remorseless oppression over the decades.
Such thuggeries are, of course, not unique to Islam. There are extremist groups drawing dubious `inspiration` from other faiths who ape such conduct as well, and Valentines Day this year - as in the past few years - attracted the ire and violence of Hindu extremist hooligans. But these remain - fortunately - aberrations in the larger context of conduct among adherents of other faiths. They have increasingly become the dominant form of public articulation in the Muslim community.
There is an American Indian saying: `it takes an entire village to raise a single child`. Similarly, it takes a very large community, often entire nations, to raise a single suicide bomber. For far too long, extremist Muslim discourse has been tolerated - to the point of incitement to murder - in the belief that acts of terrorism are distinct from such ideologies of hatred. But it is the wide acceptance within large sections of Muslim communities in many countries of these ideologies of hatred that produce the environment within which groups can mobilise, recruit motivate, train and deploy terrorists and suicide bombers.
Muslim liberals have long advocated `understanding and tolerance` when dealing with Muslim sensibilities, but have seldom been known to aggressively argue for greater `understanding and tolerance` for other faiths in `Islamic` countries, where the record of intolerance towards and oppression of religious minorities is utterly revolting. There is a great `Muslim exceptionalism` at work here.
The `Muslim world` demands an absolute freedom without limits, but confers no freedom whatsoever, either on other faiths, or on dissent within its own faith. The `tolerance` advocated by certain passages in the Quran is only something to parade at inter-faith conferences, and constitutes no part of the practice of most Muslim majority states - no doubt with occasional exceptions.
The demand, today, to impose a selective censorship in Europe on speech that is insulting to Muslims - when similar speech against other faiths enjoys full freedom - is an effort by Muslim minorities to impose, through mass violence and intimidation, their belief systems within the larger systems they have come to inhabit.
Europe would be, not only foolish, but suicidal, if it succumbs to this terrorism and coercion to invent new curbs on the media and on the freedom of speech. The democratic world must remain committed to its enlightenment values and ideals, and to the rough-and-tumble of free discourse in the `marketplace of ideas`. All communal thuggeries, whatever faith they may claim to `represent`, must be brought to an end, and every available means must be bent to this purpose.
Personally, I think, the more fun we make of our own religions, the better it will be for the whole world, and, indeed, for our respective Faiths. I am immensely proud of being a Sikh, and am confident that no jokes or cartoons can ever undermine the eternal verities of my religion.
KPS Gill
A great deal has been written on the `cartoon controversy`, but it is far from enough. The current storm of orchestrated violence and intimidatory protests across the world is symbolic of a deep and sustained intolerance among Muslims, and of rising levels of tolerance of Muslim intolerance, that jointly undermine the possibility of freedom in large parts of the world.
Crucially, it is precisely this tolerance of intolerance that has allowed vocal and violent radicalised Islamist minorities to silence Muslim majorities and to transform the global image of Islam into the grotesque parody of the faith that the Danish cartoons sought - perhaps indelicately - to reflect.
Offensive though these cartoons may have been - and they were not offensive to at least some Muslims, who saw in them, not an insult to the Prophet or the faith, but rather a critique of the unrelenting violence that has become the defining character of much of the Muslim world - the criminal incitement and calls to `butcher/kill/behead those who insult Islam` have only reinforced the images the cartoons reflected, ``allowing mass hysteria to define Islam`s message``.
What dishonours Islam more? A few irreverent cartoons? Or the acts of remorseless murder, of relentless violence against people of other faiths, of the intimidation and abuse of all other faiths and communities, which the Islamists - including states adhering to the Islamist ideology, such as Pakistan - routinely engage in? Why, then, does the Muslim world not rise up in rage against these fanatics and political opportunists who are bringing disgrace and disrepute to their faith? Why are the voices of criticism against extremist Islam and Islamist terrorism so muted?
Indeed, why is it that all occasional and invariably qualified criticism of these terrorists is accompanied by vague justifications of the need to `understand root causes` and the `hurt` caused to the `Muslim psyche`? Is the `Muslim psyche` uniquely susceptible to injury?
Venomous characterisations of Hindus, Jews, Christians and, generally, all kafirs, are the stock-in-trade of the discourse in some Muslim countries, often communicated through official media, such as national television channels. The ideologies of hatred against other faiths are systematically propagated in so many Muslim states - we in India are familiar with the Pakistani case, where school curricula routinely demonise non-Muslims.
And do the words or pictures or caricatures by non-Muslims do more injury to the `Islamic world` than the hideous acts of terrorism that Islamists have been inflicting on non-Muslims - and, indeed, on so many Muslims - all over the world? Worse, after so many Muslim-majority states have simply wiped out their own minorities, or are, even today, in the process of doing so, these very states go shrieking around about `hurting the sentiments of minorities` when something is said against Muslims or Islam.
Indeed, `Islamic` states oppress even their own sectarian minorities - be they non-Wahabbi Sunnis in some cases, or Shia, Ismaili, Ahmadiya, or Sufi, in others - not only through systematic denial of elementary religious rights to these sects, but, as in the case of Pakistan, through state sponsored terrorist movements against such minorities - recall that the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan was set up by General Zia-ul-Haq to target Shias in the wake of the Iranian revolution, and continued to enjoy the support of the state under successor regimes, till it got mixed up with the Al Qaeda and anti-US terrorism, and lost its status as a sarkari (state supported) jihadi organisation.
Many `Islamic` countries have institutionalised this intolerance, outlawing the public practice of any other Faith, and made the possession of any religious icon, other than Muslim, a punishable offence. Non-Muslim minorities live in abject terror of blasphemy laws in Pakistan, as in many other Muslim countries.
The truth is, the state lies behind much of the Islamist extremism and frenzy that we are witnessing today. To return to the case of the Danish cartoons, there was no `spontaneous outburst` of popular sentiment; it was only after the Organisation of Islamic Countries decided to whip up emotions around the issue, and states like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia began to incite the rabble through official statements and actions, or statements by religious leaders tied to the regimes there, disseminated through official media, that the violent street protests commenced.
In Pakistan, the protests and the violence have principally been led by the Jamaat-ud-Dawa - the reincarnation of the purportedly `banned` Lashkar-e-Toiba - which has flourished under state patronage, and that was cast by the Musharraf administration into a `leadership` role recently in the relief operations after the earthquake that devastated parts of Pakistan occupied Kashmir.
But the `cartoon crisis` is not unique. Even while this controversy was raging across the world, Shia minorities were being attacked by Sunni terrorists in Pakistan; in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, a case was registered against the local chapter of the Bible Society of India for the `grievous crime` of distributing ``gas cylinders, three water bottles, audio cassettes and a copy of the New Testament in Urdu`` to earthquake victims in a village in Uri.
In Ladakh, riots were engineered between Muslims and Buddhists because some torn pages of the Quran were recovered, leading to allegations of sacrilege. In the Aligarh Muslim University, a young girl was being threatened with collective rape for daring to protest against a diktat against wearing jeans and a T-shirt. These are only a few current and proximate examples of a remorseless oppression over the decades.
Such thuggeries are, of course, not unique to Islam. There are extremist groups drawing dubious `inspiration` from other faiths who ape such conduct as well, and Valentines Day this year - as in the past few years - attracted the ire and violence of Hindu extremist hooligans. But these remain - fortunately - aberrations in the larger context of conduct among adherents of other faiths. They have increasingly become the dominant form of public articulation in the Muslim community.
There is an American Indian saying: `it takes an entire village to raise a single child`. Similarly, it takes a very large community, often entire nations, to raise a single suicide bomber. For far too long, extremist Muslim discourse has been tolerated - to the point of incitement to murder - in the belief that acts of terrorism are distinct from such ideologies of hatred. But it is the wide acceptance within large sections of Muslim communities in many countries of these ideologies of hatred that produce the environment within which groups can mobilise, recruit motivate, train and deploy terrorists and suicide bombers.
Muslim liberals have long advocated `understanding and tolerance` when dealing with Muslim sensibilities, but have seldom been known to aggressively argue for greater `understanding and tolerance` for other faiths in `Islamic` countries, where the record of intolerance towards and oppression of religious minorities is utterly revolting. There is a great `Muslim exceptionalism` at work here.
The `Muslim world` demands an absolute freedom without limits, but confers no freedom whatsoever, either on other faiths, or on dissent within its own faith. The `tolerance` advocated by certain passages in the Quran is only something to parade at inter-faith conferences, and constitutes no part of the practice of most Muslim majority states - no doubt with occasional exceptions.
The demand, today, to impose a selective censorship in Europe on speech that is insulting to Muslims - when similar speech against other faiths enjoys full freedom - is an effort by Muslim minorities to impose, through mass violence and intimidation, their belief systems within the larger systems they have come to inhabit.
Europe would be, not only foolish, but suicidal, if it succumbs to this terrorism and coercion to invent new curbs on the media and on the freedom of speech. The democratic world must remain committed to its enlightenment values and ideals, and to the rough-and-tumble of free discourse in the `marketplace of ideas`. All communal thuggeries, whatever faith they may claim to `represent`, must be brought to an end, and every available means must be bent to this purpose.
Personally, I think, the more fun we make of our own religions, the better it will be for the whole world, and, indeed, for our respective Faiths. I am immensely proud of being a Sikh, and am confident that no jokes or cartoons can ever undermine the eternal verities of my religion.
#89 Posted by avkrishna on February 17, 2006 2:19:54 pm
Re: # 52
``Please read #20 by bjkumar. ``
I have read his post and yet I am still uncertain. I believe Freedom is never unfettered and has to work within the guidelines of a particular society. I also believe artists usually work towards pushing these boundaries and should be given extra latitude.
However I also dont believe this applies equally. In India, I dont believe people from other religions have an equal right as a Hindu has to criticize and take liberties with Hinduism. I know this stance of mine goes against the prevailing sentiment in India as well as with other Hindus on this site, but that`s where I stand.
```` How is militant Hinduism going to protect anyone? Who has created this threat perception? It started in the West, and Indian Hindus thought they too had to add to the noise. Missionaries have existed for years. Small fringe Islamic groups have been around, many wooed by political parties at the Centre. The fact is they were not given the time of day by IMs. Do keep this important fact in mind. ````
I dont think this threat perception to Hindus in India was not started in West though Westren Missionary groups definitely have a big role to play in it. In fact, I dont think that the majority of Hindus in India care about Crusades or whether Jews can stay in Palestine or not. (though now in the globalized world, we definitely have a stake in the outcome)
We care about how Hindus and other Indic religions are treated in India and other countries. We have been oppressed in one form or the other in the last 1000 years and it continues even after the Independence in the guise of this Psuedo - Secularism.
True, Missionaries have been in this country since a long time. We were unable to stop them in the past. But that does not mean the same in future. The Hindus society now has the means (whether intellectual or material) to stop this now.
About fringe Islamic groups and IM not giving them the time of their day, I think you are wrong. It is this fringe Islamic groups, who dictate terms in India. Sadly people like you and Asghar Ali are the fringe segment in terms of influence.
Also, when Indian Muslims had a chance, they broke away in the past. ( I am loosely using this term to identify all Muslims in Sub-Continent). What`s the garuntee that they wont demand the same in future?
````
Hindu aggressiveness is counter-productive. More innocents have died since this resurgence, and that too aided and abetted by the state machinery. ````
I am with you about the loss of inncoent life. I am absolutely and completely against it.
But I disagree with your statement about asking Hindus not to be aggressive about our faith. That`s not a viable alternative. I dont want to kill, but I dont want to die too. (Before anyone jump on me, the last statement was a metaphor)
``````You say you will be glad if the ‘Hinduisation of India’ takes place. Where do you live? Not in India, right? So, on what grounds do you not only sound alarm bells about Islamic threat to India, you even dream of this Hindu utopia? I have said this several times, this can happen only if India changes its Constitution. ``````
On the grounds that I was born a Hindu in India, spent a major portion of my life in India, and still a citizen of India. I agree with you about having to change Indian constitution. But Constitution is not holy grail. It reflects the sentiments of people and if majority of Hindus agree to change it, change is inevitable,
Thanks for interacting,
- Avkrishna
``Please read #20 by bjkumar. ``
I have read his post and yet I am still uncertain. I believe Freedom is never unfettered and has to work within the guidelines of a particular society. I also believe artists usually work towards pushing these boundaries and should be given extra latitude.
However I also dont believe this applies equally. In India, I dont believe people from other religions have an equal right as a Hindu has to criticize and take liberties with Hinduism. I know this stance of mine goes against the prevailing sentiment in India as well as with other Hindus on this site, but that`s where I stand.
```` How is militant Hinduism going to protect anyone? Who has created this threat perception? It started in the West, and Indian Hindus thought they too had to add to the noise. Missionaries have existed for years. Small fringe Islamic groups have been around, many wooed by political parties at the Centre. The fact is they were not given the time of day by IMs. Do keep this important fact in mind. ````
I dont think this threat perception to Hindus in India was not started in West though Westren Missionary groups definitely have a big role to play in it. In fact, I dont think that the majority of Hindus in India care about Crusades or whether Jews can stay in Palestine or not. (though now in the globalized world, we definitely have a stake in the outcome)
We care about how Hindus and other Indic religions are treated in India and other countries. We have been oppressed in one form or the other in the last 1000 years and it continues even after the Independence in the guise of this Psuedo - Secularism.
True, Missionaries have been in this country since a long time. We were unable to stop them in the past. But that does not mean the same in future. The Hindus society now has the means (whether intellectual or material) to stop this now.
About fringe Islamic groups and IM not giving them the time of their day, I think you are wrong. It is this fringe Islamic groups, who dictate terms in India. Sadly people like you and Asghar Ali are the fringe segment in terms of influence.
Also, when Indian Muslims had a chance, they broke away in the past. ( I am loosely using this term to identify all Muslims in Sub-Continent). What`s the garuntee that they wont demand the same in future?
````
Hindu aggressiveness is counter-productive. More innocents have died since this resurgence, and that too aided and abetted by the state machinery. ````
I am with you about the loss of inncoent life. I am absolutely and completely against it.
But I disagree with your statement about asking Hindus not to be aggressive about our faith. That`s not a viable alternative. I dont want to kill, but I dont want to die too. (Before anyone jump on me, the last statement was a metaphor)
``````You say you will be glad if the ‘Hinduisation of India’ takes place. Where do you live? Not in India, right? So, on what grounds do you not only sound alarm bells about Islamic threat to India, you even dream of this Hindu utopia? I have said this several times, this can happen only if India changes its Constitution. ``````
On the grounds that I was born a Hindu in India, spent a major portion of my life in India, and still a citizen of India. I agree with you about having to change Indian constitution. But Constitution is not holy grail. It reflects the sentiments of people and if majority of Hindus agree to change it, change is inevitable,
Thanks for interacting,
- Avkrishna
#90 Posted by jang on February 17, 2006 3:06:35 pm
here is one of mulayam singhs crony doing a 1-up on paki clerics $1 million reward..this is comical..
LUCKNOW, MEERUT, FEBRUARY 17: The Minister for Minority Welfare and Haj in the Mulayam Singh Yadav government, Haji Yaqoob Qureishi, has announced a cash reward of Rs 51 crore for anyone who beheads the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Prophet Mohammad.
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=88158
what is the hot communal issue is not MF hussain, its muslim headcount in army.
guptaji on this
``That’s what Sachar asks the military. What if a communal thug, his riot party spoiled by the Army, asks: Kitne Musalman the?``
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=88099
LUCKNOW, MEERUT, FEBRUARY 17: The Minister for Minority Welfare and Haj in the Mulayam Singh Yadav government, Haji Yaqoob Qureishi, has announced a cash reward of Rs 51 crore for anyone who beheads the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Prophet Mohammad.
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=88158
what is the hot communal issue is not MF hussain, its muslim headcount in army.
guptaji on this
``That’s what Sachar asks the military. What if a communal thug, his riot party spoiled by the Army, asks: Kitne Musalman the?``
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=88099
#91 Posted by mohar11 on February 17, 2006 3:12:09 pm
Re: # 90 jang
Awesome.....Cartoon jihad has now reached India..... What the f*** is wrong with these people?.....
Awesome.....Cartoon jihad has now reached India..... What the f*** is wrong with these people?.....
#92 Posted by jang on February 17, 2006 3:18:14 pm
FV i have a question. Some hindus think that books of india should be studied in schools and colleges (ramayan, mahabharat, vedas, puranas, kalidasa, arthashastra etc.). Not as ``religious scriptures`` but perhaps as classics .. the way we study say, illiad. Would that constitute Hinduization?
The fact that such a question needs be asked itself is so bizare IMO...but then we had such a frenzy about vande mataram..
The fact that such a question needs be asked itself is so bizare IMO...but then we had such a frenzy about vande mataram..
#93 Posted by masanamuthu on February 17, 2006 3:44:06 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#94 Posted by antihypochrist on February 17, 2006 7:58:03 pm
``#88 by arjun_m on February 17, 2006 2:07pm PT
Tolerating Islamist intolerance ``
Right on Arjun! But, do we have any significant number of Muslims admitting to it over media or off-media? No!! A big resounding no !
Tolerating Islamist intolerance ``
Right on Arjun! But, do we have any significant number of Muslims admitting to it over media or off-media? No!! A big resounding no !
#95 Posted by bbabu on February 17, 2006 9:02:57 pm
fv # 52
`` Hindu aggressiveness is counter-productive. More innocents have died since this resurgence, and that too aided and abetted by the state machinery. ``
What is wrong in being aggressive ? Is it written somewhere that people from certain religions have the right to be aggressive ?
`` Hindu aggressiveness is counter-productive. More innocents have died since this resurgence, and that too aided and abetted by the state machinery. ``
What is wrong in being aggressive ? Is it written somewhere that people from certain religions have the right to be aggressive ?
#96 Posted by cranberry on February 17, 2006 9:20:56 pm
#60 by dost-mittar on February 17, 2006 8:13am PT
sadna#57:
Thanks for posting the picture. I really cant see what the fuss is all about. There`s not a hint of insult in that painting, which I kind of like.
Mr DM.
You kind of like the painitng? wow
its ok to say that making riots, burning buildings or killing people for it is wrong.
but to just praise it for the sake of praising it ``to prove yr secular credentials`` shows how 3rd rate yr level of thinking is.
Just like a minority need got get an approval from majority for proving it to be patriot or whatever, similar a majority also need not have to prove its ``secular credentials`` every now and then.
You are kind of very fond or FV and always want to protect her , support her and literally in this process post some senile things now and then
but remember if she has no 2 good words for Gandhi (Mohan Das karam Chand) then you are just nobody.
I know the day she trashes you , u will quote Voltaire `` I .. disagree ... but defend ..``
sadna#57:
Thanks for posting the picture. I really cant see what the fuss is all about. There`s not a hint of insult in that painting, which I kind of like.
Mr DM.
You kind of like the painitng? wow
its ok to say that making riots, burning buildings or killing people for it is wrong.
but to just praise it for the sake of praising it ``to prove yr secular credentials`` shows how 3rd rate yr level of thinking is.
Just like a minority need got get an approval from majority for proving it to be patriot or whatever, similar a majority also need not have to prove its ``secular credentials`` every now and then.
You are kind of very fond or FV and always want to protect her , support her and literally in this process post some senile things now and then
but remember if she has no 2 good words for Gandhi (Mohan Das karam Chand) then you are just nobody.
I know the day she trashes you , u will quote Voltaire `` I .. disagree ... but defend ..``
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- _arjun30: HAHAHA..typical hamidm type paki..all... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- akcheema: Re: # 32; madani... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- _arjun30: #91 Posted by... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- _arjun30: liberate this, pakis... India blocks... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- hamidm2: Re: # 92 ahmedmadani sahib, ...... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- dost_mittar: sadna: "btw, Okhla Delhi/Jamia Nagar... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- jayp: Cobra, TRhere si trouble in... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- ahmedmadani: Re: # 91 Over... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
