Varanasi Explodes

Mantolives my dear boy,

Don`t you want to back up your assertions?

Or do you want the world to see that you are a fake and a liar?

Remember, once you lose credibility, everyone on Chowk will know that you lie to make your points.

Poor guy... Did your parents not allow you to choose your religion? Its not about religion changing my views but choosing a religion that considered my views kosher...

Read again- I never was an Ahmadi or a Sunni or a Wahabi... I loosely associated with being Muslim in so much as that I believe Allah and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) - a belief that has persisted despite the fact that I also believe what I wrote in 516.

I became an Ismaili alongwith another chowkie, Rozaiba, only when there was a movement against Ismailis by Jamaat-e-Islami ... as a show of solidarity with that sect which is by far the most progressive and liberal.

#513 by Mantolives

[I never could bring myself to believe in Ahmadi or Sunni or Wahabi faiths for the conservative religious bigotry enshrined in their doctrines- especially their willingness to equate ... so I have never been any of these in reality.]

A guy who really believes changing his faith will change the way he thinks is in my opinion an idiot. Will changing from a Salwar-Kameez to a three-piece suit make someone modern? That you had to change your faiths to prove that you were not as bigoted as a Sunni/Wahabbi Muslim shows that you are concerned not about the internal change, but the external appearance.

#513 by Mantolives

[I never could bring myself to believe in Ahmadi or Sunni or Wahabi faiths for the conservative religious bigotry enshrined in their doctrines- especially their willingness to equate ... so I have never been any of these in reality.]

A guy who really believes changing his faith will change the way he thinks is in my opinion an idiot. Will changing from a Salwar-Kameez to a three-piece suit make someone modern? That you had to change your faiths to prove that you were not as bigoted as a Sunni/Wahabbi Muslim shows that you are concerned not about the internal change, but the external appearance.

Rawdust...

Patricia Crone wrote ``Hagarism`` in which she demolished Islamic sources entirely - saying that everything written about Muhammad including the Quran is 80-160 years after his death. Her work puts a question mark on every Islamic text ... including that which is used by Islam-bashers and Muhammad-haters.

Therefore ... Muhammad (PBUH) essentially is a religious figure we know nothing about for sure. He is as real or unreal as Rama, Buddha, Zoaraster, Moses and Soloman. So who are we demolishing? The Muhammad of Islamic sources or the historical Muhammad? The former exists in Muslim imagination... the latter has not been documented.

Gandhi on the other hand is a 20th century political leader with 90 volumes of letters and other writings... He is not central to Hinduism or Hindu religious doctrine.


-YLH

#513 by Mantolives

[These two Muslim-hating fanatics i.e. Harish hyd and Ramanujan ... could never argue with reason...]

Look who`s back!

Well, the ONLY potentially authentic source you cited was in your post #502 :

[(Quoted in part from Nirmal Bose `My days with Gandhi`) ]

Could you kindly make it clear WHICH PART of your post is from Nirmal Bose`s ``My Days with Gandhi``?


Or is my question too un``reason``able?

... their willingness to equate Islam with Burqah..

These two Muslim-hating fanatics i.e. Harish hyd and Ramanujan ... could never argue with reason... so they must resort to personal attacks and insinuations about one`s private life.

Unlike their families.. my parents gave me complete religious freedom. I never could bring myself to believe in Ahmadi or Sunni or Wahabi faiths for the conservative religious bigotry enshrined in their doctrines- especially their willingness to equate ... so I have never been any of these in reality. Shiism, Bahaism and Ismailism were always much more attractive to me... But this simplistic logic is often not very apparent to people given to dishonesty and lack of integrity. Hence personal insinuations... despite the fact that when I publicly converted it was the height of Jamaat-e-Islami`s movement against the Agha Khan University Education Board which they were denoucing as ``jewish-Ismaili conspiracy``.

-YLH

Dear Tahmed,

I am only writing this post since you said you were prepared to be educated:

``And his role in history is surely more positive than most political leaders of the 20th century:``

Myth of Gandhi certainly is more positive than anything remotely close to the real Gandhi.


``after all, he did promote the idea of a non-violent struggle for freedom in India. And he did inspire the Civil Rights movement in the US, which has took US society as big a step forward as the Civil War had done in the previous century -``

I don`t agree with this point of view. Martin Luthar King Jr was just one of the many leaders of the civil rights movement and his usage of Gandhi was based on nothing that Gandhi himself did but mostly the depiction of Gandhi in popular press back in the 1940s.
My understanding of Civil Rights movement is that there were certain milestones that were absolutely important... the most important was Brown vs Board of Education decision of the Supreme Court in 1952 which overturned Plessey vs Ferguson. There would be no civil rights had this not happened... Dr King was a charismatic mobiliser but the reason the US society, racist and exclusivist as it was, could move towards civil rights had to do with its constitution and the values that were enshrined in them which later were broadened to become more inclusive. It was an evolutionary process and civil rights were going to come with or without King, Malcolm X or any other leader ...


``This idea of non-violent struggle also inspired south africa`s Mandela, and that society too took a giant step forward in a peaceful manner: the Sullivan Principles that blocked private foreign investments in south africa could hardly have been conceived in an atmosphere other than that of non-violent struggle, and thus served to bring apartheid to a peaceful end.``

I was actually corrected on this point by a South African friend. Nelson Mandela waged a gureilla war along with Steven Biko. It is true that Mandela praised Gandhi and perhaps admired him... but he also praised Jinnah and Nehru in several speeches to the African National Congress...

Ofcourse the Myth of Gandhi has had a net positive impact... but I am sure you of all people would want the facts of gandhi`s own struggle and own life be told... instead of just depending on the great work that Dr King and Nelson Mandela have done... or other great Gandhi-inspired leaders have done. The myth of Gandhi represents a truly heroic figure, a threat to the status quo, hero of the down trodden, a true pluralistic inclusivist champion... the reality of Gandhi is exact opposite.

So let us consider this our experiment with the truth ... our satyagraha ... if that indeed is a Gandhian principle... one must follow it.

Where`s that miserable worm Mantolives? Hiding under some rock, no doubt.

I`ve found one thing on Chowk - there is NOT ONE Islamic holy warrior here who has ever been able to successfully defend his/her position.

And the reason is simple - they are on the side of darkness and evil. They are trying to defend the indefensible, and that is not possible.

This Mantolives character did the same thing once before, when he was debating with me Jinnah and the Partition.

What pathetic fakes!

#479 by Mantolives

[Please don`t change your objectives at so late a stage. You claimed many times that you were here to shut me up about racist casteist freak that you call Mahatma Gandhi.]

More lies, but we`ve come to expect ONLY this from you Yasser. I`ve only claimed that I`m here to defend Gandhi from your filthy canards (why do I get the feeling that your accusations about Gandhi perhaps mirror your own deeds). I`m here doing `killing two birds with a single stone`, if you know what I mean.

#508 by Raw_Dust

[Last i checked, there was no threat of eternally burning in fire as a punishment of trashing Gandhi.]

Which is why Yasser won`t question Mohammed`s habits. The man lacks the balls. Mohammed`s bizarro life was more controversial than Gandhi`s, but no one had the gall to question him. Yasser perhaps knows this, but knows he`ll be skinned alive if he dared to question it, so he pretends as if it never happened. What more do you expect from someone who converted from being an Ahmedi to an Ismaili, all because the word `Ahmedi` was a dirty word in `Sunni` Islamic Pakistan and he wanted to look cool?

masanamuthu:
Mohammad presented the craziest, the most bizarre threat to anyone who might wanna doubt his BS that of eternal damnation. Last i checked, there was no threat of eternally burning in fire as a punishment of trashing Gandhi.

zeemax:
i can only make a guess (whether he was divinely inspired is meaningless to me) :

i would say that the meta-reality, i.e., afterlife, heaven, hell, angels, he cooked up for his message (based on largely judeo/christian ideas) and the culture that inspired by that meta-reality has to do with the 1 billion followers of islam today.

as someone said and i can barely paraphrase the thought, all cultures arise fundmentally from man`s response to his mortality. ( i cant remember who said it)

In all the supposedly racist comments by Gandhi, do you folks see anything like ``last day won`t come until such people are killed`` .. kinda comments ??

These statements pale in insignificance compared to the statements you find in the ``holy books/documents``.

This is for all who have time and patience and keep fighting with Mantolives on the eternal Jinnah/Gandhi issue.. Bring the ``old Mo`` in and watch the fun .. :-))

#502 by Mantolives

[(Quoted in part from Nirmal Bose `My days with Gandhi`) ]

Could you make it clear WHICH PART of your post is from Nirmal Bose`s ``My Days with Gandhi``?

There`s nothing of substance in #501.

I`ll be waiting for your response.


P.S. Your antics would go down well with most juries. But you`d fail miserably in front of a judge, e.g. in appellate court.