Ayodhya Back On Top
Temporal July 5, 2005
#33 Posted by ajeya on July 5, 2005 8:17:27 pm
Re: #24 by Mike
I followed Mike’s link and got to this WONDERFUL site.
The good thing about this site is that it is HONEST.
Doesn’t try to mask or hide things like dishonest idiotic fanatics like tahmed32.
This is from the following address:
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=2860&Option=FatwaId
It is an absolutely fascinating read, and offers a glimpse into the naked muslim mind.
This IS the philosophy they follow, but pretend not to.
Enjoy:
[Fatwa No. : 2860
Fatwa Title : Temples into mosques, mosques into temples
Fatwa Date : 30 Muharram 1423
Question
During the Islamic rule in India some of the temples were converted to mosques by the rulers. Is this acceptable in Islam? And what if a mosque which was built at a place where there was a temple earlier and now when Hindus demolish the mosque, should the Muslims oppose and sacrifice their lives for it? Please answer in detail with Qur`an and Sunnah.
Fatwa
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the World; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.
From Islamic point of view, there are three kinds of countries where non-Muslims live.
First, countries established by Muslims. In such countries, non-Muslims are allowed to live, but they are not permitted to build temples, churches or synagogues. Also, they are not allowed to eat pork or drink wine in public. In addition, even if they had an agreement with an Imam allowing the eating of pork and drinking wine in public such an agreement is not valid because such an agreement is unsound. Ibn al-Qayyim said: `There is no disagreement concerning the above ruling among Muslims`.
It is reported form Ibn `Abbas as presented by Abu Yusuf in his book ``al-Kharaj: land tax``. `Non-Muslims are not allowed to build some temples in a country that is built by Muslims and are not allowed to toll a bell nor to drink wine in public or raise pig`.
Imam Ahmad (May Allah`s Mercy be upon him), while answering a question about churches and synagogues built by Zimmis (non-Muslims in a Muslim country), said: `churches and synagogues should be destroyed, and they are not permitted to build a new one in a country that is built and inhabited by Muslims. They are not allowed to do what is mentioned above except what they have reconciled with and agreed upon with Muslims. It is said to Abu Abdullah : `What is the evidence that prevent, them from building a synagogue or church if the land is theirs and they pay Jizyah (poll tax) and they are not a source of mischief?` He answered: the Hadith of Ibn `Abbas (Radiya Allahu Anhu) mentioned above.
Ibn al-Qayyim said: `The above ruling rendered by Sunnah is established by virtue of Shari`a rules and fundamentals, since allowing non-Muslims to build temples constitutes a banner of disbelief and such a work is worse than establishing bars and brothels constitutes a banner of dissoluteness. Thus, the ruler of Muslims is not allowed to reconcile non-Muslims to produce rites of disobedience and lewdness, not to speak of producing a location for disbelief and polytheism`. We exclude from the above-ruling only places of worship that were built in the desert, and then, Muslims settled around them, i.e. such buildings are not to be destroyed.
Second, countries established by non-Muslims, and then, Muslims conquered them by force. In such countries, it is Haram to give rise to any place of worship for non-Muslims. As for places of worship that were established before conquest, Muslim scholars have two opinions:
1) All such places are to be destroyed; it is Haram to leave them as they are, since possession of such countries is conveyed to Muslims. So, it becomes Haram to maintain, in such countries, any places that show the banner of disbelief, just as the countries that are established and inhabited by Muslims. Another reason is that possession of places of churches and synagogues is conveyed to Muslims. This means that if we allow non-Muslims to establish their rites of disbelief, then it becomes like selling or renting out those places, and that is Haram. In addition, Allah has legislated Jihad until all kinds of worship are for Allah alone. If we help or allow them to establish their rites of disbelief in such places, then all kinds of worship will be for others, not for Allah.
2) It is permissible to leave places of worship as they are. This opinion is based on the Hadith stated above from Ibn `Abbas . This Hadith reads: ``In a country that was established by non-Muslims, and then, Muslims conquered it, non-Muslims have the rights mentioned in their agreement with Muslims, who are to honor their agreement with non-Muslims. The Muslims have no right to put on non-Muslims a burden greater than they have strength to bear`` .
In the same vein, the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) did not destroy Jewish places of worship after the conquest of Khaibar, but he left them as they were. The Prophet`s (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) companions did not destroy churches after conquering many countries. Such old places of worship exist at the present time.
Umar Ibn `Abdul `Aziz sent his officials the following: `Do not destroy a church or synagogue or a temple of fire worshippers`.
Ibn al-Qayyim said: `The sound judgment concerning the above-stated issue is that the Muslim ruler is authorized to do what is more suitable on behalf of Muslims. So, he can decide to take hold of non-Muslim places of worship or to remove them depending on Muslims` need of such place, paucity of non-Muslims and numerous temples. But, if he finds it is better to leave such places as they are due non-Muslims` need and Muslims` sufficiency, then he has to do so`. This is the superior saying.
Third, countries captured through reconciliation. If an agreement of reconciliation states that Muslims are only entitled to receive Kharaj (land tax) and the land is for non-Muslims or both parties have a truce only, then places of worship of non-Muslims are to be kept safe and non-Muslims can build new ones, since the land is theirs. This last picture of reconciliation was done with Najraan Christians by the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam), and he did not stipulate prevention of building a new church or abbey.
On the other hand, if an agreement of reconciliation states that the land is for Muslims and non-Muslims are to pay Jizyah (poll tax), then Muslims, (in case of ability) are to follow the steps of `Umar Ibn al-Khattab (Radiya Allahu Anhu), i.e. to prevent non-Muslims from establishing any church, synagogue or hermitage. In addition, if the agreement does not specify something, then we are to follow `Umar `s way of reconciliation, since it becomes a ruling of Shari`a for all Muslim rulers.
Thus, we have mentioned the general ruling, i.e. when there is a Muslim ruler who leads Muslim armies and manages Muslims` affairs and as long as Muslims have the ability to defend themselves or to wage Jihad. But, if Muslims are weak or there is no an independent Muslim state and entity, or they live as a Muslim minority, then the Muslims` interest should be the criterion. In simple words, if it will be a good advantage for Muslims to destroy non-Muslim places of worship and build new mosques instead of them, then Muslims have to do so.
On the other hand, if such a work may lead to worse actions such as killing and destruction by fire, Muslims have to do nothing. Here, we apply the ruling that states: `Warding off an evil is preferred to getting benefit`.
Allah knows best.]
I followed Mike’s link and got to this WONDERFUL site.
The good thing about this site is that it is HONEST.
Doesn’t try to mask or hide things like dishonest idiotic fanatics like tahmed32.
This is from the following address:
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=2860&Option=FatwaId
It is an absolutely fascinating read, and offers a glimpse into the naked muslim mind.
This IS the philosophy they follow, but pretend not to.
Enjoy:
[Fatwa No. : 2860
Fatwa Title : Temples into mosques, mosques into temples
Fatwa Date : 30 Muharram 1423
Question
During the Islamic rule in India some of the temples were converted to mosques by the rulers. Is this acceptable in Islam? And what if a mosque which was built at a place where there was a temple earlier and now when Hindus demolish the mosque, should the Muslims oppose and sacrifice their lives for it? Please answer in detail with Qur`an and Sunnah.
Fatwa
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the World; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.
From Islamic point of view, there are three kinds of countries where non-Muslims live.
First, countries established by Muslims. In such countries, non-Muslims are allowed to live, but they are not permitted to build temples, churches or synagogues. Also, they are not allowed to eat pork or drink wine in public. In addition, even if they had an agreement with an Imam allowing the eating of pork and drinking wine in public such an agreement is not valid because such an agreement is unsound. Ibn al-Qayyim said: `There is no disagreement concerning the above ruling among Muslims`.
It is reported form Ibn `Abbas as presented by Abu Yusuf in his book ``al-Kharaj: land tax``. `Non-Muslims are not allowed to build some temples in a country that is built by Muslims and are not allowed to toll a bell nor to drink wine in public or raise pig`.
Imam Ahmad (May Allah`s Mercy be upon him), while answering a question about churches and synagogues built by Zimmis (non-Muslims in a Muslim country), said: `churches and synagogues should be destroyed, and they are not permitted to build a new one in a country that is built and inhabited by Muslims. They are not allowed to do what is mentioned above except what they have reconciled with and agreed upon with Muslims. It is said to Abu Abdullah : `What is the evidence that prevent, them from building a synagogue or church if the land is theirs and they pay Jizyah (poll tax) and they are not a source of mischief?` He answered: the Hadith of Ibn `Abbas (Radiya Allahu Anhu) mentioned above.
Ibn al-Qayyim said: `The above ruling rendered by Sunnah is established by virtue of Shari`a rules and fundamentals, since allowing non-Muslims to build temples constitutes a banner of disbelief and such a work is worse than establishing bars and brothels constitutes a banner of dissoluteness. Thus, the ruler of Muslims is not allowed to reconcile non-Muslims to produce rites of disobedience and lewdness, not to speak of producing a location for disbelief and polytheism`. We exclude from the above-ruling only places of worship that were built in the desert, and then, Muslims settled around them, i.e. such buildings are not to be destroyed.
Second, countries established by non-Muslims, and then, Muslims conquered them by force. In such countries, it is Haram to give rise to any place of worship for non-Muslims. As for places of worship that were established before conquest, Muslim scholars have two opinions:
1) All such places are to be destroyed; it is Haram to leave them as they are, since possession of such countries is conveyed to Muslims. So, it becomes Haram to maintain, in such countries, any places that show the banner of disbelief, just as the countries that are established and inhabited by Muslims. Another reason is that possession of places of churches and synagogues is conveyed to Muslims. This means that if we allow non-Muslims to establish their rites of disbelief, then it becomes like selling or renting out those places, and that is Haram. In addition, Allah has legislated Jihad until all kinds of worship are for Allah alone. If we help or allow them to establish their rites of disbelief in such places, then all kinds of worship will be for others, not for Allah.
2) It is permissible to leave places of worship as they are. This opinion is based on the Hadith stated above from Ibn `Abbas . This Hadith reads: ``In a country that was established by non-Muslims, and then, Muslims conquered it, non-Muslims have the rights mentioned in their agreement with Muslims, who are to honor their agreement with non-Muslims. The Muslims have no right to put on non-Muslims a burden greater than they have strength to bear`` .
In the same vein, the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) did not destroy Jewish places of worship after the conquest of Khaibar, but he left them as they were. The Prophet`s (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) companions did not destroy churches after conquering many countries. Such old places of worship exist at the present time.
Umar Ibn `Abdul `Aziz sent his officials the following: `Do not destroy a church or synagogue or a temple of fire worshippers`.
Ibn al-Qayyim said: `The sound judgment concerning the above-stated issue is that the Muslim ruler is authorized to do what is more suitable on behalf of Muslims. So, he can decide to take hold of non-Muslim places of worship or to remove them depending on Muslims` need of such place, paucity of non-Muslims and numerous temples. But, if he finds it is better to leave such places as they are due non-Muslims` need and Muslims` sufficiency, then he has to do so`. This is the superior saying.
Third, countries captured through reconciliation. If an agreement of reconciliation states that Muslims are only entitled to receive Kharaj (land tax) and the land is for non-Muslims or both parties have a truce only, then places of worship of non-Muslims are to be kept safe and non-Muslims can build new ones, since the land is theirs. This last picture of reconciliation was done with Najraan Christians by the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam), and he did not stipulate prevention of building a new church or abbey.
On the other hand, if an agreement of reconciliation states that the land is for Muslims and non-Muslims are to pay Jizyah (poll tax), then Muslims, (in case of ability) are to follow the steps of `Umar Ibn al-Khattab (Radiya Allahu Anhu), i.e. to prevent non-Muslims from establishing any church, synagogue or hermitage. In addition, if the agreement does not specify something, then we are to follow `Umar `s way of reconciliation, since it becomes a ruling of Shari`a for all Muslim rulers.
Thus, we have mentioned the general ruling, i.e. when there is a Muslim ruler who leads Muslim armies and manages Muslims` affairs and as long as Muslims have the ability to defend themselves or to wage Jihad. But, if Muslims are weak or there is no an independent Muslim state and entity, or they live as a Muslim minority, then the Muslims` interest should be the criterion. In simple words, if it will be a good advantage for Muslims to destroy non-Muslim places of worship and build new mosques instead of them, then Muslims have to do so.
On the other hand, if such a work may lead to worse actions such as killing and destruction by fire, Muslims have to do nothing. Here, we apply the ruling that states: `Warding off an evil is preferred to getting benefit`.
Allah knows best.]
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#32 Posted by ali1. on July 5, 2005 3:38:19 pm
Why do we have such a storm in the teacup, huh?
Temporal, don`t you have anything better to do, like copy-paste articles from South Asia Tribune?
Temporal, don`t you have anything better to do, like copy-paste articles from South Asia Tribune?
#31 Posted by mohar11 on July 5, 2005 3:32:28 pm
Re: # 28 wahi
//....i think this would hurt pakistan....//
That`s what you think. There so many pakis you don`t share your thinking and those are people who have training, weapons, religion, money and power. They have everything they need to do what they want to do. And they are doing it. .... You have nothing - so what you think doesn`t matter.
Yes - pakistan is trying to portray the ``secular`` image these days - but you can put much lipstick on a pig - pig will continue to what the pig usually does ..... and nobody will be surprised.
//....i think this would hurt pakistan....//
That`s what you think. There so many pakis you don`t share your thinking and those are people who have training, weapons, religion, money and power. They have everything they need to do what they want to do. And they are doing it. .... You have nothing - so what you think doesn`t matter.
Yes - pakistan is trying to portray the ``secular`` image these days - but you can put much lipstick on a pig - pig will continue to what the pig usually does ..... and nobody will be surprised.
#30 Posted by rajivr on July 5, 2005 3:22:49 pm
Veeresh Bhai,
Glad to see u here.Me be marooned engineer,bro of hack.If you be cybersteering guru then me spot on.
Glad to see u here.Me be marooned engineer,bro of hack.If you be cybersteering guru then me spot on.
#29 Posted by rajivr on July 5, 2005 3:15:44 pm
Re: # 15
Most amusing.You give way too much credit to the RSS and BJP.
Most amusing.You give way too much credit to the RSS and BJP.
#28 Posted by wahi_to on July 5, 2005 3:14:41 pm
Re: # 21
mohair,
well it is certainly possible that this might be an ISI work but pakistan is trying to portray the ``secular`` image these days and this would run contrary to that ``secular`` image game.
like my question is what do they benefit from it, i think this would hurt pakistan.
of course there are folks in pakistan that would love to see India in hell but right now this action wont help pakistan.
mohair,
well it is certainly possible that this might be an ISI work but pakistan is trying to portray the ``secular`` image these days and this would run contrary to that ``secular`` image game.
like my question is what do they benefit from it, i think this would hurt pakistan.
of course there are folks in pakistan that would love to see India in hell but right now this action wont help pakistan.
#27 Posted by rajivr on July 5, 2005 3:10:46 pm
The problem is..no one has really realized the fundamental difference between ``received`` religions and those which have simply evolved with time.Islam, Christianity,Buddhism belong to the former..a clearly and possibly historically identified Prophet, a Book or a set of teachings...and the others like Animism or Hinduism.
i propose a radical theory..that mankind is wired for spirituality as his first comprhension of the world beyond him lay in the Mystery of the Unknown.
By one means or the other,he has since been giving names that which he cannot comprehend...
and that which will remain forever incomprehensible. no matter how clever he gets.
Let us jettison labels and move on to a label less,nameless pursuit of truth and mystery and stop killing for it.
RR
i propose a radical theory..that mankind is wired for spirituality as his first comprhension of the world beyond him lay in the Mystery of the Unknown.
By one means or the other,he has since been giving names that which he cannot comprehend...
and that which will remain forever incomprehensible. no matter how clever he gets.
Let us jettison labels and move on to a label less,nameless pursuit of truth and mystery and stop killing for it.
RR
#26 Posted by rajivr on July 5, 2005 2:56:24 pm
jehadist attacks will continue.The courage of ordinary Indians and Pakistanis who desire Peace will be tested.
The power of rational discourse will be on trial when innocent lives are lost.
Cultural baggage will come in the way of denouncing fundamantalism..Jehadi(A green band over the world) or Akhand Bharatis(Hindi,Hindu,Hindustan)..
But resist we must.Let this not break the inevitable and inexorable way of Peace.Amen.
The power of rational discourse will be on trial when innocent lives are lost.
Cultural baggage will come in the way of denouncing fundamantalism..Jehadi(A green band over the world) or Akhand Bharatis(Hindi,Hindu,Hindustan)..
But resist we must.Let this not break the inevitable and inexorable way of Peace.Amen.
#25 Posted by kaurasach on July 5, 2005 2:05:34 pm
Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera
By Our Correspondent
NOWSHERA, Jan 29: An angry mob ransacked a temple to avenge an alleged desecration of Holy Quran by a man here, police and witnesses said. Chief Minister Mohammad Akram Khan Durrani has ordered a judicial inquiry into the incident and suspended two senior police officers. He also ordered immediate rehabilitation of the temple.
Police said that the incident took place on Tuesday evening when children playing in Lal Kurti in the Nowshera Cantonment area spotted two pieces of paper later identified as pages from a book taught to students before they start the Holy Book.
The children, however, immediately informed their elders about what they termed ‘desecration,’ triggering an angry reaction from residents. Police said that a Christian janitor, who was cleaning the rented quarters of a nurse from the Combined Military Hospital, had collected things left by the previous tenants and set them on fire, not knowing what was in it.
“I think the guy is innocent,” District Police Officer Zebullah Khan told Dawn. The 55-year-old Yusuf Masih was immediately taken into ‘safe custody’, the DPO said, recalling a tragic incident in Nowshera in April when a man was shot dead by a mob for allegedly desecrating Holy Quran.
Mr Khan said that a mob of about 300 people had gathered outside the police station where Masih had been kept , demanding that he be handed over to them. At around the same time, he said, the mob blocked the Grand Trunk Road for about an hour but dispersed peacefully after negotiations.
However, another group rushed towards a Hindu temple known as Lamba Vera Mandar and tried to set it on fire. They damaged the main door and ransacked its furniture, the DPO said. “It appeared pre-planned and premeditated,” Zebullah Khan said. Fire-fighters rushed to the place and the fire was put out before it could spread.
Deputy Superintendent of Police and SHO, Nowshera Cantonment, have been suspended and an inquiry has been ordered against them.
Minority MPAs, Felix Innocent and Gusaran Lal, met the chief minister and sought his intervention.
By Our Correspondent
NOWSHERA, Jan 29: An angry mob ransacked a temple to avenge an alleged desecration of Holy Quran by a man here, police and witnesses said. Chief Minister Mohammad Akram Khan Durrani has ordered a judicial inquiry into the incident and suspended two senior police officers. He also ordered immediate rehabilitation of the temple.
Police said that the incident took place on Tuesday evening when children playing in Lal Kurti in the Nowshera Cantonment area spotted two pieces of paper later identified as pages from a book taught to students before they start the Holy Book.
The children, however, immediately informed their elders about what they termed ‘desecration,’ triggering an angry reaction from residents. Police said that a Christian janitor, who was cleaning the rented quarters of a nurse from the Combined Military Hospital, had collected things left by the previous tenants and set them on fire, not knowing what was in it.
“I think the guy is innocent,” District Police Officer Zebullah Khan told Dawn. The 55-year-old Yusuf Masih was immediately taken into ‘safe custody’, the DPO said, recalling a tragic incident in Nowshera in April when a man was shot dead by a mob for allegedly desecrating Holy Quran.
Mr Khan said that a mob of about 300 people had gathered outside the police station where Masih had been kept , demanding that he be handed over to them. At around the same time, he said, the mob blocked the Grand Trunk Road for about an hour but dispersed peacefully after negotiations.
However, another group rushed towards a Hindu temple known as Lamba Vera Mandar and tried to set it on fire. They damaged the main door and ransacked its furniture, the DPO said. “It appeared pre-planned and premeditated,” Zebullah Khan said. Fire-fighters rushed to the place and the fire was put out before it could spread.
Deputy Superintendent of Police and SHO, Nowshera Cantonment, have been suspended and an inquiry has been ordered against them.
Minority MPAs, Felix Innocent and Gusaran Lal, met the chief minister and sought his intervention.
#24 Posted by Mike on July 5, 2005 1:47:27 pm
Understanding the islamic mentality >
During the Islamic rule in India some of the temples were converted to mosques by the rulers. Is this acceptable in Islam?
Thus, we have mentioned the general ruling, i.e. when there is a Muslim ruler who leads Muslim armies and manages Muslims` affairs and as long as Muslims have the ability to defend themselves or to wage Jihad. But, if Muslims are weak or there is no an independent Muslim state and entity, or they live as a Muslim minority, then the Muslims` interest should be the criterion. In simple words, if it will be a good advantage for Muslims to destroy non-Muslim places of worship and build new mosques instead of them, then Muslims have to do so.
On the other hand, if such a work may lead to worse actions such as killing and destruction by fire, Muslims have to do nothing. Here, we apply the ruling that states: `Warding off an evil is preferred to getting benefit`.
Basically the command is thus, destroy and/or desecrate non-Muslim religious sites if you can get away with it.
During the Islamic rule in India some of the temples were converted to mosques by the rulers. Is this acceptable in Islam?
Thus, we have mentioned the general ruling, i.e. when there is a Muslim ruler who leads Muslim armies and manages Muslims` affairs and as long as Muslims have the ability to defend themselves or to wage Jihad. But, if Muslims are weak or there is no an independent Muslim state and entity, or they live as a Muslim minority, then the Muslims` interest should be the criterion. In simple words, if it will be a good advantage for Muslims to destroy non-Muslim places of worship and build new mosques instead of them, then Muslims have to do so.
On the other hand, if such a work may lead to worse actions such as killing and destruction by fire, Muslims have to do nothing. Here, we apply the ruling that states: `Warding off an evil is preferred to getting benefit`.
Basically the command is thus, destroy and/or desecrate non-Muslim religious sites if you can get away with it.
#23 Posted by mohar11 on July 5, 2005 1:43:14 pm
Re: # 20 kaura
//...Law and Order and PC, business profits refrains many from speaking or doing their mind....//
That`s how ``forgive-but-not-forget`` works :) People focus on the positives and move on.
//...Law and Order and PC, business profits refrains many from speaking or doing their mind....//
That`s how ``forgive-but-not-forget`` works :) People focus on the positives and move on.
#22 Posted by Netizen on July 5, 2005 1:37:49 pm
Re: # 20
yesterday i was watching history channel about pearl harbor. towards the end they interviewed the veterans who were there at that time. Some wanted to forget it saying the japs were just soldiers following the order. whereas some were indeed seeting with anger (after 50+ years) and would never forgive the japs for it.
yesterday i was watching history channel about pearl harbor. towards the end they interviewed the veterans who were there at that time. Some wanted to forget it saying the japs were just soldiers following the order. whereas some were indeed seeting with anger (after 50+ years) and would never forgive the japs for it.
#21 Posted by mohar11 on July 5, 2005 1:31:10 pm
Re: # 15 wahi
I am not ``Sanghi`` - but will reply anyway.
If this were a VHP insider job - then that would be the ``best`` fall out. Sanghis would have just committed suicide......The worst fall out would be if any indian muslim were found to be involved. That would be really bad. But I doubt that would be the case.
Most likely it`s a paki handi-work, as usual - then the so called peace process should be toast. Because this is just the beginning of the Jihad Verision 2.0 - Visaless travel for pakis introduced by boneheads sitting in delhi has just started to deliver. Enjoy the show !!!
I am not ``Sanghi`` - but will reply anyway.
If this were a VHP insider job - then that would be the ``best`` fall out. Sanghis would have just committed suicide......The worst fall out would be if any indian muslim were found to be involved. That would be really bad. But I doubt that would be the case.
Most likely it`s a paki handi-work, as usual - then the so called peace process should be toast. Because this is just the beginning of the Jihad Verision 2.0 - Visaless travel for pakis introduced by boneheads sitting in delhi has just started to deliver. Enjoy the show !!!
#20 Posted by kaurasach on July 5, 2005 1:23:53 pm
I knew a few war veterans of WW2, Korean War, and Vietnam war. One even tried to recruit me for anti Jewish group (I wore a turban at the time). He was one of those paramillitary types. The anger and rage they and their relatives have is seething and festering under that facade. Law and Order and PC, business profits refrains many from speaking or doing their mind.
Scratch the surface - and you will know what is forgotten and what is forgiven.
Scratch the surface - and you will know what is forgotten and what is forgiven.
#19 Posted by jang on July 5, 2005 1:22:38 pm
#15 by wahi_to on July 5, 2005 12:45pm PT
plain and simple this is a BJP/RSS/VHP job.
bhaisab, indian society is kinda open..lot of media glare, powerful opposition parties etc. i can understand from your pakistani viewpoint love of conspiracy theories. after all WTC was bombed by the yahoods.
plain and simple this is a BJP/RSS/VHP job.
bhaisab, indian society is kinda open..lot of media glare, powerful opposition parties etc. i can understand from your pakistani viewpoint love of conspiracy theories. after all WTC was bombed by the yahoods.
#18 Posted by cayenne on July 5, 2005 1:16:56 pm
Raise the alarm!.Sound the bugles!.Enough of this phony peace process with pak.Fortify the fence and keep them all out.That`s the only solution.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- ajeya: #51 Posted by hamidm2 [...... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- hamidm2: Re: # 52 nkg mian, "The... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- pinku: now in bold so... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- pinku: #51 Posted by mohar11... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- MeiraJ08: Ras, good to see... Three Cups of Tea
- mohar11: People have to realize... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- mohar11: harish that article in "india... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- tahmed32: #48 That redflag is... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
