Being Imrana

Romair Re 184

Let me explain this why we abuse Muslims i.e. not per se me but people of my ideology.

Islam first came to India in kerala brought by Arab traders recent converts to Islam. They were given women in marriage and called Mapillas i.e. son in law. Pherumal Cheruman constructed the first mosque in memory of Vavar where EVERY SINGLE HINDU PILIGRIM HAS TO WORSHIP TO PROCEED TO SABRIMALA THE HOLIEST HINDU PILGRIM SITE IN KERALA.

Now let us look how Muslims have repaid us: (BTW I shall put a specific kerala context).

Tipu Sultans mass conversions, rapes and killings in North Malabar. Now let us see what the apologists say ``Was offended by bare breasted women`` (fact not bare breasted but using single unstitched cloth for covering themselves but let us not get into semantics) ``Was offended by women heading households`` so much for women`s rights ``was offended by idolatry`` so much for you your religion and for me mine. Tipu faithfully foolowed koranic or Quranic injunctions take your pick.

Wholesale slaughter rape, killing and conversion during post Khilafat riots in 1922-23 when the Mapillas wanted to establish an Islamic state under Musaliar (one would be mistaken to think India had abolished the Khilafat). While attempting to launch an Islamic state the Mapillas were faithfully following Kuranic or Qoranic injunctions.

Recent killings in Marad.

Fact of the matter is Islam is not a religion but organised apartheid, fascism, slaughter and oppression (against ``kaffirs``) and deserves all the epithets it gets. BTW me thinks they are too moderate. And as for IM`s being fellow citizens I yearn for the day when all IR`s (Indian Religionists) will realise these people are not fellow citizens but an Islamic fifth column in India bent upon destroying the Sanatan Dharam. You could get a better idea of your so called religion by looking at www.bharatvani.org.

Also you may say why I dont abuse Islam for the simple reason it may actually force you to change for the better remember we Hindus (i.e our religion, culture and gods) were abused to hell and highwater by Christoos and it forced us to moderate (I will not say reform as we still have to make substantial progress regarding the same) some of our unHindu and Anti Hindu practices read untouchability (as also Sati but not in the politically corect way). More power to MPL let the IM`s rot more if only we could get the Mullah`s to be more regressive.

Post Script Dedicated to Mantolives:

Do not get worked up when anyone abuses Jinnah. J was the greatest Indian of modern times. And I say thank god for the fact he created Pak and this I say as a internally displaced person from West Punjab who lost family and property there who will always say I am a x subcaste Khatri from Lahore I thank the lord for it. So quit trying to defend J. Let anyone abuse him you know that proverb ``Chand pe thukna``


Even better would have been if all IM`s would have been given a ticket to the land of the pure.

Even better J should have come back to India to become PM (How simple Bhagwan Krishan would have come to Earth and sliced all the Congressis and Commies [Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Kripalani, Tandon, Rajagolachari, JP, Lohia, Randive, Mazumdar, Kumarmangalam, EMS]et all with his Sudarshan Chakra and issued a fatwa in J`s favour){And knowing Bhagwan K`s sense of humour he would would have said after K comes J} [And his act of ruthlessness would have ensured that all Hindus would have seen discretion as the better part of valour {We all know Bhagwan K can be a ruthless S.O.B. when he wants to be}].

Even better would have been Navameshwar Shri Guru Shiromani Guru Tegh Bahadur ji would have come and given J 25 years of life to lead independent India towards prosperity and happiness.

Even better the great and good Babasaheb Ambedkar would be PM and Savarkar the DM ``Kshatriyaise the Hindus``. Pity the Indian people could not see who the greatest son`s of mother India were and choose to follow a Mahatma (One who had no Atma) a Pandit (Who was uneducated, ignorant, egoistic and vainglorious) a Sardar (who was a believer of a false guru and a true Sardar and i repeat a true Sardar never follows a false guru).

Postscript to Romair. Possibly the one way ticket to IM`s to Pak and subsequent adoption of Arabic language would have created a united non feudal democratic Pak. Also if Isam like a vodoo cult merely sucked it would be no problem but unfortunately it converts or kills that is the problem. And well I shall give you an example of our superiority to Islam the only two Muslim queens who have been rulers in the C-in-C sense were Indian Razia and Chand Bibi as also hereditary tokens Begums of Bhopal. Let any place in the Islamic world top that?

Dear fellow Indians who are IR`s quit trying to abuse demonise J or the TNT. What is true is Pak was created not when the 1st Indian embraced Islam but when the first Indian area became a Isamic majority (Oops sorry I should say second area became Islamic majority the fall of Zabul created Afghanistan). It took Muslims 550 years to overcome us Hindus and become overlords of our country (a substantial portion of it anyways) we (IR`s) fought them for anothe 550 to overcome this alien phenomenon in our land BUT while we were the only people who did not fully succumb to predatory reptilian ideologies like Islam, Christ and Commie we could never formulate an ideological response to them (just as we have never tried to formulate an ideological response to our own shortcomings against say untouchability {Practise untouchability and Bhagwan Shri Ram is an untouchable so the Sikh Gurus and dont even think of reading the Ramayan and the Gita both written by untouchables [this I mean in the practised sense]}). Compare it with Islam fall (if not fall its decline) of Mughal Empire to IR`s brought 3 superb polemicists for its cause that lead to the IM`s in thir thought process eventually creating pakistan. This trinity was Jahandar, Shah Waliullah and Sayad Ahmad Barelvi.

So wake up dear brothers understand what these ideologies are about and remember what these ideologies are all about and attempt to develop baudhik kshatriyata otherwise J`s favour will be of no use and we shall all be swamped by this Islamist tide. For more info please go to Voice of India www.bharatvani.org

Re. #283

``70% of Hindus are illiterate.``

It doesn`t stop them from knowing about Ramayan, Mahabharat or Gita.

Re: #286 by Dalit


[heheheheh…

99% of Hindus don’t know that….hehehehe…. got the drift…..braindead….hehehehe ]


Did they perform a lobotomy at the same time they removed your foreskin?

=== Interact Removed ===

Re: # 286 The exact figure is 99.9999999 percent. However, 100.00% Indians have to follow Dr. Ambedkar`s BETTER book.

Re: # 286 Which book from Dr. Ambedkar are you quoting again and again?

#285 by southasian

“Modern India is not run by Manusmriti but by Ambedkarsmriti. Hope you get the point.”

heheheheh…

99% of Hindus don’t know that….hehehehe…. got the drift…..braindead….hehehehe

Re: # 283 Nice try Dalit. Took you some time though. Just a polite addition. Modern India is not run by Manusmriti but by Ambedkarsmriti. Hope you get the point. More Hindus know of and cannot get by without the later than the former.

Re: # 283 Nice try Dalit. Took you some time though. Just a polite addition. Modern India is not run by Manusmriti but by Ambedkarsmriti. Hope you get the point. More Hindus know of and cannot get by without the later than the former.

#279 by dost-mittar
“This may come as a surprise to you that a random survey of Hindus (not just chowkies) would reveal that an overwhelming majority of them has never even heard of Manusmrit.”

70% of Hindus are illiterate.

Dr. Ambedkar quotes Manusmriti extensively.

“BTW, you are as much a dalit as Mike is a wahabi muslim”

Your creditability is zilch!

Didn’t you say
#211 by dost-mittar
“- Hindus do not take religion as seriously as Muslims or even Sikhs.”

A big fat lie! I just proved it.

#211 by dost-mittar
“most of the virulent attackers of Islam have declared themselves to be atheists or agnostics.”

All big fat Atheist and agnostics liars attacked my mother as soon as Hinduism was under the Gun.

Quotes from Dr. Ambedkar.

All those who study the Caste System are naturally led to inquire into the origin of it. Manu being the progenitor of Caste had to give an explanation of the origin of the various castes. What is the origin which Manu gives? His explanation is simple. He says that leaving aside the four original castes the rest are simply baseborn!!

He says they are the progeny of fornication and adultery between men and women of the four original castes. The immorality and looseness of character among men and women of the four original castes must have been limitless to account for the rise of innumerable castes consisting of innumerable souls!!
Manu makes the wild allegation without stopping to consider what aspersions he is casting upon men and women of the four original castes. For if the chandals—the old name for the Untouchables—are the progeny of a Brahman female and a Shudra male then it is obvious that to account for such a large number of Chandals it must be assumed that every Brahman woman was sl-t and a whore and every Shudra lived an adulterous life with complete abandon.

Unquote.

#281 by sunlight

Childish arguements! Hehehehe

#273 by southasian

“heheheh reasonable questions heheheh Hindus heheheh
Let me see if you can improve on this.”

heheheh… brain dead!.....heheheheh

#275 by Al_Bundy
There is no historical evidence whatsoever that Ram or Krishna, two deities worshipped by millions of Hindus in India and elsewhere, ever existed
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is no historical evidence whatsoever that most religious figures ever existed, and to prove it we shall look at Jesus Christ. The lack of historical information about Indian figures is understandable to some extent, since India never had a strong historical tradition. However, the lack of information about Jesus is extremely surprising given the strong Roman tradition of history.

From: http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html
``If Jesus actually existed and did all the miraculous things he is said to have done then surely many people would have written about it during and immediately following Jesus` life. Writing was common at the time, yet an extensive search by many scholars over centuries has turned up nothing. ``

``Jesus allegedly had crowds of thousands follow him around. Once he fed 5000 people with only a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish (Mark 6:39-44). Later he repeated the miracle again feeding a crowd of 4000 people (Mark 8:1-9). Jesus cured sick people miraculously and raised people from the dead. He changed water into wine at a wedding reception. He exorcised demons. He commanded 2000 pigs to rush into a lake and drown themselves, inciting the people of the nearby town and countryside, who asked him to leave. ``

``Writing was common back then. People wrote letters. Historians wrote commentaries on current events. The Romans wrote and kept legal documents about trials. It`s considered one of the best documented periods of history. Yet no one wrote anything about Jesus...``

From http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/jesusmyth.htm

``There is not a single physical description of Jesus, not one. Isn`t that a little odd? Had the man got no distinguishing features at all?``

The New Testament, which is the largest source of information about Jesus, is full of contradictions (and is also not contemporary) and probably contains negligible historical information:

Geneological: http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_dir.htm
``[Matthew`s Gospel] traces Jesus` genealogy from Abraham. He lists Jacob as being Jesus` grandfather. This conflicts with [Luke`s Gospel], who lists Eli. Jesus` line is traced through Solomon, son of David. Luke traces the Messianic line through Nathan, son of David. [Matthew] lists 28 generations between David and Jesus; Luke says it was 41.``

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm ``As for the hometown of Jesus` parents, neither gospel can agree where it was. Matthew has them residing in Bethlehem in Judea, while Luke says they lived in Nazareth in Galilee.``

Verifiable historical details in the New Testament are wrong: http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm
``Luke also tells us that Jesus’ birth happened during Herod`s reign. Luke even adds what appears to be detailed and historical evidence of the period. He writes that Jesus was born during a census or registration of the populace ordered by emperor Augustus at the time that Quirinius (Cyrenius) was Roman governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-3). In reality, this has to be a fabrication because Quirinius was not governor of Syria and Judea during Herod`s kingship. Direct Roman rule over the province of Judea, where Bethlehem was located, was not established until 6 A.D. In other words, ten years separated the rule of Quirinius from Herod.``

``If the census did take place, it was in the year 6 CE, long after Herod`s death. Therefore, Matthew`s stories of the Wise Men`s visit to Herod and the Christchild, and Herod`s massacre of the innocents which caused the holy family to flee to Egypt, are all historically impossible. Moreover, it should be noted that Luke also got his facts wrong about the census of Augustus. Such an imperial census would only apply to Roman citizens of the empire, not to Joseph, a Galilean who was not under direct Roman rule.``

#270 by Dalit: From the tone of Dalit`s comments, I doubt he is interested in a serious discussion...nevertheless...

Hinduism is not a revealed religion and, therefore, has neither a founder nor definite teachings or common system of doctrines [Richard F. Nyrof, Area Handbook for India, (Washington: 1975), p. 163.]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(sarcasm on) On the contrary, Islam and Christianity being revealed religions, they have very definite teachings which every Muslim and Christian believe in (sarcasm off). I think anybody who has seen the violent disagreements on this board about who is a Muslim can see the superficiality of this comment.

In the words of S.V. Kelkar, ``There is in fact no system of doctrines, no teacher, or school of teaching, no single god that is accepted by all the Hindus.``
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
``There is in fact no system of doctrines, no teacher or school of teaching that is accepted by all Muslims or by all Christians. It is also debatable whether a single God is accepted by all the Muslims or by all Christians.``

``Hinduism has never ... never prescribed a course of training for its priests.``
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is completely incorrect - there is, in fact, a well laid out course of training for priests.

``In Hinduism, none is, therefore, regarded to have forsaken his or her religion, even if he or she deviates to any extent from the usually accepted doctrines or practices. ``
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First of all, the earlier part of the post says that there is no accepted set of doctrines. Then the above part says that a person can deviate from the ``usually accepted doctrines``! Perhaps the author should make up his mind whether there are accepted doctrines or not.

IMHO, we are wasting time on unnecessary protests.

If compared to other places, there was too much sex in India, my only regret is that I was not around to take part in those blissful activities. Hopefully, I was there, and have forotten.

Now, if we could all listen about the love affair between Vishnu and Mahesh, as dalitji promised, we will increase our happy and important education.

Dalitji, the floor is yours.

Re: # 273

dalit:

You are right is suggesting that Hinduism has no single book or dogma. Then don`t you feel somewhat silly quoting Manusmriti as binding on Hindus? This may come as a surprise to you that a random survey of Hindus (not just chowkies) would reveal that an overwhelming majority of them has never even heard of Manusmrit.

BTW, you are as much a dalit as Mike is a wahabi muslim but that by itself does not make your observations invalid. Your posts would be just as valid or invalid if you called yourself Sharma or Ahmad.

RE: #274 by vagabond78

Excellent post.

But you are casting pearls before swine.

It`s no use.

With types like this Dalit character, only the rod works. Up their rear end.

Sad, but true.

Re: # 276

3. If he was a Pakistani saying the same thing about Allah he would be facing death penality for blasphemy.

Re: # 275

Al_bhangi,

1. Faith transcends evidences or any historical facts. For a fact, there`s no evidence to prove the existence of Allah either. And that`s R S Sharma`s firm and verifiable Marxist belief.

2. It`ll be interesting to learn how our ``marxist historian`` wants his body to be disposed of when he dies.

Cheers

There is no historical evidence whatsoever that Ram or Krishna, two deities worshipped by millions of Hindus in India and elsewhere, ever existed

Sharma reiterates stand regarding Ram, Krishna

From our correspondent
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/subcontinent/2005/July/subcontinent_July618.xml§ion=subcontinent&col=

18 July 2005
KOLKATA — A leading historian has said that there is no historical evidence whatsoever that Ram or Krishna, two deities worshipped by millions of Hindus in India and elsewhere, ever existed.
``Faith is one thing. But hard evidence is another``, R.S. Sharma, 82, said after BJP and Sangh Parivar cadres burnt his effigies in Patna, accusing him of insulting Hinduism.
BJP and other extremist Hindu groups are angry with Sharma because his observations shatter their political line that Ram was born in Ayodhya. Now, they have dubbed Sharma a communist not fit to live in India, let alone propagate his views to misguide ordinary people.
According to Sharma, the projection of Ram as one born in Ayodhya and who later ruled it is factually incorrect and inconsistent with facts. ``A king needs an army, taxation system and legions of officials to govern his kingdom. There is not even a hint of evidence to show that a king called Ram or an administrative infrastructure ever existed. So where is the question of his birth in Ayodhya?`` According to Sharma, archaeological evidence is far more important than the so-called family tree cited in the Puranas scriptures. ``So what if Puranic content is being used to date Ram of Ayodhya around 2000 BC. It is not borne out by scientific digging and excavation in Ayodhya by experts``, he said.
Making light of the virulent protests by BJP members, he remarked: ``They have burnt me when I am still alive. Now there is no need to cremate me if I die tomorrow.`` Sharma said that the Hindi version of his book on ancient India, Prarambhik Bharat Ka Parichay, was viciously attacked last year by BJP leaders who accused him of taking liberty with facts.
``But they had not even read my book. Some politicians are so busy instigating trouble and dividing societies that they have no time to read or write. All they do is shoot their mouths off``, he said.
His book was withdrawn from the NCERT syllabus when the NDA was in power on the grounds that it was the handiwork of a Marxist historian.

Dalit,

When you are clearly aware that ``Hinduism is not a revealed religion and, therefore, has neither a founder nor definite teachings or common system of doctrines..and the rest of the 1st para in #270`` , why do you quote Manu as if it`s the prevailing morality in modern India?

And for the rest of your comments like:

1. Brahma is found ``guilty`` of cohabiting with his own daughter, Saraswati

2. The sexual life of Krishna, an incarnation of Vishnu, is well-known for its ``indecency``. He had ``illicit`` relations with Radha, wife of his maternal uncle.

Before you use words like fornication and prostitution I`d advise you not look at hinduism through the prism of Dalit-Christian/Islamic morality. You wouldnt understand the symoblism behind Shiva linga when you could never question the virginity of Mother Mary or the paedophilia of Muhammed when he married Ayesha.

If India hadnt been invaded and ruled by muslims and christians, who knows, we could be celebrating here a kind of womanhood where a modern Radha could freely express her desire and act on it.
Kerala would still be a matrilineal society and witness fortnightly festivals of fornication. Wasnt that booker winner a keralite who said it all started 2000 yrs ago when modern ``love laws`` were laid down?

If hinduism doesnt have a singular set of beliefs it only reinforces the democratic nature of hindus where freedom of belief, thought and speech is paramount. Perhaps the most popular of ``hindu`` verses is:

Guru brahma, guru vishnu, gurdeo maheshwara,
Guru shakshat para-brahma, tasmaisri guruvey namah!.

Loosely, it means that you can go pray your local school teacher if that`s your belief.

Finally, since the subtlety of Dharma is beyond you it`ll be good if you attend weekly prayers seeking advance-forgiveness for the sins you`ve gonna commit in the coming week.

Cheers

Re: # 270 Dalit: Whatever religion you follow hasn`t taught you any decency either. You either try to insult or respond to insult. You don`t respond to reasonable questions asked in a reasonable manner. You invent an insult where there is none. You heap insult where its not needed. I am not sure which tolerant and decent religion you follow.

Let me guess what your response will be:

heheheh reasonable questions heheheh Hindus heheheh

Let me see if you can improve on this.

Re: # 270 Dalit: Whatever religion you follow hasn`t taught you any decency either. You either try to insult or respond to insult. You don`t respond to reasonable questions asked in a reasonable manner. You invent an insult where there is none. You heap insult where its not needed. I am not sure which tolerant and decent religion you follow.

Let me guess what your response will be:

heheheh reasonable questions heheheh Hindus heheheh

Let me see if you can improve on this.

#459 by Dalit

[Glad he left the p-drinking tribe.
heheheheh ]

And joined the tribe led by a p.
heheheheh

LACK OF A COMMON SENSE
Hinduism is not a revealed religion and, therefore, has neither a founder nor definite teachings or common system of doctrines [Richard F. Nyrof, Area Handbook for India, (Washington: 1975), p. 163.] It has no organization, no dogma or accepted creeds. There is no authority with recognized jurisdiction. A man, therefore, could neglect any one of the prescribed duties of his group and still be regarded as a good Hindu. ``Hinduism has never prepared a body of canonical scriptures or a common prayer book; it has never held a general council or convocation; never defined the relation between deity and clergy; never regulated the canonization of saints or their worship; never established a single centre of religious life; never prescribed a course of training for its priests.``[ ERE. 6:7 12.] In the words of S.V. Kelkar, ``There is in fact no system of doctrines, no teacher, or school of teaching, no single god that is accepted by all the Hindus.`` [Theertha, p. 177.] In Hinduism, none is, therefore, regarded to have forsaken his or her religion, even if he or she deviates to any extent from the usually accepted doctrines or practices.
It is a collection of Pagan rites.

Hindus believe in Many gods and goddesses. Some of them are human (e.g. Krishna, Rama) some are animals (e.g. fish, monkey, rat, snake), some half animal half humans (e.g. Ganesh), and some others are natural phenomena (e.g. dawn, fire, sun). According to Hindu belief, god incarnates, i.e., takes the form of human being and other animals and appears in this earth in that form. Gods and goddesses were born like human beings and had wives and children. No god possesses absolute power; some of the gods are weaker than the sages and some others even weaker than the animals. Another aspect about Hindu gods is that the status of their godhood is not fixed. One finds that some gods were worshipped for a time and then abandoned and new gods and goddesses were adopted instead. The gods and goddesses worshipped now-a-days in Hindu homes and temples are not Vedic. The Vedic gods like Agni (fire), Surya (sun) Usha (dawn) are completely rejected and the gods and goddesses mentioned in the Puranas are worshipped by modern Hindus. Similarly, Rama who is currently receiving increasing acceptance among Hindus in India because of the wide propagation of the official and other media was never worshipped as a deity until the Eleventh century.
In short, Hinduism is a collection of Pagan rites and it promotes paganism. The absence of any central belief system ensures that the followers don’t have any moral, ethical norms, and standard values to follow. Often Hindus lack decency and have a very low tolerance threshold.

#269 by Ajeya

“No wonder your father converted!”

Glad he left the p-drinking tribe.
heheheheh

#263 by southasian

“Re: # 261 Dalit you are arguing well.” …For a Dalit... Dalit are not expected to argue well. heheheh

Re: #261 by Dalit


[Brahma is found guilty of cohabiting with his own daughter, Saraswati. ]

The sexual life of Krishna, an incarnation of Vishnu, is well-known for its indecency. He had illicit relations with Radha, wife of his maternal uncle]



Are you talking about Hindu mythology?

I am talking about historic incidents where your revered raped MANY women the same day he killed their husbands.


And he REALLY got MANY idiot converts who were thrilled to know that after they die they`ll be rewarded with 72 whores who would become virgins again and again - i.e. their hymens would repair themselves repeatedly.

What a deep philosophical worldview!

No wonder your father converted!

:-)

Re: # 267

Yeah, this ``Dalit`` is a fraud.. :-))

This is what Ambedkar quoted.. He had a very low opinion on Muslims..

According to Ambedkar`s study, Islam effects a neat and ruthless
division of the world into Dar-ul-Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-
Harb (Abode of War). Dr. Ambedkar in his book says, ``The dominating
influence of Muslims is not democracy. The predominant interest of
Muslims is Islam their politics being essentially clerical. To the
Muslim Islam is a world religion suitable for all people for all
times and for all conditions. The brotherhood of Islam is not the
universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for
Muslims only. For non-muslims there is no thing but contempt and
enmity. The Muslims have allegiance to a nation ruled by a Muslim. A
land not ruled by a Muslim is their enemy land and it cannot regard
Hindus as his kith and kin. The spirit of aggression is the muslim`s`
natural endowment. He takes advantage of the weakness of the Hindus
and follows gangsterism. A divided Hindu Nation is always to their
advantage. If there are any people with whom religious sentiments and
practices make it extremely risky to interfere, they are the Muslims``

#261 ``Dalit``

I notice you have not replied to any of my questions. You stand exposed as an impostor without the slightest serious interest in dalit issues. Good-bye and enjoy your silly act.

Re: # 261

``Heheheh
Christianity yes!
Just will be slaughtered if you killed a holy cow….hehehehe…Can’t stay alive after eating a cow….hehehehe… some tolerance… heheheh…. How many Muslims and Dalit have died for disrespecting the holy cow….can’t count…heheheheh
Another liar…. ``

---

Dalit:

I like your ``hehehes``.. They are good.. But use it sparingly.. :-)).

Re: # 261

``Heheheh
Christianity yes!
Just will be slaughtered if you killed a holy cow….hehehehe…Can’t stay alive after eating a cow….hehehehe… some tolerance… heheheh…. How many Muslims and Dalit have died for disrespecting the holy cow….can’t count…heheheheh
Another liar…. ``

---

Dalit:

I like your ``hehehes``.. They are good.. But use it sparingly.. :-)).

#261 by Dalit on July 17, 2005 2:04pm PT


Brahma is found guilty of cohabiting with his own daughter, Saraswati.


If you hanging you hat on that to take the focus off Pakiland as a terrorist hub and brit-pakis as jihadi-lovers, you`re seriously deluded...hehehe

Re: # 261 Dalit you are arguing well. However your laughter dilutes the impact. There are definitely interesting issues you are raising. Food for thought irrespective of whether you are actually dalit or not. I am also interested in knowing your definition of a dalit in modern India.

Guys

Don`t be fooled the nick. This is no dalit.

#211 by dost-mittar
“Hindus do not take religion as seriously as Muslims or even Sikhs”

Atheists, agnostics, and Christians talking about my mother now… hehehe “don’t take religion seriously” hehehehe…

#249 by Ajeya

“But Hindus do not respect and adore pedophiles.”

Brahma is found guilty of cohabiting with his own daughter, Saraswati.

The sexual life of Krishna, an incarnation of Vishnu, is well-known for its indecency. He had illicit relations with Radha, wife of his maternal uncle,

Incest, pedophile, child molesters all there. Heheheheh Hindu liar….heheheh


#257 by masanamuthu
“One good thing in Hinduism and Christianity is that you can expect to stay alive after raising those questions,”

Heheheh
Christianity yes!
Just will be slaughtered if you killed a holy cow….hehehehe…Can’t stay alive after eating a cow….hehehehe… some tolerance… heheheh…. How many Muslims and Dalit have died for disrespecting the holy cow….can’t count…heheheheh
Another liar….


#260 pmishra2

``there was NOT a single ``dalit`` organization working on this issue``

Working with RSS...hehehehe.

#247 Dalit

Do you really believe that most hindus agree with these nonsensical rules from 1500+ years ago? And that ``brahmins`` and ``kshatriyas`` are sitting around making conspiracies to rule others today?? If so, you live in a world of your own imagination.

The reality is that 80% of the caste-based violence is between groups who belong to the lower castes. In other words, backward group X attacks backward group Y for some reason, usually economic. Why is this happening and how can it be ended? But I would bet you are completely disinterested in this issue.

I have another relevant story for you. Recently, a group of friends and I raised funds to help with education in India, focusiing on elementary education. We spent some time researching organizations to work with and found an astonishing thing: there was NOT a single ``dalit`` organization working on this issue. We then sent letters and e-mails to several dalit groups and did not receive a single reply. Literacy is the BIGGEST barrier to self-empowerment and self-improvement and it is really surprising that it has such a low-profile in this community. I bet you have no interest whatever on this issue.

Ref ana #236

[mohar:

i`m not arguing with anything you`ve said `cept to point out one thing: a) britain is not necessarily the oldest democracy. i thought that ``honor`` belonged to someone else.]

Iceland and Isle of Man claim to have parliaments older than Britain`s..

Re: # 256 So you can coexist with Muslims after all. All these guys take your utterances seriouly. You are just seriously naughty. Haha

Re: # 255

````I`ve come to believe that there is nothing completely ``sacred`` /``holy`` and ``unquestionable`` in either Hinduism or its mythologies..``

Why only hinduism ? Same applies to every single religion..``

True.. I was replying to Dalit.. the context is with reference to Hinduism. It applies to all.. One good thing in Hinduism and Christianity is that you can expect to stay alive after raising those questions, but alas the ``religion of peace`` doesn`t give that privilege.. :-))

Re: # 254 ,

Actually there is this really hot chick in my class who just happens to have a muslim name (completely westernised).....although its too early to contemplate `marriage` , there are other things I intend to do to her in the forthcoming semester.. ;-)

``I`ve come to believe that there is nothing completely ``sacred`` /``holy`` and ``unquestionable`` in either Hinduism or its mythologies..``

Why only hinduism ? Same applies to every single religion.

Re: # 252 One of your uncles also needs to marry a muslim woman. Just joking...

Dalit:

If you are a real one, I do support you. I have Dalit relatives and many of my close friends are Dalits.. As I was just slightly above Dalits in the caste hierarchy.. :-))

I`ve come to believe that there is nothing completely ``sacred`` /``holy`` and ``unquestionable`` in either Hinduism or its mythologies..

It`s good that you are pointing out the flaws in various thousandas of years old ``smritis`` and ``mythologies``. It`s all good. The anomalies are corrected to a large extent though there maybe still work to do in remtoe rural areas..

You should also take note that the ``Dalit`` leader Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh, now trying to woo Brahmins into their fold.. That`s the power of democracy. It gives power or atleast enough clout to the traditionally oppressed folks.. Now the tables have turned..

So it`s kinda boring and repetitive to use the same age old ``manu-smritis`` to attack Hinduism.. Maybe you need some other stick to beat with..

One kind advice.. Don`t associate yourself with Muslims :-)) .. (Christians are good though).. They (or actually their ideology) are hated the world over and aligning with them would malign your cause too..

southasian...when I said `dalit eat shit` , I specifically meant this anonymous poster who goes by the name of `dalit`. I have nothing against `lower caste` hindus. Infact my uncle is married to a dalit woman.

Dalit: Broadly your posts cover two areas.
i) Mythology
ii) The ills of Hindu society

Mythology needs no comments.

As for the ills of Hindu society, we are working towards it. Nobody persecuted Dr. Ambedkar for his views calling his views blasphemous to the best of my knowledge. Instead he was chosen to write the Indian constitution. These ills continue in various forms and various degrees even today, but the state and society in general continue to correct and improve itself. Criticism is the seed for progress. We should encourage it and learn from it.

Mike: For the reasons cited above I don`t agree with your comments.

Re: # 247 Did I miss the love affair somewhere?

Re: #247 by Dalit

But Hindus do not respect and adore pedophiles.

Why do you admire and respect pedophiles?

dalit eat shit hehehehehe

In Hindu community, the basic duty of every individual is determined by his caste. The Brahman is the rightful possessor of the Veda and is the chief of the whole creation. He has the exclusive right to become a priest. It is through his benevolence that other mortals enjoy life.
The Kshatriya is described as the dispenser of justice, particularly as the one whose duty it is to punish law-breakers; he exercises the civil power and to his tender mercies the Brahmans could hand over law- breakers. He has to see that the various castes attend to their prescribed duties; but in doing this work he must abide by the decisions of the Brahmans.
The Vashya comprises the merchant, the agriculturist, and the keeper of cattle. His chief work is keeping cattle.
The Sudra has been created to serve the other three castes (i.e., the fair-skinned Aryans). ``He is spoken of as a slave, his property, as well as his person, being at the disposal of his master.`` [Wilkins, Modern Hinduism, London, 1975, p. 247.]
The Untouchable (Dalit) is to perform the most unpleasant tasks: cleaning lavatories, carrying night soil, skinning carcasses and making footwear.

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC & OTHER ASPECTS
The social, economic and other aspects of life are controlled by the caste regulation. Caste differences are largely invoked while arranging marriages and eating together. For rural Indians, castes shape almost every aspect of their lives: the food they eat and who can cook it; how they bathe; the colour of their clothes; the length of a sari (cloth worn by a woman); how the dhoti (cloth worn by a Hindu man) is tied; which way a man`s moustaches are trimmed and whether he can carry an umbrella. Everything is determined by caste and nothing is left to chance.
Caste regulations formulated by Manu are discriminatory in nature; they favour the Aryan Hindus and discriminate against the so-called low-caste Hindus. In teaching the duties of the 1ow-caste people concerning marriage, Manu declares that a man aged thirty may marry a girl of twelve, and a man of twenty-four years may marry a girl of eight. He, however, is very particular about the marriage regulations of Brahmans. A Brahman must avoid marrying a girl whose family has produced no sons, that which has thick hair on the body, or is afflicted with hereditary disease. Let him choose for his wife a girl whose form has no defect, who has an agreeable manner, who walks gracefully like a young elephant, and whose body has exquisite softness [ Ibid., p. 196.].
Punishment for offence is also determined by discriminatory caste regulations. A crime against a man of his own caste by a Sudra is venial offence; but a similar offence committed against a man belonging to so- called higher caste is proportionately greater. If a Sudra through pride dares to give instructions to priests concerning their duty, hot oil will be dropped into his mouth and ears. A high-caste man having intercourse with a Sudra woman is to be banished; a Sudra having intercourse with a woman of the superior castes is to be put to death. Whatever a Brahman`s offence, the king must on no account put him to death; he may, at the most, banish him, allowing him to take his property with him. Further, in case of wrongdoing against him, a Brahman need not approach the civil court, he is free to take vengeance upon the offender [See Wilkins, 1975, pp. 239-40; Oman, p. 52.]

INFERIORITY OF THE DALIT
The so-called Dalits (Untouchables) are the most pitiable victims of the obnoxious and pernicious caste system. Manu has little to say about them. He affirms that the members of three castes, the Brahman, the Kshatriya, and the Vashya, are twice-born; the fourth, the Sudra, once-born; there is no fifth.` All others are outcastes. The common name Dasyas (slaves) is applied to them all. [Wilkins: Modern Hinduism, London: 1975, p. 263]

The treatment accorded to the Dalit is simply inhuman. According to Manu Smriti, `Outcasted persons have no share in inheritance.`[ John C. Oman, The Brahmans, Theists, and Muslims of India, Delhi, 1973, p. 47.] The orthodox Brahmans still believe, if the shadow of a Dalit falls on them, they are polluted and will have to purify them by sprinkling over themse1ves water from the holy river, the Ganges [F.M. Sandeela, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism, Delhi, 1990, pp. 69-70]. `You may breed cows and dogs in your house,` wrote Mr. M.C. Raja. `You may drink the urine of cows and swallow cowdung to expiate your sins, but you shall not approach an Adi Dravida [i.e., original Indians: Dalits, Sudras, tribal people].

These people are still denied the use of public wells and tanks and at the same time stigmatized as unclean. They are still kept out of schools and colleges maintained by public funds and at the same time despised as ignorant and illiterate. They are still Shut out from temples, and yet branded as ungodly and unfit to associate with. For access to public roads and even for spaces to bury the dead, they have to depend much on the capricious benevolence of their caste-Hindu neighbours. [Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu Imperialism, (Madras: 1992), pp. 184-85, quoted from P. Chidambaram Pillai`s Right of Temple Entry, p. 150.]

WOMEN`S IN HINDUISM
The Brahmin media made a big campaign recently out of the Shah Banu case and they blew it out all proportion. They implied that lslam restricted the freedom of women. Let us compare the positions of the Hindu women and the Muslim women. See the following facts for comparison and then try to bring these Brahmins to their senses. Inequity and degradation of women are sanctified in the Hindu religion.
Manu Smriti says
``Never trust a woman.
Never sit alone with a woman even if it may be Your mother, she may tempt you Do not sit alone with your daughter, she may tempt you.
Do not sit alone with your sister, she may tempt you

Dalit..hindus are sexy people...not asexual like you and your mommy`s husband...hehehehe

Dalit...was your mommy a virgin ? hehehehe...

If you insist...

Hindu scriptures are essentially pornographic in nature, full of sexual allusion, sexual symbolism, passages of frank eroticism and stories relating to venal love. Some religious sects even introduced ritual intercourse as part of their cult and a potent aid to salvation [A.L Basham, The Wonders That Was India (Calcutta: 1967), p. 172.].

The rituals, festivals and ceremonies are characterized by the display of obscene portraits, sex and sex-worship. The temples, places of pilgrimage and other holy shrines are full of sculptures with all sorts of sexual postures. The sexual life of Krishna, an incarnation of Vishnu, is well-known for its indecency. He had illicit relations with Radha, wife of his maternal uncle, in addition to a number of milk-maids, although he had a large number of wives [The number of his wives was sixteen thousand one hundred and eight (16,108) and his children numbered one hundred and eighty thousand (180,000). See Ambedkar, Riddle of Rama and Krishna, (Bangalore: 1988), p.25.].
Among Hindu gods, the most prominent ones are: Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the sustainer) and Siva (the destroyer). Brahma is found guilty of cohabiting with his own daughter, Saraswati. It is for that reason that he is deprived of being worshipped. Vishnu is guilty of deceitfully ruining the chastity of a married woman, called Tulasi. Siva is not worshipped but the image of his linga (sex-organ) is widely worshipped. This is because of the curse of some sage [See Chapter 4.]. In the sculpture, Siva and his consort Parvati are depicted in various explicit poses of the sexual act. Prostitution is encouraged in the form of religious custom of devdasi (slave-girls dedicated to temple-idols). Hindu gods and rishis (sages) are found engaged in sexual act with beautiful women and breeding illegitimate children. As for instance, in order that Rama could have strong soldiers in his army, the gods engaged themselves in begetting powerful sons. This they did by engaging themselves, in the words of Dr. Ambedkar [Dr. Ambedkar was the first law minister of independent India and was the author of India`s constitution],
``in wholesale acts of fornication, not only against apsaras, who were prostitutes, not only against the unmarried daughters of Yashas [Yaksha, naga, ruksha, vidyadhar, gandharva, kinna, each of these words means demigod] and nagas, but also against the lawfully wedded wives of Ruksha, Vidhyadhar, Ghandharvas, Kinnars, and Vanaras (monkeys) and produced the vanaras who became the associates of Rama`` [ Ambedkar, p.7.]

To help Dalit along, I googled to see if I could find any interesting stories.

I was most disappointed. The websites of a particular type used to be chock full of articles on a sort of Hinduism that no Hindu had heard about.

Now, there seems have been a something of a general cleansing. It`s all about unlimited love and respecting everyone, from this point onward.

What a change a few years can make.

---

Anyways, some nighttime reading for the inquisitive :)

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Pantheon/4789/Articles/Scripture/

Re: #237 by Dalit

[Hehehehe…
mention Vishnu and Mahesh and all atheists, agnostics, and Christians are interested…Hehehe… Hindus…. ]


Hehehehe…
mention 6-year old children and 72 Houris and all Muslims are interested…Hehehe… Muslims….

Re: #204 by Romair

[Obviously, none of you would have the courage to come to Lahore and make these comments.]

Is this a Dawood quote?

re #231
The NYT reporter is such a dupe.... the pakis are telling him that their names are Sanjay Dutt and Shahroukh and he is printing that... :)
Another Judy Miller or Jayson Blair?

dalit bhai

Dost-mittar ji, you, and yours truly are all Hindus. If we stop having fun with our devine characters, we won`t be Hindus anymore. So let`s hear it from you, and make it spicy :)

hehehehe...dalit....hehehehehe....

Hehehehe…
mention Vishnu and Mahesh and all atheists, agnostics, and Christians are interested…Hehehe… Hindus….

mohar:

come on now, you really don`t want to be on the list of hateful hindus d`you?!

i`m not arguing with anything you`ve said `cept to point out one thing: a) britain is not necessarily the oldest democracy. i thought that ``honor`` belonged to someone else.

Anger Burns on the Fringe of Britain`s Muslims

To the boys from Cross Flats Park, Mr. Tanweer, 22, who blew himself up on a subway train in London last week, was devout, thoughtful and generous. If they understood his actions, it was because they lived in Mr. Tanweer`s world, too.

They did not agree with what Mr. Tanweer had done, but made clear they shared the same sense of otherness, the same sense of siege, the same sense that their community, and Muslims in general, were in their view helpless before the whims of greater powers. Ultimately, they understood his anger.

The news that four British-born Muslim men from neighborhoods around Leeds were suspected of carrying out the bombings in London has made the shared dissatisfaction of boys like these and the creeping militancy of some young British Muslims an urgent issue in Britain.

The bombers are an exception among Britain`s 1.6 million Muslims. But their actions have highlighted a lingering question: why are second-generation British Muslims who should seemingly be farther up the road of assimilation rejecting the country in which they were born and raised?

``I know what people don`t understand - it`s how terrorists could have been born in this country,`` Shahroukh said. ``But my point is, why not?``

A recent poll commissioned by The Guardian found that 84 percent of Muslims surveyed were against the use of violence for political means, but only 33 percent of Muslims said they wanted more integration into mainstream British culture. Almost half of those surveyed said their Muslim leadership did not represent their views.

``For our parents, the attention was focused on getting a job and building a life here,`` Mr. Khan said. ``My generation had to go through more of a thinking process to discover who we are, our Islamic identity.``

That anger stems not merely from unhappiness with the situation of Muslims in Britain, but also solidarity with what they see as the aggressive and unjust treatment of Muslims abroad, and not least from Britain`s part in the war in Iraq.

Children of Indian immigrants assimilate, use the opportunities in the country of their birth and do well..

Children of Paki immigrants turn more Paki then their Paki parents and become suicide bombers... And we`re supposed to believe THEY`RE victims...and that too because of what`s happening to muslim in other parts of the world....

Capt Clueless` reaction is typical...He wants us to forget paki support for OBL and other Islamic jihadis now that, after 9/11/London/Madrid, their love for the jihadis is back in the closet.. Capt Clueless would have us believe pakis are the victims now...

That kind of propaganda only works on pakis..the rest of the world is smarter..

Consider this brit-paki..before london was bombed he was all JIIIIHAAAAD, much like most pakis on chowk...now that London has bombed and the jihad-supporters are under a spotlight, he is trying to lay low and portray himself as the victim...



Feelings of siege amid fear of blame

Sayful Islam, a local leader of the radical group al-Muhajiroun, who last year praised the Madrid bombings and warned that ``Britain must expect to be attacked``, preferred to lie low yesterday. ``I`m just concentrating on my family at the moment,`` he said.

He believed the attacks might make Muslim people more insular, more likely to stay within the security of their own communities. ``It may not be as safe for us to travel around,`` he said.

Many said they thought that the attack on London had been inevitable. Dhobir Ali, 22, said: ``I think they had it coming with the war in Iraq. It was bound to happen.``

#232 by mohar11 on July 16, 2005 9:01am PT

There you go again...asking tough questions pakis don`t want to deal with and increasing the number of hateful hindus on the internet...

Re: # 231

These brit-pakis want to bring back caliphate and ``instill Islamic mores and Islamicize almost every aspect of daily life``. Yep - that`s what these guys want to have - caliphate and islamic mores ....... And these are upper-middle class well educated brit-pakis - not some flaming mullahs in a smelling madressa.....The rot is deep and wide - and irreversible, at least for a couple of generations.

The question is - What the heck do the brits do now? How are they going manage these people? Brits have hit a veritable black hole - all the logic of pluarlism/multi-culturalism breaks down when you encounter pakis with caliphate in their minds.

I mean - people say lack of democracy does this to muslims. Well, these pakis are already living in a democracy, the oldest democracy........ People say - poverty and lack of education does this - well, these pakis are alredy rich and educated.

Brits are at their wit`s end...... But it serves them right - they have been feeding the snakes for long time - against all advice and common sense - Now they harvest the poison. Sad!!!

Look at the contrast....all these hate filled hindus and all these saccha paki muslims full of love for their fellow mankind...

Anger Burns on the Fringe of Britain`s Muslims

LEEDS, England, July 15 - At Beeston`s Cross Flats Park, in the center of this now embattled town, Sanjay Dutt and his friends grappled Friday with why their friend Kakey, better known to the world as Shehzad Tanweer, had decided to become a suicide bomber.

``He was sick of it all, all the injustice and the way the world is going about it,`` Mr. Dutt, 22, said. ``Why, for example, don`t they ever take a moment of silence for all the Iraqi kids who die?``

``It`s a double standard, that`s why,`` answered a friend, who called himself Shahroukh, also 22, wearing a baseball cap and basketball jersey, sitting nearby. ``I don`t approve of what he did, but I understand it. You get driven to something like this, it doesn`t just happen.``

To the boys from Cross Flats Park, Mr. Tanweer, 22, who blew himself up on a subway train in London last week, was devout, thoughtful and generous. If they understood his actions, it was because they lived in Mr. Tanweer`s world, too.

They did not agree with what Mr. Tanweer had done, but made clear they shared the same sense of otherness, the same sense of siege, the same sense that their community, and Muslims in general, were in their view helpless before the whims of greater powers. Ultimately, they understood his anger.

The news that four British-born Muslim men from neighborhoods around Leeds were suspected of carrying out the bombings in London has made the shared dissatisfaction of boys like these and the creeping militancy of some young British Muslims an urgent issue in Britain.

Dalit

I second Dost-Mittar ji. Spent a couple of really stressed out days outside of Chowk, and am looking forward to some relaxation. May be you could narrate the story of the Mohini roop :)


Romair

I have controversial views on this. I think that being Indian/Pakistani/etc is vastly overblown. Nationality matters in some cases, but not at all in others.

I do look forward to discussing this important issue with you - if you would be willing to do so after a few hours.

#219 by Romair on July 15, 2005 7:11pm PT

Ok Capt Clueless...We`re all hateful hindus while the pakis who cheer the jihadis and cheer the killing of theo van ghogh are all full of love...

It must be the upbringing....those beghairat hindus(urstruly: is that the appropriate usage)

Romair:

I have to hand it to you. You have done it again, namely, divert the topic of discussion to Hindus, Kashmir, India and whatever. Brilliant!

Dalit:

Please do narrate the story of love affair between Mahesh and Vishnu. This board is becoming too stressful and we need some amusement. Thanks in advance.

a few points to ponder:

i don`t visit other desi sites (this one has been a good deterrent not to), but on this thread, using a percentage of 75% for educated hindus here is an exaggeration. i have looked at those quotes time and time again, and either all of those are from one and the same person. . . or it is ten people (with some people possibly using the same nick). if there are ten indians here who make up 75% of chowk then there are much less indians participating on chowk than i thought.

we already know some of what these people represent. that these same people who are using these quotes, and most interactors on this site are not interested in scholarly debates of any kind. and that some of these people have incredibly extreme views when it comes to islam, and muslims. i don`t like what they say at all. . .or how they say it. but again, it seems foolish to attribute this to a large percentage of hindus on chowk when i have seen other hindus be critical of their own, particularly of some of those you have quoted, or distance themselves from them altogether.

what dostmittarji has referred to cannot be dismissed as simple naivete.

there are hindu indians on this site who are angry and frustrated, just as there are muslim indians about ``muslim`` attackers on their soil as well as those who attack muslims. this seems to get swept under the carpet much too often or dismissed without taking ``psychological`` factors into consideration. it is all well and good to focus just on the hindus here but why shouldn`t some question why there are educated muslims who are averse to a uniform code of laws? why shouldn`t one question the tenets of islam or any religion for that matter. why shouldn`t one question that if indeed muslims want to stick to ``personal laws`` then how far do they want to take that.

i don`t think the poster who uses terms as ``large-scale sickness`` for hindus pays much attention to what some of the pakistani muslims on this board have been saying about hindus. i don`t think he pays much attention to the reasons and rationalizations given to justify their ``hate``. no ``large-scale sickness`` there, no percentages given. like i said, it is far too easy to paint a large group of people with the same brush here. and doing that doesn`t solve or change anything for hindus or for muslims. it is to some degree escaping certain facts.

Re: # 221 Dalit Let`s talk about the love affair between Mahesh and Vishnu first.

If all else fails then try to attack them from within.`Romair` is trying to divide us indians again.Why deny ourselves the pleasure of watching him fall flat on his face like his country, again??.

Kaalchakra #223: ``Is it possible that one could firmly hold that view and not be dripping with hatred toward Muslims?``

Let me ask you one question: I may agree or disagree with things in Hinduism. But why don`t I show that kind of bigotry and hatred against Pakistanis Hindus (or Hindus anywhere, for that matter)? Why don`t I put them tell them to ship off to India or deliberately abuse their religion? Please answer this question? I would be really interested in hearing your reply...........

One can firmly hold any view about anything that one wants. It`s a free world. It is up to them. Hold whatever view you want. No one is stopping you from that. But what is the point of using that in hatred, and that too against your own citizens. What kind of hatred is so important that one has to make one`s own countryfolk uncomfortable.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the following is a firmly held view about any religion.....Is it a scholarly debate on the pluses and minuses of something.......Or is it outright frustrated pent-up oozing hatred of someone; including those in one`s own country...........If you are seriously going to tell me that you consider it nothing more than a, ``firmly held view`` about a religion, and not outright hatred of someone, then I am afraid you and I see the world quite differently

To me this sounds more like a Ku Klux Klan gathering, against one`s own citizens, than any kind of debate on views:

---

``Typical pak-muslim reaction.........your pedophile prophet (P be upon him)........ why dont you leave the Indian state and go to the Land Of The Pure ? Surely you will be happier there. And please take everybody with you.............If the, er, `author` who wrote this above here work of fiction gets thrown outta Singapore, where would he be heading to??.Mecca??.Medina??.harhar.......while you are permitted by the hegemons to not attend school and to keep your women barefoot, pregnant and in purdah.....Cloaked lies, agendas, conclusion, intentions.........what else to expect from a muslim......blame others, Jews, India`s state system........It wasn your/religious narrow mindedness, archaic, dark, inhuman teachings.....they just want kufrs to be unsuspecting of their intentions......till the kufrs are helpless........and easy to be converted....till then blame others for their own kanjarpana......... filthy liars.....I don`t go around savagely killing.......Muslims all over the world have only one agenda - assimilate non-muslims into Islam. Muslims themselves never assimilate into any society........ This is true of India.....Come on guys! Let us GIVE the Muslims what they WANT and MORE!....Any takers? Jawahara? Ana? _digit? Umbertoeco? Urstruly? Khamkhwa.? Ozerkhalid? Zafar Anjum? Dost-Mittar?......Usually the Muslim responses are one of the following:1) Other Religions also do it.2) You are misinterpreting the Quran. Under the ``correct`` translation it means exactly the opposite - ``love thy enemy``. 3) You are Quoting out of context.4) You obviously hate Muslims, therefore you must be wrong...... they are scared shi t of reprisals........what do they expect sewian and firni?.......they should thank their lucky stars that they live in civilized countries.otherwise, they would be boarding ships for Karachi by now..........Is this not something you would be upset about, or worry what religion these idiots are learning?.......``

As I stated, it does not affect me, because I know it cannot threaten me, in real life. I am safe and secure. But one does wonder at such large-scale sickness, if 75% of the educated inviduals, amongst a group, on this and various other threads, are carrying around such hatred, and that too agaisnt their own countryfolk.......

Romair

Are you open to any possibility that at least some Islamic assumptions and beliefs could be wrong and be actually very harmful to mankind?

Is it possible that one could firmly hold that view and not be dripping with hatred toward Muslims?

Re delhiwala (#168) …

Yes indeed, these jahil ullema have been obsessed with Ahmadis for over a century now … and have gone long ways in violently persecuting them. According to rumors spread by mullahs (some of which were confirmed by Urstruly), Ahmadis are conspiring with Jews to bring down Muslims … they conspired with the british … they are an international drug cartel and a ring of sex addicts …… and more ….

Our enlightened scholar, mullah Urstruly, once presented a fanciful theory …… that partition riots of 1947 were result of Ahamdi conspiracies. Here’s his reasoning …..

District Gurdaspur, which includes Qadian (birth place of Mirza Sahib), was initially given to Pakistan … but was switched to India in the last moment. This is historically correct as far as I know, but what follows is an example of Urstruly’s wild imagination. He attributed this switch to a conspiracy between the British and Chaudhry Zafrullah (an Ahmadi lawyer, who was working under Jinnah on partition issues) …… and that the discontent caused by this change was one of the main cause of partition riots, which started in Punjab, and spread to other parts of India.

Several times I asked Urstruly Sahib to reveal his sources. The closest he ever got was to refer to his discussions with “people who knew what was going on”. What the hell does this mean?, I still wonder. Beyond making vague comments, he could not cite a single source. He probably knows his sources are way too biased, in overt ways, to win the trust of anyone with half a brain (which implicitly gives away the maximum size of Urstruly’s brain).

As a result he still thinks that ummah’s obsession with Ahmadis and their violent persecution is justified. Where has this obsession gotten the ummah? … is far too complex of a question to be handled by someone of his intellect.

#211 by dost-mittar

“If you notice most of the virulent attackers of Islam have declared themselves to be atheists or agnostics.”

Hehehe…Declared themselves atheists or agnostics…This liar can vouch… he knows all HINDUS personally. Heheheh…

“Hindus do not take religion as seriously as Muslims or even Sikhs.”

Hehehehe… joker… Talk about love affair between Vishnu and Mahesh and we will know…Hehehehe…

Romair:

It`s amusing to read your comments. Why do you think your religion or for that matter any religion is so sacred that no can question it.. I pointed out the hate speech in your ``holy document`` towards non-believers of Allah and Mr.Muhammad. You ignored it. What do you think the others should do. meekly accept it.. and think ``gees, allah has ordered his believers to kill us. we have to show the other cheek or bend down and show our necks``.

It`s really funny. You are free to quote from any other religious documents if you find it offensive to you..That`s what freedom of speech means. It`s sad that after living in a secular democracy for so many years you are still hesitant to start questioning and analysing ..

FYI: I was a staunch anti-Hindu (and still am, though to a lesser extent) until a couple of years ago.. I actually joined chowk to refute the stereotyping of lower caste Indians by a well known caste supremacist.. (Indians can recognise from my handle). After one of those terrorist incidents, I started reading Quran and the life-history of Muhammad. Anyone with a little bit of common sense can figure out Mr.Muhammad is the biggest fraud and he would be ROFL..ing all the time if he comes back to the earth now.. and look at the state of his believers..

Take it easy.. :-))

Dost-mittar #211: It`s good to see someone has addressed this, finally........

``If you notice most of the virulent attackers of Islam have declared themselves to be atheists or agnostics.``

Does that make a difference? Just a few replies back, someone declared them Christians.......I am not talking about attacking Islam. I am talking about attacking a fellow citizen, through their faith. The kinds of attacks Urstruly and Co. launch against Sattar2. But even their attacks, are fought through Quranic verses, to a great deal........The 75% brigade`s attacks are outright threats and plans to ship people off to Pakistan, etc.

``This is chowk where people derive pleasure out of seeing others squirm. And Hindian chowkies have discovered that the easiest way to rile Pakistanis is by needling them about their holy book and, especially, their prophet. Pakistanis have discovered, on the other hand, that the easiest way to provoke Hindians is to attack their country and its secular credentials.``

I think you are far too naive if you think this to be accurate. I don`t think it is a question of riling Pakistanis. Nor Indians. It that is all it was, one could write it off..........The question I asked was in context to Indian Muslims. Let`s accept the hatred of Islam, from Indians, if India did not have Muslims. Let`s consider it a by-product of the creation of Pakistan, in such a case. But India has so many Muslims. Much of the abuse is targeted towards them. Infact this article was an Indian Muslim issue.

This indicates the hatred is so strong that even one`s own countryfolk are considered dispensable and offendable.........

There is a huge difference between, ``needling,`` and outright hatred. The comments here are oozing with hatred.......As if someone is letting out a frustration.....There is a huge difference between hatred and debate, also. One can debate a religion, and agree to disagree. As wierd as I may find some of your beliefs regarding Islam, I don`t think you hate me, as a Muslim..........Your arguments are not oozing with frustrated pent-up anger.....They are just wierd, on occassion (in my opinion, at least)......I write them off to limited knowledge........

But I have yet to see any of the 75% or so, on this thread (and perhaps, site), debate relgion with anyone. I don`t think that is their aim. There is also a big difference between humorously discussing a religion (which many people do) and abusing a fellow citizen, because of his/her religion (which only sick people do)......

Please read Jawahara`s reply. I am not a mind reader, but does her reply indicate that she is enjoying the comments and is simply considering it humorous? I certainly didn`t get that sense from her reply. Is she merely, ``squirming,`` and laughing it off? IIs she just saying, O` these funny jokers, they are such good comedians? Or is there a serious concern, in her reply?

I will leave you to be the better judge of that...........

#213 by _digit on July 15, 2005 4:53pm PT


Wha?


Oh...so you don`t know...guess who posted this..

Black Tuesday: The View From Islamabad on September 17, 2001

Haven`t sent emails to my old military buddies for a while, so I don`t know whether they will respond now. But I will attempt to see whether I can get any latest info on what is going on inside the military planning circles, if anyone at Chowk is interested.

I do know the PAF is on alert. I think the US C-141s are going to start rolling in soon. I have a feeling the Pakistani pilots and army will assist and guide the US into Afghanistan, if it decides to carry out an invasion (even though the Pakistani govt. won`t admit it openly). There is no way the US soldiers can carry it out on their own. They don`t have the intelligence, they don`t know the terrain, can`t speak the language. Infact, they can barely pronouce the names of the cities.

I`ve trained with the Pakistanis, with Middle Easterners and with Americans. I will take the Pakistani soldier over any other soldier anyday (any soldier except for an Afghan soldier, that is).

Man, this is getting interesting. Information Technology suc/ */s as a profession. No glory. I wanna go back and put on the uniform.

Best wishes to any Pakistani soldier who will be involved in this, if it starts (I hope it doesn`t start, and I hope no one innoncent gets killed). I can`t speak for the many soldier-hating Pakistanis on this site, but my prayers are definitely with all of you brave guys.

And there was this gem

IMPORTANT:

---

Advice to all Pakistanis, Indians, Sri Lankans, Arabs and Muslims in general, in the USA: If you want to feel safe and not have anyone attack you on the street, wear a shirt with a Pakistani flag on it.

The funny thing is, he`s now in canuckistan and the US military is dropping bombs on paki territory...

digit sahib. . .

with all due respect, i have not been ignoring all the remarks posted on this thread. i read those. i didn`t say ``all`` now did i? i said a few, and i`m not referring to this thread alone

it has been far too convenient for certain hindus and muslims here to play the ``victim`` card.

have you broken out of your glass house yet?!

God 2.0? Is Tom Friedman for real? This guy writes as if his audience are 6th graders. His grasp on the issues is no better.

The focus on ``suicide`` aspect of suicide bombings is idiotic. Terrorism is terrorism, murder of civilians is just that. Who the hell cares if the terrorist dies in the act or not?

Tom Friendman wants to make a boogey man out of a scare crow, he doesn`t talk about real life. .

ana,

``with all due respect, a few of the indians lumped into hating muslims or bashing muslims have never said a hateful word about islam or muslims from what i can read.``

With all due respect, that`s most likely because you started to ignore the interactors posting said statements early on in this thread :-)

Here is the full article >>

A Poverty of Dignity and a Wealth of Rage

By THOMAS L. FRIEDM