Dance of the wolves
I hope you are aware that Mr.Muhammad married a 6 year old girl called Ayesha when he was in is mid-50s and first had sex with her when she reached the mature age of 9.
Posted by
Mike
Jul 5, 2005 03:18 pm
Kannaraja : ``Mike: Your comments about Muslims and Mohammed are unfounded, and pathetic``I hope you are aware that Mr.Muhammad married a 6 year old girl called Ayesha when he was in is mid-50s and first had sex with her when she reached the mature age of 9.
Dance of the wolves
Posted by
Mike
Jul 5, 2005 03:15 pm
As I told you Kashmakash ...post 9-11, muslims dont count. Secularism means tolerance of all faith , all religions. But Islam is a murderous cult founded by a sick depraved pedophile. No reason for anybody to respect Islam. Hatred for a cult like Islam is only normal for a civilised society.
Dance of the wolves
Huh ? Everybody in a civilised society pretends to be secular . Why single out Indians ? Americans are officially secular , but a growing majority believes in hell and brimstone christian fundamentalism.
Atleast Indians have pretensions of being secular and strive to be so . Unlike some who follow certain religion with a certain holy book that unambigiously asks them to kill , torture and humiliate those who do not share their faith.
Posted by
Mike
Jul 5, 2005 03:05 pm
Kashmakash : ``And once again, I say Indians are not secular. They only pretend. ``Huh ? Everybody in a civilised society pretends to be secular . Why single out Indians ? Americans are officially secular , but a growing majority believes in hell and brimstone christian fundamentalism.
Atleast Indians have pretensions of being secular and strive to be so . Unlike some who follow certain religion with a certain holy book that unambigiously asks them to kill , torture and humiliate those who do not share their faith.
Ayodhya Back On Top
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.
Posted by
Mike
Jul 5, 2005 01:47 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.
Dance of the wolves
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.
Posted by
Mike
Jul 5, 2005 01:45 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.
Ayodhya Back On Top
They did so to fool the jeep driver they had picked up into thinking they were harmless hindu devotees interested in a darshan of the ram mandir....
Posted by
Mike
Jul 5, 2005 12:53 pm
``wonder why these terrorists offered prayers at a TEMPLE before carrying out the attack??? ``They did so to fool the jeep driver they had picked up into thinking they were harmless hindu devotees interested in a darshan of the ram mandir....
Dance of the wolves
Some sample comments >>
A common practice of jihadi conquerors over the centuries has been to claim the religious sites of other religions as Muslim holy places.
That is what has happened, for example, in Jerusalem, and in Hebron. Those sites in Jerusalem and Hebron that the mainstream media refer to as Islamic holy places are, more accurately speaking, Judeo-Islamic holy places. I don`t know why the media forget this basic fact. And they were Judaic holy places for centuries before Mohammed was born, and therefore for centuries before Mohammedanism (know known more commonly as Islam) was born. I don`t know why the media forget this basic fact.
The same with Hindu holy places in India. The conquering jihadis have usurped the holy places of Hinduism. The media should refer to the Muslim holy places in India as Hindu-Islamic holy places. And they were Hindu holy places for centuries before Mohammed was born, and therefore for centuries before the religion he founded was born.
The article claims that the Hindu holy place was built over a mosque. That is the truth, but not the complete truth. It neglects to say that that mosque was built over a Hindu holy place. I don`t know why the media forget this basic fact. And there cannot be any question of which came first, Hinduism or Islam. And there cannot be any question of whose holy place it was first, the Hindus or the Muslims. So why do the media, by selected omission, get the order of precedence backwards?
Oh, it`s Reuters. Never mind.
Okay, so this suicide bomber managed to blow a hole in the fence. So, he succeeded. And maybe he`ll get his raisins.
But it always strikes me as so utterly absurd ...so tellingly absurd.... when these evil clowns blow themselves and nobody else up.
Committing suicide as a protest is one thing. Somewhat extreme. But... powerful.
Committing suicide as a failed attempt to murder is just stupid.
Evil and stupid. .
That site in Ayodhya is a VERY important place for us Hindus. It`s pretty much the equivalent of the Church of the Nativity for Christians.
For hundreds of years nobody disputed the fact that the mosque was built over a temple. In fact, Babar wrote about it in his own memoir (the Babar-Nama, I think it was called). But then a curious thing happened. After the mosque was destroyed in `92, all of India`s leading leftist historians started saying that there was never a temple there in the first place!
Warning to Jews and Christians (and especially Jews): don`t let this happen to you. Don`t let the MSM and the communists succeed in denying your history. Now that it`s accepted wisdom amongst the global left that Muslims never did anything bad to India, anyone who brings up 1000-year orgy of murder, rape, and destruction that was Muslim rule in India is automatically branded a fascist.
``I wonder if these nutbars ever ask themselves what they won that time? Probably not. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Morons!``
The Big Book of Sanitary Wiping tells them that being a splodeydope is a great way to make Allah happy.
Imagine these wonderful people running a nuclear-armed nation.
The old Cold War MAD rules won`t apply because getting obliterated by a counter-strike sends the whole of the Ummah straight to That Great Raisin Feast in the Sky.
``Imagine these wonderful people running a nuclear-armed nation.``
Like maybe Pakistan?
Posted by
Mike
Jul 5, 2005 12:46 pm
A far more interesting and intelligent discussion is going on on this particular subject in the popular American conservative blog littlegreenfootballs.com...Some sample comments >>
A common practice of jihadi conquerors over the centuries has been to claim the religious sites of other religions as Muslim holy places.
That is what has happened, for example, in Jerusalem, and in Hebron. Those sites in Jerusalem and Hebron that the mainstream media refer to as Islamic holy places are, more accurately speaking, Judeo-Islamic holy places. I don`t know why the media forget this basic fact. And they were Judaic holy places for centuries before Mohammed was born, and therefore for centuries before Mohammedanism (know known more commonly as Islam) was born. I don`t know why the media forget this basic fact.
The same with Hindu holy places in India. The conquering jihadis have usurped the holy places of Hinduism. The media should refer to the Muslim holy places in India as Hindu-Islamic holy places. And they were Hindu holy places for centuries before Mohammed was born, and therefore for centuries before the religion he founded was born.
The article claims that the Hindu holy place was built over a mosque. That is the truth, but not the complete truth. It neglects to say that that mosque was built over a Hindu holy place. I don`t know why the media forget this basic fact. And there cannot be any question of which came first, Hinduism or Islam. And there cannot be any question of whose holy place it was first, the Hindus or the Muslims. So why do the media, by selected omission, get the order of precedence backwards?
Oh, it`s Reuters. Never mind.
Okay, so this suicide bomber managed to blow a hole in the fence. So, he succeeded. And maybe he`ll get his raisins.
But it always strikes me as so utterly absurd ...so tellingly absurd.... when these evil clowns blow themselves and nobody else up.
Committing suicide as a protest is one thing. Somewhat extreme. But... powerful.
Committing suicide as a failed attempt to murder is just stupid.
Evil and stupid. .
That site in Ayodhya is a VERY important place for us Hindus. It`s pretty much the equivalent of the Church of the Nativity for Christians.
For hundreds of years nobody disputed the fact that the mosque was built over a temple. In fact, Babar wrote about it in his own memoir (the Babar-Nama, I think it was called). But then a curious thing happened. After the mosque was destroyed in `92, all of India`s leading leftist historians started saying that there was never a temple there in the first place!
Warning to Jews and Christians (and especially Jews): don`t let this happen to you. Don`t let the MSM and the communists succeed in denying your history. Now that it`s accepted wisdom amongst the global left that Muslims never did anything bad to India, anyone who brings up 1000-year orgy of murder, rape, and destruction that was Muslim rule in India is automatically branded a fascist.
``I wonder if these nutbars ever ask themselves what they won that time? Probably not. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Morons!``
The Big Book of Sanitary Wiping tells them that being a splodeydope is a great way to make Allah happy.
Imagine these wonderful people running a nuclear-armed nation.
The old Cold War MAD rules won`t apply because getting obliterated by a counter-strike sends the whole of the Ummah straight to That Great Raisin Feast in the Sky.
``Imagine these wonderful people running a nuclear-armed nation.``
Like maybe Pakistan?
Dance of the wolves
Posted by
Mike
Jul 5, 2005 12:07 pm
Kashmakash....you dont get it , do you ? You have no idea what folks in good ol` US of A think of muslims. Hatred for muslims is a commonality in all civilised countries. Muslims are swines and pakis worst of the lot. Showing compassion to mad dogs like you people is seen as an act of stupidity.
Dance of the wolves
A mosque stood there because the swine called Babar built it on top a temple. Dickheads who point to the mosque will do well to read ASI`s findings that it found evidence of a temple structure beneath where the mosque was.
Like Spain, we need to demolish all mosques in India and re-build temples there.
Posted by
Mike
Jul 5, 2005 11:50 am
re : Babri MasjidA mosque stood there because the swine called Babar built it on top a temple. Dickheads who point to the mosque will do well to read ASI`s findings that it found evidence of a temple structure beneath where the mosque was.
Like Spain, we need to demolish all mosques in India and re-build temples there.
Dance of the wolves
Posted by
Mike
Jul 5, 2005 11:36 am
Kasmakas...muslims are hated all over the world...ever been to US ? Hatred for muslims is normal.
Ayodhya Back On Top
Posted by
Mike
Jul 5, 2005 11:31 am
temporal...shooooo paki shoooo...its none of your business...shoooo
Dance of the wolves
Posted by
Mike
Jul 5, 2005 11:20 am
Kashmakash...being a muslim is in itself a punishment enough...never mind where you are born. Depraved followers of a sadistic cult founded by a depraved lunatic.
A Changed Landscape of Kashmir Conflict
Posted by
Mike
Jul 5, 2005 11:12 am
I got nothing against BalluKhan , he is a good man.
A Changed Landscape of Kashmir Conflict
`` what do you say about the ULFA separatists?``
Thats a different set of problems with its own permutatations which can be discussed at length if needed . Events are happening fast in Assam , and the ULFA separatists stand discredited by the people of Assam themselves , who have lately woken up to their hindu identity enveloped as they are by the ever increasing illegal migration from b-desh. ULFA - today a virtual pot bellied dad`s army as most of its members are in their middle age with no fresh recruitments - has alienated the assamese public as it is seen to be sympathetic to illegal B-deshi muslim migrants.
`` There are more muslims in India than in Pakistan. ``
Which is understandable because Indian muslims breed like pigs under orders to convert dar-ul-harab to dar-ul-islam.
``If all of them really wanted jihad, just imagine how long we can keep Kashmir or any other part of India in India.``
Which is indeed going to be a major problem in 10-15 years time when Indian muslims double their numbers in 10-15 years time and form 40% of India`s population , which given their birth rate is eminently feasible. Kashmir is being held by India inspite of tremendous sustained pressure put by Indian muslims thanks to the bravery and fortitude of the Indian armed forces.
``Also, the only Al Qaeda recruitee I know of from India is a person who was born Hindu, and then converted to Islam.Some Dheeraj Barot.``
There are two issues to this. One is that Al Qaeda is global Islamic terrorist network which is mainly US-centric. India figures much lower in the pecking order of Al Qaeda targets. Indian muslims have no major beef against US or Israel ..atleast not as much as to being willing to die fighting those two countries. Indian muslim hatred is restricted to India and its multitudes of idol worshipping polytheist kufrs . The Holy Quran is very particular about the absolute neccessity for a good muslim to torture , humiliate , dishonor and murder idol worshipping kufrs if the said good muslims has ambitions of booking a room in Heaven , enjoying the company of 72 virgins , under the auspices of his Maker , Mr. Allah. (la ila ilallah muhammad rasul ullah).
So Indian muslims are only interested in joining organisations devoted to India , like the Laskkar-e-Toiba , Hizbul Mujaheedin and Jaish-e-Muhammad. The intention is clear. Top bring back the good old days of 800 year odd muslim rule , the days of Ghaznavi , Ghori , Babar and Auranzeb ....when the idolators knew their place , surrendering their women and wealth to the good merciful muslim rulers in gratitude for being allowed to stay alive .
The second point is about Mr. Dheeraj Barot. As you so nicely mentioned the fact about Mr.Bardot being a hindu who converted to Islam. Historically the neo-converts to Islam have always been more eager than the muslims themsleves to carry out the orders of their new master Muhammad the Prophet (P be upon him). So undoubtedly Mr.Bardot did what he did in order to prove his credentials to the doubtful Ummah. The usual rites of passage. Its not enough just to get circumsized . You gotta plant RDX in a couple of school buses too.
``You do realize that you are not convincing anybody.``
Not everybody is a dhimmi eunuch like you (and your mother`s husband...)
``I think it would be better for you to move to the hindu country called Nepal if you are so concerned about your Hinduism.``
You mean to say hinduism is extinct in India already ? Saare hindu log mar gaye kya Hindustan mein ? Boy ..those mullahs are quick...
Posted by
Mike
Jul 5, 2005 04:52 am
Rahul-Capri , `` what do you say about the ULFA separatists?``
Thats a different set of problems with its own permutatations which can be discussed at length if needed . Events are happening fast in Assam , and the ULFA separatists stand discredited by the people of Assam themselves , who have lately woken up to their hindu identity enveloped as they are by the ever increasing illegal migration from b-desh. ULFA - today a virtual pot bellied dad`s army as most of its members are in their middle age with no fresh recruitments - has alienated the assamese public as it is seen to be sympathetic to illegal B-deshi muslim migrants.
`` There are more muslims in India than in Pakistan. ``
Which is understandable because Indian muslims breed like pigs under orders to convert dar-ul-harab to dar-ul-islam.
``If all of them really wanted jihad, just imagine how long we can keep Kashmir or any other part of India in India.``
Which is indeed going to be a major problem in 10-15 years time when Indian muslims double their numbers in 10-15 years time and form 40% of India`s population , which given their birth rate is eminently feasible. Kashmir is being held by India inspite of tremendous sustained pressure put by Indian muslims thanks to the bravery and fortitude of the Indian armed forces.
``Also, the only Al Qaeda recruitee I know of from India is a person who was born Hindu, and then converted to Islam.Some Dheeraj Barot.``
There are two issues to this. One is that Al Qaeda is global Islamic terrorist network which is mainly US-centric. India figures much lower in the pecking order of Al Qaeda targets. Indian muslims have no major beef against US or Israel ..atleast not as much as to being willing to die fighting those two countries. Indian muslim hatred is restricted to India and its multitudes of idol worshipping polytheist kufrs . The Holy Quran is very particular about the absolute neccessity for a good muslim to torture , humiliate , dishonor and murder idol worshipping kufrs if the said good muslims has ambitions of booking a room in Heaven , enjoying the company of 72 virgins , under the auspices of his Maker , Mr. Allah. (la ila ilallah muhammad rasul ullah).
So Indian muslims are only interested in joining organisations devoted to India , like the Laskkar-e-Toiba , Hizbul Mujaheedin and Jaish-e-Muhammad. The intention is clear. Top bring back the good old days of 800 year odd muslim rule , the days of Ghaznavi , Ghori , Babar and Auranzeb ....when the idolators knew their place , surrendering their women and wealth to the good merciful muslim rulers in gratitude for being allowed to stay alive .
The second point is about Mr. Dheeraj Barot. As you so nicely mentioned the fact about Mr.Bardot being a hindu who converted to Islam. Historically the neo-converts to Islam have always been more eager than the muslims themsleves to carry out the orders of their new master Muhammad the Prophet (P be upon him). So undoubtedly Mr.Bardot did what he did in order to prove his credentials to the doubtful Ummah. The usual rites of passage. Its not enough just to get circumsized . You gotta plant RDX in a couple of school buses too.
``You do realize that you are not convincing anybody.``
Not everybody is a dhimmi eunuch like you (and your mother`s husband...)
``I think it would be better for you to move to the hindu country called Nepal if you are so concerned about your Hinduism.``
You mean to say hinduism is extinct in India already ? Saare hindu log mar gaye kya Hindustan mein ? Boy ..those mullahs are quick...
A Changed Landscape of Kashmir Conflict
Posted by
Mike
Jul 4, 2005 04:27 pm
Exactly..stupid bongs have no idea what they are in for. Muslims already constitute 60-70% of the population of 3-4 districts in West Bengal.
A Changed Landscape of Kashmir Conflict
But I am in full favor of Kashmiri muslims being killed and their women raped. More the merrier.
Posted by
Mike
Jul 4, 2005 02:14 pm
Ranjit ...okay , forget the part about `our people` ...but your idea of holding Indian muslims as `hostages` to scare the Pakis is silly. First of all Pakis couldn`t give a flying f about Indian muslims , they would only laugh inside at our stupidity and cry crocodile tears , and the international community would condemn India as a nazi-like state. Indian muslims can be controlled by using the force of the state..silently but effectively. But I am in full favor of Kashmiri muslims being killed and their women raped. More the merrier.
- Mike
- Interacts: 110
- iLogs: 0
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 262
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Jun 23 2005
- Last signin: Jul 16 2005
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list
