sunillathwal
New member
So do you also understand the factors that lead to the Babri-Masjid demolition and numerous riots where Sikh and Muslims were killed??
पी एम हो तो मोदी जैसा...........
- Thread starter jatshiva1947
- Start date
- Status
So do you also understand the factors that lead to the Babri-Masjid demolition and numerous riots where Sikh and Muslims were killed??
Yes, I do. No one, including me, can be blind to those factors.
Reminds me of Jinnah's Direct Action Day speech.
What is poetic justice by the way? A riot here, a demolition there, followed by a bomb here and a terrorist attack there?
ankurmalik
New member
Dear,
U r right to some extent. bt Muslim religion to some extent also unfair towards acceptability of othr religion. According to thm, if i am nt follower of Islam than it means I am against Islam. this should nt be the way. I hv also found them least tolerant towards other communities. I read on some websites that Atheist are more in danger in Muslim countries than in other countries. If i don;t blv in God, than it shld nt mean that i am ur enemy. same is the case in india too. Muslim started fight first. I knw in Hindu religion, Caste system is the main reason tht people dislike it. i wonder hw shudra tolerated so much discrimination over the years. it shld go away. with modernisation, it is changing. bt look at Muslims. they are not bending a inch. Laden and othr people are still well respected figures for them. I still feel Hindus are more liberal than Muslim(my personal opinion, though it may be generalised & u may disagree).
Last edited:
ankurmalik
New member
dear,
aslo read this. u ll be surprised.
http://www.economist.com/news/inter...ore-outspoken-tolerance-still-rare-no-god-not
Atheists and Islam
No God, not even Allah
Ex-Muslim atheists are becoming more outspoken, but tolerance is still rare
A MOB attacked Alexander Aan even before an Indonesian court in June jailed him for two and a half years for “inciting religious hatred”.
His crime was to write “God does not exist” on a Facebook group he had founded for atheists in Minang, a province of the world’s most populous Muslim nation.
Like most non-believers in Islamic regions, he was brought up as a Muslim.
And like many who profess godlessness openly, he has been punished.
Dear, u ll learn that how tolerant are these people.
ankurmalik
New member
further to that article :
In a handful of majority-Muslim countries atheists can live safely, if quietly; Turkey is one example, Lebanon another. None makes atheism a specific crime. But none gives atheists legal protection or recognition. Indonesia, for example, demands that people declare themselves as one of six religions; atheism and agnosticism do not count. Egypt’s draft constitution makes room for only three faiths: Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
Sharia law, which covers only Muslims unless incorporated into national law, assumes people are born into their parents’ religion. Thus ex-Muslim atheists are guilty of apostasy—a hudud crime against God, like adultery and drinking alcohol. Potential sanctions can be severe: eight states, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania and Sudan have the death penalty on their statute books for such offences.
n reality such punishments are rarely meted out. Most atheists are prosecuted for blasphemy or for inciting hatred. (Atheists born to non-Muslim families are not considered apostates, but they can still be prosecuted for other crimes against religion.) Even in places where laws are lenient, religious authorities and social attitudes can be harsh, with vigilantes inflicting beatings or beheadings.
Many, like Kacem el-Ghazzali, a Moroccan, reckon the only solution is to escape abroad. The 23-year-old was granted asylum in Switzerland after people found out he was the author of an anonymous blog, Atheistica.com. Even in non-Muslim lands ex-believers are scared of being open, says Nahla Mahmoud, a 25-year-old Sudanese atheist who fled to Britain in 2010. “Muslim communities here don’t feel comfortable with having an ex-Muslim around,” she says, noting that extremists living in the West may harass non-believers there too.
Facebook groups for atheists, mostly pseudonymous, exist in almost every Muslim country. Social media give non-believers more clout—but also make them more conspicuous, and therefore vulnerable. But the real blame lies with religious intolerance. In the 1950s and 1960s secularism and tolerance prevailed in many majority-Muslim countries; today religion pervades public and political life. Sami Zubaida, a scholar at London’s Birkbeck College, speaks of increasing polarisation, with “growing religiosity at one end of the spectrum and growing atheism and secularism at the other.”
The rise to power of Islamist parties after the Arab revolutions is likely to make life more miserable still for those who leave Islam.New rulers in Tunisia and Egypt have jailed several young people who have been outspoken about their lack of belief. Such cases occurred before the revolutions, but seem to have become more common. Alber Saber Ayad, an Egyptian Christian activist who ran a Facebook page for atheists, has been in custody since September for “insulting religion”. His alleged offence was posting a link to an infamous YouTube video that caused protests in the Islamic world that month. He was arrested by a Christian policeman: Egypt’s Coptic church does not look kindly on atheism either.
In a handful of majority-Muslim countries atheists can live safely, if quietly; Turkey is one example, Lebanon another. None makes atheism a specific crime. But none gives atheists legal protection or recognition. Indonesia, for example, demands that people declare themselves as one of six religions; atheism and agnosticism do not count. Egypt’s draft constitution makes room for only three faiths: Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
Sharia law, which covers only Muslims unless incorporated into national law, assumes people are born into their parents’ religion. Thus ex-Muslim atheists are guilty of apostasy—a hudud crime against God, like adultery and drinking alcohol. Potential sanctions can be severe: eight states, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania and Sudan have the death penalty on their statute books for such offences.
n reality such punishments are rarely meted out. Most atheists are prosecuted for blasphemy or for inciting hatred. (Atheists born to non-Muslim families are not considered apostates, but they can still be prosecuted for other crimes against religion.) Even in places where laws are lenient, religious authorities and social attitudes can be harsh, with vigilantes inflicting beatings or beheadings.
Many, like Kacem el-Ghazzali, a Moroccan, reckon the only solution is to escape abroad. The 23-year-old was granted asylum in Switzerland after people found out he was the author of an anonymous blog, Atheistica.com. Even in non-Muslim lands ex-believers are scared of being open, says Nahla Mahmoud, a 25-year-old Sudanese atheist who fled to Britain in 2010. “Muslim communities here don’t feel comfortable with having an ex-Muslim around,” she says, noting that extremists living in the West may harass non-believers there too.
Facebook groups for atheists, mostly pseudonymous, exist in almost every Muslim country. Social media give non-believers more clout—but also make them more conspicuous, and therefore vulnerable. But the real blame lies with religious intolerance. In the 1950s and 1960s secularism and tolerance prevailed in many majority-Muslim countries; today religion pervades public and political life. Sami Zubaida, a scholar at London’s Birkbeck College, speaks of increasing polarisation, with “growing religiosity at one end of the spectrum and growing atheism and secularism at the other.”
The rise to power of Islamist parties after the Arab revolutions is likely to make life more miserable still for those who leave Islam.New rulers in Tunisia and Egypt have jailed several young people who have been outspoken about their lack of belief. Such cases occurred before the revolutions, but seem to have become more common. Alber Saber Ayad, an Egyptian Christian activist who ran a Facebook page for atheists, has been in custody since September for “insulting religion”. His alleged offence was posting a link to an infamous YouTube video that caused protests in the Islamic world that month. He was arrested by a Christian policeman: Egypt’s Coptic church does not look kindly on atheism either.
sunillathwal
New member
No, Jinnah direct action day speech was different. I have read that. :angel: May be you should too.. in depth this time.
And by the way, a majority of people believe that Jinnah was SECULAR. So much for secularism.
Well, I am not very sure if your question is rhetorical or you have a genuine curiosity about the literal meaning of the phrase poetic justice. Anyway, Poetic justice is a literary device in which virtue is ultimately rewarded or vice punished by an ironic twist of fate intimately related to the character's own conduct.
Now coming to poetic justice in regard to Owaisi:
Mr. Owaisi wants muslim votes consolidation, which to a large extent is already there in Hyd'bad old city. His hate speeches are the means to this end. So muslims vote en bloc for MIM, MIM gets most seats in muslim dominated areas. Hindus on the other hand, by virtue of their naivete, are much fragmented, their votes splitting into many parties, resulting in hung assembly which further means muslims become (and by extension MIM) the king-maker (despite their much smaller %age).
So, in simple words, MIM can do anything- can beat voters on camera, make attempt to kill Taslima, open threat to Gujarat CM (will hang Modi if he comes to Hyd'bad), ban Ram-navmi celebrations in old city, fuel tensions near every Hindu festivals, etc. BUT AP govt can NOT take action against them. This is not because govt is afraid of violence but because they (so called secular parties) don't want to loose MUSLIM votes in AP and elsewhere.
It is working fine for Oawisi brothers as long as Hindus are ignorant. Once there is substantial Hindu-Muslim polarization, Oawisi brothers will be obsolete. MIM will be worthless opposition in AP and their funding will dry up and so will their hate against Hindus.
In essence, Owaisi brothers are using the hate-speeches against Hindus to get power, position, and money. Same hate-speeches can bring down these hate-mongers to the ground if used properly. And if you believe that muslims in Hyd won't elect them again just because one hate-speech is out in open, you are too stupid to deserve this reply (and I will regret wasting my 10 minutes). Remember there were thousands cheering Owaisi. So, only way to defeat these anti-national, anti-Hindu douche-bags is to pay them in Kind. This, my friend, would be the poetic justice!
And by the way I didn't say that BJP/RSS/VHP should start killing muslims or start riots. I simply said that they should bring these hate-speech to the notice of common man and let the common man decide! You seem to have problem with this too. WHY ??
Right, these things do not happen in modern secular, non-polarized India. Oh wait! terrorist attacks & riots have happened in India; they are happening every now and then. So, what is your point? Keep taking garbage from idiots?
A glimpse of the recent news will probably tell us that Islam is the most intolerant religion and Muslims the most barbaric people. But I think there's a bigger sub-text to it that we are missing. I have alluded to this in another thread. I think 'intolerance' of people is more a virtue of the economic and social progression rather than the religion they practice. Which are the major areas plagued by Islamic intolerance - The middle east and South and SE Asia? Aren't these regions among the most backward -socially and economically? Even Indian Muslims are among the poorest in the country. Take Turkey or to a lesser extent the Central Asian countries for example. They are progressive and Islamic at the same time. How many times have you heard about a Turkish terrorist? Hardly ever. This is not to say there are no Islamic terrorists in richer countries. Most of the 7/7 London bombers were home grown and British. But most were Pakistani, again emphasizing the link with a less-enlightened and not so progressive country.
And a not so deep study will tell you that the Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam are fairly similar in comparison. Their teachings, their reliance on prophets and moreover their insistence on their religion being the one and only true path to salvation sets them apart from others. And when practiced in their most archaic and bookish form, all three are deeply binding and their followers prone to indoctrination. One only has to look at Israel to see how Jews can be fanatic about their religion and their birthright to the land they currently occupy by force as its mentioned in their book - the Old testament. And even Christians waged religious wars a few centuries ago. But since the areas where Christians and Jews lived i.e. the West progressed and its the fastest and hence the people of these faiths were enlightened and hence hardly use violence for religious reasons.
One can now turn the question around and say - maybe the Muslims are fundamentalists and hence they remain poor. But I think the opposite remains true. They are prone to fundamentalism and violence because they are poor and less educated. If Islam was so intolerant by its very nature, do you think traditions like Sufi music could have arisen out of its followers? Music itself is abhorred in Islam, as they say. What about the Sufi music tradition that is practiced right from Turkey to India, except the Arab nations?
There are many sides to a story and I am sure you will appreciate that not all that meets the eye holds true.
Wow! Sound so very congressi 
You spent so much time, energy and brain cells to defame Modi without tiring and here your just spared few 'Politically correct' words for Owaisi and see how quickly you shifted back to blame Hindus.
Commendable .. but Totally Biased!
You spent so much time, energy and brain cells to defame Modi without tiring and here your just spared few 'Politically correct' words for Owaisi and see how quickly you shifted back to blame Hindus.
Commendable .. but Totally Biased!
A wierd and absurd statement. Why it didnt happen earlier in the history where opression was more cruel and discriminative in nature? Opression was also against SC/BC too. You saying kashmiri pundits has dicriminated against muslims even though their were hindus earlier but do you know under what circumstances they became muslims. Zamidars equally opressed hindus too if you are unaware of the facts. On other side most of the states had rich muslim rulers/nawabs.
I presented facts condemning both the view points and any defition defines it unbiased.
Biased is what you are doing, condemning only Owaisi but sparing Togadia and the likes of Modi.
Biased is what you are doing, condemning only Owaisi but sparing Togadia and the likes of Modi.
Wow! Sound so very congressi
You spent so much time, energy and brain cells to defame Modi without tiring and here your just spared few 'Politically correct' words for Owaisi and see how quickly you shifted back to blame Hindus.
Commendable .. but Totally Biased!
Please dont see this as an attempt to target Hindus. What I am saying is that the fight against landlords was aided by a religious fervor. East Bengal had more Muslims, most poor landless tenants and hence their religious organizations supported them in opposing the mostly Hindu Zamindars.
And religious color aiding peasant revolts has happened earlier, much closer home actually. Banda's revolt in Punjab in 1710s against the Mughal-aided chieftains and governors was essentially a peasant revolt. The peasants, mostly Jats, flocked to Banda's kesri banner and toppled Sirhind's governor. That the biggest Jat conversion to Sikhism happened in this period is no coincidence.
Coming to your question on Shudras. Yes, its a mystery to me why they didnt revolt against a system that subjugated them for so long. Maybe they were not organized very well. Perhaps having enslaved for generations, their psyche was enslaved as well, leaving them without any will to fight. But they did jump at chances of escape whenever they came their way like conversions to new religions like Buddhism, Jainism and later on Islam. Its another perspective that the former two dissipated from Indian shores after some time and they were forced to return to the fold of Hinduism for survival and sustenance.
On Kashmiri Pandits ill treating Kashmiri Muslims who were Pandit converts, why is that very hard to imagine? The Brahmin mentality denigrates any non-Brahmin or much worse any non-Hindu. Its as archaic and orthodox as one can get. The Brahmins believe they are rightfully the highest being created by Brahma himself. So its only natural they would treat with disdain a fellow Brahmin whose ancestors had rebelled against the order and were hence treated as outcasts, even though many Kashmiri Pandits were forcibly converted to Islam. Again, lest somebody takes this as an effort to justify the expulsion of Pandits, let me state I dont agree with the expulsion of any group of people from their homeland.
What majority? Where? Surely not Pakistan, where most revere him as the messiah for sub-continent's Muslims. And surely not India, where he is seen as communal who divided India.
I have read his speech. And I still think your call to action is pretty close to his words and intentions.
So you want polarization to increase so that MIM gets beaten at its won game. Fair enough. But you seem to be agitated by MIM's antics in Hyderabad. Why so? They are douche-bags, agreed. They are anti-Hindu, possibly. They are anti-national too, because they are anti-Hindu? Is that how it works?
Votebank politics isn't new. Both Hindu and Muslim communal political parties have used votebank politics to raise tempers, make emotional appeals and in many cases use violence. So your perceived slight at MIM's antics and to counter it by a wave of Hindu polarization isnt new either or a solution. This happened in every place which has seen large scale communal violence. UP, Bombay, Gujarat etc. And if you think a further wave of polarization will help defeat one groups polarization, I think you are sadly mistaken.
How naive and filled with good intentions! Talk about irony! You are asking parties that have themselves used hate speeches and incited people just like MIM to 'simply educate people and let them decide'. And surely you are not asking them to start killings. How could you? Well of course, the BJP/RSS/VHP have done no such thing in the past and all they ever do is share pictures and tell people to maintain calm. Right?
Garbage spewing idiots are on both sides. Both need to shut up. The holier than thou approach of 'they started it first and we are only countering it' is not going to work. To even hope that it will work is living in a fool's paradise.
Last edited:
I dont understand what are to trying to prove. Bhramin ill treated mulims but mullah did same to other religions. Still few get ill treated within religion too. Here on jatland many cry fowl about Bhramins and others. But have they throwned them out?
Both muslims and pundits were living peacefully earlier.
The point is that religious based oppression and discrimination was a part of everyday life in India for centuries. The Hindu upper castes did it to Muslim converts and the Muslim Nawabs/kings did it to Hindus. Sometimes those oppressed revolted with violence and sometimes economic issues got intermingled with religious ones.
And I dont think it was all as peaceful as we think. Nothing was out in the open but undercurrents of antagonism were always present.
ankurmalik
New member
ankurmalik
New member
No dear this may not be true. If poorness is a criteria than terrorist identity shld also come from Bhutan, Sri Lanka and othr nation. Hindus are poor too. bt have they turned into terrorist?There may be some exception. but The point is that its the religious preachings and extremisim. Muslims are suffering from too much extremism. Its easier to provoke religious sentiments. Last year, some stupid made a movie to mock Muhammad and so seen the reaction all over the world. Protest all over the world. so dear, i feel its the extremism and less tolerant about other communities.
Dear, i agree to some extent that preaching in Judaism, Christianity is archaic.
Last edited:
sunillathwal
New member
I could provide you with links of over 1000 (literally) article by eminent writers who believe/claim that Jinnah was secular. And I can complement this with few doctoral theses on Jinnah in political science that eulogizes Jinnah for his secularism.
Yes, in Pakistan, educated middle class revere Jinnah as the messiah for Indian muslim BUT not as a religious nut; rather a secularist who wanted a muslim-majority secular Pakistan. See the subtlety. I understand the inherent irony but that is what people believe. They are quick to point out Jinnah as wine-drinking, non-namaji, clean-shaved, westernized attire and married to a non-muslim (Rattanbai Petit). Further, his speech in Pakistan assembly (you must have read).. "you are free to go to mosuqe, temples; state has nothing to do with your religion, and other bull-shits..." proves that Jinnah was secular in his speech.
In India: even the "communal" BJP leaders have written book on Jinnah's secularism. Historically, till 1942, almost every Indian leader believed Jinnah as a hard-core secularist; after that few blamed him for riots, few others said, Jinnah is right, rest were ambivalent (ignorant).
Lest I am taken wrong, I don't believe that Jinnah was secular, not at all. But me no matters. It is about the popular narrative.
By the way, you possibly can not know my intentions; you have to be a hell of a psychologist to figure that out. You can interpret my words but not my intentions.
Ideally, I want private jet for me and a bit of weight gain. For India, I wish a homogeneous society, free of caste- religious- discrimination, free of poverty and diseases, better infrastructure, and high quality of life. I also want world-peace!! :very_drunk:
But utopia is too much to ask, so I wish to settle for the second best thing. Yes, I want polarization to increase and saturate resulting in a stalemate. As simple as that.
Of course I am agitated by MIM's antics. Not because it was a hate-speech but because it happens regularly and MIM gets away with it.
No, they are anti-national because they are anti-national. circular logic. And this is how it works: anti-Hindu/anti-minority/anti-dalit/anti-any-caste = anti-national. PERIOD.
As far as MIM, I can go back in History and narrate the Razakars episode but I believe you already know that story. You must also be aware of their rable-rousing speeches, their affinity towards MUSLIM-UMMAH, soft corner towards all muslim terrorists (they always justify their actions), their addressing of Indian parliament (and India) as Kufarstan, more sympathetic towards muslin atrocities in Palestine, Kashmir, Burma than next door victims of Islamic terrorism. Yes, this is what I called ANTI-NATIONAL.
Probably, you do not get what I mean by polarization. I don't mean polarization = Riots + Senseless Killing. There is also a severe religious polarization in Kerala. There is a caste polarization in UP, Bihar, TN, Karnataka and many other states: Does that mean caste-based target killings (and please don't invoke Ranveer Sena here!) ? No.
So, why are you so skeptical about religious polarization? or is it because muslims have shown propensity towards violence in such situations?
I am not mistaken. Of course, majority polarization will defeat the minority polarization or at least will render it (and their worth in electoral voting) moot. It has happened all over the world. Look at the recent Arab-spring: Muslim brotherhood is sweeping... how much is the worth of Coptic Christians votes (they are over 10% in Egypt)? Zilch. Nada. Zero. Nil. Sunay.
Look closer to home. Ever heard that minorities are king maker in democratic Bangladesh? their % was quite reasonable. Did minorities have any say in democratic Pakistan politics?
Why is this? If not the majority polarization, then what explain the worthlessness of religious minorities in most muslim-majority countries (even if they happen to be democratic)? Please enlighten me.
Once again, don't suspect my intentions; they are not necessarily good. :very_drunk: I have grown-up from that awkward immature-unrealistically-idealistic-phase of life.
That is THE point: Idiots don't stop. Otherwise there won't be any idiots. :singing:
Even assuming that MIM will stop using religious hatred against Hindus to garner votes is living in fool's paradise. Once this is settled, what do you propose to deal with vicious MIM? Their hatred is growing each day and influencing more and more people; so, why not cut the crap and go for the broke!?
I used peaceful as relative. There were no big riots or blodshed. You agree or not but that is the fact. Now people have always been opressed. Even in other countries like China rich oppress the poor. In capitalist world big corporate oppress the middle class but I didnt understand how you are linking this to the Pandit's exodus or Bengal riots.
Do you know Bengal division was purposed earlier in 1905 by Britishers but was unsuccessful. Was it unsuccessful because that time people were not oppressed?
An example that stands out here is Phoolan Devi who became a dacoit after getting raped by Thakurs.
And for Mr. Bhagwat, this is as bharat as it gets.
- Status