RE:USE OF CAPTURED WOMEN AS SEX SLAVES IN ISLAM : PART 1
by Serial Tourist on Apr 12, 2007 12:04 AM Permalink
Muslims have throughout their history been taking Hindu women as sex slaves and selling them in the flesh markets of Damascus and Bagdad. Whenever they used to defeat a Hindu king, all the women of his kingdom were captured and distributed among soldiers and Mullahs or taken in caravans to Middle East to be sold as prostitutes.
Many women died in the mountains of Afghanistan when they could not take the cold and exhaution of the journey anymore. That is how Hindu Kush mountains got their name -- Kush means "slaughter or mass murder." Hindu women in Banladesh are regularly kidnapped and turned into sex slaves or prostitutes. Same thing happened in Kashmir when about 5,000 Hindu women captured by the tribal raiders were taken to the kothas of Lahore. Some of them are still alive in Pakistan. Nehru, the "apostle of peace," refused to send India army to help them when they were being taken out of Kashmir into Pakistan.
Islam is the most barbaric religion in the world. It is all about caputre of booty and women.
RE:USE OF CAPTURED WOMEN AS SEX SLAVES IN ISLAM : PART 1
by Pure Hindustani on Apr 12, 2007 08:02 AM Permalink
I think islam was founded by muhammad, allah or whatever to inflict pain to humanity and specially to women.
Secularism is just do what cpi(m) says, SP says, Vrinda Karat, kapil sibbel, soniya Says the thing that thay thought is right for tham is secular if you say somthing against tham than that is communal. if you says about pak supported terirsm you are comunal if you say that Army from kashmir should withdrawn you are secular. if you talk about hanging afjal you are comunal & if you says that SIMI is ionnosent org. you are secular. thease are some thing about your so called leader like vrinda karat, kapil sibbel, mayavati, lallu yaday,& journlist like rajdeep sardesai, barkha dutt, sheela rawal,tarun tejpal thanks
RE:What Is comunal
by Ziz on Apr 12, 2007 12:54 AM Permalink
As a common man I don't know all about what ever was written above by Wada Pav.... But I agree to what Manish is saying...
We need rang de basanti in our parliament. So atleaset this deaf pepople can hear. As bhagat singh said i don't want to kill but i want to have a loud noise so this deaf people in parliament and assembly can hear what the common people want.
We want the India which doesn;t descriminate for following any religion. NO minority university or other things needed here. We want to help everybody all kind of SC/ST and OBC and our common higher class Hindu who deserve finanical help. No descrimination or reservation for any damn people. Just having loud noise in parliament/assembly can make a diffrence.
RE:Rang de Basanti
by Rajesh Sachdev on Apr 12, 2007 08:47 AM Permalink
I will say just one time Loud noise will not do anything. Recent court decision are their against reservation but still people are in favour of reservation. We need to first come up with actual problem and its solution.
Talking about Gujrat riots is secular. Talking about Kashmir genocide is communal. Muslim reservation is secular. TADA / POTA is communal. Allah ho Akbar is secular. Vande mataram is communal....
RE:Just what is secularism?
by MANISH MITTAL on Apr 11, 2007 06:44 PM Permalink
Secularism is just do what cpi(m) says, SP says, Vrinda Karat, kapil sibbel, soniya Says the thing that thay thought is right for tham is secular if you say somthing against tham than that is communal. if you says about pak supported terirsm you are comunal if you say that Army from kashmir should withdrawn you are secular. if you talk about hanging afjal you are comunal & if you says that SIMI is ionnosent org. you are secular. thease are some thing about your so called leader like vrinda karat, kapil sibbel, mayavati, lallu yaday,& journlist like rajdeep sardesai, barkha dutt, sheela rawal,tarun tejpal(pet of congress) thanks
RE:Just what is secularism?
by Hindustani on Apr 12, 2007 12:23 AM Permalink
Indian Janta Especially HINDUS are RESPONSIBLE for these PSEUDOSECULARISTS( CONGRESS,SP,CPI..)
HINDUS feel that BHED (SHEEP ) & BHEDIA (WOLF) can ever be FRIENDS........
HINDUS can't OR Don't Want to Recognise WEREWOLVES Feeding on their Country's Resources!!! What a Pity !!!!
Today the scenario in this country is like..if i say i proud to be a hindu then i am communal.this thing should change.bcoz of some vote these congress,left and dmk leader unnessesarily praising muslim.thats why they have not left any options and we have to vote for BJP.
RE:Apeasement of Muslim
by dipesh chauhan on Apr 11, 2007 06:00 PM Permalink
When country had a partision that time this issue might have resolved.when u devide assets its should be equal.pak for muslim and india for hindu.but ..humare gandhi aur nehru jaise neta ne MAHAN ban ne ke chakkar me des ki vaat laga di.
RE:Apeasement of Muslim
by Hindustani on Apr 12, 2007 12:31 AM Permalink
PRECISELY !!!!!!!! When the PARTITION was RELIGION Based as we ALL Know........ India Should have been a HINDU RASHTRA from 1947 Onwards..... Its ALL Because of GANDHI and CONGRESS that BHARATMATA is Carrying the BURDEN of these MUSLIMS !!!!!!! 60 Years the LIMIT ........MUSLIMS Should NOT be Tolerated in INDIA Anymore !!!!!!! When PAKISTAN Doesn't Allow HINDUS why should MUSLIMS be Allowed in INDIA ??????? India Should be Declared a HINDU RASHTRA ! BETTER LATE than Never !!!!!!!!!!
RE:Apeasement of Muslim
by Serial Tourist on Apr 12, 2007 03:04 AM Permalink
Gandhi and Nehru were race traitors. They stabbed their own race in the back by accepting a Muslim pakistan but rejecting a HIndu India.
We live in a world of curious euphemisms. There are things we want to say at times but cannot. So we say them in different ways.
For instance, whenever we say Pakistan, what we really mean is Muslim. When we say Pakistan is behind something, what we actually mean is: These Muslims are behind it. But since it%u2019s still politically incorrect to blame an entire community, and a minority one at that, we blame it on Pakistan. Pakistan , to the average Indian, incorrectly I dare say, represents all that is wrong with Islam. Every time we blame Pakistan, we are actually blaming Muslims.
For we, or at least a very large section among us, are veering around to the belief that a secular India is not a place for Muslims- for Muslims owe allegiance, first and foremost to Islam, not to any nation.
While this may not be entirely true, as I know many Muslims who swear by India and secularism just as I know many Arabs who swear by Palestine, not Islam, the truth is also that, worldwide, Muslims appear to be firming up in their belief that their faith is more important than their nationality. That Allah is more important than India or UK or Saudi Arabia. We read about this daily. We watch it on TV.
As a result, even the most secular among us recognise that a new brotherhood of Islam is growing so rapidly-cutting across nations, cultures, financial communities-that very soon the world will be split between those who live by Islam and those who don%u2019t.
Just as, barely three decades ago, the world was split between those who believed in Communism and those who did not. Funnily, there was a time when Muslims hated the Communists most-for being Godless. Today, they occupy the very space that Communism has vacated. With just one crucial difference: Allah is at the centre of their universe.
Another euphemism we live with is terrorism. What we call terrorism today is actually any bloody and ghastly crime that cannot be explained. A terrorist is a person who kills others, in a flamboyant, random manner, for reasons that cannot be explained away by emotions like greed, lust, anger. The terrorist does not kill to inherit property-he inherits the Kingdom of God.
RE:4 Muslims, first and foremost is Islam, not to any nation
by Chanakya on Apr 11, 2007 06:38 PM Permalink
A person can multiple identities depending on which nation, caste, community, region, religion or even profession he belongs to. So a person can be a lawyer, Punjabi, Hindu, Indian and Khatri at the same time. But depending on the context he uses a particular identity.
Muslims somehow do not suffer from so many identities. Theirs is more homogeneous and monolithic society.
But there is a downside to that too. Nation states are still going strong, although people are predicting that Globalization will remove the concept of nation state finally. One of the numerous characteristics of a nation state is that people identify themselves with a geographical land mass. So at international level you may identify yourself as an Indian or Chinese or Japanese. Then what do you do at national level? You derive your identity from the region you originally come from. You call yourself a Punjabi, Bengali or Gujarati.
The problem with the Muslim community is that they do not identify themselves with the region they have been staying for hundreds of years. I have noticed that problem across India - from UP to Gujarat to Bengal to Karnataka to Tamil Nadu. I thought that might be a reaction to the so called "discrimination" that the so called secularists keep shouting about.
I visited a an African nation with a huge population of Indian origin. I met many people of Indian origin there. All of them acknowledged the fact that they were of Indian origin, although the migration might have happened three or four generations back. There was a Muslim in our group whose forefathers were also originally from India. He never - and quite deliberately so - used to acknowledge his Indian origins. During my stay I came across a few more Muslims of Indian origin there. Same problem!
I am not in position to comment whether placing religious identity ahead of all other identities is a wrong thing to do. But that is not really in sync with the values that our present day societies appreciate.
RE:4 Muslims, first and foremost is Islam, not to any nation
by Aman A on Apr 11, 2007 05:49 PM Permalink
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/OPINION/Editorial/LEADER_ARTICLE_Minority_Matters/articleshow/1887781.cms
RE:4 Muslims, first and foremost is Islam, not to any nation
by Sasi Kumar on Apr 11, 2007 05:58 PM Permalink
I disagree. Terrorists don't inherit any kingdom. They just kill, and die. There is nothing called "Kingdom of God".
RE:4 Muslims, first and foremost is Islam, not to any nation
by Ahimsa on Apr 11, 2007 07:28 PM Permalink
Terrorism comes from Quran. Read the fllowing verses, cross check in google if required.
Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you. (Repentance: 123)
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. ( The Cow: 15 )
"Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute." ( Repentance IX: 29 )
"Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters (The non-Muslims) wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush" (Repentance, IX: 5)
"They (unbelievers) are Satan's party they are the losers.... Those (the Muslims) are God's party....they are the prosperers." (LVIII The Disputer: 20)
Whether you agree or disagree, violence has been committed in India and being committed now to on the basis of the above Quranic Verses.
RE:Congress allowed Loads of Bangladesi Muslims inside India
by Samir Ankalikar on Apr 11, 2007 05:47 PM Permalink
what us said is right. 10 years from now some districts of west bengal and assam will become bangladeshi dominant and a demand could rise for their merger into bangladesh.
RE:Congress allowed Loads of Bangladesi Muslims inside India
by Surya Kanishka on Apr 11, 2007 05:58 PM Permalink
We will have beggerdeshi and porkistanis in this country and their comrades of india coupled with moulvi mulayam, senior sister sonia and the sinster congress
RE:Munnabhai Analyze Congress and Nehru-Ghazi Clan
by Munnabhai on Apr 11, 2007 05:09 PM Permalink
Circuit :Yeh CHACHA NEHRU nahin "MAMU NEHRU" hona chahiye :). Pure desh ma MAMU banaya s
