Look at Pakistan and Bangladesh and see what is being done in the name of Islam. Hindus have been reduced from 15% to 1.5% in Pakistan, and in 28% to 12% in Bangladesh (1981 census) it's been 26 years since and I predict it's below 10% now. This is happening where muslims are in majority and practicing their "tolerant" and benevolent faith. Whats worse is that this forcible conversions are justified. Look at the names of the Pakistani missiles, they are named after Islamic raiders that ravaged and killed the Hindus and tried to destroy their civilization.
Can't anyone see the parallels between this and what Aurangzeb did ?
RE:Why history is important ?
by In on Mar 01, 2007 04:13 PM Permalink
Wrong statememnt again.. Muslim was not in majority in Malaysia, Indonesia etc... there may be more examples also, where truthful people just cann't resist Islam. Forcful conversion not at all.
Is it possible that one is guilty in this country only when one is a Hindu and harms Muslim interests ? Indians do not hesitate to call the RSS/VHP etc. as fascists, Nazis etc., insult Hindus without even bothering to read and understand the essence of Hinduism. The cruelty and pain suffered by Hindus is glossed over as a "victimhood" and instead are told to shut up and reminded of the poverty that exists in India. Without realizing how this great country/civilization has been ravaged for ~1200 years continous, and are told not to complain since they've had 60 years to fix it.
Where is this (elusive) objectivity I ask ? Why are only Hindus expected to its sole care takers ?
RE:Why are some people struggling to call Aurangzeb a tyrant ?
by Perv Sharma on Mar 01, 2007 07:50 PM Permalink
Secular
Fifty years from now the muslims will be taught in madrasa that the pakistani army never surrendered and these people will have to follow it irrespective of the fact that in 1971 the largest POW's were captured by Hindu Army (Indian since you are secular). These one lac POW will disapper.
Even today,we have many Aurangzebs in the world who think as he did and want the whole world to follow Islam.I dont know how he could destroy so many temples and kill people without a little bit of remorse.We in india have so many secularists,who do not have the guts to call a spade a spade and who would rather rewrite history to show Aurangzeb in better light to achieve their ends in the electoral shenanigans.Thanks to Francois Gautier who has brought on paper the facts.
RE:Re: Divide n rule policy of europeans and americans
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 28, 2007 08:13 PM Permalink
Quadri Bhai: People of India are most tolerant of others. Hardly any people have problem with "Islam as religion". Even the author ends this piece with praises for Dara Sikoh..
However, nobody can deny that Indians underwent huge atrocities during medieval period, specially under Aurangjeb.
What he did was NOT Indian Islam. Its still continuing today in Kashmir, Pakistam Bangladesh. Its of Arabic Fundamentalism. Wahabi and Deobondi.
Patritic Indian Muslims must understand this and condemn the acts of muslim emperors. They WERE FROM OUTSIDE INDIA, UNLIKE MOST INDIAN MUSLIMS WHO ARE FROM INDIA.
Psuedos will instigate Muslims, agitate youfolks for vote - BUT IT HAS REACHED ITS LIMIT. Now a Hindu backlash, specially after terrorism spreading all over India, taking place.
RE:RE:Re: Divide n rule policy of europeans and americans
by Secular Indian on Mar 01, 2007 06:02 AM Permalink
Deobandi is very much an indigenous ideology.
RE:Re: Divide n rule policy of europeans and americans
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 28, 2007 08:21 PM Permalink
The REAL REASON why Hindus and Muslims lived in Harmony in India for so long BECAUSE THEY SHARED SPACE LIKE MAZARs, THEY MEET EACH OTHER IN THE MARKET PLACE, BAZAARS.
Muslims are shunning those places now, because of fundamnetalism growing like Wahabis/Deobondis want to erase Indian Islam.
psuedo secularists have NO CLUE HOW TOLERANCE WORKS. THEY ARE MOSTLY CITY DWELLERS, NEVER LIVED IN VILLAGES, NEVER SEEN HOW THIS TOLERANCE WORKED.
SICK SECULARISTS ONLY AGENDA IS TO DEMONIZE HINDUISM, HINDU CULTURE and ERASE INDIAN CULTURE FROM PUBLIC LIFE.
THIS HAS CAUSED BIGGEST DAMAGE TO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE 2 COMMUNITIES.
RE:Re: Divide n rule policy of europeans and americans
by Perv Sharma on Mar 01, 2007 07:07 AM Permalink
Quadri Bhai
When Islamic people started forcefull conversion the first people to migrate from Iran were the parsi and these people came as refugees at that time towards India only because their ancestors knew that they practice their religion peacefully. Till today long before the muslims these people along with jews and christians have lived in different parts of India peacefully. They have followed their religion without fear. But what's the problem with muslims. Just simple greed which they have inherited from Abraham servant's son. The Maid servant was kicked out along with her son for demanding more than she was worth. The demands looks like are in the genes.
RE:Re: Divide n rule policy of europeans and americans
by Perv Sharma on Mar 01, 2007 07:45 PM Permalink
Quadri Bhai
In Maharashtra? You are right.
But unfortunately at that point of time Aurangzeb didn't know that Shivaji had taken birth and that shivaji and his family Marathas would make him go round and round and round the mountains of Maharashtra(I think going round and round must have reminded Aurangzeb of Going to mecca)
Francois gautier has written commendably. When Historians will note of many such facts. Infact even Francois does not have enough space to write on such rude rulers.
A comparison with later age Akbar (not the early one) will bring to light the true colors of all Muslim Rulers.
If casteism in Hinduism is bad and Islam a reforming religion then Islam followers looks like read everything with one eye. The islamic religion brought the concept of treating losers in War as Slaves from their roman rulers to this part of Hindus.
A religion which enslaves another human being because it of losing in war is nothing but barbaric. The islamic followers only took advantage of the tolerant and generousiy of Hinduism in war to ultimately defeat them and rest is history.
RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Vineet Saxena on Feb 28, 2007 10:04 AM Permalink
Other thing is that they call "Kafir" who dont believe in Islam. And as per Kuran, Kafir dont have right to live. Hindu philosophy is just reverse, they believe in "Vasudhaiv Kutumbm" and we don't hesitate to recite "Ishwar Allah tero naam" in our temples.
RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Name on Feb 28, 2007 05:00 PM Permalink
Who told u that kafir don't have right to live as per koran??? Nothing like that is mentioned in Koran. Provide Chapter and verse numbers. Don't throw blind comments.
Kafir are living since the time of Adam and they will be there till the Day of Judgement.
RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Name on Feb 28, 2007 01:47 PM Permalink
Slave is Haram (Totally not allowed) in Islam. Islamic follower never treated war prisoners as slave.. Any examples do u have.
Also note the 3 most severe crime in Islam: 1. Being unfathful to god. It even include not to cheat others and speaking only the words that are not offensive (killing and torture are far beyond). 2. Killing is the worst crime after the first one. 3. Adultery or ra** is the next severe crime. Still do u think Islamic followers are prone to these sins. I agree there will be some exceptions (its in all religion), but entire religion should not be addressed & targetted for that.
And for patience we have a separate Sura, chapter/ paragraph in Qur'an. We call it patience as sabr
RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Name on Feb 28, 2007 01:54 PM Permalink
In brief, for Islamic foillowers the 3 major sin are: 1. Being unfaithful to god. 2. killing (People of any religion or races) 3. Adultery or ra**
RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 02:02 PM Permalink
Given what you've mentioned from (2) does it follow that Aurangzeb and all the other Muslim rulers that demolished temples and killed Hindus were sinners ?
Lets not even mention the other suras in Koran for the moment.
It is to the Koran that we have to go to find Muhammad's attitude to slavery. The subject is treated at many places in the Koran. We shall consider some of these statements in the order that they appear in the Koran, quoting the relevant part of the verse concerned(8).
(i) Sura 2 (The Cow) Verse 178
2.178: O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.
Retaliation for murder and other crimes was sanctioned by Arabian usage and accepted by Muhammad. Here it is said that a free(man) could be killed for the murder of a free(man) and similarly for a (free) woman and a slave. The mention of these three categories quite casually indicates that slavery is accepted along with the other two categories as an acceptable state for a human being. What is not clear is whether the person put to death is the person responsible for the killing. While this may be true of free persons this is not necessarily true of slaves. Thus if a slave is killed then it is not the killer of the slave that has to be killed but a slave of the killer! What this shows is that slaves are treated as pure merchandise of the slave owner. If a slave is killed then it is a loss to its owner and the retaliation for this is the killing of a slave belonging to the offender. Of course the slave killed may be quite innocent.
Of course it may be argued that the free people may have been responsible for the crime but to a kill an innocent slave for the crime of his master is truly a perversion of justice. The casual way in which slaves as a category of humans are mentioned along with free men and women in the application of this law shows that Muhammad completely accepted the slave status of humans to be a perfectly normal status.
RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Name on Feb 28, 2007 03:09 PM Permalink
In Islam the best revenge is "Forgiveness". Retaliation is authorized to avenge an injury. However, the retaliation must be directed toward the guilty individual(s), must be proportional to the injury, and must not exceed the limits set by Allah. The Quran does not support substitutionary retaliation against individuals who are innocent of any offense.
RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 03:19 PM Permalink
Again I ask, have you read the Koran or are you just making up bullshit as this thread progresses. I will for your convenience post the Sura again:
(i) Sura 2 (The Cow) Verse 178
2.178: O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.
It clearly says "slave for slave"! So if you kill your neighbor's slave then he can kill your slave. This belies your claim of "substitutionary retaliation".
Secondly it clear mentions slaves, so that makes lie of your claim that slavery is haram in Islam.
Be honest, others can read too. The days when you could fool the world with this kind of double talk are long gone.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Secular Indian on Mar 01, 2007 03:07 AM Permalink
Rock n Roll,
If a Hindu has killed and raped in the past he doesn't justify it with his holy book in one hand secondly he doesn't have misogynistic sharia law to encourage him. Thats why, you will not find Hindus taking shelter behind their holy book for the crimes they commit, unlike the Muslims. Aurangzeb as the article above points out is a case in point.
Maulvi-ji you choose to be ignorant and blind to the true meaning of the verse. Rather than make up your own translation why don't we use one from here:
http://quranbrowser.com/
Let me pick one at random out of several.
Yusuf Ali O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.
How is this even remotely close to you what you claim ? Please indulge me.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Name on Mar 01, 2007 01:57 PM Permalink
Remember one thing: DOT ("Nokta") k her pher se khuda juda ho jata hai. So read complete para with meaning and explanations..
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Name on Mar 01, 2007 12:18 PM Permalink
I will ask Secular.. since hindus doesn't justify it with his holy book; so the killing of innocents are justified...?????
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Secular Indian on Mar 01, 2007 02:22 PM Permalink
I'm interested in a copy of the Koran that I can read not someone else's opinion. I like to make up my own mind.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Secular Indian on Mar 01, 2007 12:44 PM Permalink
Name,
No it's not justified, that is the point. So, now that we've agreed on something. Did Aurangzeb do the right thing by destroying Hindu temples and forcibly converting Hindus to Isam ?
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Secular Indian on Mar 01, 2007 02:55 AM Permalink
Your opinion is not a refutation it is just that opinion. Please show me one example of your refutation. This post is like your other claims. If Shenidh says so it must be a fact, Nice. You seem to have invented a universe in your head which seems to run on Shenidhian logic. Foisting your ignorance and blind faith on other people is not called a debate, it is called proselytizing.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by Name on Mar 01, 2007 01:50 PM Permalink
You can reach irf.net for correct Islamic info and koran info. Good thing is that u can post your questions there, or it will be already present in Q&A or FAQ section. Please avoid other sites for I am not sure they might be correct or might be misinterpreted..
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by chaitanya kumar on Mar 01, 2007 02:41 PM Permalink
your interpretation of Quran, Name, and your brotherhood, altogether is very hideous. What we see from Islam in practice is disturbing. That is what people look at and approach credible informing sources. Not some jehadi site. They will get scared if they go there. You know what i mean.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Castes in Hinduism
by chaitanya kumar on Mar 01, 2007 02:37 PM Permalink
these nuts report messages for abuse that gets some sense into their insane brains.
These fellas throw their opinions on these students and since their religions teaches them that what they are taught is righ, they don't even read other historians.
what is the evolution of islam based on. where was it just 1300 years ago.
Hindus are known to bath daily and in fact old scriptures like mahabartha (written 1000s of years before Quran) clearly show this.
REgarding Idol worship. Well, then what's a mosque. Going to a Mosque assuming it to be the dwelling of God itself is idol worship.
All the medieval islamic scholars are non-arabic and almost every book of them is transalated from sanskrit. So much for muslims being highly educated etc.
RE:Madrasa Myths
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 08:32 AM Permalink
You are right, not just that there is physical evidence, every house in the cities that make up the Indus Valley Civilization or whatever you want to call it, had a bath. The sanitation of the cities makes modern Indian cities look primitive by comparison.
Yet Indians have to suffer such ignorant pronouncements it's baffling. This hatred and ignorance, one can understand if a foreigner does it, they could be pardoned for ignorance but Indians themselves ?
U Mohammed Sheikh yeah? Get ur facts right. Hindus don't worship cow, monkey etc. Some of the animals and plants are sacred to them only because they are known to have assisted their God in one way or the other. If a Camel had helped an injured Mohammed the Prpohet in War while no other person around is able to help him, wouldn't that camel hold a position of respect to U.
Regarding Muslims copying from Hindu books. How many examples do you want. First let me make some points on your own Quran clear to you. If your so called Mohammed the prophet was given divine powers to recite all of a sudden because he was uneducated and that's why people around him wondered how he could recite the stuff. What everybody in that era didn't understand was that like a parrot Mohammed only talked something didn't write all of a sudden. An uneducated person can very easily tell a story by hearing it from someone.
The Quran was written many years after Mohammed, so it's liable that after each conquest or victory, they wrote whatever suited the victorious. It's even common today. The victorious only write history not the losers.
Duncan writes in The Calender "In 773, some 250 years after Aryabhath's death, a delegation of diplomats from lower Indus River Valley arrived in the new Arab capital of Baghdad. Dressed in bright coloured silks, turbans and glittering gems, ... Arriving at last outside the gates of al-Mansur's (the founder of the Abbasid dynasty) magnificent city This particular delegation also brought with them an astronomer, ..Kanaka. An expert on eclipse, he carried with him a small library of Indian astronomical texts to give to the Caliph, including the Surya Siddhanta and the works of Brahmagupta(containing material on Aryabhata) . Nothing more is known about this Kanaka. The first known reference to him was written some five hundred years later by an Arab historian named al-Qifti.
According to al-Qifti, the caliph was amazed by the knowledge in the Indian texts. He immediately ordered them to be translated into Arabic and their essence compiled into a textbook that became known as the Great Sindhind (Sindhind is the Arabic form of the Sanskrit word Siddhanta )." Incidents like this were necessary " in order to bring the works of India into the sphere of the early Islamic scholars, whence they would travel to Christian Europe through Syria, Sicily and Arab controlled Spain. A version of the Great Sindhind would be translated into Latin in 1126. This was one of the dozens of critical documents that would contribute to the knowledge base needed to propel Europe into the modern age" Duncan adds.
Do want more historical facts or U wanna go any study in that funny islamic madrasas of Paki a land given in generosity to Muslims by Hindus.
RE:Madrasa Myths
by amjad ali khan on Mar 05, 2007 11:57 AM Permalink
I congratulate you for making an effort to write about Mosque and muslims.
The correct word is Masjid, derived from arabic word "Sajada" which means to prostrate oneself (in worship) and Masajid means the place where Sajada is made. For muslims whole world is the place where U can prostrate. Only requirement is it should be Clean and free of impurities.
Secondly, Idol means an image used as an object of worhip. We do not have any image in any of the Masjid.
"Ek Tu Hi Nirankar"
We muslims do not have a practice of idol worship.
As far as I know, origin of Islam is right from the origin of human kind, i.e. From Adam (peace be upon him). Allah has send messengers from time to time to remind us about worshipping one God (Allah) as he is the one worthy of worhip and refrain from worhipping false Gods. Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the last and final messenger of Allah.
If we want to know Islam, we have to see his Muhammad's (PBUH)life and how he had practice the commands of Allah.
If our objective is to acquire the correct knowledge of any topic, we should not approach with a pre-dermined mindset. It will only take us in wrong direction and not to the truth.
If U want to know Islam, approach a scholar, it will help u in having a better knowledge and correct perspective.
Check out this latest poll. I've copied content too? Now i guess some morons will say this poll is bogus, it does not matter bcoz Quran justfies violence, blah, blah....
WASHINGTON - Those who think that Muslim countries and pro-terrorist attitudes go hand-in-hand might be shocked by new polling research: Americans are more approving of terrorist attacks against civilians than any major Muslim country except for Nigeria.
The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified."
Contrast those numbers with 2006 polling results from the world's most-populous Muslim countries - Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria. Terror Free Tomorrow, the organization I lead, found that 74 percent of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86 percent; in Bangladesh, 81 percent.
Do these findings mean that Americans are closet terrorist sympathizers?
Hardly. Yet, far too often, Americans and other Westerners seem willing to draw that conclusion about Muslims. Public opinion surveys in the United States and Europe show that nearly half of Westerners associate Islam with violence and Muslims with terrorists. Given the many radicals who commit violence in the name of Islam around the world, that's an understandable polling result.
But these stereotypes, affirmed by simplistic media coverage and many radicals themselves, are not supported by the facts - and they are detrimental to the war on terror. When the West wrongly attributes radical views to all of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims, it perpetuates a myth that has the very real effect of marginalizing critical allies in the war on terror.
Indeed, the far-too-frequent stereotyping of Muslims serves only to reinforce the radical appeal of the small minority of Muslims who peddle hatred of the West and others as authentic religious practice.
Terror Free Tomorrow's 20-plus surveys of Muslim countries in the past two years reveal another surprise: Even among the minority who indicated support for terrorist attacks and Osama bin Laden, most overwhelmingly approved of specific American actions in their own countries. For example, 71 percent of bin Laden supporters in Indonesia and 79 percent in Pakistan said they thought more favorably of the United States as a result of American humanitarian assistance in their countries - not exactly the profile of hard-core terrorist sympathizers. For most people, their professed support of terrorism/bin Laden can be more accurately characterized as a kind of "protest vote" against current US foreign policies, not as a deeply held religious conviction or even an inherently anti- American or anti-Western view.
In truth, the common enemy is violence and terrorism, not Muslims any more than Christians or Jews. Whether recruits to violent causes join gangs in Los Angeles or terrorist cells in Lahore, the enemy is the violence they exalt.
Our surveys show that not only do Muslims reject terrorism as much if not more than Americans, but even those who are sympathetic to radical ideology can be won over by positive American actions that promote goodwill and offer real hope.
America's goal, in partnership with Muslim public opinion, should be to defeat terrorists by isolating them from their own societies. The most effective policies to achieve that goal are the ones that build on our common humanity. And we can start by recognizing that Muslims throughout the world want peace as much as Americans do.
* Kenneth Ballen is founder and president of Terror Free Tomorrow, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to finding effective policies that win popular support away from global terrorists.
RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 04:37 AM Permalink
In your competition to show which is worse Christianity and Islam, you seem to have missed the point that as far as Indians are concerned, it's got nothing to do with them. Ek hi thaali ke chate vate. All you've succeeded in demonstrating is that Indians should view with suspicion the claims of bot Christians and Muslims. They are both trying to outdo each other in brutality simply both believe that they are the custodians/inheritors of the only way.
RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Shenidh on Feb 28, 2007 04:49 AM Permalink
All along you been attacking Islam in this forum. Now when you don't have anything talk about Islam, now attacking both christianity and Islam. What a jerk you are.
RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 06:02 AM Permalink
Have you read the article ? It was about Aurangzeb and his destruction on Hindu temples and killing of Hindus in the name of Islam. And so, we ended up discussing why.
Then you put up some article that claimed to show Islam in good light and I simply pointed out that comparing Islams tracks record with Christianity is of no relevance to Indians. We are not interested to know which is more brutal, we fear the zealotry of both.
So I fail to understand how that has upset you so much that you have resorted to name calling.
RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Shenidh on Feb 28, 2007 04:47 AM Permalink
That's the response i expected from you. Gud keep it up. I've heard these comments so many times. Keep on repeating same stuff again & again.
RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Secular Indian on Mar 01, 2007 05:50 AM Permalink
Show me one post where you've admitted that Aurangzeb was cruel and a tyrant. The forced conversions of Hindus to Islam the destruction of the Hindu temples is documented, in fact in his own court records. Now, please (again) answer this simple question, was he or was he not doing the right thing. It's not too much to ask is it ?
RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 28, 2007 07:04 AM Permalink
Fact of the matter is, if frree and fair election is held in Muslim countries, its Islamists who will come to power IN ALMOST ALL ISLAMIC COUNTRIES.
Why there is NOT A SINGLE MUSLIM COUNTRY WHICH IS SECULAR?
RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 08:37 AM Permalink
Well actually Turkey is but it's not really democratic, the actually power is still held by the military. It become secular only after Ata Turk had to brutally suppress the muslim clergy. He shot all that opposed him changed the script from Arabic to Roman and forbade the teaching of religion in school among other harsh penalties to curb the influence Islamic clergy. It seems the experiment is not going to last into the next century though. all indications are that they will revert back to their old ways.
RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Bhaskar Chattopadhyay on Feb 28, 2007 08:16 PM Permalink
Secular Indian : Re-read Turkey's recent history and you will see Turkey is on the verge of becoming Islamic nation again.
NOT a SINGLE ISLAMIC NATION OUT OF 55 ODD COUNTRIES ARE SECULAR. Its a fact which we cannot ignore.
India today is a vibrant, democratic, secular (with whatever limitations) IS BECAUSE ITS OVERWHELMINGLY HINDU.
POLITICISNS, SICK SECULARS MUST UNDERSTAND THIS AND PAY RESPECT.
RE:RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Secular Indian on Mar 01, 2007 07:48 AM Permalink
I don't deny that Turkey is not regressing into a theocratic state but for the moment (it can claim a separation of Church and state). It may be a form of Secularism that is peculiar to Turkey. From wikipedia:
"... some doctors,lawyers, teachers etc who insisted on showing their religious orientation, usually by opposing to fundamentals of state, were fired. Furthermore, the Army officials whose family members bear Islamic cover were expeled without any pension, on the grounds that one who applies to be an army member is a priori accepting these rules."
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Secular Indian on Mar 02, 2007 05:05 AM Permalink
Samuel Huntington has summed it up very well"
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Perv Sharma on Mar 01, 2007 07:57 PM Permalink
Secular
Hindus speak so many different languages from different states worship different gods (for muslims so many many gods) but for the past 50 plus years are living as one Country. Don't U think these Islamic countries rather Our islam preachers on rediff should form one country from Arabia to Pakistan to show that they all really worhsip one God and want to only live by his one book only.
RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by david on Feb 28, 2007 12:51 PM Permalink
do we have any body like ata turk in india who is ready to take on the hindutva terrorists. turkey should teach us a lesson.
RE:RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 01:25 PM Permalink
What a wonderful Idea, since he created a secular legal code, which once introduced completely altered laws affecting women, marriage, and family relations. Why don't we have a uniform legal system that does away with Muslim personal law.
The Six Arrows of Kemalism are republicanism, nationalism, populism, reformism, statism, and secularism. Which of these are missing in India, except perhaps one uniform legal code.
RE:RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 01:28 PM Permalink
I also forgot to mention this little gem, Populism encompassed not only the notion that all Turkish citizens were equal but also that all of them were Turks.
Hmmmm...are you sure you still want the Indian AttaTurk ?
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by chaitanya kumar on Feb 28, 2007 02:59 PM Permalink
ata turk in India? well most of the prospective ata turks are appeasing Muslims or filling their bellies for what it's worth. If Hindutva spirit is negative and against something good, ata turk will be born. One can only wonder why the best for Hindus has been Modi and not something more enhanced in vigour. Your comparison is absurd. Like comparing two different entities which have seen different growth and Hindus have taken the brunt. Islam has been aggressive since a long time and changed many things in India. Your name tells many things. You are most likely a Hindu hater and a missionary worker dwelling in devious methods to forward your causes. Hinduism is the easier prey ain't it.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by chaitanya kumar on Feb 28, 2007 03:08 PM Permalink
terrorists eh. Now your mask is out church fundoo. I have an idea of what length you people will go to to. You don't have many good things to say about Hinduism but some of them will be raised to the pedestal of terrorist which is propaganda of false nature. It only tells you hate the adherence of majority community in many ways. You call yourself an Indian.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 03:09 PM Permalink
Are you replying to my post or the the post that I replied to ?
RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 03:26 AM Permalink
Which part is a revelation ? Islam & Christianity are part of the same Abrahamic tradition. At their core they share the same deep hatred towards non-believers. They both claim to be the custodians of the truth. They both have the either you are with us or against us mentality. Tell us something new.
RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Shenidh on Feb 28, 2007 03:32 AM Permalink
Now you are showing your true VHP/ShivSena colors. That's what even they speak. I donno why you are pretending to be secular though you speak VHP/Shivsena language. Remove that "secular" screen name. You will get even more support from VHP extemists for your views.
RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 03:50 AM Permalink
Are you suggesting that because the RSS/VHP/Shiv Sena and my opinion aligns on some points, which BTW are not disputed it makes me an RSS member. That's like claiming that we are all Nazis because look, we all breathe oxygen like them. Dr. Zakir Naik has taught you well young Jedi. LOL.
RE:RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Shenidh on Feb 28, 2007 03:59 AM Permalink
Not some points, your opinion align with all RSS/VHP points. If don't know what to talk don't brig Dr.Zakir Naik crap here...Just accept that u ra RSS/VHP guy. Why r ashamed of accepting that??
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 04:31 AM Permalink
Why shouldn't I bring Dr. Naik here, you are the one who hailed him to be the shining light of Islam. That he had all the answers to the questions people have about Islams fascist tendencies etc. Since I've shown the childishness of his arguments, why are you trying to distance yourself from him.
I'm not a member it's as simple as that, as far as I'm concerned they are like the "fast food" of Hinduism and for your information, I know that and they know that because of the plurality that Hinduism encourages they will not issue a fatwa for my objection to some of their rhetoric and policies. I hope that answers your question.
I would advise you to show me the equivalence in Islam now.
RE:RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Shenidh on Feb 28, 2007 04:21 AM Permalink
What's wrong with u? why r u comparing me with Dr.Zakir Naik? He is a scholor. Just go and attend his seminars. Then u will know how much of knowledge he has. you are becoming insane. All i can say is may God help you.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The myth of Muslim support for terror
by Secular Indian on Feb 28, 2007 04:33 AM Permalink
Dr, Naik a scholar (hahaha) just like Aurangzeb was a just and kind ruler and a good muslim. LOL.
