RE:xtremists
by alok kumar on Feb 18, 2007 10:03 AM Permalink
1. Shariat law 2. Shahbano's case 3. Ayodhya, Kashi, Mathura not yet returned and govt supporting Muslims...same does not happen in Muslim countries. 4. RamVilas wanted CM of India chosen on one criteria, that he should be a Muslim. Repolling happened because of him costing crores and crores of Rupees. Is this a secular country? 5. A whole new country was carved out of India in the name of Islam. ..................... .............. And the list goes on and on and on.....
RE:RE:xtremists
by damien martin on Feb 18, 2007 10:10 AM Permalink
1) where is sharait law applied in criminal cases. If sharait law would be applied in india the crime rate would have been lowest in the world. For example a rapist would be given a death sentence. No more rapes etc) 2) what do u know abt shah bano case and how does it affect the a common indian in general hindus in particular. there are many cases of hindus that do not affect the muslims. 3) what do u mean that ayodhya kashi mathura not returned is it held by muslims tell me no it is ruled by the government. 4)Its the problem of ramvilas paswan go and ask him Did any muslim ask for CM. Muslims in india are struggling for basic amenities forget abt CM 5 Where did u read the last one. U HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE ME ONE LOGICAL REASON FOR APPEASEMENT. IT IS BECAUSE OF ILLOGICAL AND ILLETRATE GUYZ LIKE U THAT THE COUNTRY IS SUFFERING
RE:RE:RE:xtremists
by alok kumar on Feb 18, 2007 10:27 AM Permalink
1. Shariat law for Divorce, Plolygamy etc. I am sure the day Jinnahs of India have problem with Indian Criminal law, you have your Mulayam Singhs who would support that even.. 2. For your information, it does affect common Indian as in Indian Judicial System each case becomes reference for future decisions. Regarding details of Shahbano's case you can find on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_bano 3. I think the worship places which originally belonged to Hindus, should be returned to Hindus. Govt is appeasing muslims by not handing back to Hindus. In Jerusalem there are few mosques of Muslim importance, Jews have not even build Synogogue over it...they are simply in a Jewish country and Muslims are crying on top of their lungs to get them back. Why not give to hindus the similar thing that they want to get from Jews and set an example? 4. I am happy that the muslims of Bihar understood the game and I salute them for this. Such smartness and open debate we require.
I think my reasons have been pretty logical and I dont want to hurt Muslims. They are justr like me, but I have problem with the people being represented as their leaders, who are simply misguiding our country...the country of Muslims and Hindus...the country which was supposed to be secular, true and non violent. By the way, I am not illeterate..
RE:RE:RE:RE:xtremists
by Indian on Feb 18, 2007 04:34 PM Permalink
5. A whole new country was carved out of India in the name of Islam. ..................... ..............
Who the hacked brain washed you for this, All muslims are proud to be an Indian and thats the reason Islam is religion by choice and India is a country by choice for all Indian muslims. Don't get brainwashed by Sangthans beware of them.
RE:RE:RE:RE:xtremists
by damien martin on Feb 18, 2007 10:41 AM Permalink
1)First u say india is secular and every citizen has a right to follow his religion. Then did any muslim asked u how to marry. If u want it to be truly secular THEN STOP TAKING (SAATH PHERE)for ur marraige. Y do u burn ur dead dont burn etc. These called civil laws dear. IF HINDUS can do what there religion teaches them to then so can muslims, cristians, buddhists etc. 2) forget wikipedia, what do u know abt wikipedia even if i want i can write an article in wikipedia. Its not any standard that a comittee writes. 3) Get the proof for that dear u donot have any proof even BABRI masjid was illegaly brought down without any proof, if u want these places go to supreme court fight cases and take it. 4) what kinda open debate. they are again ILLOGICAL u seem to have HALF knowledge and half knowldege IS ALWAYS DANGEURoUS
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:xtremists
by John Fernandes on Feb 18, 2007 11:01 AM Permalink
i think dome of the rock should also be brought down because it was built on the site of jewish temple of the mound. what u people have been doing to others for centuries from now on it will happen to you already thousands and thousands of poor muslims are being brought into christianity by our great missionaries in iraq soon the lands of christendom will be returned to it
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:xtremists
by alok kumar on Feb 18, 2007 10:59 AM Permalink
1. India is not yet secular because it appeases Muslims. There is difference between rituals and culture. Saath phere and cremation are rituals. Marrying 4 wives is Muslim culture. Why not debate polygamy against monogamy and fix it? Hindus and Christians have fixed things, why cant Muslims? 2. Did wikipedia give any wrong info on that case?? If it did then you go and research in that case and produce a point of good that happened in that case. Although for your info May 1986, the government introduced and got passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill, which effectively closed to Muslim women the option of obtaining relief under Section 125 of CrPC. Whereas the Supreme Court had found a way to help a hapless individual in straitened circumstances, the Indian Parliament proceeded first to enclose her within a monolithic group identity, then raised that group identity so as to make it the sole determinant of the issue in her case. The Indian law-makers did so in the name of protecting the group rights of a religious minority, the Muslims. Why dont you get the point the women of Muslim religion are being affected by this? 3. Proof is scattered all around and got from excavations. Govt is just appeasing Muslims. What better proof you want in Kashi and Mathura where you see that the mosque is attached to the temple and built over it. Why not return them atleast? If Muslims dont want to give these temples, they dont have right to ask for anything from Israel. 4. Still you dont get it and ask me what kind of open debate...pitty...its not debate with me...but debate in your community openly, with no fatwa threat. If my knowledge is half, why dont you give me full knowledge or you just want to hide your darkness under calling me illogical and half knowledge?
RE:RE:RE:xtremists
by Day lambu on Feb 18, 2007 10:36 AM Permalink
Shariat law is selectively applied so as to benefit the mullahs in the best way, so they can have any number of wives, any number of children and produce a bunch of ill educated, fundamentals who only create problem for the society and also to increase their proportion of the population. Had Shariat law been applied in criminal cases, these misguided elements would be the sufferers. Quota for the muslims in many states and probably at the center too - another appeasement. And they fail to recognize that their religion, not oppression, is the root cause of their backwardness. Why should the rest of the society pay for the inherent weakness in thier religion?
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:xtremists
by Srinivas on Feb 18, 2007 11:21 AM Permalink
Mr. Martin, if you talk about 48% quota then you talk about the Land of Pakistan and Land of Bangladesh taken away by them.
I agree that there is fault with quota system. It should have been economic based quota or no quota at all.
you seem to make baseless statements. Regarding Babri Majid. ASI of India have unearthed the proof of existence of temple there. You seem to have half knowledge not kumar. When Lambu gave you a proper answer for Shariat Law. you quickly agreed for that. Before that you were talking without any reason. This itself shows how much knowledge you have.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:xtremists
by Day lambu on Feb 19, 2007 01:58 AM Permalink
It is high time that all quotas are removed. The justification was that these communities were oppressed for centuries (which no longer applies). But nobody oppressed the Muslims. Their own religious believes kept them oppressed. Why should others pay for it. Quota based on religion? How ridiculous. This can only happen in minority appeasing India
RE:xtremists
by Fighter on Feb 18, 2007 10:52 AM Permalink
Encyclopaedia Britannica mentions that Mughal emperor Akbar 'ordered the massacre of about 30,000 captured Rajput Hindus on February 24, 1568 AD, after the battle for Chitod, a number confirmed by Abul Fazl, Akbar's court historian.' Afghan historian Khondamir records that during one of the many repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afghanistan, which used to be part of the Hindu Shahiya kingdoms '1,500,000 residents perished.
Firuz Shah Tughlak (1351-1388), who has an avenue named after him in New Delhi, wrote: 'On the day of a Hindu festival, I went there myself, ordered the executions of all the leaders and practitioners of this abomination; I destroyed their idols and temples to build mosques in their places.
In Persian, the word "Kush" is derived from the verb Kushtar -- to slaughter or carnage, because all Hindus living in Hindu kush were slaughtered. Encyclopaedia Americana says of Hindu Kush: The name means literally "Kills the Hindu," a reminder of the days when Hindu slaves from Indian subcontinent died in harsh Afghan mountains while being transported to Moslem courts of Central Asia. the exact toll of the Hindu genocide suggested by the name Hindu Kush is not available. However the number is easily likely to be in millions.
Lakhs of Hindus and Buddhists were killed in this region. The word Hindukush itself gives the meaning slaughter of Hindus.
During the Islamic conquests in India, it was a typical policy to single out the Brahmins for slaughter, after the Hindu warrior class had been bled on the battlefield.
Hindus experienced this treatment at the hands of Islamic conquerors, e.g. when Mohammed bin Qasim conquered the lower Indus basin in 712 CE. Thus, in Multan, according to the Chach-Nama, "six thousand warriors were put to death, and all their relations and dependents were taken as slaves". This is why Rajput women committed mass suicide to save their honour in the face of the imminent entry of victorious Muslim armies, e.g. 8,000 women immolated themselves during Akbar's capture of Chittorgarh in 1568 (where this most enlightened ruler also killed 30,000 non-combatants). During the Partition pogroms and the East Bengali genocide, mass rape of Hindu women after the slaughter of their fathers and husbands was a frequent event.
There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like "punishing" the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty. The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526). The Moghuls (1526-1857), even Babar and Aurangzeb, were fairly restrained tyrants by comparison. Prof. K.S. Lal once estimated that the Indian population declined by 50 million under the Sultanate, but that would be hard to substantiate; research into the magnitude of the damage Islam did to India is yet to start in right earnest.
Apart from actual killing, millions of Hindus disappeared by way of enslavement. After every conquest by a Muslim invader, slave markets in Bagdad and Samarkand were flooded with Hindus. Slaves were likely to die of hardship, e.g. the mountain range Hindu Koh, "Indian mountain", was renamed Hindu Kush, "Hindu-killer", when one cold night in the reign of Timur Lenk (1398-99), a hundred thousand Hindu slaves died there while on transport to Central Asia. Though Timur conquered Delhi from another Muslim ruler, he recorded in his journal that he made sure his pillaging soldiers spared the Muslim quarter, while in the Hindu areas, they took "twenty slaves each". Hindu slaves were converted to Islam, and when their descendants gained their freedom, they swelled the numbers of the Muslim community. It is a cruel twist of history that the Muslims who forced Partition on India were partly the progeny of Hindus enslaved by Islam.
RE:RE:xtremists
by John Fernandes on Feb 18, 2007 11:02 AM Permalink
i salute brave hindu women who committeed sati so as to save themselves in gujrat how many muslim women wanted to really save themselves from young hindus? very few
RE:RE:RE:xtremists
by John Fernandes on Feb 18, 2007 11:03 AM Permalink
the lands of islam that invaded india like iraq afghanistan and iran are now lying in ruins . what goes around comes around
RE:RE:xtremists
by Ramesh P on Feb 18, 2007 02:33 PM Permalink
Kudos to Fighter, excellent. Keep up this great work. Lets educate these muslims - who are brainwashed in Madrasa.
