Oh My God
Shoaib Daniyal February 18, 2009
#107 Posted by tahir on February 25, 2009 3:59:08 am
Re: # 105
Read my I-log: WHO IS A KAFIR
See where you fit.
Read my I-log: WHO IS A KAFIR
See where you fit.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#106 Posted by tahir on February 25, 2009 3:56:08 am
Re: # 105
Don't quote your scripture, whose real secret has already been exposed at: http://www.chowk.com/ilogs/70854/30139
Who or what is 'Ghouse'?
Nowhere does Asad say: "Kafirs, such as Hindus, “are like cattle -nay, they are even less conscious of the right way�.
"We (Allah, there are few Allahs it seems)"
Ever heard how the royalty refers to itself; even common Indus-ians do that? It seems you're only quoting bits of the Qur'an to sound like a sage. Read it all (while asking for guidance) and then see why 'We', 'I','Us' is used, and why it changes. Asad has explained that all!
Rotten eggs are bound to get boiled in 'narkh' or 'jahannam', whether they are Muslims, or any other creed. I can see the idol in you getting upset.
Don't be upset, understand, let go of your anger.
Shanti.
Don't quote your scripture, whose real secret has already been exposed at: http://www.chowk.com/ilogs/70854/30139
Who or what is 'Ghouse'?
Nowhere does Asad say: "Kafirs, such as Hindus, “are like cattle -nay, they are even less conscious of the right way�.
"We (Allah, there are few Allahs it seems)"
Ever heard how the royalty refers to itself; even common Indus-ians do that? It seems you're only quoting bits of the Qur'an to sound like a sage. Read it all (while asking for guidance) and then see why 'We', 'I','Us' is used, and why it changes. Asad has explained that all!
Rotten eggs are bound to get boiled in 'narkh' or 'jahannam', whether they are Muslims, or any other creed. I can see the idol in you getting upset.
Don't be upset, understand, let go of your anger.
Shanti.
#105 Posted by laddu on February 25, 2009 2:53:51 am
Tahir ji,
"There were about 360 idols around the Ka’abah. He pulled them down with his sword while reciting: “And say: ‘Truth has arrived and falsehood has perished for falsehood is by its nature bound to perish.’� (Al-Qur’an, 17:81) Also “Say: ‘Truth has arrived and falsehood neither creates anything new nor restores anything.’� (Al-Qur’an, 34: 49) The idols tumbled on their faces.
On the basis of such info, Wikipedia notes that:
In 630, Muhammad and his followers returned to Mecca as conqueror, and he destroyed the 360 idols in and around the Kaaba.[28][29] While destroying each idol, Muhammad recited [Qur'an 17:81] which says “Truth has arrived and falsehood has perished for falsehood is by its nature bound to perish.�[28][29]
Ibn Ishaq [Karachi, p. 552], Muhammad’s first pious biographer, says that after capturing Mecca, Muhammad ordered the destruction of all idols of the Ka’ba, shouting out: “Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish�.
Nonetheless, the moral of the story is: You can take over a temple and remove there idols therein, not destroy them. Idolaters of the world can this message of Ghouse home.
Now let me turn to the Quranic verses Ghouse has addressed. I will not respond to his comments on other religious scriptures, because my expertise doesn’t lie there. I have spent the last 5-6 years researching Islam extensively, on which I am confident of commenting. If other scriptures have violent content, they incite violence too.
In explanation of verse 7:179, despite whatever unnecessary things he has written, Asad’s translation still says that the Kafirs, such as Hindus, “are like cattle -nay, they are even less conscious of the right way�. That means a non-Muslim, heedless to Allah’s messages, is worse, more evil, than animals like cattle, which the original author put as: they are “like brute beast.� I need someone explain what’s the difference between the two. Therefore, the claim of the original author that “In the eye of Allah, these kafirs [Hindus] are no better than animals� is roughly right, although he would been accurate had he said “kafirs [Hindus] are worse than animals (cattle)�. What treatment would Muslims render, if they happen to come across animals like these in their neighborhood? Heads of the kafirs should roll.
Concerning quoted verse 4:56, Asad’s translation basically say the same thing: For those rejecting Islam, “We (Allah, there are few Allahs it seems) shall, in time, cause to endure fire: [and] every time their skins are burnt off, We shall replace them with new skins, so that they may taste suffering [in full]…�
This horrible cycle of punishment-that a Hindu, Christian or Jew deserves-would continue for eternity; so vile a people are they. No doubt, Allah’s psychopathic punishment would surpass the barbarity of Hitler by infinite folds. Again, the original author is accurate in emphasizing that Allah has intense hatred of non-Muslims.
Some master deceivers of Islam would tell us that Jihad means struggling with the self, which will help them gain paradise. I hope, some of them will come forward and explain to us as to how struggling with the self would result in slaying the kafirs and getting killed in the process.
Let me emphasize to the reader that engaging with ignorants or deceivers takes us to no meaningful enlightenment on the subject.
"There were about 360 idols around the Ka’abah. He pulled them down with his sword while reciting: “And say: ‘Truth has arrived and falsehood has perished for falsehood is by its nature bound to perish.’� (Al-Qur’an, 17:81) Also “Say: ‘Truth has arrived and falsehood neither creates anything new nor restores anything.’� (Al-Qur’an, 34: 49) The idols tumbled on their faces.
On the basis of such info, Wikipedia notes that:
In 630, Muhammad and his followers returned to Mecca as conqueror, and he destroyed the 360 idols in and around the Kaaba.[28][29] While destroying each idol, Muhammad recited [Qur'an 17:81] which says “Truth has arrived and falsehood has perished for falsehood is by its nature bound to perish.�[28][29]
Ibn Ishaq [Karachi, p. 552], Muhammad’s first pious biographer, says that after capturing Mecca, Muhammad ordered the destruction of all idols of the Ka’ba, shouting out: “Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish�.
Nonetheless, the moral of the story is: You can take over a temple and remove there idols therein, not destroy them. Idolaters of the world can this message of Ghouse home.
Now let me turn to the Quranic verses Ghouse has addressed. I will not respond to his comments on other religious scriptures, because my expertise doesn’t lie there. I have spent the last 5-6 years researching Islam extensively, on which I am confident of commenting. If other scriptures have violent content, they incite violence too.
In explanation of verse 7:179, despite whatever unnecessary things he has written, Asad’s translation still says that the Kafirs, such as Hindus, “are like cattle -nay, they are even less conscious of the right way�. That means a non-Muslim, heedless to Allah’s messages, is worse, more evil, than animals like cattle, which the original author put as: they are “like brute beast.� I need someone explain what’s the difference between the two. Therefore, the claim of the original author that “In the eye of Allah, these kafirs [Hindus] are no better than animals� is roughly right, although he would been accurate had he said “kafirs [Hindus] are worse than animals (cattle)�. What treatment would Muslims render, if they happen to come across animals like these in their neighborhood? Heads of the kafirs should roll.
Concerning quoted verse 4:56, Asad’s translation basically say the same thing: For those rejecting Islam, “We (Allah, there are few Allahs it seems) shall, in time, cause to endure fire: [and] every time their skins are burnt off, We shall replace them with new skins, so that they may taste suffering [in full]…�
This horrible cycle of punishment-that a Hindu, Christian or Jew deserves-would continue for eternity; so vile a people are they. No doubt, Allah’s psychopathic punishment would surpass the barbarity of Hitler by infinite folds. Again, the original author is accurate in emphasizing that Allah has intense hatred of non-Muslims.
Some master deceivers of Islam would tell us that Jihad means struggling with the self, which will help them gain paradise. I hope, some of them will come forward and explain to us as to how struggling with the self would result in slaying the kafirs and getting killed in the process.
Let me emphasize to the reader that engaging with ignorants or deceivers takes us to no meaningful enlightenment on the subject.
#104 Posted by bhairav on February 23, 2009 2:14:55 pm
There was a one hour interview on CNBC with Warren Buffet, the richest man in the world, who just donated $31 billion to charity.
Here are some very interesting aspects of his life:
1. He bought his first share of stock at age 11 and he now regrets that he started too late!
2. He bought a small farm at age 14 with savings from delivering newspapers.
3. He still lives in the same, small 3-bedroom house in midtown Omaha, that he bought after he got married 50years ago. He says that he has everything he needs in that house. His house does not have a wall or a fence.
4. He drives his own car everywhere and does not have a driver or security people around him.
5. He never travels by private jet, although he owns the world's largest private jet company.
6. His company, Berkshire Hathaway, owns 63 companies. He writes only one letter each year to the CEOs of these companies, giving them goals for the year. He never holds meetings or calls them on a regular basis. He has given his CEO's only two rules. Rule number 1: Do not lose any of your shareholder's money. Rule number 2: Do not forget rule number 1.
7. He does not socialize with the high society crowd. His pastime after he gets home is to make himself some popcorn and watch television.
8. Bill Gates, the world's richest man, met him for the first time only 5 years ago. Bill Gates did not think he had anything in common with Warren Buffet. So, he had scheduled his meeting only for half hour. But when Gates met him, the meeting lasted for ten hours and Bill Gates became a devotee of Warren Buffet.
9. Warren Buffet does not carry a cell phone, nor has a computer on his desk.
His advice to young people: 'Stay away from credit cards and invest in yourself and remember:
A. Money doesn't create man, but it is the man who created money
B. Live your life as simple as you are
C. Don't do what others say. Just listen to them, but do what makes you feel good
D. Don't go on brand name. Wear those things in which you feel comfortable.
E. After all, it's your life. Why give others the chance to rule your life?
Treat yourself like who you are! A child of GOD!!!
Here are some very interesting aspects of his life:
1. He bought his first share of stock at age 11 and he now regrets that he started too late!
2. He bought a small farm at age 14 with savings from delivering newspapers.
3. He still lives in the same, small 3-bedroom house in midtown Omaha, that he bought after he got married 50years ago. He says that he has everything he needs in that house. His house does not have a wall or a fence.
4. He drives his own car everywhere and does not have a driver or security people around him.
5. He never travels by private jet, although he owns the world's largest private jet company.
6. His company, Berkshire Hathaway, owns 63 companies. He writes only one letter each year to the CEOs of these companies, giving them goals for the year. He never holds meetings or calls them on a regular basis. He has given his CEO's only two rules. Rule number 1: Do not lose any of your shareholder's money. Rule number 2: Do not forget rule number 1.
7. He does not socialize with the high society crowd. His pastime after he gets home is to make himself some popcorn and watch television.
8. Bill Gates, the world's richest man, met him for the first time only 5 years ago. Bill Gates did not think he had anything in common with Warren Buffet. So, he had scheduled his meeting only for half hour. But when Gates met him, the meeting lasted for ten hours and Bill Gates became a devotee of Warren Buffet.
9. Warren Buffet does not carry a cell phone, nor has a computer on his desk.
His advice to young people: 'Stay away from credit cards and invest in yourself and remember:
A. Money doesn't create man, but it is the man who created money
B. Live your life as simple as you are
C. Don't do what others say. Just listen to them, but do what makes you feel good
D. Don't go on brand name. Wear those things in which you feel comfortable.
E. After all, it's your life. Why give others the chance to rule your life?
Treat yourself like who you are! A child of GOD!!!
#103 Posted by stuka on February 23, 2009 11:40:44 am
yaae, I am a supporter of Ram Sene and I am HIGHLY OFFENDED that you posted such derogatory language about them. How can you conclude that Ram Sene guys are fags? Have you looked at the girls they threw out of the pub? The girls were overweight and aesthetically reduced the ambience of the pub. Ergo, Ram Sene guys are fond of the good life which includes seeing nice eye candy when paying 300 rupees for a damn beer.
#101 Posted by Dash_Dot on February 23, 2009 8:25:25 am
Re: # 99 I also saw the following graffiti on the walls of a urinal
GOD Saves
and below it in another hand was written
Shilton save better
So Fascist Tahir what is your point?
GOD Saves
and below it in another hand was written
Shilton save better
So Fascist Tahir what is your point?
#99 Posted by tahir on February 23, 2009 4:38:21 am
Re: # 97
"life is in your hands."
Long ago, while urinating, I saw THIS written on a toilet wall!
Thanks for the reminder, joker!
"life is in your hands."
Long ago, while urinating, I saw THIS written on a toilet wall!
Thanks for the reminder, joker!
#98 Posted by tahir on February 23, 2009 4:36:14 am
And when they finally pour Ganga-jal in your mouths, think of my I-log pictures and Zamzam water!
#97 Posted by Dash_Dot on February 23, 2009 4:36:07 am
GOD does not exist.
relent you fools. life is in your hands.
you are the master of your destiny.
GOD does not exist.
relent you fools. life is in your hands.
you are the master of your destiny.
GOD does not exist.
#96 Posted by tahir on February 23, 2009 4:34:51 am
The little barking dogs think that by attacking a person of great importance to world history, they will be able to pull him down.
Listen fools, he stands much higher than the idols of ancestors (with a fair share of demons too) you worship.
Barking poodles, all of you are bereft of grace, and doomed to perish in your rage. That is not a curse but REALITY around the corner, when death will creep up on you quite suddenly (or in the form of tortous illness).
Recover before its too late.
Listen fools, he stands much higher than the idols of ancestors (with a fair share of demons too) you worship.
Barking poodles, all of you are bereft of grace, and doomed to perish in your rage. That is not a curse but REALITY around the corner, when death will creep up on you quite suddenly (or in the form of tortous illness).
Recover before its too late.
#95 Posted by tahir on February 23, 2009 4:25:14 am
Re: # 93
"No doubt someone did. And no doubt I am living up to my commitment."
How old are you at ChowQ and otherwise? I'm old enough here (and otherwise too) to tell you that there is no such thing as FREE SPEECH. Free speech really means: whatever one utters may cross any line, with no accountability from the sponsored owners of this heathen website (or those betting on these dead horses). Does responsible speech exist here?
ChowQ has neither withdrawn the offensive (Book in the toilet) images, nor aplogized to readers. Humans have shame but robots never worry. And Urchin goes about naked as usual, changing nicknames when struck by lightening.
I'd like all (real) Muslims here to condemn what he did. Indus-ian Islam-bashers and Pakistani 'tamaash-beens' will both be responsibile (for what will soon appear on this website) if fences are not mended in a gentlemanly manner soon.
Peace, only if I'm not provoked.
"No doubt someone did. And no doubt I am living up to my commitment."
How old are you at ChowQ and otherwise? I'm old enough here (and otherwise too) to tell you that there is no such thing as FREE SPEECH. Free speech really means: whatever one utters may cross any line, with no accountability from the sponsored owners of this heathen website (or those betting on these dead horses). Does responsible speech exist here?
ChowQ has neither withdrawn the offensive (Book in the toilet) images, nor aplogized to readers. Humans have shame but robots never worry. And Urchin goes about naked as usual, changing nicknames when struck by lightening.
I'd like all (real) Muslims here to condemn what he did. Indus-ian Islam-bashers and Pakistani 'tamaash-beens' will both be responsibile (for what will soon appear on this website) if fences are not mended in a gentlemanly manner soon.
Peace, only if I'm not provoked.
#94 Posted by shoaib_daniyal on February 23, 2009 3:22:11 am
Re: #85
I see this website takes its free speech very seriously.
I see this website takes its free speech very seriously.
#93 Posted by shoaib_daniyal on February 23, 2009 3:20:16 am
Tahir,
I'm sure someone did recite the 'azaan' in your ear at birth; live up to your committment.
No doubt someone did. And no doubt I am living up to my commitment.
Shoaib
I'm sure someone did recite the 'azaan' in your ear at birth; live up to your committment.
No doubt someone did. And no doubt I am living up to my commitment.
Shoaib
#92 Posted by VRV on February 23, 2009 2:57:39 am
Corr:
Isn't that Judaic mythological icon Gabriel?
Isn't that Judaic mythological icon Gabriel?
#91 Posted by VRV on February 23, 2009 2:56:34 am
89, U think Muhammed was actually 'selected' by that Jewish God to spread his religion to bedouins?
Tell me who's the real propa arab prophet other than Muhammed himself? Who're David, Solomon, Moses? Arabs?
Look @ the mythology of a winged angel meeting him all the time in a cave. Isn't that Judaic mythology? What abt circumcision? Isn't that Jewish custom? The valve of rational thinking is closed for all momins.
Christians & Muslims are Jewish Mirzais.
Tell me who's the real propa arab prophet other than Muhammed himself? Who're David, Solomon, Moses? Arabs?
Look @ the mythology of a winged angel meeting him all the time in a cave. Isn't that Judaic mythology? What abt circumcision? Isn't that Jewish custom? The valve of rational thinking is closed for all momins.
Christians & Muslims are Jewish Mirzais.
#90 Posted by tahir on February 23, 2009 2:40:35 am
Shoaib Daniyal,
Don't worry about your ratings here; they don't matter.
I'm sure someone did recite the 'azaan' in your ear at birth; live up to your committment.
Don't worry about your ratings here; they don't matter.
I'm sure someone did recite the 'azaan' in your ear at birth; live up to your committment.
#89 Posted by tahir on February 23, 2009 2:38:10 am
Re: # 82
VRV,
"Muhammed is another m.....ac who imported the Jewish God lock stock barrel to arabs and sold that God & religion to bedouins."
What a fool you are (one who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding).
With all the J-people and their learned Rabbis around, inventing or concocting was out of the question.
�क बार �क मूर�ख, हमेशा �क मूर�ख!
VRV,
"Muhammed is another m.....ac who imported the Jewish God lock stock barrel to arabs and sold that God & religion to bedouins."
What a fool you are (one who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding).
With all the J-people and their learned Rabbis around, inventing or concocting was out of the question.
�क बार �क मूर�ख, हमेशा �क मूर�ख!
#88 Posted by tahir on February 23, 2009 2:29:27 am
Re: # 85
Satan,
"Tahir Mian (for mian read katua)"
A slang used to describe Muslim male in north India. The word katua means, the one who is cut up (circumcised)in hindustani. A slang used to describe Muslim male in north India. The word katua means, the one who is cut up (circumcised)in hindustani.
Thanks for the compliment but I cannot comment further as you are a male interactor!
But hey, I pity you.
यदि आप खतना नहीं कर रहे हैं आप समस�याओं का होगा
Satan,
"Tahir Mian (for mian read katua)"
A slang used to describe Muslim male in north India. The word katua means, the one who is cut up (circumcised)in hindustani. A slang used to describe Muslim male in north India. The word katua means, the one who is cut up (circumcised)in hindustani.
Thanks for the compliment but I cannot comment further as you are a male interactor!
But hey, I pity you.
यदि आप खतना नहीं कर रहे हैं आप समस�याओं का होगा
#87 Posted by shoaib_daniyal on February 22, 2009 7:54:35 pm
Re: # 79
Sanatani,
See unfortunately all abic cults are actually inverted pyramids sooner or later they will collapse.
Then all you have to do is wait, mian. I suggest a holiday in Swat to pass the time.
Re:#86
dost_mittar,
Agree with para 2 and 3 of yours. M.F. Hussain is no ideal and maybe its futile to even expect him to be one.
Btw, I think, Daniyal and Daniel are from the same tradition. The firangs just anglicise it. Something like Isa and Jesus, I think.
Regards,
Shoaib
Sanatani,
See unfortunately all abic cults are actually inverted pyramids sooner or later they will collapse.
Then all you have to do is wait, mian. I suggest a holiday in Swat to pass the time.
Re:#86
dost_mittar,
Agree with para 2 and 3 of yours. M.F. Hussain is no ideal and maybe its futile to even expect him to be one.
Btw, I think, Daniyal and Daniel are from the same tradition. The firangs just anglicise it. Something like Isa and Jesus, I think.
Regards,
Shoaib
#86 Posted by dost_mittar on February 22, 2009 5:44:49 pm
Nice article, shoab, as everyone else has said, too. You have also perfectly summed up my views about our politicians in your #20.
I also agree with the person who pointed to the cowardice of MF Hussain who "bravely" fights the hindutva thugs but caved in so easily in withdrawing his film Meenaxi when a few people objected to a rather innocent use of an adjective to describe a person which some people felt could only be used for the prophet.
But let me add a little caveat. I think that the people protesting against the article in the Statesman and those protesting the girls in skimpy clothes frequenting bars were also exercising their rights of free speech; however, they cross their limits when they beat up the girls whose actions they don't like or burn a bookstore because it carries a book that they don't approve of.
BTW, I was shopping for some bangles from a maniharan (muslim) in Jaipur last week and her son's name was the same as yours. I asked her if that name was a variation of the Christian Daniel; she said that no, it was from Dani, like Dani Karan. :)
I also agree with the person who pointed to the cowardice of MF Hussain who "bravely" fights the hindutva thugs but caved in so easily in withdrawing his film Meenaxi when a few people objected to a rather innocent use of an adjective to describe a person which some people felt could only be used for the prophet.
But let me add a little caveat. I think that the people protesting against the article in the Statesman and those protesting the girls in skimpy clothes frequenting bars were also exercising their rights of free speech; however, they cross their limits when they beat up the girls whose actions they don't like or burn a bookstore because it carries a book that they don't approve of.
BTW, I was shopping for some bangles from a maniharan (muslim) in Jaipur last week and her son's name was the same as yours. I asked her if that name was a variation of the Christian Daniel; she said that no, it was from Dani, like Dani Karan. :)
#85 Posted by Sanatani on February 22, 2009 3:09:27 pm
Re: # 76
Tahir Mian (for mian read katua),
Kya Zamana a gaya hai ab keval gaaliyan he de sakte ho.
Sanatani
Tahir Mian (for mian read katua),
Kya Zamana a gaya hai ab keval gaaliyan he de sakte ho.
Sanatani
#84 Posted by VRV on February 22, 2009 3:06:46 pm
corr
..but making lives of ppl miserable in that name is dangerous.
..but making lives of ppl miserable in that name is dangerous.
#83 Posted by VRV on February 22, 2009 2:46:24 pm
If u had foregone ur foreskin u too'd have been taunting us the way these Pakistanis are doing. So keep sanity and leave India's security to the Army.
Islam is a fascist religion and I am aware of its dangers but making lives of ppl in that name is dangerous.
Islam is a fascist religion and I am aware of its dangers but making lives of ppl in that name is dangerous.
#82 Posted by VRV on February 22, 2009 2:43:49 pm
Sanatani,
Rama and Krishna are not Sanatanic gods. They're extrapolations of some smart, shrewd clergy. Even u can become a godman now and a god later. It's all in our superstitious minds (in India). The real God of vedic ppl is Indra the God of Gods. He's superceded by multitudes of Gods.
Jesus was a maniac who declared himself as the son of God. Muhammed is another maniac who imported the Jewish God lock stock barrel to arabs and sold that God & religion to bedouins.
The true Indic path is the follow truth. The post-modern world has created a mechanism i.e. scientific way of seeking truth. U can keep ur faiths to satisfy ur faint heart but rejecting science is rejecting all we are enjoying in this world. The standard of life that we enjoy is equal to employing 6000 slaves in ancient times. No thanks to gods but thanks to our own (collective) efforts.
No book represents the ultimate truth.
The '47 is long gone and dont make lives of future Indians unbearable with ur poisonous thinking.
No Regards,
V
Rama and Krishna are not Sanatanic gods. They're extrapolations of some smart, shrewd clergy. Even u can become a godman now and a god later. It's all in our superstitious minds (in India). The real God of vedic ppl is Indra the God of Gods. He's superceded by multitudes of Gods.
Jesus was a maniac who declared himself as the son of God. Muhammed is another maniac who imported the Jewish God lock stock barrel to arabs and sold that God & religion to bedouins.
The true Indic path is the follow truth. The post-modern world has created a mechanism i.e. scientific way of seeking truth. U can keep ur faiths to satisfy ur faint heart but rejecting science is rejecting all we are enjoying in this world. The standard of life that we enjoy is equal to employing 6000 slaves in ancient times. No thanks to gods but thanks to our own (collective) efforts.
No book represents the ultimate truth.
The '47 is long gone and dont make lives of future Indians unbearable with ur poisonous thinking.
No Regards,
V
#81 Posted by Sanatani on February 22, 2009 2:37:55 pm
Re: # 50
Wrong nb BTW is it a short form of nabi.
You see we are reviving the Hindu Mahasabha and importing the concept of wajib-ul-qatl, Dhimmi and Jaziya from Islam into the Sanatan Dharam, Hindu Samaj and Bharat Mata.
All 4M's to be wajib. All parsis, jews and bahais to live as dhimmis and pay Jaziya.
Maharishi Hanbal Zindabad
Maharishi Jaffar Zindabad
How does Vidhi-e-Jaffariya al Hanud sound
Wrong nb BTW is it a short form of nabi.
You see we are reviving the Hindu Mahasabha and importing the concept of wajib-ul-qatl, Dhimmi and Jaziya from Islam into the Sanatan Dharam, Hindu Samaj and Bharat Mata.
All 4M's to be wajib. All parsis, jews and bahais to live as dhimmis and pay Jaziya.
Maharishi Hanbal Zindabad
Maharishi Jaffar Zindabad
How does Vidhi-e-Jaffariya al Hanud sound
#80 Posted by Sanatani on February 22, 2009 2:33:38 pm
Re: # 49
VRV I would love to meet your parents. I wonder kya kha ke tujhe paida kiya.
Wow what a back handed compliment to me and a front handed slap to the muslai.
Thank You
Sanatani
BTW I and al of us like me do not just wish to take revenge for 47 it is for everything from 683 AD to 1947 and all that with interest
VRV I would love to meet your parents. I wonder kya kha ke tujhe paida kiya.
Wow what a back handed compliment to me and a front handed slap to the muslai.
Thank You
Sanatani
BTW I and al of us like me do not just wish to take revenge for 47 it is for everything from 683 AD to 1947 and all that with interest
#79 Posted by Sanatani on February 22, 2009 2:28:37 pm
Re: # 42
Go and read Bharatvani and try and refute ANYTHING that is ANYTHING written there regarding all abrahamic cults.
Jews are bad, Christains Worst and muslai well they are like viruses nothing good can ever come from them but the problem is not the muslais it is Islam.
Also we are not talking of an empirical correlation but his own actions which are explicitly stated in the koran.
See unfortunately all abic cults are actually inverted pyramids sooner or later they will collapse.
Sanatani
Go and read Bharatvani and try and refute ANYTHING that is ANYTHING written there regarding all abrahamic cults.
Jews are bad, Christains Worst and muslai well they are like viruses nothing good can ever come from them but the problem is not the muslais it is Islam.
Also we are not talking of an empirical correlation but his own actions which are explicitly stated in the koran.
See unfortunately all abic cults are actually inverted pyramids sooner or later they will collapse.
Sanatani
#78 Posted by Sanatani on February 22, 2009 2:23:55 pm
Re: # 41
Bhagwan Shri Ram Chandra Ji was not a wife tormentor it was Lakshman??? How
Bhagwan Shri Krishna Ji was not a whore master but a divine lover.
And VRV even if we accept what you have said is true even then it does not make a difference.
The differnce between a true natural religion (and for that matter the only one despite its faults) and murderous political ideologies like marxism, mullahism, missionaryism and macaulayism is that the former is the search inwards to unite with the almighty the latter the glorification of narcisstic swine with a lot of external form and ABSOLUTELY NO substance.
You do not anger me or even provoke contempt. You are to be pitied.
But even pity is an emotion wasted towards you.
Regards
Sanatani
Bhagwan Shri Ram Chandra Ji was not a wife tormentor it was Lakshman??? How
Bhagwan Shri Krishna Ji was not a whore master but a divine lover.
And VRV even if we accept what you have said is true even then it does not make a difference.
The differnce between a true natural religion (and for that matter the only one despite its faults) and murderous political ideologies like marxism, mullahism, missionaryism and macaulayism is that the former is the search inwards to unite with the almighty the latter the glorification of narcisstic swine with a lot of external form and ABSOLUTELY NO substance.
You do not anger me or even provoke contempt. You are to be pitied.
But even pity is an emotion wasted towards you.
Regards
Sanatani
#77 Posted by VRV on February 21, 2009 2:34:14 pm
Is Vir Singhvi reading Chowk? Haha.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=Ho mePage&id=630b8c69-4672-4e12-ac2a-a9073f5165d4&MatchID1=4932&TeamID1 =7&TeamID2=8&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1247&PrimaryID=4932&Head line=Stand+up+to+the+mullahs
Several points need to be made about the incident.
First: The article itself. There is not one line in Hari’s piece that I would disagree with. If religions deserve respect, then so does atheism. Followers of religions have every right to their views and practices. But so do atheists have the right to criticise religion. Nothing in this world is above criticism.
Two: The rioters said they were offended by a passage in the article where Hari referred to the Prophet’s marriage to a much younger woman and his directive to burn Jewish villages. (In all fairness, he was as critical of other religions and of the Israeli assault on the West Bank.)
The rioters say that nobody can criticise any aspect of the Prophet’s life.
Why?
There’s no shortage of books and articles criticising Jesus, suggesting that he might have been secretly married (as in The DaVinci Code), arguing that the resurrection was a hoax or that Mary was never a virgin.
Similarly, would mainstream Hindus be offended if somebody wrote that Hindu mythology features practices that we would find abhorrent today: one wife for five husbands as in the Mahabharat, the compulsive philandering of Krishna or the appalling mistreatment of Sita (the agni pariksha etc)?
Some Hindu extremists may protest but I doubt if they would get very far with their objections. The community, as a whole, would shrug its shoulders and many Hindus will agree with the critics.
-------
nemesis3,
We can discuss the finer points of our mythologies but there's always a view that Krishna was a conman.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=Ho mePage&id=630b8c69-4672-4e12-ac2a-a9073f5165d4&MatchID1=4932&TeamID1 =7&TeamID2=8&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1247&PrimaryID=4932&Head line=Stand+up+to+the+mullahs
Several points need to be made about the incident.
First: The article itself. There is not one line in Hari’s piece that I would disagree with. If religions deserve respect, then so does atheism. Followers of religions have every right to their views and practices. But so do atheists have the right to criticise religion. Nothing in this world is above criticism.
Two: The rioters said they were offended by a passage in the article where Hari referred to the Prophet’s marriage to a much younger woman and his directive to burn Jewish villages. (In all fairness, he was as critical of other religions and of the Israeli assault on the West Bank.)
The rioters say that nobody can criticise any aspect of the Prophet’s life.
Why?
There’s no shortage of books and articles criticising Jesus, suggesting that he might have been secretly married (as in The DaVinci Code), arguing that the resurrection was a hoax or that Mary was never a virgin.
Similarly, would mainstream Hindus be offended if somebody wrote that Hindu mythology features practices that we would find abhorrent today: one wife for five husbands as in the Mahabharat, the compulsive philandering of Krishna or the appalling mistreatment of Sita (the agni pariksha etc)?
Some Hindu extremists may protest but I doubt if they would get very far with their objections. The community, as a whole, would shrug its shoulders and many Hindus will agree with the critics.
-------
nemesis3,
We can discuss the finer points of our mythologies but there's always a view that Krishna was a conman.
#76 Posted by tahir on February 21, 2009 6:41:29 am
Look at those who were named after a river, by the Persians, speak so highly of their colourful hand-handed un-godlike ancestors!
Perish in your rage for promoting anarchy.
Perish in your rage for promoting anarchy.
#75 Posted by dawa-i-dil on February 21, 2009 4:56:32 am
Today it appeared in Daily Jang and we all are proud of being Pakistan !
http://www.jang.net/jm/2-21-2009/images/03_23.gif
Zeeshan Ahmed
Technical University of Vienna
Mr. Zeeshan Ahmed, 26 years old, have on record more than 24 years of education and more than 6 years of professional experience of working within different multinational organizations in the field of Computer Science with emphasis on software engineering of database, human computer interaction, distributed, MES / ERP and interactive complex systems, furthermore also have more than three years experience of teaching as lecturer and supervising research thesis to graduate and undergraduate students in different institutes and universities.
According to my interests, educational back ground and profession, I prefer working in Software Engineering (SE) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) domains, especially in Information engineering & Processing, Natural & Machine Language Processing, Product Life Cycle Management, Product Line Architectures, Measurement Analysis, Machine Learning, Multi Agent System (MAS), Intelligent Machine Interface Design, Semantic Modelling and Knowledge engineering.
Moreover I am the author of more than 70 International research publications as solo & first author, winner of more than 40 distinctions/awards/prizes and participant in more than 100 International research events.
University Distinctions
1.Completed PhD Course work with 100 Percent result (A Grade in all subjects).
2.Completed 4 Years PhD Course and Research Work in 1 year.
3.Completed MS Computer Science with Major Intelligent Software Systems 1.5 Years (3 Semesters) course work in 4 Months (1 Semester).
4.Completed MS Computer Science with Software Engineering 2 Years course work in 1 Year.
5.Completed BS Computer Science 4 Years (12 Semester) graduation program in 2.8 Years (8 Semesters).
Research Distinctions
1.Produced 67 international research papers & presentations as SOLO and First Author during PhD Research Work including International Conferences, Workshops, Journals and Seminars, (Pre-PhD Defense and 3 more expected as Near / Post-PhD Defense) , Vienna, Austria 2007-09
2.Produced highest research publications in Mechanical Engineering Informatics and Virtual Product Development Division (MIVP), Vienna University of Technology (TU Vienna), Vienna Austria as First Author in Year 2009
Engineering Informatics and Virtual Product Development Division (MIVP), Vienna University of Technology (TU Vienna), Vienna Austria as First Author in Year 2008
3.Produced highest research publications in Mechanical Engineering Informatics and Virtual Product Development Division (MIVP), Vienna University of Technology (TU Vienna), Vienna Austria as First Author in Year 2007
Intelligent Semantic Oriented Agent based Search (I-SOAS)
http://www.mivp.tuwien.ac.at/index.php/I-SOAS.html
Research of Zeeshan Ahmed
http://www.mivp.tuwien.ac.at/index.php/I-SOAS.html
Academic Achievements
http://zeeshanahmed.bravehost.com/achievements.html
Tec hnical Experience
http://zeeshanahmed.bravehost.com/achievements.html
Homepage
http://zeeshanahmed.bravehost.com/index.html
http://www.jang.net/jm/2-21-2009/images/03_23.gif
Zeeshan Ahmed
Technical University of Vienna
Mr. Zeeshan Ahmed, 26 years old, have on record more than 24 years of education and more than 6 years of professional experience of working within different multinational organizations in the field of Computer Science with emphasis on software engineering of database, human computer interaction, distributed, MES / ERP and interactive complex systems, furthermore also have more than three years experience of teaching as lecturer and supervising research thesis to graduate and undergraduate students in different institutes and universities.
According to my interests, educational back ground and profession, I prefer working in Software Engineering (SE) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) domains, especially in Information engineering & Processing, Natural & Machine Language Processing, Product Life Cycle Management, Product Line Architectures, Measurement Analysis, Machine Learning, Multi Agent System (MAS), Intelligent Machine Interface Design, Semantic Modelling and Knowledge engineering.
Moreover I am the author of more than 70 International research publications as solo & first author, winner of more than 40 distinctions/awards/prizes and participant in more than 100 International research events.
University Distinctions
1.Completed PhD Course work with 100 Percent result (A Grade in all subjects).
2.Completed 4 Years PhD Course and Research Work in 1 year.
3.Completed MS Computer Science with Major Intelligent Software Systems 1.5 Years (3 Semesters) course work in 4 Months (1 Semester).
4.Completed MS Computer Science with Software Engineering 2 Years course work in 1 Year.
5.Completed BS Computer Science 4 Years (12 Semester) graduation program in 2.8 Years (8 Semesters).
Research Distinctions
1.Produced 67 international research papers & presentations as SOLO and First Author during PhD Research Work including International Conferences, Workshops, Journals and Seminars, (Pre-PhD Defense and 3 more expected as Near / Post-PhD Defense) , Vienna, Austria 2007-09
2.Produced highest research publications in Mechanical Engineering Informatics and Virtual Product Development Division (MIVP), Vienna University of Technology (TU Vienna), Vienna Austria as First Author in Year 2009
Engineering Informatics and Virtual Product Development Division (MIVP), Vienna University of Technology (TU Vienna), Vienna Austria as First Author in Year 2008
3.Produced highest research publications in Mechanical Engineering Informatics and Virtual Product Development Division (MIVP), Vienna University of Technology (TU Vienna), Vienna Austria as First Author in Year 2007
Intelligent Semantic Oriented Agent based Search (I-SOAS)
http://www.mivp.tuwien.ac.at/index.php/I-SOAS.html
Research of Zeeshan Ahmed
http://www.mivp.tuwien.ac.at/index.php/I-SOAS.html
Academic Achievements
http://zeeshanahmed.bravehost.com/achievements.html
Tec hnical Experience
http://zeeshanahmed.bravehost.com/achievements.html
Homepage
http://zeeshanahmed.bravehost.com/index.html
#74 Posted by nemesis3 on February 21, 2009 3:58:27 am
#52 Posted by VRV
"Criminal bent of mind of Mo is no different from the criminal bent of mind of Krishna who used deception to kill Aswatthaama, Dhuryodhana, Bhishma - the mighty phalanx of Kaurava army."
You are being unfair again. Although in a war it is kill or get killed situation, Krishna never used any deception. Please do not miquote for deception.
It is unfair to compare one thing with the other. Whe we refer to Krishna, we are talking about "Dharma Yuddha"
As for Krishna, he was a great diplomat and a strategist. But never will you be able to quote an instance where his wickedness is established.
Let me attempt to clear your doubts regarding vanquishing of Ashvatthama, Bhishma and Duryodhana.
Ashvatthama and Hanuman are said to be without death viz "chiranjeevi".
You must have meant his father Drona. It is like this.
Drona was the Guru of all the Pandavas and Kauravas and there was nothing Pandavas knew and Drona did not know about the warfare. Around the time Drona was getting too difficult for Pandavas, an elephant with the same name i.e. Ashvatthama was killed in the warfield. Krishna's strategy
came into play. This news was given vide prominence viz "Ashwatthamo Hatho Gato" meaning Ashvatthama is dead. Krishna did not say Drona's son Ashvatthama was killed. Ostensibly, he was referring to the elephant. Was there anything wrong? Drona thought they were referring to his son had been killed and lost interest in his life and put down his weapon. War was on and he fell to the arrows of Arjuna.
Duryodhana was a wicked man. He deserved to die. But his mother Gandhari would not rise from her infatuation for him. She summoned him to appear before her without any clothes. She wanted to expend her shakti that she had gathered by binding her eyes through her life after marriage, to make her son's body hard as Vajra (diamond). Krishna saw through this and taunted Duryodhana saying "being a full man, and the Crown Prince, how would you go before anybody stark naked?" Duryodhan felt ashamed and wore a banana leaf around his waist and the covered area of his body remained fragile. Krishna was fighting for the Pandavas as per agreement and advised Bhima to aim at his groins.
Bhishma was invincible. Draupadi's brother, Pradhyumna, owing to a curse, had been converted into a eunuch. Krishna advised Arjuna to make Pradhyumna face Bhishma. Nothing abnormal. Pradhyumna was also a prince and a warrior in spite of his present form. However, Bhishma felt it humiliating to fight a eunuch. He threw up his weapons and refused to offer a fight. He fell to Pradhyumna's arrows.
"Criminal bent of mind of Mo is no different from the criminal bent of mind of Krishna who used deception to kill Aswatthaama, Dhuryodhana, Bhishma - the mighty phalanx of Kaurava army."
You are being unfair again. Although in a war it is kill or get killed situation, Krishna never used any deception. Please do not miquote for deception.
It is unfair to compare one thing with the other. Whe we refer to Krishna, we are talking about "Dharma Yuddha"
As for Krishna, he was a great diplomat and a strategist. But never will you be able to quote an instance where his wickedness is established.
Let me attempt to clear your doubts regarding vanquishing of Ashvatthama, Bhishma and Duryodhana.
Ashvatthama and Hanuman are said to be without death viz "chiranjeevi".
You must have meant his father Drona. It is like this.
Drona was the Guru of all the Pandavas and Kauravas and there was nothing Pandavas knew and Drona did not know about the warfare. Around the time Drona was getting too difficult for Pandavas, an elephant with the same name i.e. Ashvatthama was killed in the warfield. Krishna's strategy
came into play. This news was given vide prominence viz "Ashwatthamo Hatho Gato" meaning Ashvatthama is dead. Krishna did not say Drona's son Ashvatthama was killed. Ostensibly, he was referring to the elephant. Was there anything wrong? Drona thought they were referring to his son had been killed and lost interest in his life and put down his weapon. War was on and he fell to the arrows of Arjuna.
Duryodhana was a wicked man. He deserved to die. But his mother Gandhari would not rise from her infatuation for him. She summoned him to appear before her without any clothes. She wanted to expend her shakti that she had gathered by binding her eyes through her life after marriage, to make her son's body hard as Vajra (diamond). Krishna saw through this and taunted Duryodhana saying "being a full man, and the Crown Prince, how would you go before anybody stark naked?" Duryodhan felt ashamed and wore a banana leaf around his waist and the covered area of his body remained fragile. Krishna was fighting for the Pandavas as per agreement and advised Bhima to aim at his groins.
Bhishma was invincible. Draupadi's brother, Pradhyumna, owing to a curse, had been converted into a eunuch. Krishna advised Arjuna to make Pradhyumna face Bhishma. Nothing abnormal. Pradhyumna was also a prince and a warrior in spite of his present form. However, Bhishma felt it humiliating to fight a eunuch. He threw up his weapons and refused to offer a fight. He fell to Pradhyumna's arrows.
#73 Posted by vakibs on February 21, 2009 2:24:07 am
@64 Eklavya
"vaikibs, could you explain that, please. Thanks."
The theory goes like this. Muslims feel that their identity is under threat by an exploding cultural invasion due to modernity and westernization. The originators of this culture and technology are not Muslims, so they feel that this is alien. Once this feeling sinks in, they will oppose everything modern just for the sake of preserving their identity. These effects are visible most amongst the immigrant and educated Muslim population in the west.
In fact, such a zeal to preserve identity can be traced even in Indian Hindu diaspora, who indulge in traditions such as reading vedas, or learning classical music or dance more than they do ini India.
The problem with Muslims is that the rise and pinnacle of their culture happened with Islam. So it becomes very difficult to differentiate religion from culture. This is not true for Hindus who have more ancient and diverse traditions.
When people "cling" on to culture or language, it is okay. But when they cling on to religion, then it is more difficult to achieve religious and societal reform which are necessary for the society to transition into modernity.
"vaikibs, could you explain that, please. Thanks."
The theory goes like this. Muslims feel that their identity is under threat by an exploding cultural invasion due to modernity and westernization. The originators of this culture and technology are not Muslims, so they feel that this is alien. Once this feeling sinks in, they will oppose everything modern just for the sake of preserving their identity. These effects are visible most amongst the immigrant and educated Muslim population in the west.
In fact, such a zeal to preserve identity can be traced even in Indian Hindu diaspora, who indulge in traditions such as reading vedas, or learning classical music or dance more than they do ini India.
The problem with Muslims is that the rise and pinnacle of their culture happened with Islam. So it becomes very difficult to differentiate religion from culture. This is not true for Hindus who have more ancient and diverse traditions.
When people "cling" on to culture or language, it is okay. But when they cling on to religion, then it is more difficult to achieve religious and societal reform which are necessary for the society to transition into modernity.
#72 Posted by nemesis3 on February 21, 2009 1:28:57 am
#51 Posted by nkg
"Ram was not perfect personality. Valmiki never tried to create such a hero"
Unhun. Rama was a perfect personality. He was called "MARYADA PURUSHOTTAM". Every action of Rama pass the test of legitimacy. Be it quitting the palace to honour the words of his father or killing VALI even though VALI was stronger than Sugriva and Rama could have convinced him to help find Sita. Ramayana is not what it reads. It is what it teaches. Let us be proud!!
"Ram was not perfect personality. Valmiki never tried to create such a hero"
Unhun. Rama was a perfect personality. He was called "MARYADA PURUSHOTTAM". Every action of Rama pass the test of legitimacy. Be it quitting the palace to honour the words of his father or killing VALI even though VALI was stronger than Sugriva and Rama could have convinced him to help find Sita. Ramayana is not what it reads. It is what it teaches. Let us be proud!!
#71 Posted by nemesis3 on February 21, 2009 1:22:16 am
#51 Posted by nkg
Re: # 48
nb...
"gopis were his collegues and friends, during his teen"
nkg, some more correction. Illustrations in Puranas suggest that Krishna had seen "NINE" vasanta ritus. Vasanta Ritu occurs only once in a year. Guess his age?
Re: # 48
nb...
"gopis were his collegues and friends, during his teen"
nkg, some more correction. Illustrations in Puranas suggest that Krishna had seen "NINE" vasanta ritus. Vasanta Ritu occurs only once in a year. Guess his age?
#70 Posted by nemesis3 on February 21, 2009 1:15:19 am
49 Posted by VRV
"I mean to say that no religious figure is perfect"
Perhaps you are generalising the whole matter. There used to be MAHASABHAS in the past to discuss the right or wrong points of the hindu scriptures. All the sabhas would end with a consensus. If you are an Indian, you are lucky to have so many learned people to remove your misconceptions. You can argue with them, the way I do, convince them or get convinced. If you see NT Rama Rao (ex telugu hero) chasing the 'gopis' of his daughters' age, it is quite likely that you too succumb to this misconception. I won't call this your fault.
If you are proud of your indian heritage, I would urge you to desist from giving non existant fodder to the waiting india-baiters. Unlike other scriptures, vedic scriptures are always open to scrutiny. You will not be beheaded for criticising it.
"I mean to say that no religious figure is perfect"
Perhaps you are generalising the whole matter. There used to be MAHASABHAS in the past to discuss the right or wrong points of the hindu scriptures. All the sabhas would end with a consensus. If you are an Indian, you are lucky to have so many learned people to remove your misconceptions. You can argue with them, the way I do, convince them or get convinced. If you see NT Rama Rao (ex telugu hero) chasing the 'gopis' of his daughters' age, it is quite likely that you too succumb to this misconception. I won't call this your fault.
If you are proud of your indian heritage, I would urge you to desist from giving non existant fodder to the waiting india-baiters. Unlike other scriptures, vedic scriptures are always open to scrutiny. You will not be beheaded for criticising it.
#69 Posted by nemesis3 on February 21, 2009 1:00:33 am
#41 and #45
My knowledge of Rama is that he performed his "Raja dharma" when confronted by a lowly launderman about the honour of Sita. While he sent Sita to jungle, he tormented himself to an extent that he slept on the floor throughout his remaining life and rejected all the comforts associated with the king's status. This he did to keep himself at the same level of frugal existence which Sita would have lived. Please remember, Sita was the queen of Ayodhya and was equally responsible keeping the honour of the throne. She never complained to anybody about the treatment meted out to her, and always adored Rama. Rama did not marry again and even while performing Ashvamedha yagnya, had the idol of Sita at the place of the queen.
Krishna had only two wives and Satyabhama and Rukmani were their names. While referring to the women under his protection, he is referred to as PATI which means 'the master' or the 'saviour'. Obviously, Rashtra Pati does not mean the husband of the nation.
There is no mention of the marriage of Krishna to anyone other than the two mentioned above.
While on the subject, I feel I should present my two cents vis-vis the misunderstandings about his 'romance' in Vrindavan. Krishna was just 9 years when he left Vrindavan and never visited that place again. Radha was much elder to him and all the gopis were fascinated by the virtues of this 'miracle child' If it was anything related to the romance that we consider, each gopi would not have urged the other one to accompany her to where Krishna was playing flute.
nkg, I would have been happy if you had come out with this.
My knowledge of Rama is that he performed his "Raja dharma" when confronted by a lowly launderman about the honour of Sita. While he sent Sita to jungle, he tormented himself to an extent that he slept on the floor throughout his remaining life and rejected all the comforts associated with the king's status. This he did to keep himself at the same level of frugal existence which Sita would have lived. Please remember, Sita was the queen of Ayodhya and was equally responsible keeping the honour of the throne. She never complained to anybody about the treatment meted out to her, and always adored Rama. Rama did not marry again and even while performing Ashvamedha yagnya, had the idol of Sita at the place of the queen.
Krishna had only two wives and Satyabhama and Rukmani were their names. While referring to the women under his protection, he is referred to as PATI which means 'the master' or the 'saviour'. Obviously, Rashtra Pati does not mean the husband of the nation.
There is no mention of the marriage of Krishna to anyone other than the two mentioned above.
While on the subject, I feel I should present my two cents vis-vis the misunderstandings about his 'romance' in Vrindavan. Krishna was just 9 years when he left Vrindavan and never visited that place again. Radha was much elder to him and all the gopis were fascinated by the virtues of this 'miracle child' If it was anything related to the romance that we consider, each gopi would not have urged the other one to accompany her to where Krishna was playing flute.
nkg, I would have been happy if you had come out with this.
#68 Posted by VRV on February 21, 2009 12:03:35 am
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20090220&fname=shoaib&sid=1
Shoaib, Well Done.
Shoaib, Well Done.
#67 Posted by Eklavya on February 20, 2009 10:53:54 pm
Matloob bhai, probably vakibs is not a Muslim, and mistakes Islam for just a 'religion' like any other. But it will be good to hear what he meant, or him tell us of a period when Muslims did not 'cling' to their religion.
#66 Posted by MatloobZaman on February 20, 2009 10:02:20 pm
Re: # 63
Stale and stinking rollie pollie laddu, ab tou halwai bhee tujhay kachray mein phaink they ga.
Stale and stinking rollie pollie laddu, ab tou halwai bhee tujhay kachray mein phaink they ga.
#65 Posted by MatloobZaman on February 20, 2009 10:00:47 pm
Re: # 64
Thats a news, if Muslims are clinging to their religion then they are doing exactly they are expected to do to be identified as Muslims.
Pre or Post colonial does not and should not have any bearing on Muslims to cling to their religion, I hope Allah SWT recognizes you as a credible and legitimate witness to your statement about clinging and all of us Muslims shall enter Jannah inshaAllah.
Thats a news, if Muslims are clinging to their religion then they are doing exactly they are expected to do to be identified as Muslims.
Pre or Post colonial does not and should not have any bearing on Muslims to cling to their religion, I hope Allah SWT recognizes you as a credible and legitimate witness to your statement about clinging and all of us Muslims shall enter Jannah inshaAllah.
#64 Posted by Eklavya on February 20, 2009 9:04:47 pm
"Muslims are clinging on to their religion more so than other cultures because they are more insecure in the post-colonial world."
vaikibs, could you explain that, please. Thanks.
(the way I see it, Muslims 'clung' their religion and identity in pre-colonial world, in the colonial world, and in the post-colonial world. The day Muslims stop 'clinging' to religion and political identity, there will be no Islam left at all. But could you still explain what you meant. How is post-colonial world hurting/helping/relevant to Muslims more than to anybody else? Thanks)
vaikibs, could you explain that, please. Thanks.
(the way I see it, Muslims 'clung' their religion and identity in pre-colonial world, in the colonial world, and in the post-colonial world. The day Muslims stop 'clinging' to religion and political identity, there will be no Islam left at all. But could you still explain what you meant. How is post-colonial world hurting/helping/relevant to Muslims more than to anybody else? Thanks)
#62 Posted by laddu on February 20, 2009 5:22:40 pm
"Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery"
by MA Khan
Released last week
MA Khan’s Preface
I was born and brought up in a conservative Muslim society. After graduating in India, I moved to the West for furthering my education. Despite my conservative Muslim background, I grew up with a liberal outlook. In my school and university days, my closest friends were Hindus and Sikhs: I felt more comfortable with them as they were more liberal, easy-going and humble with fewer religious scruples. I had wholly given up religious rituals by the time I completed my university studies: they just didn’t attract me.
When 9/11 occurred, I had lived in a liberal society for over a decade. I had become consciously convinced that religious rituals—prayers, fasting, pilgrimage—were all meaningless. I should be rewarded, I felt, for working hard, and intelligently, not for aping some wasteful rituals, which brings good to nobody. Non-Muslims were my best friends; shocking my Muslim peers, I ate haraam (prohibited) foods, drank alcohol (in moderation).
Despite the kind of a liberal person I had become, let me be honest that I was not excluded from those Muslims who felt that the 9/11 attacks were justified, although I felt those perished in it died undeserving deaths. Muslim societies universally portray America as a mortal enemy of Islam, particularly for its stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict. America’s mindless support for Israel has been causing terrible oppression and untold sufferings to Palestinian Muslims. There was, undoubtedly, an overriding sense of justification for the 9/11 attacks amongst Muslims; it gave the unjust superpower a bloody nose: I, so little a Muslim, thought that way too.
Weird as it may sound, I still believed in Islam. I thought the terrorists, acting in the name of Islam, were misguided. After 9/11, I slowly started reading about Islam: Quran, Sunnah and Prophet Muhammad’s biographies; I hadn’t read them in the thirty-five years of my life. I was shocked. I had been told all my life that Prophet Muhammad was the ideal human being: most merciful and just; that Islam is the most peaceful religion; and I believed it. But the Quran reads like a manifesto of open-ended war against non-Muslims for converting them or for subjugating them into horribly degraded dhimmi subjects. In his prophetic career, especially during the critical last ten years, Prophet Muhammad was anything but what a peace-loving, merciful and just person stands for.
My curiosity grew. Over the past years, I have done extensively research on Islamic theology as well as on Islamic history: from Prophet Muhammad to modern times. It has been a harrowing tale of forced conversion, brutal imperialism and devastating slavery. It’s a saga of great human tragedy—all in the name of Islamic holy war or Jihad, the foundational creed of Islam. This tragic tale is the subject of this book.
Peek inside
Obviously, there is a great deal of disagreement or denial about this extremist discourse of Jihad.
Yet, it is undeniable that, out of misconception or not, the violent Islamist groups—with their unquestioned belief that they are fighting in the cause of Allah—will continue unleashing violence and terrorism against innocent men, women and children in the years and decades to come, causing incalculable damage and destruction to human life and society. Indisputably, Muslims are now a substantial and established group in almost every nation in the world. Due to high birth-rates amongst Muslims, their continued influx from the overpopulated Islamic world and decline of the native population, they may become, according to current demographic trends, the dominant religious group in many Western countries by the middle of this century. If the current tide of ascendant violent radicalism continues to thrive amongst Muslims, the stability of the tolerant, civilized world may face peril in the not-too-distant future. To secure the stability of the modernist, secular-democratic and progressive future of the world, nations must work unitedly for countering the ideology and activities of these radical Islamist groups, using both military and ideological means.
As violent Islamists wreak havoc around the world, more so in Islamic countries, understanding the ‘true meaning’ of Jihad, their central cause, is of central importance for both Muslims and non-Muslims in order to devise effective counter-measures against them. Without understanding what Jihad truly means, it is impossible for authorities and the people to devise effective remedies against the growing violent trend in the name of Jihad amongst Muslims.
This book is a small effort to give readers an idea of what Jihad truly means. It goes through the life of Prophet Muhammad as he progressively received revelation from the Islamic God (Allah) as contained in the Muslim holy book, the Quran. It will examine when and under what circumstances, Allah introduced the concept of Jihad into Islamic doctrines. It will demonstrate—based on the Quran, authentic prophetic traditions, and original biographies of Prophet Muhammad—how the Prophet of Islam had applied the doctrine of Jihad as he founded the Islamic creed during the last twenty-three years of his life (610–632 CE). Having thus made a sense of the religious foundation and prophetic model of Jihad, it will examine how this prototypical model of Jihad was perpetuated by Muslims through the ages of Islamic domination.
It is worth noting beforehand that, in putting Allah’s doctrine of Jihad into practice at the birth of Islam, Prophet Muhammad had established three major models of Jihadi actions:
1.
Use of violence for the propagation of Islam,
2.
Islamic imperialism,
3.
Islamic slavery
The historical accounts of these legacies of Jihad will be discussed in separate chapters in this book.
by MA Khan
Released last week
MA Khan’s Preface
I was born and brought up in a conservative Muslim society. After graduating in India, I moved to the West for furthering my education. Despite my conservative Muslim background, I grew up with a liberal outlook. In my school and university days, my closest friends were Hindus and Sikhs: I felt more comfortable with them as they were more liberal, easy-going and humble with fewer religious scruples. I had wholly given up religious rituals by the time I completed my university studies: they just didn’t attract me.
When 9/11 occurred, I had lived in a liberal society for over a decade. I had become consciously convinced that religious rituals—prayers, fasting, pilgrimage—were all meaningless. I should be rewarded, I felt, for working hard, and intelligently, not for aping some wasteful rituals, which brings good to nobody. Non-Muslims were my best friends; shocking my Muslim peers, I ate haraam (prohibited) foods, drank alcohol (in moderation).
Despite the kind of a liberal person I had become, let me be honest that I was not excluded from those Muslims who felt that the 9/11 attacks were justified, although I felt those perished in it died undeserving deaths. Muslim societies universally portray America as a mortal enemy of Islam, particularly for its stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict. America’s mindless support for Israel has been causing terrible oppression and untold sufferings to Palestinian Muslims. There was, undoubtedly, an overriding sense of justification for the 9/11 attacks amongst Muslims; it gave the unjust superpower a bloody nose: I, so little a Muslim, thought that way too.
Weird as it may sound, I still believed in Islam. I thought the terrorists, acting in the name of Islam, were misguided. After 9/11, I slowly started reading about Islam: Quran, Sunnah and Prophet Muhammad’s biographies; I hadn’t read them in the thirty-five years of my life. I was shocked. I had been told all my life that Prophet Muhammad was the ideal human being: most merciful and just; that Islam is the most peaceful religion; and I believed it. But the Quran reads like a manifesto of open-ended war against non-Muslims for converting them or for subjugating them into horribly degraded dhimmi subjects. In his prophetic career, especially during the critical last ten years, Prophet Muhammad was anything but what a peace-loving, merciful and just person stands for.
My curiosity grew. Over the past years, I have done extensively research on Islamic theology as well as on Islamic history: from Prophet Muhammad to modern times. It has been a harrowing tale of forced conversion, brutal imperialism and devastating slavery. It’s a saga of great human tragedy—all in the name of Islamic holy war or Jihad, the foundational creed of Islam. This tragic tale is the subject of this book.
Peek inside
Obviously, there is a great deal of disagreement or denial about this extremist discourse of Jihad.
Yet, it is undeniable that, out of misconception or not, the violent Islamist groups—with their unquestioned belief that they are fighting in the cause of Allah—will continue unleashing violence and terrorism against innocent men, women and children in the years and decades to come, causing incalculable damage and destruction to human life and society. Indisputably, Muslims are now a substantial and established group in almost every nation in the world. Due to high birth-rates amongst Muslims, their continued influx from the overpopulated Islamic world and decline of the native population, they may become, according to current demographic trends, the dominant religious group in many Western countries by the middle of this century. If the current tide of ascendant violent radicalism continues to thrive amongst Muslims, the stability of the tolerant, civilized world may face peril in the not-too-distant future. To secure the stability of the modernist, secular-democratic and progressive future of the world, nations must work unitedly for countering the ideology and activities of these radical Islamist groups, using both military and ideological means.
As violent Islamists wreak havoc around the world, more so in Islamic countries, understanding the ‘true meaning’ of Jihad, their central cause, is of central importance for both Muslims and non-Muslims in order to devise effective counter-measures against them. Without understanding what Jihad truly means, it is impossible for authorities and the people to devise effective remedies against the growing violent trend in the name of Jihad amongst Muslims.
This book is a small effort to give readers an idea of what Jihad truly means. It goes through the life of Prophet Muhammad as he progressively received revelation from the Islamic God (Allah) as contained in the Muslim holy book, the Quran. It will examine when and under what circumstances, Allah introduced the concept of Jihad into Islamic doctrines. It will demonstrate—based on the Quran, authentic prophetic traditions, and original biographies of Prophet Muhammad—how the Prophet of Islam had applied the doctrine of Jihad as he founded the Islamic creed during the last twenty-three years of his life (610–632 CE). Having thus made a sense of the religious foundation and prophetic model of Jihad, it will examine how this prototypical model of Jihad was perpetuated by Muslims through the ages of Islamic domination.
It is worth noting beforehand that, in putting Allah’s doctrine of Jihad into practice at the birth of Islam, Prophet Muhammad had established three major models of Jihadi actions:
1.
Use of violence for the propagation of Islam,
2.
Islamic imperialism,
3.
Islamic slavery
The historical accounts of these legacies of Jihad will be discussed in separate chapters in this book.
#61 Posted by jang on February 20, 2009 4:20:53 pm
oye yar shohaib, where is the anal stuff this time?
i think getting water etc for muhallas is politically a peace of cake..in mubai even a municipal corporator can do that. shivsena mainly wins its election by getting water for slums. my opinion is new zuggis are better at it since they dont have entrenched dadas whose business it is to bring the tanker water and make money etc. more established muhallas are kept backward by its dadas. unfortunately the mussalman only muhallas are doubly dependent on its dadas due to security reasons as compared to other muhallas.
so its an entwined chicken-egg issue..security fear makes ghettos, dependence on dadas is more, dadas want to have an insecure populance to live-off and so have little interest in truely resolving issues. in fact, the dada benefits by raising irrelevent issues like falisteen or getting offended at boisterous ganesh procession.
so the cycle has to be broken..only way i can see is by insisting on non-dada security. not easily possible.
i think getting water etc for muhallas is politically a peace of cake..in mubai even a municipal corporator can do that. shivsena mainly wins its election by getting water for slums. my opinion is new zuggis are better at it since they dont have entrenched dadas whose business it is to bring the tanker water and make money etc. more established muhallas are kept backward by its dadas. unfortunately the mussalman only muhallas are doubly dependent on its dadas due to security reasons as compared to other muhallas.
so its an entwined chicken-egg issue..security fear makes ghettos, dependence on dadas is more, dadas want to have an insecure populance to live-off and so have little interest in truely resolving issues. in fact, the dada benefits by raising irrelevent issues like falisteen or getting offended at boisterous ganesh procession.
so the cycle has to be broken..only way i can see is by insisting on non-dada security. not easily possible.
#60 Posted by nb on February 20, 2009 6:58:33 am
Message to awam: please check out Shoaib's ilog if you liked this article, and even if you didn't.
#59 Posted by shoaib_daniyal on February 20, 2009 6:09:17 am
Re: # 47
Nb,
BTW, although it's being intrusive, can I ask if you are Bengali?
Half-Bong, Half-Bihari--the worst of both worlds.
VRV,
My friends the topic raised here is very serious and has implications for India's future. Lets discuss it.
*nods in agreement*
Nb,
BTW, although it's being intrusive, can I ask if you are Bengali?
Half-Bong, Half-Bihari--the worst of both worlds.
VRV,
My friends the topic raised here is very serious and has implications for India's future. Lets discuss it.
*nods in agreement*
#58 Posted by VRV on February 20, 2009 4:12:34 am
57 vakibs,
I agree with you 100%.
Bechara, goras shud use spoons, forks & knives to eat coz their food is sticky
a. Jacket potatoes (cheese), Mash potato
b. Various pies
c. Soup (drank separately unlike us who mix it with rice)
d. Butter & Jam that needs to be spread with knife
Cleaning rear-end makes sense. I consider goras as uncivilised on that count. They refuse to be civilised or reform themselves from within.
:)
I agree with you 100%.
Bechara, goras shud use spoons, forks & knives to eat coz their food is sticky
a. Jacket potatoes (cheese), Mash potato
b. Various pies
c. Soup (drank separately unlike us who mix it with rice)
d. Butter & Jam that needs to be spread with knife
Cleaning rear-end makes sense. I consider goras as uncivilised on that count. They refuse to be civilised or reform themselves from within.
:)
#57 Posted by vakibs on February 20, 2009 3:54:59 am
@VRV
I think this whole business of being offended etc. has to do more with insecurity in a modern post-colonial world than with any religious exhortations.
During today's lunch, I noted with amusements my Indian friends defending the Indian habit of eating with fingers instead of using a fork and a knife. Another time, somebody was talking about the virtues of using water to clean one's arse. The point is inane issues like these somehow become important when one feels that one's self-respect or identity is at stake.
Muslims are clinging on to their religion more so than other cultures because they are more insecure in the post-colonial world.
Well, I think we are in the 21st century, and it's time for every one to grow up.
About the GOI, it has always been engaged in a delicate balancing act. The biggest imperative is to prevent the country from exploding into religious riots. Defending the freedom of speech etc are luxuries that can wait.
I think this whole business of being offended etc. has to do more with insecurity in a modern post-colonial world than with any religious exhortations.
During today's lunch, I noted with amusements my Indian friends defending the Indian habit of eating with fingers instead of using a fork and a knife. Another time, somebody was talking about the virtues of using water to clean one's arse. The point is inane issues like these somehow become important when one feels that one's self-respect or identity is at stake.
Muslims are clinging on to their religion more so than other cultures because they are more insecure in the post-colonial world.
Well, I think we are in the 21st century, and it's time for every one to grow up.
About the GOI, it has always been engaged in a delicate balancing act. The biggest imperative is to prevent the country from exploding into religious riots. Defending the freedom of speech etc are luxuries that can wait.
#56 Posted by VRV on February 20, 2009 3:41:10 am
In effect GoI gives value to shadow than substance similar to author's analogy on Hajj subsidies.
#55 Posted by VRV on February 20, 2009 3:37:42 am
54 vakibs,
Yaar, I'd be offended if I am not allowed to criticise religions in an open society;)
Lets pin-point our issues here.
1. Insulting (verbal or Physical)
2. Mud-slinging
3. Offending
We have laws to prevent all of these but there's a line btw criticism and abuse. U can be critical of anybody incl religious figures. That shud not be a problem but it's one in India. It's always the case that every other community cites Muslim group as an example in India (when they complain of hurting religious sentiments), bcoz they're offended very often than any other community. Govt mollycoddles Muslim group so by analogy they need to for other communities, otherwise Indic traditions are OK with open criticism and lampooning Gods. U have a huge literature in India that lampooned Gods. It's the recent phenomena that 'hurting' religious sentiments is an offence.
India as a country is not even trying to size up the matter. Instead it placates.
Lets take the Muslim issues. The GoI failed to implement Srikrishna Commission Report but fails to sack a stupid minister like Antuley who smear the police of Bombay for the death of Kurkure. Sacking Antuley for them is ridiculing the mainstream Muslim opinion which believes that Kurkure was 'eliminated' by Indian police for his investigations on Malegaon. GoI fails to sack Antuley coz it amounts to belittling the 'sentiments' of Muslims who feel that Antuley was correct i.e. Kurkure was eliminated for Malegaon. GoI has no stomach to dispute that popular Muslim sentiment.
In effect GoI gives value to shadow than substance similar to Hajj subsidies.
Yaar, I'd be offended if I am not allowed to criticise religions in an open society;)
Lets pin-point our issues here.
1. Insulting (verbal or Physical)
2. Mud-slinging
3. Offending
We have laws to prevent all of these but there's a line btw criticism and abuse. U can be critical of anybody incl religious figures. That shud not be a problem but it's one in India. It's always the case that every other community cites Muslim group as an example in India (when they complain of hurting religious sentiments), bcoz they're offended very often than any other community. Govt mollycoddles Muslim group so by analogy they need to for other communities, otherwise Indic traditions are OK with open criticism and lampooning Gods. U have a huge literature in India that lampooned Gods. It's the recent phenomena that 'hurting' religious sentiments is an offence.
India as a country is not even trying to size up the matter. Instead it placates.
Lets take the Muslim issues. The GoI failed to implement Srikrishna Commission Report but fails to sack a stupid minister like Antuley who smear the police of Bombay for the death of Kurkure. Sacking Antuley for them is ridiculing the mainstream Muslim opinion which believes that Kurkure was 'eliminated' by Indian police for his investigations on Malegaon. GoI fails to sack Antuley coz it amounts to belittling the 'sentiments' of Muslims who feel that Antuley was correct i.e. Kurkure was eliminated for Malegaon. GoI has no stomach to dispute that popular Muslim sentiment.
In effect GoI gives value to shadow than substance similar to Hajj subsidies.
#54 Posted by vakibs on February 20, 2009 3:16:55 am
@VRV
As long as people are insecure about their identity, they feel offended. It is an uphill task for third world countries to grow out of this and actually laugh at their shortcomings.
Some people revel in insulting other persons and pull them down into this mud-bath. One should resist the temptation of mud-slinging, because by doing so, one will never rise up and reach to one's potential.
I will resist replying to your accusations against Rama or Krishna. That is unnecessary, but if you wish you can look at an earlier discussion I once had with a brilliant American cartoonist.
http://sitayana-correspondence.blogspot.com/
@Eklavya,
Commoners have a right to be offended. And exercising this right is what is keeping them commoners.
As long as people are insecure about their identity, they feel offended. It is an uphill task for third world countries to grow out of this and actually laugh at their shortcomings.
Some people revel in insulting other persons and pull them down into this mud-bath. One should resist the temptation of mud-slinging, because by doing so, one will never rise up and reach to one's potential.
I will resist replying to your accusations against Rama or Krishna. That is unnecessary, but if you wish you can look at an earlier discussion I once had with a brilliant American cartoonist.
http://sitayana-correspondence.blogspot.com/
@Eklavya,
Commoners have a right to be offended. And exercising this right is what is keeping them commoners.
#52 Posted by VRV on February 20, 2009 3:05:13 am
50 nb,
Absolutely. I can these things in India and against Jesus in the west without fear of being killed but Islam is diff.
I once said Mo being a peado... and a Pak colleague said to the effect that I'd have been beheaded if I said it in his locality (in the town).
51 nkg,
Criminal bent of mind of Mo is no different from the criminal bent of mind of Krishna who used deception to kill Aswatthaama, Dhuryodhana, Bhishma - the mighty phalanx of Kaurava army.
Again the era we talk is diff. If Gandhi were to be alive today he'd have been charged with girl molestation.
**
My friends the topic raised here is very serious and has implications for India's future. Lets discuss it.
Absolutely. I can these things in India and against Jesus in the west without fear of being killed but Islam is diff.
I once said Mo being a peado... and a Pak colleague said to the effect that I'd have been beheaded if I said it in his locality (in the town).
51 nkg,
Criminal bent of mind of Mo is no different from the criminal bent of mind of Krishna who used deception to kill Aswatthaama, Dhuryodhana, Bhishma - the mighty phalanx of Kaurava army.
Again the era we talk is diff. If Gandhi were to be alive today he'd have been charged with girl molestation.
**
My friends the topic raised here is very serious and has implications for India's future. Lets discuss it.
#51 Posted by nkg on February 20, 2009 2:53:26 am
Re: # 48
nb...
gopis were his collegues and friends, during his teen...when he arrived at dwarka and assumed power of the monarch, he had no business with gopis...
VRV...
Muhammed had a crminal mind. He tried to justify all his misdeeds through "devine revealitions" from arabic moon god...so, muslas do not hesitate to commit crime, like Mo did, thinking that, it will take them to topmost layer of arabic heaven ( 72 virgins...)...
Ram was not perfect personality. Valmiki never tried to create such a hero....but he was not wife tormentor....if you take into account the "Agnipariksha" etc...it is something which the people of Ayodhya wanted, and as the monarch, he had to oblige....
I can remember one story from my uncle (who was HM of my school and english teacher...)...
When Gods comes to earth and take form of human, they exibit the same weakness as ordinary human being...
so, you will find
lord shiva a drug addict...
lord indra, a lecherous king...
nb...
gopis were his collegues and friends, during his teen...when he arrived at dwarka and assumed power of the monarch, he had no business with gopis...
VRV...
Muhammed had a crminal mind. He tried to justify all his misdeeds through "devine revealitions" from arabic moon god...so, muslas do not hesitate to commit crime, like Mo did, thinking that, it will take them to topmost layer of arabic heaven ( 72 virgins...)...
Ram was not perfect personality. Valmiki never tried to create such a hero....but he was not wife tormentor....if you take into account the "Agnipariksha" etc...it is something which the people of Ayodhya wanted, and as the monarch, he had to oblige....
I can remember one story from my uncle (who was HM of my school and english teacher...)...
When Gods comes to earth and take form of human, they exibit the same weakness as ordinary human being...
so, you will find
lord shiva a drug addict...
lord indra, a lecherous king...
#50 Posted by nb on February 20, 2009 2:52:35 am
VRV, till now you can say this in India and no one will call for your death. I hope this never changes.
#49 Posted by VRV on February 20, 2009 2:25:49 am
nkg & nb,
I mean to say that no religious figure is perfect. Mo is many notches ahead of them, of course.
Sanatani is rabies inflicted. So a shot of ani-dote administered. Shoaib is demonstrably secular and progressive.
Sanatani want to take revenge on any body for '47, which is outta place.
I mean to say that no religious figure is perfect. Mo is many notches ahead of them, of course.
Sanatani is rabies inflicted. So a shot of ani-dote administered. Shoaib is demonstrably secular and progressive.
Sanatani want to take revenge on any body for '47, which is outta place.
#48 Posted by nb on February 19, 2009 11:17:49 pm
VRV, I agree Ram was a wife tormentor, and may women never have such husbands. However, how and why was Krishna a whore-master? He had a number of wives, but they were not whores. The gopis were in love with him, but they were not whores either.
#47 Posted by nb on February 19, 2009 10:43:09 pm
Thanks, Shoaib, I thought you'd missed the request completely. I thought your post was just brilliant.
BTW, although it's being intrusive, can I ask if you are Bengali?
BTW, although it's being intrusive, can I ask if you are Bengali?
#46 Posted by nkg on February 19, 2009 9:04:40 pm
Re: # 30
Kedar...
If you are middle class all the division applies to you...
if you are very rich or very poor that does not make much sense (for india)....
Kedar...
If you are middle class all the division applies to you...
if you are very rich or very poor that does not make much sense (for india)....
#45 Posted by nkg on February 19, 2009 9:02:02 pm
Re: # 41
vrv...
beduinoid, is that what, your islamic priest had taught you?
(most probably)...but most of the Ram followers do not end up like being wife tormentors or Krishna followers become polygamous..that is where Mo is special....
vrv...
beduinoid, is that what, your islamic priest had taught you?
(most probably)...but most of the Ram followers do not end up like being wife tormentors or Krishna followers become polygamous..that is where Mo is special....
#44 Posted by shoaib_daniyal on February 19, 2009 8:24:55 pm
Re# 31
Eklavya,
"So the focus must be on instituting, strengthening, those internal control mechanisms, not on some stupid people getting upset? "
Spot on. However, there are many a slip between the cup and the lip, sir.
Regards,
Shoaib
Eklavya,
"So the focus must be on instituting, strengthening, those internal control mechanisms, not on some stupid people getting upset? "
Spot on. However, there are many a slip between the cup and the lip, sir.
Regards,
Shoaib
#43 Posted by shoaib_daniyal on February 19, 2009 7:47:24 pm
Re: #16
Nb,
I'm sorry for missing this comment.
I will surely give the article up for publishing on Chowk but in all probablity it will not be accepted:
1) It's written in a very Onioneque style, maybe not Chowk's cup o' tea.
2) That'll make two articles by me on the front page.
However, since I am so flattered by the request I will post it as an iLog, at the very least.
Regards,
Shoaib
Nb,
I'm sorry for missing this comment.
I will surely give the article up for publishing on Chowk but in all probablity it will not be accepted:
1) It's written in a very Onioneque style, maybe not Chowk's cup o' tea.
2) That'll make two articles by me on the front page.
However, since I am so flattered by the request I will post it as an iLog, at the very least.
Regards,
Shoaib
#42 Posted by shoaib_daniyal on February 19, 2009 7:43:00 pm
Re: # 40
Sanatani,
Firstly, I don't know enough of Islamic scripture to comment on at least some of the facts you have presented. Maybe a more well informed person could comment.
Secondly, my answer would still be no. This is a common mistake that is often made: confusing correlation with causality.
If we use only an emperical analysis a lot of stuff can be "proved".
Regards,
Shoaib
Sanatani,
Firstly, I don't know enough of Islamic scripture to comment on at least some of the facts you have presented. Maybe a more well informed person could comment.
Secondly, my answer would still be no. This is a common mistake that is often made: confusing correlation with causality.
If we use only an emperical analysis a lot of stuff can be "proved".
Regards,
Shoaib
#41 Posted by VRV on February 19, 2009 3:21:30 pm
40, Sanatani,
What about the wife tormentor like Rama & a whore-master like Krishna or a lifeless fellow like Jesus?
What about the wife tormentor like Rama & a whore-master like Krishna or a lifeless fellow like Jesus?
#40 Posted by Sanatani on February 19, 2009 2:32:25 pm
Re: # 20
And would you not say that is the logical outcome of following and eulogising a murderer, rapist and peadophile which mo was and exactly in that order.
Sanatani
And would you not say that is the logical outcome of following and eulogising a murderer, rapist and peadophile which mo was and exactly in that order.
Sanatani
#39 Posted by Sanatani on February 19, 2009 12:34:57 pm
Re: # 11
Shri Aurobindo. Actually the quote is "If the Englishmen were Nazis gandhu would be a lampshade" He said [in the line] previous to this when madar das gandhu said "I cannot understand the difference between imperialism and fascism" Shri Aurobindo said "Under imperialism he says what he likes and gets away with it under fascism he would be shot" followed by the said comment.
Regards
Sanatani
Shri Aurobindo. Actually the quote is "If the Englishmen were Nazis gandhu would be a lampshade" He said [in the line] previous to this when madar das gandhu said "I cannot understand the difference between imperialism and fascism" Shri Aurobindo said "Under imperialism he says what he likes and gets away with it under fascism he would be shot" followed by the said comment.
Regards
Sanatani
#38 Posted by laddu on February 19, 2009 8:21:29 am
"Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. "
is a declaration of Rights of Jews by the Nazis...
It is a declaration of rights of Salves by the Slave owners....
It is a declaration of rights of the raped victim by the Rapists.
AAk Thoo!!
is a declaration of Rights of Jews by the Nazis...
It is a declaration of rights of Salves by the Slave owners....
It is a declaration of rights of the raped victim by the Rapists.
AAk Thoo!!
#37 Posted by nb on February 19, 2009 6:52:44 am
This is the article from the Independent that sparked it off. Mind you, what he talks of is a genuine secularism, and not the kind practised in India.
Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions?
Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN – and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" – and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest – but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's – or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies – that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" – and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs – but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Yet this idea – at the heart of the Universal Declaration – is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.
An excellent blog that keeps you up to dates on secularist issues is Butterflies and Wheels, which you can read here.
If you want to get involved in fighting for secularism, join the National Secular Society here.
j.hari@independent.co.uk
Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions?
Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech – including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed – so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN – and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" – and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest – but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's – or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies – that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" – and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs – but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Yet this idea – at the heart of the Universal Declaration – is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.
An excellent blog that keeps you up to dates on secularist issues is Butterflies and Wheels, which you can read here.
If you want to get involved in fighting for secularism, join the National Secular Society here.
j.hari@independent.co.uk
#36 Posted by Publius on February 19, 2009 6:44:26 am
"slaves to be good Christian slaves and serve their masters justly"
yes and that is immoral or at least amoral but is it an insult ? Perhaps in strained sort of way you can call it an insult to slaves but then are there any modern day slaves.
yes and that is immoral or at least amoral but is it an insult ? Perhaps in strained sort of way you can call it an insult to slaves but then are there any modern day slaves.
#35 Posted by Kedar_sathe on February 19, 2009 6:36:49 am
Bible orders slaves to be good Christian slaves and serve their masters justly.
#34 Posted by Publius on February 19, 2009 6:23:25 am
"Hindu or Christian or Buddhist or Jain or Sikh scriptures, right"
Cobra with Hindu scriptures insults would be towards lower caste Hindus, so yes.
With Christian(NT), Buddhist, Jain and Sikh scriptures insults are somewhat difficult to detect.
Cobra with Hindu scriptures insults would be towards lower caste Hindus, so yes.
With Christian(NT), Buddhist, Jain and Sikh scriptures insults are somewhat difficult to detect.
#33 Posted by Kedar_sathe on February 19, 2009 6:06:59 am
"Well one way is to point out how they use freedom of speech themselves. For instance doesn't the Koran insult Kaffirs ? Should it therefore be banned ?"
Publius, I hope you took this as an example and that you could just as easily taken an example from Hindu or Christian or Buddhist or Jain or Sikh scriptures, right?
Publius, I hope you took this as an example and that you could just as easily taken an example from Hindu or Christian or Buddhist or Jain or Sikh scriptures, right?
#32 Posted by Publius on February 19, 2009 6:02:10 am
"You may say that my sample set is too small"
Shoaib that deserves a careful reply which I will attempt later.
Shoaib that deserves a careful reply which I will attempt later.
#31 Posted by Eklavya on February 19, 2009 5:49:29 am
Publius. Apologies, I might have woken up on the wrong side of the bed today! :)
I am just irritated with all nice people saying nice things that we all know are 'true.' Given the scale of our problems, this seems so terribly shallow that it comes in the way of actually addressing any challenges.
Take this case itself. There will always be people who will be offended. At different times each one of us might been offended at one thing or the other.
The real challenge/issue is - do we individually, as groups, as societies have appropriate internal control mechanisms so extremists are not able to win the day, repeatedly and effectively?
So the focus must be on instituting, strengthening, those internal control mechanisms, not on some stupid people getting upset?
I am just irritated with all nice people saying nice things that we all know are 'true.' Given the scale of our problems, this seems so terribly shallow that it comes in the way of actually addressing any challenges.
Take this case itself. There will always be people who will be offended. At different times each one of us might been offended at one thing or the other.
The real challenge/issue is - do we individually, as groups, as societies have appropriate internal control mechanisms so extremists are not able to win the day, repeatedly and effectively?
So the focus must be on instituting, strengthening, those internal control mechanisms, not on some stupid people getting upset?
#30 Posted by Kedar_sathe on February 19, 2009 5:47:19 am
yaar shoaib, you are an amazing writer. Keep writing here. I await your articles.
By the way I was wondering about your statement-
"Religion, in our part of the world, and, in fact, in most parts of the world, is an intrinsic part of our identity."
What does it mean to a multi religious and multi cultural society like India?
By the way I was wondering about your statement-
"Religion, in our part of the world, and, in fact, in most parts of the world, is an intrinsic part of our identity."
What does it mean to a multi religious and multi cultural society like India?
#29 Posted by Faruk on February 19, 2009 5:34:29 am
re:Eklavya #25
"I frankly don't understand what all this 'nice talk' achieves."
Couldn't agree with you more...
Regards,
Faruk
"I frankly don't understand what all this 'nice talk' achieves."
Couldn't agree with you more...
Regards,
Faruk
#28 Posted by Faruk on February 19, 2009 5:32:50 am
very well written Shoaib.
We do get worked up about silly things...
Regards,
Faruk
We do get worked up about silly things...
Regards,
Faruk
#27 Posted by Publius on February 19, 2009 5:24:04 am
"Common people have as much right to be offended as uncommon people"
Certainly, but the issue is whether they have the right to translate their offended feelings into forceful actions.
Cmon, kaal you know all that. What are you driving at ?
Certainly, but the issue is whether they have the right to translate their offended feelings into forceful actions.
Cmon, kaal you know all that. What are you driving at ?
#26 Posted by shoaib_daniyal on February 19, 2009 5:22:57 am
Publius,
I think that the problem may be deeper than that. It is my impression( please correct me if I am wrong Shoaib) that in the case of free speech, the common muslims may actually support blasphemy laws and censorship etc.
See, now the only exposure I have to the "common Muslim" is my own family and a few friends.
From their reference I'd say that most of them couldn't care less what The Statesman prints or whether Muslims are allowed to allowed to marry 4 times or whatever.
You may say that my sample set is too small. I might agree but then I'd say my sample set is bigger than most people's "common Muslim" sample set here, at the very least.
Regards,
Shoaib
I think that the problem may be deeper than that. It is my impression( please correct me if I am wrong Shoaib) that in the case of free speech, the common muslims may actually support blasphemy laws and censorship etc.
See, now the only exposure I have to the "common Muslim" is my own family and a few friends.
From their reference I'd say that most of them couldn't care less what The Statesman prints or whether Muslims are allowed to allowed to marry 4 times or whatever.
You may say that my sample set is too small. I might agree but then I'd say my sample set is bigger than most people's "common Muslim" sample set here, at the very least.
Regards,
Shoaib
#25 Posted by Eklavya on February 19, 2009 5:18:06 am
vakibs, one doesn't have to make huge contributions to be offended. Common people have as much right to be offended as uncommon people.
------
I frankly don't understand what all this 'nice talk' achieves.
------
I frankly don't understand what all this 'nice talk' achieves.
#24 Posted by shoaib_daniyal on February 19, 2009 5:13:46 am
Re:#21
Eklayvya,
Looking at it emperically, I'd have to say, in all probabilty, no.
As a wise man once said: "stupid is as stupid does".
Shoaib
Eklayvya,
Looking at it emperically, I'd have to say, in all probabilty, no.
As a wise man once said: "stupid is as stupid does".
Shoaib
#23 Posted by vakibs on February 19, 2009 5:11:52 am
Shoaib ..
Your argument to the point ! Very good :-)
I think some great man once said "Nobody becomes great on account of their beliefs, but on account of their actions". We should ask all these defenders of cultural sensibilities what their specific individual contributions to their culture are.
Your argument to the point ! Very good :-)
I think some great man once said "Nobody becomes great on account of their beliefs, but on account of their actions". We should ask all these defenders of cultural sensibilities what their specific individual contributions to their culture are.
#22 Posted by Publius on February 19, 2009 5:07:36 am
"Their voice becomes the community’s voice because the govt/pol parties only listen to them"
I think that the problem may be deeper than that. It is my impression( please correct me if I am wrong Shoaib) that in the case of free speech, the common muslims may actually support blasphemy laws and censorship etc.
In fact I suspect that some common Hindus may too but not quite in the same percentage and to the same extent.( There is already a built in blasphemy tradition in Hinduism represented by Carvaka etc)
I think that the problem may be deeper than that. It is my impression( please correct me if I am wrong Shoaib) that in the case of free speech, the common muslims may actually support blasphemy laws and censorship etc.
In fact I suspect that some common Hindus may too but not quite in the same percentage and to the same extent.( There is already a built in blasphemy tradition in Hinduism represented by Carvaka etc)
#21 Posted by Eklavya on February 19, 2009 4:56:21 am
shoaib bhai,
Will/do Muslims themselves protest such arrests anywhere else?
Will/do Muslims themselves protest such arrests anywhere else?
#20 Posted by shoaib_daniyal on February 19, 2009 4:50:16 am
Eklavya,
Yes, I am nice. Of that there is but little doubt.
Incidentally, I hope you realise that this strategy (pseudo-secularism, if you will) followed by many parties in India damns the Muslims.
Ghettoisation is what you can call it. Make the nut-jobs the representative of the community. Their voice becomes the community’s voice because the govt/pol parties only listen to them. Haj offers are accepted in a trice but Muslim areas in Delhi will not have proper water supply.
The sad part is that most Indian Muslims don't realise what's happening hence your very correct observation that nobody even protested.
Regards,
Shoaib
Yes, I am nice. Of that there is but little doubt.
Incidentally, I hope you realise that this strategy (pseudo-secularism, if you will) followed by many parties in India damns the Muslims.
Ghettoisation is what you can call it. Make the nut-jobs the representative of the community. Their voice becomes the community’s voice because the govt/pol parties only listen to them. Haj offers are accepted in a trice but Muslim areas in Delhi will not have proper water supply.
The sad part is that most Indian Muslims don't realise what's happening hence your very correct observation that nobody even protested.
Regards,
Shoaib
#19 Posted by Publius on February 19, 2009 4:26:36 am
OK bsm I may have misconstrued your meaning. I withdraw those remarks ( as being directed at you)
However since this is a public forum and those ideas were brought up ( for a different intention perhaps) I would still state my views about those( with no implication that you hold those views)
a) The idea that, in the matter of individual rights, different groups *should* act on their own internal norms , whatever those norms may be, is a despicable amoral rationalization of evil.
b)w.r.t free speech and individual rights there is only one norm to be followed. Nobody has the right to violate somebody else's rights. And that is so regardless of what their religion teaches them or fails to teach them.
However since this is a public forum and those ideas were brought up ( for a different intention perhaps) I would still state my views about those( with no implication that you hold those views)
a) The idea that, in the matter of individual rights, different groups *should* act on their own internal norms , whatever those norms may be, is a despicable amoral rationalization of evil.
b)w.r.t free speech and individual rights there is only one norm to be followed. Nobody has the right to violate somebody else's rights. And that is so regardless of what their religion teaches them or fails to teach them.
#18 Posted by Eklavya on February 19, 2009 4:06:47 am
Shoib, you are a nice person, so one can safely skip your articles.
Having read this one on glowing recommendations, I am going to introduce a tiny bit of poison in here.
Shoiab bhai, when we had the most shocking and absurd case of the Statemsan editors/owners being arrested for reproducing a British article, when recently a guy arrested in Orissa (or was it Bengal, again?) for publishing something insulting to Islam, how many or which Muslim intellectuals (or even Hindus) protested loudly?
I am not in India so I might have missed something.
Having read this one on glowing recommendations, I am going to introduce a tiny bit of poison in here.
Shoiab bhai, when we had the most shocking and absurd case of the Statemsan editors/owners being arrested for reproducing a British article, when recently a guy arrested in Orissa (or was it Bengal, again?) for publishing something insulting to Islam, how many or which Muslim intellectuals (or even Hindus) protested loudly?
I am not in India so I might have missed something.
#17 Posted by Humsab on February 19, 2009 12:44:57 am
Shoaib
You are a real good person!!!! Even after being on Chowk for quite sometime now, you still have your innate goodness and a rational mind. Don't lose it. Your country needs people like you.
May you always remain happy!
You are a real good person!!!! Even after being on Chowk for quite sometime now, you still have your innate goodness and a rational mind. Don't lose it. Your country needs people like you.
May you always remain happy!
#16 Posted by nb on February 18, 2009 9:19:09 pm
Shoaib, can you please reproduce your blog post about the Mangalore violence here?
#15 Posted by sunil7090 on February 18, 2009 9:12:38 pm
Very nice article full of punch,Can only come from person like shoib
#14 Posted by nb on February 18, 2009 9:12:05 pm
I really liked your article. You made your points really well.
People objecting to everything is not new in India. Unfortunately this round seems to have begun with the Satanic Verses. Since then, it appears to have become a challenge to other Indians, "I can get more offended than you."
There is respecting the sentiments of the public, and then there is a super-sensitive public. I actually think India is too tolerant of these super-sensitive people who form a relative minority, and we as a nation should stop hearing them out.
We are a nation of champion whingers. No one complains enough about the shortage of water and electricity, the bad roads, the poor health and education systems...all the interest is focussed on other people's intellectual property instead.
People objecting to everything is not new in India. Unfortunately this round seems to have begun with the Satanic Verses. Since then, it appears to have become a challenge to other Indians, "I can get more offended than you."
There is respecting the sentiments of the public, and then there is a super-sensitive public. I actually think India is too tolerant of these super-sensitive people who form a relative minority, and we as a nation should stop hearing them out.
We are a nation of champion whingers. No one complains enough about the shortage of water and electricity, the bad roads, the poor health and education systems...all the interest is focussed on other people's intellectual property instead.
#13 Posted by majumdar on February 18, 2009 8:32:23 pm
Shoaib bhai,
Thanks for the correction.
Regards
Thanks for the correction.
Regards
#12 Posted by bittersweetmojo on February 18, 2009 8:32:22 pm
#10
your quotation aparantly sounds right, though I know not in what context it was said. But it poses a question as well: "did Gandhi ever have balls to bear a Nazi beating?"
I think Nazis couldn't be seduced by Gandhi ji, like Englishmen did, for a Brown sahib-led Independence. So much for an Indian pride, no?
-E
your quotation aparantly sounds right, though I know not in what context it was said. But it poses a question as well: "did Gandhi ever have balls to bear a Nazi beating?"
I think Nazis couldn't be seduced by Gandhi ji, like Englishmen did, for a Brown sahib-led Independence. So much for an Indian pride, no?
-E
#11 Posted by shoaib_daniyal on February 18, 2009 8:30:32 pm
Majumdarda,
Me thinks the quote was, "If the Brits had been Nazis, Gandhi would have ended up as a lampshade."
However, even I can't recall the name of the speaker.
Cheers,
Shoaib
Me thinks the quote was, "If the Brits had been Nazis, Gandhi would have ended up as a lampshade."
However, even I can't recall the name of the speaker.
Cheers,
Shoaib
#10 Posted by majumdar on February 18, 2009 8:17:28 pm
Publius,
Wow!! so if nazi norm was to gas jews and the jewish norm was to let germans be, then jews should have simply allowed nazis to perform their norm and willingly entered gas chambers eh ?
I forget his name but someone said, "had Gandhi been a Jew, he would have ended up as a lampshade."
Regards
Wow!! so if nazi norm was to gas jews and the jewish norm was to let germans be, then jews should have simply allowed nazis to perform their norm and willingly entered gas chambers eh ?
I forget his name but someone said, "had Gandhi been a Jew, he would have ended up as a lampshade."
Regards
#9 Posted by bittersweetmojo on February 18, 2009 8:11:41 pm
Publius,
your problem arises from your blindness, pal! Read my last sentence! I wrote: "does that make sense?"
I was merely exploring an old form of argument-explaination; my tone was satirical, my words argumentative. But since dumbness is your middle name, you couldn't get it.
Sad-sad situation hai boss!
-E
your problem arises from your blindness, pal! Read my last sentence! I wrote: "does that make sense?"
I was merely exploring an old form of argument-explaination; my tone was satirical, my words argumentative. But since dumbness is your middle name, you couldn't get it.
Sad-sad situation hai boss!
-E
#8 Posted by Publius on February 18, 2009 8:04:37 pm
"if it's your value/norm you should practise it. And let the Muslims practise theirs"
Wow!! so if nazi norm was to gas jews and the jewish norm was to let germans be, then jews should have simply allowed nazis to perform their norm and willingly entered gas chambers eh ?
At this point I have to wonder whether you are just too dumb to comprehend the implications of your own views or do you really support blasphemy and censorship laws?
Wow!! so if nazi norm was to gas jews and the jewish norm was to let germans be, then jews should have simply allowed nazis to perform their norm and willingly entered gas chambers eh ?
At this point I have to wonder whether you are just too dumb to comprehend the implications of your own views or do you really support blasphemy and censorship laws?
#7 Posted by bittersweetmojo on February 18, 2009 7:00:57 pm
#4
"Well one way is to point out how they use freedom of speech themselves. For instance doesn't the Koran insult Kaffirs ? Should it therefore be banned ?"
It's amazing how you guy attach a value/norm to a religion which never claimed to have adopted it ever.
Such values, as freedom n nouns connected to it, have always been western by default.
Does Koran ever say: "... aur tum ko bolney aur karney ki ijazat hai, jo bhi tum chaho!".
besides, if it's your value/norm you should practise it. And let the Muslims practise theirs. Each to his own practise, each takes his own responsibility. Does that make sense, huh?
-E
"Well one way is to point out how they use freedom of speech themselves. For instance doesn't the Koran insult Kaffirs ? Should it therefore be banned ?"
It's amazing how you guy attach a value/norm to a religion which never claimed to have adopted it ever.
Such values, as freedom n nouns connected to it, have always been western by default.
Does Koran ever say: "... aur tum ko bolney aur karney ki ijazat hai, jo bhi tum chaho!".
besides, if it's your value/norm you should practise it. And let the Muslims practise theirs. Each to his own practise, each takes his own responsibility. Does that make sense, huh?
-E
#5 Posted by VRV on February 18, 2009 4:25:17 pm
Shoaib,
India still pampers to the pre-modern tendency of hurt feeling. Every other simpleton can claim as u rightly said.
They banned Salman Rushdie's Book. They banned Prof Jha's book (Hindus' beef eating habits) and recently they deleted a page of Tasleema's book. They never had stomach to say that 'if u dont like it, dont read it' kinda reply.
Jesus is poked fun at in the west. National flags are used as undies and chappals. Nobody cares.
In India we cant do that coz every other guy gets hurt. There's in fact competition to claim as hurt becoz we've govts that over-react.
Very well written.
India still pampers to the pre-modern tendency of hurt feeling. Every other simpleton can claim as u rightly said.
They banned Salman Rushdie's Book. They banned Prof Jha's book (Hindus' beef eating habits) and recently they deleted a page of Tasleema's book. They never had stomach to say that 'if u dont like it, dont read it' kinda reply.
Jesus is poked fun at in the west. National flags are used as undies and chappals. Nobody cares.
In India we cant do that coz every other guy gets hurt. There's in fact competition to claim as hurt becoz we've govts that over-react.
Very well written.
#4 Posted by Publius on February 18, 2009 3:56:44 pm
"So, what do we do to remedy the situation? "
Well one way is to point out how they use freedom of speech themselves. For instance doesn't the Koran insult Kaffirs ? Should it therefore be banned ?
Another is to assert that ideas musn't be countered by force but by other ideas. And that in a civilized society nobody has the right to impose their views on others.
A third is to write articles like this one( and I thank you for it).
Well one way is to point out how they use freedom of speech themselves. For instance doesn't the Koran insult Kaffirs ? Should it therefore be banned ?
Another is to assert that ideas musn't be countered by force but by other ideas. And that in a civilized society nobody has the right to impose their views on others.
A third is to write articles like this one( and I thank you for it).
#2 Posted by ellora on February 18, 2009 3:14:58 pm
"Therefore, it’s quite preposterous to think that an octogenarian (or is it nonagenarian?) painter can insult the very embodiment of Shakti or that..."
The geriatric artist has been a brave crusader when painting nude goddesses. But previously when a few Muslim clerics objected to the words of one single song from his movie "Meenaxi" he pulled the movie entirely without a word of protest. So much for his artistic integrity!
The geriatric artist has been a brave crusader when painting nude goddesses. But previously when a few Muslim clerics objected to the words of one single song from his movie "Meenaxi" he pulled the movie entirely without a word of protest. So much for his artistic integrity!
#1 Posted by bittersweetmojo on February 18, 2009 11:01:58 am
what a sizzling piece!
Loved the concluding quote.
Cheers.
-E
Loved the concluding quote.
Cheers.
-E
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Mr.India: Vajpayee, Advani pseudo-moderates, Liberhan... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- Diesel: so mulla omar was... Crowning of a Crony
- Diesel: the allegation by NAB... NRO Is Just a
- Diesel: the allegation by NAB... NRO Is Just a
- tahmed11: #6 jay thakeray is... Morality of Lawyers' Movement
- guru: Given this fact about... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- guru: MJ Akbar, a sekularist... The Jehadi Frankenstein
- zeemax: #5 Posted by RiazHaq, Nawaz... NRO Is Just a
