Being Imrana

Romair Re 184

Let me explain this why we abuse Muslims i.e. not per se me but people of my ideology.

Islam first came to India in kerala brought by Arab traders recent converts to Islam. They were given women in marriage and called Mapillas i.e. son in law. Pherumal Cheruman constructed the first mosque in memory of Vavar where EVERY SINGLE HINDU PILIGRIM HAS TO WORSHIP TO PROCEED TO SABRIMALA THE HOLIEST HINDU PILGRIM SITE IN KERALA.

Now let us look how Muslims have repaid us: (BTW I shall put a specific kerala context).

Tipu Sultans mass conversions, rapes and killings in North Malabar. Now let us see what the apologists say ``Was offended by bare breasted women`` (fact not bare breasted but using single unstitched cloth for covering themselves but let us not get into semantics) ``Was offended by women heading households`` so much for women`s rights ``was offended by idolatry`` so much for you your religion and for me mine. Tipu faithfully foolowed koranic or Quranic injunctions take your pick.

Wholesale slaughter rape, killing and conversion during post Khilafat riots in 1922-23 when the Mapillas wanted to establish an Islamic state under Musaliar (one would be mistaken to think India had abolished the Khilafat). While attempting to launch an Islamic state the Mapillas were faithfully following Kuranic or Qoranic injunctions.

Recent killings in Marad.

Fact of the matter is Islam is not a religion but organised apartheid, fascism, slaughter and oppression (against ``kaffirs``) and deserves all the epithets it gets. BTW me thinks they are too moderate. And as for IM`s being fellow citizens I yearn for the day when all IR`s (Indian Religionists) will realise these people are not fellow citizens but an Islamic fifth column in India bent upon destroying the Sanatan Dharam. You could get a better idea of your so called religion by looking at www.bharatvani.org.

Also you may say why I dont abuse Islam for the simple reason it may actually force you to change for the better remember we Hindus (i.e our religion, culture and gods) were abused to hell and highwater by Christoos and it forced us to moderate (I will not say reform as we still have to make substantial progress regarding the same) some of our unHindu and Anti Hindu practices read untouchability (as also Sati but not in the politically corect way). More power to MPL let the IM`s rot more if only we could get the Mullah`s to be more regressive.

Post Script Dedicated to Mantolives:

Do not get worked up when anyone abuses Jinnah. J was the greatest Indian of modern times. And I say thank god for the fact he created Pak and this I say as a internally displaced person from West Punjab who lost family and property there who will always say I am a x subcaste Khatri from Lahore I thank the lord for it. So quit trying to defend J. Let anyone abuse him you know that proverb ``Chand pe thukna``


Even better would have been if all IM`s would have been given a ticket to the land of the pure.

Even better J should have come back to India to become PM (How simple Bhagwan Krishan would have come to Earth and sliced all the Congressis and Commies [Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Kripalani, Tandon, Rajagolachari, JP, Lohia, Randive, Mazumdar, Kumarmangalam, EMS]et all with his Sudarshan Chakra and issued a fatwa in J`s favour){And knowing Bhagwan K`s sense of humour he would would have said after K comes J} [And his act of ruthlessness would have ensured that all Hindus would have seen discretion as the better part of valour {We all know Bhagwan K can be a ruthless S.O.B. when he wants to be}].

Even better would have been Navameshwar Shri Guru Shiromani Guru Tegh Bahadur ji would have come and given J 25 years of life to lead independent India towards prosperity and happiness.

Even better the great and good Babasaheb Ambedkar would be PM and Savarkar the DM ``Kshatriyaise the Hindus``. Pity the Indian people could not see who the greatest son`s of mother India were and choose to follow a Mahatma (One who had no Atma) a Pandit (Who was uneducated, ignorant, egoistic and vainglorious) a Sardar (who was a believer of a false guru and a true Sardar and i repeat a true Sardar never follows a false guru).

Postscript to Romair. Possibly the one way ticket to IM`s to Pak and subsequent adoption of Arabic language would have created a united non feudal democratic Pak. Also if Isam like a vodoo cult merely sucked it would be no problem but unfortunately it converts or kills that is the problem. And well I shall give you an example of our superiority to Islam the only two Muslim queens who have been rulers in the C-in-C sense were Indian Razia and Chand Bibi as also hereditary tokens Begums of Bhopal. Let any place in the Islamic world top that?

Dear fellow Indians who are IR`s quit trying to abuse demonise J or the TNT. What is true is Pak was created not when the 1st Indian embraced Islam but when the first Indian area became a Isamic majority (Oops sorry I should say second area became Islamic majority the fall of Zabul created Afghanistan). It took Muslims 550 years to overcome us Hindus and become overlords of our country (a substantial portion of it anyways) we (IR`s) fought them for anothe 550 to overcome this alien phenomenon in our land BUT while we were the only people who did not fully succumb to predatory reptilian ideologies like Islam, Christ and Commie we could never formulate an ideological response to them (just as we have never tried to formulate an ideological response to our own shortcomings against say untouchability {Practise untouchability and Bhagwan Shri Ram is an untouchable so the Sikh Gurus and dont even think of reading the Ramayan and the Gita both written by untouchables [this I mean in the practised sense]}). Compare it with Islam fall (if not fall its decline) of Mughal Empire to IR`s brought 3 superb polemicists for its cause that lead to the IM`s in thir thought process eventually creating pakistan. This trinity was Jahandar, Shah Waliullah and Sayad Ahmad Barelvi.

So wake up dear brothers understand what these ideologies are about and remember what these ideologies are all about and attempt to develop baudhik kshatriyata otherwise J`s favour will be of no use and we shall all be swamped by this Islamist tide. For more info please go to Voice of India www.bharatvani.org

Re. #283

``70% of Hindus are illiterate.``

It doesn`t stop them from knowing about Ramayan, Mahabharat or Gita.

Re: #286 by Dalit


[heheheheh…

99% of Hindus don’t know that….hehehehe…. got the drift…..braindead….hehehehe ]


Did they perform a lobotomy at the same time they removed your foreskin?

=== Interact Removed ===

Re: # 286 The exact figure is 99.9999999 percent. However, 100.00% Indians have to follow Dr. Ambedkar`s BETTER book.

Re: # 286 Which book from Dr. Ambedkar are you quoting again and again?

#285 by southasian

“Modern India is not run by Manusmriti but by Ambedkarsmriti. Hope you get the point.”

heheheheh…

99% of Hindus don’t know that….hehehehe…. got the drift…..braindead….hehehehe

Re: # 283 Nice try Dalit. Took you some time though. Just a polite addition. Modern India is not run by Manusmriti but by Ambedkarsmriti. Hope you get the point. More Hindus know of and cannot get by without the later than the former.

Re: # 283 Nice try Dalit. Took you some time though. Just a polite addition. Modern India is not run by Manusmriti but by Ambedkarsmriti. Hope you get the point. More Hindus know of and cannot get by without the later than the former.

#279 by dost-mittar
“This may come as a surprise to you that a random survey of Hindus (not just chowkies) would reveal that an overwhelming majority of them has never even heard of Manusmrit.”

70% of Hindus are illiterate.

Dr. Ambedkar quotes Manusmriti extensively.

“BTW, you are as much a dalit as Mike is a wahabi muslim”

Your creditability is zilch!

Didn’t you say
#211 by dost-mittar
“- Hindus do not take religion as seriously as Muslims or even Sikhs.”

A big fat lie! I just proved it.

#211 by dost-mittar
“most of the virulent attackers of Islam have declared themselves to be atheists or agnostics.”

All big fat Atheist and agnostics liars attacked my mother as soon as Hinduism was under the Gun.

Quotes from Dr. Ambedkar.

All those who study the Caste System are naturally led to inquire into the origin of it. Manu being the progenitor of Caste had to give an explanation of the origin of the various castes. What is the origin which Manu gives? His explanation is simple. He says that leaving aside the four original castes the rest are simply baseborn!!

He says they are the progeny of fornication and adultery between men and women of the four original castes. The immorality and looseness of character among men and women of the four original castes must have been limitless to account for the rise of innumerable castes consisting of innumerable souls!!
Manu makes the wild allegation without stopping to consider what aspersions he is casting upon men and women of the four original castes. For if the chandals—the old name for the Untouchables—are the progeny of a Brahman female and a Shudra male then it is obvious that to account for such a large number of Chandals it must be assumed that every Brahman woman was sl-t and a whore and every Shudra lived an adulterous life with complete abandon.

Unquote.

#281 by sunlight

Childish arguements! Hehehehe

#273 by southasian

“heheheh reasonable questions heheheh Hindus heheheh
Let me see if you can improve on this.”

heheheh… brain dead!.....heheheheh

#275 by Al_Bundy
There is no historical evidence whatsoever that Ram or Krishna, two deities worshipped by millions of Hindus in India and elsewhere, ever existed
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is no historical evidence whatsoever that most religious figures ever existed, and to prove it we shall look at Jesus Christ. The lack of historical information about Indian figures is understandable to some extent, since India never had a strong historical tradition. However, the lack of information about Jesus is extremely surprising given the strong Roman tradition of history.

From: http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html
``If Jesus actually existed and did all the miraculous things he is said to have done then surely many people would have written about it during and immediately following Jesus` life. Writing was common at the time, yet an extensive search by many scholars over centuries has turned up nothing. ``

``Jesus allegedly had crowds of thousands follow him around. Once he fed 5000 people with only a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish (Mark 6:39-44). Later he repeated the miracle again feeding a crowd of 4000 people (Mark 8:1-9). Jesus cured sick people miraculously and raised people from the dead. He changed water into wine at a wedding reception. He exorcised demons. He commanded 2000 pigs to rush into a lake and drown themselves, inciting the people of the nearby town and countryside, who asked him to leave. ``

``Writing was common back then. People wrote letters. Historians wrote commentaries on current events. The Romans wrote and kept legal documents about trials. It`s considered one of the best documented periods of history. Yet no one wrote anything about Jesus...``

From http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/jesusmyth.htm

``There is not a single physical description of Jesus, not one. Isn`t that a little odd? Had the man got no distinguishing features at all?``

The New Testament, which is the largest source of information about Jesus, is full of contradictions (and is also not contemporary) and probably contains negligible historical information:

Geneological: http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_dir.htm
``[Matthew`s Gospel] traces Jesus` genealogy from Abraham. He lists Jacob as being Jesus` grandfather. This conflicts with [Luke`s Gospel], who lists Eli. Jesus` line is traced through Solomon, son of David. Luke traces the Messianic line through Nathan, son of David. [Matthew] lists 28 generations between David and Jesus; Luke says it was 41.``

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm ``As for the hometown of Jesus` parents, neither gospel can agree where it was. Matthew has them residing in Bethlehem in Judea, while Luke says they lived in Nazareth in Galilee.``

Verifiable historical details in the New Testament are wrong: http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm
``Luke also tells us that Jesus’ birth happened during Herod`s reign. Luke even adds what appears to be detailed and historical evidence of the period. He writes that Jesus was born during a census or registration of the populace ordered by emperor Augustus at the time that Quirinius (Cyrenius) was Roman governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-3). In reality, this has to be a fabrication because Quirinius was not governor of Syria and Judea during Herod`s kingship. Direct Roman rule over the province of Judea, where Bethlehem was located, was not established until 6 A.D. In other words, ten years separated the rule of Quirinius from Herod.``

``If the census did take place, it was in the year 6 CE, long after Herod`s death. Therefore, Matthew`s stories of the Wise Men`s visit to Herod and the Christchild, and Herod`s massacre of the innocents which caused the holy family to flee to Egypt, are all historically impossible. Moreover, it should be noted that Luke also got his facts wrong about the census of Augustus. Such an imperial census would only apply to Roman citizens of the empire, not to Joseph, a Galilean who was not under direct Roman rule.``

#270 by Dalit: From the tone of Dalit`s comments, I doubt he is interested in a serious discussion...nevertheless...

Hinduism is not a revealed religion and, therefore, has neither a founder nor definite teachings or common system of doctrines [Richard F. Nyrof, Area Handbook for India, (Washington: 1975), p. 163.]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(sarcasm on) On the contrary, Islam and Christianity being revealed religions, they have very definite teachings which every Muslim and Christian believe in (sarcasm off). I think anybody who has seen the violent disagreements on this board about who is a Muslim can see the superficiality of this comment.

In the words of S.V. Kelkar, ``There is in fact no system of doctrines, no teacher, or school of teaching, no single god that is accepted by all the Hindus.``
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
``There is in fact no system of doctrines, no teacher or school of teaching that is accepted by all Muslims or by all Christians. It is also debatable whether a single God is accepted by all the Muslims or by all Christians.``

``Hinduism has never ... never prescribed a course of training for its priests.``
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is completely incorrect - there is, in fact, a well laid out course of training for priests.

``In Hinduism, none is, therefore, regarded to have forsaken his or her religion, even if he or she deviates to any extent from the usually accepted doctrines or practices. ``
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
First of all, the earlier part of the post says that there is no accepted set of doctrines. Then the above part says that a person can deviate from the ``usually accepted doctrines``! Perhaps the author should make up his mind whether there are accepted doctrines or not.

IMHO, we are wasting time on unnecessary protests.

If compared to other places, there was too much sex in India, my only regret is that I was not around to take part in those blissful activities. Hopefully, I was there, and have forotten.

Now, if we could all listen about the love affair between Vishnu and Mahesh, as dalitji promised, we will increase our happy and important education.

Dalitji, the floor is yours.

Re: # 273

dalit:

You are right is suggesting that Hinduism has no single book or dogma. Then don`t you feel somewhat silly quoting Manusmriti as binding on Hindus? This may come as a surprise to you that a random survey of Hindus (not just chowkies) would reveal that an overwhelming majority of them has never even heard of Manusmrit.

BTW, you are as much a dalit as Mike is a wahabi muslim but that by itself does not make your observations invalid. Your posts would be just as valid or invalid if you called yourself Sharma or Ahmad.

RE: #274 by vagabond78

Excellent post.

But you are casting pearls before swine.

It`s no use.

With types like this Dalit character, only the rod works. Up their rear end.

Sad, but true.

Re: # 276

3. If he was a Pakistani saying the same thing about Allah he would be facing death penality for blasphemy.