Is this Amnesia or Dementia? #9 hurricane

[Hahahaha. Nice try.

Yaar, do you have a constructive thought in your mind? Or is it just roiling with anti-Pakistani thoughts?]

Yes, I do. For example, I am thinking right now how come Muslims choose to ignore questions they cannot answer, or those answers that contradict their Islamicized brain.

Is this Amnesia or Dementia? Malays are CONSTITUTIONALLY banned from having any religion other than Islam. Are Hindus banned likewise? Or citizens in any other civilized (i.e. non-muslim) nation?

To attain democracy, you have to first think democratically.

Is this Amnesia or Dementia? 5 hurricane

[Ajeya,

You know this game you play, it is a 2 way street. For each article you post, 2 articles can be posted about hindus. ]

Show me one on the Indian state that is even closely comparable.

Is this Amnesia or Dementia? [Let's learn from our fellow Muslim countries: Indonesia and Malaysia. How they have advanced forward, while remaining true to their faith.]

Here's one for Indonesia.

Mooslas will always be mooslas.

http://www.indonesiamatters.com/1539/ahmadiyya/

Is this Amnesia or Dementia? [Let's learn from our fellow Muslim countries: Indonesia and Malaysia. How they have advanced forward, while remaining true to their faith.]

Mooslas will do moosla-giri wherever they are in the world. Regardless of the country. Mooslas cannot help doing moosla-giri. It is embedded in their brains by their religious indoctrination.

From http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1592574,00.html

Malaysia at a Crossroads

By HANNAH BEECH

How well do you know your husband? For Kaliammal Sinnasamy, a Hindu married to a member of the first Malaysian team to scale Mt. Everest, the answer, she thought, was obvious. "I married a Hindu man, lived with him as a Hindu, bore him a Hindu child and watched him die as a Hindu," says the now 32-year-old office cleaner. But when Kaliammal went to the hospital in December 2005 to claim her spouse's body after he died of a protracted illness, she received another shock. Her husband, Maniam Moorthy, had secretly converted to Islam before his death, said Islamic authorities. According to Islamic law, he would be buried in a Muslim cemetery. No, insisted Kaliammal, he would undergo Hindu rites. Both sides headed to court. But Malaysia—a multiethnic nation composed largely of Muslim Malays, Hindu Indians and Buddhist and Christian Chinese—employs a dual legal system. Muslims are subject to Shari'a law for issues such as marriage, property and death, while non-Muslims use civil courts. First, the Shari'a court ruled that Kaliammal's husband was a Muslim. Then, the civil court refused to intervene. "This court cannot undo, vary or overrule any decisions made by the Islamic Shari'a court," said Judge Raus Shariff to a packed courtroom. "We have absolutely no jurisdiction over Islam."

Kaliammal's case, along with several other high-profile legal challenges, are roiling a nation that has struggled to strike a balance between the aspirations of its Muslim majority and significant minority populations. As Malaysia celebrates a half-century of independence this year, faith-based politics is further dividing the nation's ethnicities. The new mood was on display at the November party conference of Malaysia's ruling political party, the United Malays National Organization, during which one delegate spoke of his willingness to bathe in blood to defend the Malay race and religion. By December, the atmosphere was so tense that Malaysia's usually understated Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi called race relations "brittle"—even though a few weeks before he had defended his nation's reputation, telling TIME: "At the end of the day, Malaysia is still well regarded internationally as an advanced Muslim country." Indeed, earlier in the year, Abdullah appeared so confident about his homeland's spiritual diversity that he rejected a plea by the non-Muslim members of his Cabinet to more strenuously protect religious freedoms. "We are at a crossroads as a nation," says Tian Chua, spokesman for the opposition National Justice Party. "The extreme religious rhetoric is threatening what we worked so hard for 50 years to accomplish."

Like Indonesia, Malaysia is struggling to determine how Muslim to be. Unlike Indonesia, which is governed by a secular constitution, Malaysia already counts Islam as its official faith—although the constitution also guarantees freedom of religion. Each state has a fatwa committee that makes religious decrees applicable to Malaysian Muslims, most of whom are Sunni. In Kelantan state, Muslim women must wear headscarves in public, while several states have made forsaking Islam a crime that can result in prison time. "We should not limit Islam to a few rituals," says Sulaiman Abdullah, former president of the Malaysian Bar Council. "Malaysia would be better served if it were under Shari'a law."

But what happens when the state's definition of Islam differs from its citizens'? The Islamic Development Department, which governs Muslim practices on a federal level, deems Shia and Baha'i interpretations of Islam deviant faiths worthy of forced "rehabilitation." Controversy also surrounds Malays who wish to convert to another religion, thus defying the constitutional clause specifying that all Malays must be Muslims. That issue is being tested by the case of Lina Joy, a Malay who has been barred from converting to Christianity by Shari'a courts. Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, a lawyer who has received death threats for representing Joy, hopes the case will be heard by the Supreme Court in the next few months. "How can we say there is freedom of religion in Malaysia," says Malik, "if a person who has practiced Christianity for years is not allowed by the state to make that personal choice?"

As for Kaliammal, her husband's ultimate choice will never be known for certain. He was buried as a Muslim, but she wants to move the remains to a Hindu grave. Kaliammal's appeal, one of several involving alleged conversions to Islam, is pending before a higher court, though no date has been fixed for judgment. "My husband never once told me he had secretly converted to Islam," says Kaliammal, showing off a wall in her apartment dedicated to her husband's mountaineering achievements for the glory of the Malaysian nation. "He was always a Hindu and drank alcohol and ate pork right up to the time he died." His final resting place, though, will depend upon what the court decides—yet one more challenge for a country caught between mosque and state.

It\'s Politics Uber Alles In Kashmir ..... And India pinku

It is no point railing at Tahmed. Mooslas will be mooslas and do moosla-giri wherever they go in the world. The good news is, that we are not alone. Mooslas have done moosla-giri in Europe, and the backlash has been the Serbian holocaust. Turkey and Greece do not speak to each other. In the American presidential debates, the candidates try to outdo each other in their sworn enmity to moosla-giri. Nobody can tolerate moosla-giri for any length of time. So in this one respect, the world is uniting more and more every day. The mooslas will keep bombing men, women and children around the world, and the world will keep uniting against them more and more every day.

Moosla-ism will be abolished from the world one day. That day will come.

It\'s Politics Uber Alles In Kashmir ..... And India #242 tahmed32

[i was told that there is one indian soldier for every 3 civilians in kashmir!!]

If it was up to me, it would be 5 Indians from all the Indian states for each civilian in kashmir.

[as for the two crimes you imply kashmiris have - i.e. love of their land and of their religion of islam. This is exactly the mindset that causes kashmiris to have nothing to do with india.]

Indians don't want these ungrateful mofos either. They can take their mindset and start walking towards Mecca right now.

Get out!! RIGHT NOW!!

It\'s Politics Uber Alles In Kashmir ..... And India #242 tahmed32

[i was told that there is one indian soldier for every 3 civilians in kashmir!!]

If it was up to me, it would be 5 Indians from all the Indian states for each civilian in kashmir.

[as for the two crimes you imply kashmiris have - i.e. love of their land and of their religion of islam. This is exactly the mindset that causes kashmiris to have nothing to do with india.]

Indians don't want these ungrateful mofos either. They can take their mindset and start walking towards Mecca right now.

Get out!! RIGHT NOW!!

It\'s Politics Uber Alles In Kashmir ..... And India #236 tahmed32

[er...problem in kashmir is kashmiris dont wish to live in the same country with you.]

No, idiot, only MUSLIM kashmiris don't want to live in the same country as us. Hindu Kashmiris (those that have not been terrorised away) still DO WANT to live in the same country as us.

Painting this as a Kashmiri problem, as opposed to a MUSLIM problem, is typical of the lying nature of the Muslim ummah.

It\'s Politics Uber Alles In Kashmir ..... And India #225 tahmed32

[indeed ironically, it is individuals lacking such strong roots in their own heritage and culture who have a need to put down other cultures. ]

Criticizing Islam and it's evils is not criticizing a "culture and heritage". Pakiland has a different "culture and heritage" than Morocco or Turkey, but both are infected with Islam.

Tahmed is all swelled up like a weathercock - the deflation will take some time. The "popular democratic movement" only succeeded because the very large component of jihadi sympathizers in Paki society were hell-bent against Mushu-baba. Mushu-baba came to power with their help. But he bit the jihadi hand that fed him, and now the US feels that propping him up any more would be counterproductive. A new "democratic" puppet government would be more useful. Until such time as when another strongman will be required to do their bidding.

Mushy probably feels that this is a good way to get off the tiger without being eaten up, and the US will now help him "settle" in the future.

Tahmed would do well to quit waxing eloquent on such topics as "human brotherhood", "universal peace" and the "message of islam". Because he won't like others quoting these back to him later.

It\'s Politics Uber Alles In Kashmir ..... And India test

Fissures in the Middle #378 tahmed32

[The significant thing to note is that both Gandhi and Jinnah were trained as lawyers in the UK in the same legal tradition as the Pakistani judges fighting for freedom in their on non-violent way in Pakistan today. So - while this will give heart attacks to many of my countrymen including Masadi and Urstruly - the fact is that if Gandhi and Jinnah get credit, so do the Brits who came up with this legal tradition to begin with.]

Fighing for independence and democracy is not a "legal" tradition, you fool. The first freedom fighter to throw a bomb at the British were not trained in the UK.

And democracy was not invented in England. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy :

The island of Arwad, settled in the early 2nd millennium BC by the Phoenicians, has been cited[40] as one of the first known examples of a democracy in the world. In Arwad the people, rather than a monarch, are described as sovereign. In Greek Arwad was known as Arado or Arados. Vaishali in what is now Bihar, India is also one of the first governments in the world to have elements of what we would today consider democracy, similar to those found in ancient Greece (although it was not a monarchy, ancient Vaishali is perhaps better described as an oligarchy).
....
During the Middle Ages, there were various systems involving elections or assemblies, although often only involving a minority of the population, such as the election of Gopala in Bengal, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Althing in Iceland, certain medieval Italian city-states such as Venice, the tuatha system in early medieval Ireland, the Veche in Novgorod and Pskov Republics of medieval Russia, Scandinavian Things, The States in Tyrol and Switzerland and the autonomous merchant city of Sakai in the 16th century in Japan. However, participation was often restricted to a minority, and so may be better classified as oligarchy. Most regions during the middle-ages were ruled by clergy or feudal lords.

Gopala lived around 750 CE. The first elected parliament in England was in 1265. The first international university in the world was also in India. Yes - the one ravaged by the pedophile-philic barbarian hordes.

Fissures in the Middle #374 majumdar

[Harishbhai,

Pls refer to YLH's write-up "Jinnah's India". The main argument against him is not that he was a Hindoo, but a man was a medievalist who pandered to communalists and Liberal MUSLIMs have been far more bitter at him for pandering to MUSLIM communalists/fundoos rather than Ram Rajya.]


Okay, So is that YOUR main argument against Gandhi as well?

Fissures in the Middle #284 tahmed32

[majumdar #266 "Gandhi" represents an idea - not just a man. Gandhi earned the right to become the leading icon of that idea. And that idea is almost essential for the future of all mankind today.

Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King (both of whom were inspired by Gandhi's peaceful non-resistance) have obtained more enduring results than a million "Black Panthers" or two million masadis (the old, unimporoved kind - not the new, improved masadi of whom all chowkies are so proud).]


So do you agree with Gandhi when he said the following?

There is no doubt in my mind that in the majority of quarrels the Hindus come out second best. But my own experience confirms the opinion that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as a rule is a coward. I have noticed this in railway trains, on public roads, and in the quarrels which I had the privilege of settling. Need the Hindu blame the Mussalman for his cowardice? Where there are cowards, there will always be bullies. They say that in Saharanpur the Mussalmans looted houses, broke open safes and, in one case, a Hindu woman's modesty was outraged. Whose fault was this? Mussalmans can offer no defence for the execrable conduct, it is true. But I, as a Hindu, am more ashamed of Hindu cowardice than I am angry at the Mussalman bullying. Why did not the owners of the houses looted die in the attempt to defend their possessions? Where were the relatives of the outraged sister at the time of the outrage? Have they no account to render of themselves? My non-violence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice.


[But he did one thing right - and that was his emphasis on nonviolence.]

Now how does that jive with mo chopping off the heads of 700 unarmed civilians? Eh?


[Hope this explains why Gandhi is a world figure, and Jinnah is not. Jinnah no doubt did us Pakistanis a favor since hindu extremism is no better than muslim extremism -]

I strongly disagree. Jinnah deserves to be a world figure for his unparalleled foresight and wisdom. Just imagine the sewer that India would have become with Jihadis running around a undivided India.

Every Hindu should have a framed picture of Jinnah in their house. Gandhi did his utmost to stop the partition, and prevent the great man (Jinnah) from achieving his masterpiece. The day will come when Jinnah, not Gandhi will be celebrated in all of India for his contributions to India's progress and peace.



[...but it was a tactical contribution to one community of people, not a strategic contribution to all mankind.]

I beg to differ. It is BECAUSE OF Jinnah that India will be able to rise to great heights and make immense contributions to mankind - all of mankind. While in Pakiland, Muslims will keep running around doing what Muslims always do.

Fissures in the Middle It's interesting to see the finest of the Paki minds (heh heh!) squabble over the ruins of the latest Paki attempt at democracy. As I've mentioned before, people who are used to "submitting" without any questions, will NEVER attain democracy. Regardless of whether the "unwashed masses" get a wash.

I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.

The Indian Mujahideen – The Answer to BJP’s Pseudo-Secularist Fascism or a New Method to Spread Unrest? #234 Posted by masadi

[No message that goes out of its way to separate itself from its deliverer can have anything to do with how credible the deliverer is or not. Even if Satan himself would deliver a message of truth, that does not take away from the message.]

This would be true if "Allah" indeed delivered the "message" (containing crucial chapters like "The Cow") to mo in the cave via the winged creature. But if mo was lying about that, then it would not be "Allah's" message, now would it? Regardless of whether the Hindus are bigots and Islam-haters.

Cock-and-bull stories from credible people are still cock-and-bull stories. But cock-and-bull stories from a man obviously without any character and thus without any credibility is worth as much as tahmed's opinions.